<p>However, you should remember that the lengths of M.Arch programs vary by your undergraduate experience. Students with a non-architecture background can expect to spend three to three and a half years in grad school, while B.Arch students can spend as little as a year and a half. Pre-professional architecture students typically fall somewhere in between there, depending upon the program they're entering and their specific skills and experience.</p>
<p>Non-elite schools offer MArchs, schools like WUSTL, Rice, UMich etc.</p>
<p>It is very tough to get an Ivy spot. Students need great portfolios and great recommendations.</p>
<p>No question, it helps to have another elite undergrad degree, esp an Ivy degree.</p>
<p>I will offer a little bit of a contrarian opinion about the Ivy grad schools. I just don't think they are nearly as selective as they used to be, and getting in to them is nowhere near as difficult as getting in to their undergraduate programs. The main reason is cost. Over the last couple of years I have hired three graduates with masters degrees from state schools who turned down Harvard. Yale, and Columbia. They could not see spending $150,000 with no offer of financial aid, and parents who expected them to start pulling their own weight. I have met multiple others with the same story, and have seen interns with mid-level portfolios get accepted into some of these schools. If tuition continues to rise at the same rate, I think these schools are going to have some serious issues to face.</p>
<p>At grad school level GRE's and GPA's don't count for nearly as much as your portfolio. Experience at a good office is also a big plus. Items that show a real passion, such as competitions done on your own time, will also help. However just make sure you start saving some money for the tuition.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>It can be a real crapshoot, honestly. Princeton's hard to get into because their class is tiny, but I've known some people that got into Harvard and Columbia that just boggled my mind.</p>
<p>I agree that selectivity has "balanced out" some between the Ivies and the top state programs, however, the exception is the Yale School of Architecture. It has been getting significantly more and more selective every year, and increasingly seen as the "only" destination for the top international students. </p>
<p>The reason is that Robert A.M. Stern, the Dean, has been able to line up an impressive series of instructors each year and has tied the school very close to the "New York" architectural scene. In fact, several New York publications have literally called the Yale School of Architecture the "center" of the New York architectural scene (and not in irony). </p>
<p>At one point recently, I think Frank Gehry, Stefan Behnisch, Peter Eisenman, and Zaha Hadid were teaching there at the same time. From what I have heard, the atmosphere at Yale is very intense, but also a "constant party", with free-flowing martinis and wine several times a week for the hundreds who attend the top-tier lecture/conference series, and wild parties afterwards in Stern's nearby loft apartment (Stern has a reputation of being the "party boy" of the architectural world, after all). The exposure that the school has received as a result of having such high-profile faculty, not to mention the extremely high quality of the students and instruction (<a href="http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=173%5B/url%5D">http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=173</a> ), has helped its graduates land good work in the most cutting-edge firms all around the world and also attracted an enormous flood of new applicants each year. </p>
<p>The fact that the school's alumni include David Childs, Charles Gwathmey, Sir Richard Rogers and Lord Norman Foster (the two British architects who basically divide the world's most important architectural commissions between themselves), Maya Lin, Jim Polshek, Stern and other luminaries doesn't hurt either.</p>
<p>It is a bit smaller in terms of enrollment and that also helps explains its selectivity versus some of the larger programs. As the above poster points out, Princeton is similar for that reason (and actually much, much smaller, almost to the point of irrelevance), and its alumni also do very well.</p>
<p>wow- you really shouldn't link to a 4 year old survey that for the most part has some serious ranking strategy problems- however that list of names is quite impressive-- not quite as impressive as Harvard’s but if what you say is true then Yale may be on the rise-- are there any published acceptance rates which would clear up this matter? I would doubt that there is a huge discrepancy between harvard's/princeton’s/yale’s/ect. acceptance rate now verses 15 or twenty years ago and I would bet that they are just as selective if not more so.-- architecture acceptance rates for top B.arch programs have been dropping every year...- I find it very hard to believe that the top grad schools would have fallen off of there mark. If anyone can find them lets see some stats to back this stuff up.</p>
<p>Well, this is a few years old now, but still helpful in at least getting an idea: <a href="http://archrecord.construction.com/features/EducationChart/EducationChart_AL.asp#a%5B/url%5D">http://archrecord.construction.com/features/EducationChart/EducationChart_AL.asp#a</a></p>
<p>Some hilights from the M.Arch program acceptance rates:
*neither Cornell nor Columbia listed data for M.Arch
*Harvard M.Arch I: 20%, M.Arch II: 16%
*MIT M.Arch I(+2): 30%, M.Arch I(3.5): 17%, MS Arch: 31%
*Penn M.Arch I(+2): 27%, M.Arch I(3.5): 47%, M.Arch II: 28%, MS Arch: 67%
*Pratt M.Arch I: 50%, M.Arch II: 36%
*RISD M.Arch I: 10%
*Rice M.Arch I(+1< didn't know that was allowed): 94%, M.Arch I(+2): 12%, M.Arch I(3.5): 35%, M.Arch II: 15%
*SCI_Arc M.Arch I(+2): 38%, M.Arch I(3.5): 41%
*Yale M.Arch I: 9%, M.Arch II: 18%, M.ED: 30%</p>
<p>Interesting stuff. I'm amazed that some of the admit rates get into the 80-90% range at several schools (I didn't post most of those, just posted those I'd heard talked about a lot). Also suprised to see that it seems to be harder to get into an M.Arch program if you have a first professional degree already than if you don't. Except at Yale, where the post-pro options yield much better acceptance rates than the first pro does.</p>
<p>Thanks LA - I would predict that the discrepancy between Yale and the others have grown even greater, as Yale's applications have basically been growing exponentially while other schools are stagnant or declining.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree. While I applied to MFA programs for the coming year, I hung out with and talked online with a LOT of people who were applying to M.Arch programs and environmental design/building science type programs, just as a result of being a certain age and working in architecture. We were all told by a great variety of schools (both those that accepted and those that rejected us, Ivy, State, and Other) that this was "the most competitive year we've ever had." There seemed to be an upward trend in applications accross the board. Whether that trend was greater at some schools than others, who knows? I don't. Unless you're an admissions officer, I wouldn't really believe that you do either. I'd have a particularly hard time believing that applications to Harvard are declining. Between personal experience and what I see on a fairly active architecture board, it seems like everyone and their dog want to go to the GSD.</p>
<p>just curious, isn't cornell given the number one rank for best architecture program (undergrad) in the entire nation by usnews?</p>
<p>mrsopresident.....true about Cornell undergrad's arch program but the last several posts are all talking of the grad (MArch) programs. Cornell's grad program is also highly regarded, btw.</p>
<p>Larationalist....thank you very much for that link which I had not seen before. It is interesting even if out of date, given that I have a daughter who will be a MArchI applicant this coming cycle. By the way, Princeton's admit rate or data also wasn't on it and as you say, neither was Columbia or Cornell, all three of which are very well regarded programs. </p>
<p>PosterX, it is hard to tell in your posts what is fact and what is opinion. I have gleaned from many posts that you are a STRONG supporter of Yale (a very fine program indeed!). If you are stating facts, can you make that clearer by backing it up? Where can you show us that Yale's apps for its MArch program are up exponentially and where the other schools in its league are stagnant or declining (speaking only of MArch programs now). Like Larationalist requested, can you show us the data to support your claim? I agree with her that I highly doubt applications to Harvard's Graduate School of Design are declining. I think it is quite competitive at all the top programs. So, please let us know what's an opinion and what is a fact. I already know that you love Yale :D.</p>
<p>when it comes to choosing a top school, ultimately it is really based on what you're interested in. at cornell, i know of some people who end up transfering somewhere else like Sci-Arc and finding it to be much better at the latter school because the curriculum at the school they transfered to suits them better. each school has its own history that has given it a certain characteristic.</p>
<p>LA-- incredible job- I didn't think anyone would even attempt at finding those numbers. btw--- I would guess those numbers might even be cut in HALF.- Why?- because for Cornell on that site had an acceptance of 23% and I personally got a letter from Cornell when I was accepted saying that only 1/17 got in this past year-- With cooper union- it says 7% but I think that is also a little lower. So in terms of architecture grad schools I would guess that we are talking about a similar decline and that Rick’s impressions are a little off. Again I am impressed at LA's convictions to finding out the truth- and that Poster X's remarks did carry some weight. </p>
<p>I completely agree with Sashimi on his point as well- it is all about what fits- and when you are talking about rankings it is all relative. Ultimately what defines your education is what you get out of your experience and a low acceptance rate may have very little to do with how much "knowledge" you can get out of a specific schools program.</p>
<p>25 years + experience in Architecture for both me and my dH will bring these insights:</p>
<p>If you REALLY want to be an architect, get the B.Arch. Otherwise, you have wasted a lot of undergraduate time. The BA in Architecture carries NO prestige, the BS in Arch/Eng will help you pass the licensing exam. Do not neglect Math, Statics and Dynamics, or your Architectural practices courses. Architecture as practiced involves VERY little design (after 5 years, you might get to design a doorknob, or more likely, choose one from a catalog if you are in with your spec writer), which is done primarily by one or two guys at the top with 40+ years experience.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.architectmagazine.com/ind...ticleID=471543;%5B/url%5D">http://www.architectmagazine.com/ind...ticleID=471543;</a> I read the cited article and feel that these incomes are skewed by at least $10,000 too high for all but the biggest cities (NYC, Miami, LA, etc.). If you might be working in DesMoines or in Cincinnati or Tulsa - forget those numbers. You'll not see $100K unless you are the principal. In fact, you'll be lucky to break $50K inside of 10 years. And, except at large or very grounded firms, you are not likely to actually get benefits (though that has changed in the last 10 years). Small firms notoriously offer none. Should you happen to work for a firm such as HOK which has ten stadium projects going at the same time, each over $250million, you are unlikely to ever approach $50K in your first, say, 8 years. You might make $75K after 15 years, if you are licensed (about 40% never do pass the exam).</p>
<p>It is true that the older architects do not retire. However, the converse is not true, that because of this, there are no opportunities for youth. There was a study done some years ago and it was found that architects' most lucrative years, and those where they have their best design experiences are between their 50th and 60th birthdays. They put in 25 years before the big payoff! For other professionals, that point is generally between 40 and 50. Also, that pesky lack of benefits, including for all but the largest firms, retirement benefits, actually works to keep the older folks working fulltime. It is said in my H's office: "yeah, he'll never retire - he can't afford to." Case in point: in my H's small office, the principal is IN HIS LATE 70's and working full time. The chief designer is 68, the president and CEO are 58 and 70. My H, the COO, is 51, and they call him "the baby." Their firm has about 45 professionals with about 30 on the support staff. There is no one under age 35who makes more than $35K (professionals). The firm is the prestige firm in our region, with millions and millions of dollars in projects - so it's not like they have only a dentist's office and light commercial going. They do offer benefits (health, eye, life ins.), but the retirement plan is now defunct.</p>
<p>Remember: architecture is not just art. It sounds like most of the kids here who are interested in architecture are actually more interested in design. Perhaps that would be a more lucrative avenue, and better suited to their goals? </p>
<p>Here is one other thing to consider: Professional insurance for registered architects is almost as expensive as that for some doctors. For architects, there is no "statute of limitations" for lawsuits, and friv. suits are common. I was once sued because a 17 year old boy, breaking into a high school through the sky-light on the roof (an after-plan item, by the way), fell through to the floor and was paralyzed. I had worked on that school 10 years earlier, but was enjoined none-the-less. Now, the nice judge realized that the attorneys were just going after anyone with a pocket and released me from the suit, but it still cost many dollars in attorneys fees. This experience is not at all uncommon, though is decreasing in frequency. </p>
<p>Sounds grim? Yes. That said, if you really feel drawn to this profession, do your homework. For most architects, it is a vocation like the clergy or medicine; they simply could not imagine doing anything else.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>^ Salaries may begin rising </p>
<p>1) because of a shortage of qualified architects, due to fewer going into the field, and more leaving the field because they can be paid more in CM/facilities areas</p>
<p>2) because of things like the bridge collapse - personally I would predict increased spending on public infrastructure in a way not seen since the mid 20th century, partly to offset declining defense expenditures. Aside from the bridge collapse you should see how many public schools in this country are collapsing.</p>
<p>3) because of the rising cost of materials, and the fact that architect fees are tied to the price of construction. Most of this has been going to the construction managers but it eventually spills over to Arch, too</p>
<p>Agree?</p>
<p>Unless you guys live in the absolute middle of nowhere, the people at your husband's firm are being screwed. I made well over 35k my first year out of school. Granted, I am in LA, but the numbers I was hearing out of Phoenix (where I grew up, and a much less active market) were just at or a couple K below the 35K mark.</p>
<p>Tzar, I didn't have to work too hard to dig up the numbers. One of those friends who applied to grad school last year had forwarded them to me a few months ago.</p>
<p>welcome to fencermom! Another perspective with a long view is very valuable to the young posters on the board.</p>
<p>The problem is that I have no desire to work in some big corporate office. I plan to get 3 or 4 years experience at a high profile firm that does interesting work and then go out on my own. I am prepared to struggle and I expect it-- however I certainly will not be stuck in some large firm where I will be choosing doorknobs for the first 15 years of my career. I think most of the people who have had significant disappointment in architecture are talking from the corporate side- which is why I plan to steer clear of the corporate beast altogether. I wish I could hear more about the problems with of going out on your own and personal experience with the first few years of opening your own practice. Cheers seems to be the only one so far that has any sort of advice on this topic.</p>
<p>I wouldn't pooh-pooh the big office experience. The way rick and fencerH bring in clients is essentially the same as the way I bring in clients.</p>
<p>Getting clients to hire you at substantial rates is the key to a successful practice.</p>
<p>There's a lot of wisdom to be gained from any principal. Even if you don't see yourself going the distance with one, you'll eventually build up a similar organization if you want to do large scale work.</p>
<p>Fencersmother, all I can say is that SW Pa, and North Texas must be on different planets, because the market here is just crazy and the salaries are out of control. I just had an intern with about 8 years of experience recruited away from us. He was a marginal project leader making $63k a year. He accepted an offer for $93k with a $10k signing bonus. This is happening all around us. We start new grads at $45k with full benefits and a bonus, almost all of them tell us they think this is too low.</p>
<p>The other statement about the profession that is simply not true is the one about 'you will not get to design until you have been at a firm for 10 years'. Nobody trains future designers by having them do technical tasks for 10 years. If after two years with a firm you are not getting some serious design responsibility, then the firm has decided you do not have the talent they are looking for and you will never be a designer there. You may also be at a firm where the design pricipal is an insecure and miserly individual who will never share the design responsibility. In either case if you really want to design, go find aniother firm (or start your own). Nobody trains olympic runners by having them sweep the track for 10 years ;-)</p>
<p>rick</p>