<p>Reading the posts on this forum has been very informative and helpful. I have noticed that some have classified arch programs as stronger on the design aspects vs. the technical aspects. Can anyone offer insight as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of design- vs. technically-oriented programs? How does one go about identifying which programs tend to lean toward one aspect vs. the other?</p>
<p>With the most elite schools (i.e. Syracuse, Cornell, Notre Dame, and many others, but these are the ones that i applied to), you will find a true balance and a good covering in all areas that have to deal with architecture. </p>
<p>However, some elite schools and the above average architecture schools, may start specialize in either design or technical aspect of architecture. If you want to know how much, it depends on certain schools, but I would say that if the school is accredited, then you HAVE to cover a certain amount of material which includes design and technically based curriculum. That being said, certain schools can put twists on their education. </p>
<p>If you visit and talk with the teachers and see the curriculum of an average architecture student, you may get a better idea. </p>
<p>Additionally, certain schools with reputations can be a clue of whether they stress structure (technical) or design. </p>
<p>A few examples: MIT, RPI both are technical schools and thus have a technical based program.
Pratt, RISD, and Carnegie Mellon are art schools and have a design based program.</p>
<p>This is what i have found over the past year, but please correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>It is really hard to generalize programs as either technical or design oriented. All schools have a required number of technical courses, it is a question of the quality of those courses (are they taught by some old tenured faculty members that they won’t allow to teach studio anymore?), and whether those courses are integrated into the design curriculum. I would consider UT Austin a design school, yet they have an excellent integrated studio at the end of the third year which incorporates a structure course, MEP course, and design studio to produce a building with fully developed systems.</p>
<p>However I would suggest a different viewpoint here. What you should be looking for is not technical vs. design, but a school’s attitude towards the use computers in the design process. It is skill in the use of architectural software that will really determine your job prospects, not whether you had a really good MEP course. Particularly valuable is the ability to use BIM programs such as Revit. This software scares the tenured faculty who have very little desire to learn new skills, and is a real differentiator among the different schools.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Hawkswim:</p>
<p>I kept hearing CMU is art based, CMU is art based but I honestly could not tell that from my visit. I think it is worthy of taking a spot along side SU and Cornell in terms of a balanced program. Although I preferred many other aspects of SU (which is why I chose it over CMU), I have to say that their arch programs, and specifically the balance of design/art to technical seemed very comparable to me.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I did not really understand architecture when I initially made my first cut of schools a year ago. I thought architecture was actually a lot more like architectural ENGINEERING than actually designing buildings. However, from internships and some classes in school (like Physics), I realize what architecture is and that I don’t want to be a number crunching engineer…lol. All architecture schools can come across as artsy to the untrained eye. So, yes, CMU is a well-rounded school upon a second glance. I think that pretty much all 5-yr BArchs have to be in order to receive accreditation.</p>