<p>well what I have been trying to say is that there is no proof that one will get an excellent undergrad arch education at HYPMS. you can say that they'll never make the top 14 because they don't aim at employment, but hey U Cin's B.Sc made second many times. So saying that HYPMS are good graduate AND undergraduate is a big assumption that is probably based solely by the prestige of the entire school and not the arch school. I am not offended don't worry but I get frustrated because I thought this was obvious in the condensed arch thread.</p>
<p>But that is where you are wrong. You are misunderstanding my basic argument and how the Design Intelligence rankings works.</p>
<p>DI works like this:
1 Call firm 1, ask which schools produce the most employable students.
2 Call firm 1, ask which schools produce the most employable students.
3 Repeat for all firms
4 Sum it up and average it, the result is the DI ranking.</p>
<p>As you see, their ONLY ranking criteria is how good a new student is at working straight out of school. A PRE-professional program, which means a program that does not train people to work as an architect will not score highly on a ranking which ranks how well people are trained to work as architects. </p>
<p>U Cin's program is quite professional, and thus fits what DI ranks (because of coop and the very practical nature of the program, part of their stated mission is employability). HYP's programs are PRE-professional, and thus does not fit what DI ranks. </p>
<p>The goal of a pre-professional program is to get people into a good graduate school. So a proper ranking of the pre-professional programs would be based on how good they are at getting people into graduate school.</p>
<p>I am not arguing that the Ivies' undergraduate preprofessional architecture program's are good, although I personally believe they are. What I am arguing is that your reason for assuming that they are not, Design Intelligence rankings, is faulty.</p>
<p>My personal reason for saying that these schools are the best among pre-professional architecture programs is based on what my professors at Penn has told me - granted, hearsay. But your argument is just as bad. Your argument is not obvious, because it is faulty. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I am saying that your arguments don't hold.</p>
<p>I think unemployable means useless...if you're unemployable you can probably only teach and what you teach will probably only benefit those who will be teaching and what's the point of having this endless chain of teacher-teachers? I'm not going to debate this with you. </p>
<p>anyway, i don't think they ask what you posted...they ask which employees are best and what schools do they come from. There can be a ton of bad employees from HYPMS as the reason to their low rankings.</p>
<p>quitting this convo-I've wasted too much time on a person who isn't even going to need this info.</p>
<p>Yes, unemployable is useless. But the idea is to get these good people into a good grad school so that they will become very employable. The sole purpose of the pre-professional undergraduate programs of these schools is just that.</p>
<p>As for what they ask, have you read the actual survey? The actual booklet rather than just a list somewhere? It clearly states employability, employability right out of school. Whether this is because of the students or because of the school can be debated, but your argument doesn't hold nevertheless.</p>
<p>Also, I wouldn't call it wasting time to clear up misconceptions future applicants might get from reding these threads.</p>
<p>Breakthrough Idea:
Let's discuss architecture things instead of which schools are more prestigious than others. Maybe just talking about what you personally liked about a school, didn't like, etc. and why you picked something over the other would be more constructive. I started looking at this thread as a means of gathering opinions of other students in my situation and seeing how they balanced out with mine. What it has turned into is a pointless disagreement over which school is the best based on everything BUT personal opinion/experience, which I find disappointing. I don't think applicants should really be concerned with the ranking of a school. Yes, quality is of the utmost importance, but quality is not determined by rankings because they all vary. The best students are going to be the ones who are their to learn architecture, not to tell everyone else where they go to school.</p>
<p>So, on that note, why are you (as a group) interested in architecture? What has motivated you to pursue this field?</p>
<p>actually if you read carefully CShow, this convo is carried from another thread and neither of us are in your position (about to attend an ug arch program). If it is anything the idea is late as I'm sure you'll find some interesting posts in 40 pagesor so past. </p>
<p>and snipanlol, thank you for making your point and you made it loud and clear...like you said your argument is totally based on hearsay and the only legitimate part is that I might be wrong which I acknowledged in the very first post of the condensed.</p>
<p>nevermind...I can do better than that. Sorry snipanlol because I know I do sound mean and I will post this in the condensed as well.</p>
<p>I am sorry such a conversation was carried into any thread, as it could have been taken care of without it showing up in my email constantly. I have read the other pages of this thread, and I was hoping that I could save others the task of sifting through the 70+ pages of posts in case there were any new readers. Please, excuse me.</p>
<p>You guys are all missing the point. Architecture school is not like regular college, and thus cannot be judged as such. Also, a B.Arch. and M.Arch. are the same degree, period. The two extra years of the B.Arch. more than make up for the four party-filled years spent getting a liberal arts degree. The only reason M.Arch. exists is because greedy schools make more money from you going to college for six or seven years rather than five, and ignorant people think that architectural education is equatable to that of a lawyer or doctor. Which is false.</p>
<p>Most architecture schools are good, but they cater to different types of people. The trick is not to find the most prestigious but to find the way of teaching that most appeals to you. Also, different schools specialize in different styles. If one suits you, you can go there to learn its philosophy in more detail.</p>
<p>Even if you graduate from a prestigious school, you won't make much money. If you want money, go into another profession. Besides, nobody knows what the qualities required are to make a great architect, but it is certain that arrogance, the only remaining plus of an especially prestigious school (besides money gained later, already mentioned), is not a particularly endearing quality for an architect. It tends to limit teamwork and outside criticism.</p>
<p>It might be useful to have the opinion of a 50+ year old architect. Like many posters on this board, I have wanted to become an architect from an early age (before age 10). I like the passion of many of the posters who want to become an architect more than anything in life. This passion is useful (maybe necessary) to get past the fact that, yes, it has always been a difficult major and a difficult profession to make any money in. The depressing post from the link in post #1028 is a very good description of the profession. As an architect who feels that he was trained to do much more than he ever accomplished, the most important skill to have beyond good design skills (good , not great) is the ability to market yourself. A good architect with great marketing skills has a much better chance of succeeding than a great designer with lousy marketing skills. If you are fortunate to have your own firm, you will spend most of your firm time getting more work for your firm. This is a reality. You need to be comfortable putting yourself in situations where you will meet prospective clients.</p>
<p>Let me put another angle on the arguement about employability. A school can teach you how to be a good/great designer or it can teach you the skills the profession needs to make you employable. My impression of architectural schools is that these are almost mutual exclusive. This is actually a topic for a separate dicussion. If architecture is your passion, this will be irrelevant. Most schools put their emphasis on design. My opinion is that the level to which they teach you how to think theoretically is what separates the better schools from the rest. If you want to be a great architect, it is critically that you have as good a theoretical base as possible. The theoretical base is what allows you take good design skills (which are really just tools to solve problem) to the level of art. Even though this is what all passionate architectural students aspire to, There are very few firms that are looking for these students. And if they do hire you, very few will make a lot of money. This is why so many architecture graduates switch fields within the first five years. Sorry to be so negative. For the passionate ones, very little of this bad news will matter. </p>
<p>I would never tell anyone not to become an architect. I am still in the profession and thought it is not lucrative, I have no regrets. My only piece of advice is, after graduation (and maybe before), keep your eyes wide open. See what other allied professions you can use your skills in. Some suggestions: real estate development (learn a little finance), construction, banking (construction loans), facilities (look at what it takes to construct and maintain the college campus you will be on). </p>
<p>I wish you all the best of luck.</p>
<p>One of the things that the architectural education system has never quite reconciled with the profession is the xx that in school, it seems that des</p>
<p>haha sorry going back to the previous argument on DI architecture school rankings. it's a little leaned towards cornell only because i know that school more than any other school haha...</p>
<p>1) DI rankings are based off on employability. but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the quality of a school's architectural education. Cornell teaches its students in a very unique way and maybe it is because of that that attracts firms because of the kind of students cornell produces.
2) High school students tend to use DI rankings as their only source to compare architecture schools. So those ranked in the top tend to be very competitive..which attracts ambitious individuals
3) cornell, unlike u cinci, is very very theoretical, so i don't know how much of the practicality argument in DI rankings is true. what cornell has is a very strong network and thus allows cornellians to work in high-profile firms, which might explain why cornell is ranked very high on the DI list.</p>
<p>i think learning architecture anywhere, cornell or somewhere else, will be an amazing and challenging experience. remember it's not really only about what school you go to, but also what you do AFTER school. half of an architecture education comes from arch school. the other half comes through experience and other things.</p>
<p>alanarch, are you a practicing architect?</p>
<p>i am thinking about maybe getting a MBA after a b.arch but i'm not very sure yet. will it be useful to get a MBA or would it just distract me from becoming an architect? it sure could be a nice safety net.</p>
<p>I am not a practicing architect now. I work in government mostly dealing with contract issues with architects that are performing work for us. Most of my real experience was in high-end residential work. I do have an MBA. Regardless of your undergraduate degree, It is always better to work a few years before getting an MBA. You need the work experience to better understand what you are learing and how it will be applied. This is different than law school where you learn the theory and then apply it when you get a job. As I said in the above post, keep the possibilities in the back of your mind as you begin to practice architecture. More than that will be a distraction.</p>
<p>"The only reason M.Arch. exists is because greedy schools make more money from you going to college for six or seven years" </p>
<p>That's silly. What about all the people who maybe choose to get a B.A. because, according to many college experts and all available statistics, B.A. graduates from top liberal arts colleges (including, say, Harvard College and Yale College) are more successful than graduates from any other schools? They need an architectural degree after their B.A. And some of them work in totally different fields after getting their B.A. and then decide to zip back to a master's program for their M.Arch. There are many famous architects who have done that. Two British architects, Sir Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, basically divide all of the world's important architectural comissions between themselves - they both went to Yale's M.Arch. program (where they were classmates with Charles Gwathmey, Robert Stern, David Childs among others).</p>
<p>Also, the only decent D.I. ranking of architecture schools is this link. <a href="http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=173%5B/url%5D">http://www.di.net/article.php?article_id=173</a>. The other D.I. rankings are all based on surveys of employers, which are highly biased in favor of larger programs and who is surveyed, not on the quality of the schools themselves (which the one above discusses).</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>
<p>Yeah, I take back that statement, though I do believe that there is some greed to the fact that more and more schools are turning to M.Arch. programs because they take longer to complete, but the schools I'm speaking of aren't Harvard and Yale. A longer course of study seems to associate the same prestige on architects as on doctors and lawyers. Definitely a good thing on one hand, except it hurts the credibility of B.Arch. programs, in which the students work just as hard, and should get the same credit. We must also realize that architects don't make the astronomical salaries doctors do and so can barely afford to go to school for five years, not to mention seven.</p>
<p>But, on the other hand, there is validity in following the liberal arts track, learning the classics and an aspect of the social background that the architect finally serves. My argument was more based on the idea that, if you really know what you want to do and it is architecture, then a B.Arch. allows you to focus better on that goal and gets you there more efficiently than an M.Arch.</p>
<p>B.Arch grads also may do an M.Arch.II, which is an additional two years worth of post-professional school.</p>
<p>i think i might pursue a m.arch2 in the future. i really want to teach</p>
<p>I really want to be an architect (be licensed; to design and build), anyways here is my question. Does it matter what you study undergrad? I'm going to UT-Austin Mccombs and am going to study either Engineering-Route to Business-Civil Engineering/Accounting or do BBA in Accounting with a minor in either Architecture or Architectural Engineering. Also I have three semesters of math and will take a year of engineering physics. Is this sufficient to go to grad school for M.Arch and get licensed. I don't want to study Architecture undergrad because it seems pointless unless you know your going to grad school for sure, and it this point I cant make that kind of commitment as there is a great possibility I will change my mind.</p>
<p>if you're not sure about architecture, then doing something else in undergrad is fine. you can do whatever you want in undergrad and doing engineering and accountin are definitely great undergrad majors for architecture, in case you drop out of arch in the future or use as a safety net economically speaking. if you're sure architecture is your thing, go with the b.arch because it will save you money and will take shorter years for you to become a licensed architect. thing is, if you have a b.arch, then you won't need to go to grad school. this will save you a lot of money and time and will get you licensed quickly. i think it depends on what you want to do in life. if you're sure about architecture, go for the b.arch. otherwise, your options are perfectly fine.</p>
<p>M.Arch. II is good for teaching. Thing is, any architecture degree, and then some industry experience, maybe a little industry recognition, is just as good. That's how most of my professors are. My studio prof this last semester was amazing. He has a B.Arch, yet was barely beat out for AIA recognition for some of his recent work in sustainable design. Out here in the backwaters of Chicago we don't even have M.Arch. II's.</p>