<p>I've seen on the designintelligence ratings for 2003 and earlier that Cornell's undergrad architecture has slipped from number one to four. Although that's not a huge drop, I'm curious to see why that is. Plus, I don't know about the ratings after 2003, so if anyone has them, could you please post?</p>
<p>don't worry, nobody takes those seriously. If one does, they have alot to learn. </p>
<p>Anyways, those rankings are not followed in the professional world. Here's how it really goes:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Cornell</p></li>
<li><p>Rice</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The rest that are at the top:
Notre Dame (I think)
Syracuse
Pratt
CMU
Plus a few select others. </p>
<p>There was even an article in AU magazine (international) about how Cornell sets the bar for all others to follow.</p>
<p>Penn State is up there too...#10 i think...</p>
<h1>1-cornell</h1>
<h1>5-syracuse</h1>
<h1>10-penn state</h1>
<p>In that case, its not losing ground at all. I wonder what makes Cornell's undergrad arch programs so good? How can you define what sets the bar?</p>
<p>Ya whenever Architecture's rank is brought up it always seems to be #1. Never heard anyone say less.</p>
<p>architecture is weird because it's not like teaching something like econ or history. It's all theoretical. Cornell looks for ways to teach these things to its students, which is very difficult. They figure it out, and others follow. </p>
<p>Employers flock to campus each year to hire CU arch. graduates. The students who graduate from CU typically have some of the best portfolios available comming out of college. </p>
<p>Also, if designing the best way to teach architecture isn't a push enough, the single-digit acceptance rate should be - not only are the students the best comming out of the program, they're the best comming in as well. </p>
<p>Believe me, in the architecture world, Cornell owns.</p>
<p>Alright, so what you're telling me is that Cornell's arch program has an even lower acceptance rate than getting into Cornell itself? That's got to be very tough.</p>
<p>yeah, they take far fewer precentage of students, though the students typically have lower average scores than other cornell freshmen. This is just because more weight is put on the portfolio than standardized test scores, etc.</p>
<p>I see. Now, I wonder what kind of things go into your portfolio. Of course, it's art based, but the one's that are featured on the web(eg. someones application portfolio to a arch program) are purely art based. I never see any form of architecture-related works, such as hand-drawn plans, cad plans, or even sketches of buildings. What I see are a whole bunch of models and abstract artwork. Perhaps they are thrying to see whether or not you have that "artistic mind" ready for arch.</p>
<p>I hope to enroll in an arch program, but my portfolio is going to have fewer of those and more of the actual arch based stuff, that is, designs of houses and interior spaces(and some of them are pretty abstract). I have these because I had architecture in high school, and I produce innovative(not bland) designs and sketches for my father's construction company. I wonder whether these types of works are suitable for an Ivy-grade arch program? What goes into it?</p>
<p>Or should one just include the abstact works I was talking about?</p>
<p>1-cornell's arch for class of 2011 (2012 for you guys since it's 5 year) accepted 1 out of every 9 applicants. my guess is that the high rankings dramatically increased the number of applicants to the school</p>
<p>2-cornell is still no. 1 in design intelligence rankings and has been on the top ever since. but keep in mind, these rankings are vague and unreliable and you should choose the architecture school that best fits you. every arch school has a different way of teaching things. some students here did not expect what they expected and decided to drop out. don't base your decisions too much on rankings</p>
<p>3-architecture schools have their ups and downs. their curriculum changes constantly. arch dean moshen mostafavi has done many improvements for the program and I think cornell arch has a very bright future. </p>
<p>4-cornell's arch program has been really good mainly because: 1) the ivy league name helps a lot. 2) the admission rate is competitive (most competitive admin rate at cornell) so it attracts very dedicated and talented students into the program 3) cornell has more money to hire great professors and increase its resources 4) cornell arch is the 2nd oldest arch program in the US so it has a lot of roots and traditions ..thos are some that i can think of.. 5) cornell has a unique way in teaching its students</p>
<p>5-on portfolio: architecture professors look for candidates who are creative and who can think critically and produce good ideas. thus your ability to draw or paint will probably help strengthen your ideas within a portfolio but is not the criterion for getting you in. there are many people in architecture who have had no art experience. DONT submit any drafting related drawings. basically, focus on ideas and your creative strength in your portfolio. </p>
<p>6-know what you're getting yourself into. an architecture education is very different from any other major. it' sa very socrates style of learning. they dont' tell you what to do. you have to decide for yourself all the time. first and second year you deal with things that you would never think are related to architecture (like analyzing a shoe...or building prostethics etc) arch school teaches you how to think. it can be very rewarding. be ready to pull a lot of all nighters </p>
<p>good luck!</p>
<p>sashimi, thanks for the response, but I have some questions.</p>
<p>First off, I hear what you're saying about the different fit of arch schools for everyone, so I have to ask, how can you decide which schools fit you? I have no idea, but perhaps you or other CC'ers do. I'll give you a brief on my situation.</p>
<p>I'm only going to be an architect for three years to however many it takes to get a license. After that, with a firm background on arch, I'm going to take over the family construction company, and expand it, not just from a business standpoint, but make it more design oriented than it already is. Basically, I'd like a program that offers an entrepreneurial aspect in the case I decide to open my own firm. </p>
<p>Last question: Why shouldn't you provide any drafting related drawings? And, can you provide random ketches? For example, I sketch (for fun/boredom) random vehicles and places(modern train stations, etc). </p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Cornell architecture is still tops.</p>
<p>construction- it's hard to decide which school fits you because you're not really a student there. however, each program has strengths and weaknesses, and different focuses so you'll have to ask around, and maybe go look at their work online, visit the schools. a lot also depends on the style of the university. a place like cornell is good if you want other options too, and explore other fields because cornell has many other fields as well. schools like sci-arc or cooper are limited because they offer few outside courses but they are also located in advantageous places for practice (NY and LA). </p>
<p>although the minimum for an architect to be licensed is 3 years, the average time it takes to be licensed is usually 6-7 years. this is because not all firms offer you the option to do what you want (fullfill required credit hours) because obviously you're not the boss and can't decide what to do. i'm not sure how much design is affiliated with construction companies and since you have more experience in taht you could correct me..but it seems like architects typically work with construction companies..where they deal with the design aspects of the project. what a lot of architects do today is team with developers and contractors with the same vision.</p>
<p>arch schools on general are very design focused..meaning most of the time you'll be in studio learning how to think, and design...meaning you will not learn much entrepreneurial aspects or management. however, you WILL learn much of the management during your intership years and other skills such as how to operate an architecture firm. </p>
<p>i think you should pursue an arch degree if your interest is in designing. if your interest is in management in a construction firm, a construction degree is probably more useful. as for design, you can always work with architects to make sure your firm is design-oriented..or maybe you can minor in architecture. </p>
<p>but in case you still want to go into architecture, look for programs that are very well rounded and provide opportunities for you to delve into other subjects. b.arch programs are very concentrated in design, so i dont' think you will get much of a well rounded education. maybe you might want to explore b.sarch or some non accredited architecture degree that is not as intensive. but in this case, you will not be licensed as an architect. however, you don't really need a license to own a construction firm right?</p>
<p>architecture school is all about freeing your mind, and opening yourself to different possibilities. drafting houses and such kind of limits your mind and creates this prejudice which could inhibit creativity. of course you'll be drafting a lot (especially on teh computer) in arch school but the idea is for you not to be stuck in a certain bias before you start. </p>
<p>random sketches are fine. do what you think will reflect you the best</p>
<p>construction: the first year is all free hand drawing. they could care less how well you can use the computer. anyone can do drafting once they learn. not everyone can draw</p>
<p>try considering the following:</p>
<p>how helpful is it for you to be a licensed architect and not just hire architects in your firm? Would it be better if you took a non-professional program in architecture that allows you to learn about different subject areas like management and stuff? is spending all that studio time a licensing program worth it? It is worth choosing Cornell's prestige in architecture over other universitys' GENERAL prestige and ties (important for big businesses)?</p>
<p>portfolio: innovative designs only mean something when they solve a problem that could not have been solved; so if they do, the portfolio should present the design problem along with your designs. </p>
<p>If you want to expand your firm, why not consider sustainable design over aesthetic design? From a business point of view this would have various advantages.</p>
<p>"Would it be better if you took a non-professional program in architecture that allows you to learn about different subject areas like management and stuff?"</p>
<p>a class or two on management will be good enough, you don't need 4 years of it. </p>
<p>"is spending all that studio time a licensing program worth it?"</p>
<p>is spending 4 years as a 'business' major then an additional 2-3 years for an M.Arch worth it? </p>
<p>"It is worth choosing Cornell's prestige in architecture over other universitys' GENERAL prestige and ties (important for big businesses)?"</p>
<p>In GENERAL, it doesn't get much more presigious than Cornell in the first place. Besides, this isn't investment banking ... it's architecture. You can be any major and go into investment banking (same thing with consulting and various other 'business' fields) - majoring in architecture is the ONLY way to get into architecture, though.</p>
<p>trudat...............</p>
<p>"majoring in architecture is the ONLY way to get into architecture, though"</p>
<p>Sorry but this is quite mistaken. You can major in just about anything and then apply to graduate architecture programs. Of course your chances are improved if your undergraduate education includes relevant material.</p>
<p>Rice is not number 2 in the country--nor is Cornell number 1--on the West Coast or in the Midwest. There is no relevant national ranking. There are only regional rankings--or preferences among graduate schools.</p>
<p>construction...you will shoot yourself in the foot if you put in your architecture work. The schools will assume that you think you know most everything there is to know about architecture. They will not be interested in trying to teach you that architecture is much much bigger than you have imagined.</p>
<p>The only architecture pieces in your portfolio should be 'conceptual' exercises. If you don't know what that is, ask the Art teachers at your school to help you understand conceptual art.</p>
<p>Architecture school emphasizes the pure Art aspects of Archtiecture--and rightly so. If you are more interested in construction and development, you should pursue a different degree. Very few practical aspects are taught in architecture school--and rightly so. It takes a very long time to absorb and master the conceptual lessons.</p>
<p>"Sorry but this is quite mistaken. You can major in just about anything and then apply to graduate architecture programs."</p>
<p>well, i figured people would assume that grad school is included. I guess I shouldn't do that sometimes. In order to be in architecture, you have to study architecture in college ... agreed? It's not like business where econ, business, or varied financial majors/degrees will cut it 'enough' to make it into the business world. Heck, one of my friends was an english/history double major last year and he still received offers from the top business firms he applied to.</p>