<p>over a long term career? Would going to a top No. 1 architecture program provide a long term benefit significant greater than going to a second tier architecture program? yes or not and to what extent.
2) Question - how much difference a college would make for the first architecture job right after graduation? would it be significant better with a degree from a top No. 1 architecture program? yes, not, and to what extend.
3) Would the college experience, opportunities for EC, internships, an architecture education be better in a top program than in a second tier architecture programs? what are the main differences in education between a top tier program and a second tier program? would a top tier program make better, more talented architects?
My D wants to go to an architecture program and I'm just trying to put things into perspective in regards to the quality of education and job prospects right after graduation and in the long term. Thanks in advace!</p>
<p>At the undergraduate level I don't think the difference between the best schools (say a Cornell , Rice, or UVA), would be significant as opposed to going to a very good school (say a UT Austin, USC, Auburn, Kansas, etc.). I don't think it would have a major impact in your ability to get a job, though you may make better national connections at the best schools.</p>
<p>At the graduate level it makes a real difference to go to a Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, or Yale (and those are the only schools I would include in that category). A graduate degree from those schools will open many doors, and give you opportunities that you would not get otherwise. Much of the success can be attributed to the connections you make with professors, but as much of it is the classmates you will meet. Part of it is also the high level of expectations that accompanies a graduate from one of these schools. </p>
<p>I graduated form Columbia over 20 years ago and when I interview for projects my degree still gets noticed.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Rick, where did you go for your undergrad? After reading your comments, I think architecture is about the same than other fields. Grad school is really important but not at undergrad level. My D is in the process of applying for architecture programs now. Thanks for your feedback.</p>
<p>I have an undergraduate degree from Ohio State, got my first Master's degree from Clemson, and my second one from Columbia. This gives me a pretty good idea of the difference between the two graduate degrees. I got a good job with my Clemson degree, but the Columbia degree opened all kinds of doors.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Thanks for that Rick.
Most here are trying to get into undergrad programs and there's not room for all of them in the top schools. They have to start somewhere. I'm not knocking the top undergrad private schools but it's refreshing to see someone who started at a state school and moved on successfully in architecture, proving something I read on this board (perhaps posted by you?) that it's not just the school but what you bring to it.</p>
<p>4trees, there are a lot of really good undergraduate programs out there. Just work hard and produce good work and you will get plenty of opportunities. Best of luck.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Hey Rick, I hope my D's grad degree at MIT will also open doors and give her opportunities she may not have had otherwise. :D She turned down your wonderful program at Columbia to go to MIT's program. She has been there for ten days and loves it so far.</p>
<p>"4trees, there are a lot of really good undergraduate programs out there. Just work hard and produce good work and you will get plenty of opportunities. Best of luck.</p>
<p>rick"</p>
<p>This is really intresting Rick! You are implying that, although there are many good undergrad programs, there are only a few graduate programs that prospective students ought to consider. </p>
<p>At the graduate level, you seem to feel that there is a vast difference in the oppourtunities at the "top" schools, compared to all the rest. You seem to feel there is less disparity among the B.Arch programs. Assuming your premise is true, and I'm not sure it is, what sets the "top" graduate programs apart from the rest, and why dont you see similar differences between the under graduate professional programs?</p>
<p>I tend to agree with thespian dad that I am not sure the premise is true. When I was going getting my MBA (doing it part-time), I worked in a cubicle with someone who was getting his MBA part-time at U of Chicago (great reputation). I was getting mine at Loyola U. I compared his curriculum with mine. They were the same. After discussing it with him, the only differences: Chicago's reputation, Chicago had more choices in electives (MBA program around longer, more money, etc), different teaching styles. I don't think I received an inferior education. I would stack what I learned against his any day. I think the same is true of any field including architecture, based I what I have seen and read as my son is applying to architecture school.</p>
<p>Sad to say when I was in Germany my undergrad degree from Harvard (not in architecture) got me a job in architecture not my degree from Columbia. I didn't think my M Arch from Columbia helped much getting a job in LA either. It didn't help that the week I graduated SOM layed off 300 people and other firms were also doing mass layoffs. I did get hired about six months later through some roundabout Columbia connections.</p>
<p>Look, the question was not 'what schools will give me the best education?', the question was 'will a top tier school give me a long term benefit?'. Depending on your ambitions, a top graduate school will make a difference. If your ambition is to have a nice career in Kansas City, then it may not make a huge difference to have a Harvard degree (though if you ever want to get your work published nationally, or if you want to teach, it will matter). </p>
<p>However if you want to work for a top firm in NY, or London, or even Chicago, it will make a significant difference. You will meet classmates and professors who can be a major help in your career. I had two job offers in major firms from two of my professors at graduation (in a tight market), and part of the reason I did well at the firm I went to was the fact that the senior design partner knew my work as a student. </p>
<p>I recently hired a graduate from Harvard, and fired him after a year because he did not have the talent or work ethic to match his ambitions. Within a week he had a job in Boston at Machado & Silvetti and another offer from Rem Koolhaas in Roterdam. Both were professors of his.</p>
<p>I had my first master's degree, had gotten registered, and had been made an associate at the firm I was working. While all my friends were at the point of buying their first BMW I decided to go back to graduate school at Columbia. I went back purely for me, and I never expected to get back either the extravagant tuition ($10,000 a year!) or the lost income. It turned out to be the best investment I have ever made, and put my career on a different track. Will it do the same for everyone? I don't know, but I would certainly do it over again.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Rick, </p>
<p>I do think there are benefits from top tier arch schools....networking, reputation, and the like. I'm not sure if I'd limit it, however, to just the four schools you mentioned, though those would be included. </p>
<p>I also think these sorts of benefits can happen with top tier BArch programs as well as MArch ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the graduate level it makes a real difference to go to a Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, or Yale (and those are the only schools I would include in that category).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe it's my Boston connections, but I'd definitely add MIT to that rarified list. </p>
<p>Also, I'm curious about Rick's inclusion of Princeton. Princeton is an wonderful school, but I don't think of it as being on the same level as the others for architecture. Could you expand on that?</p>
<p>Im finding this very fasinating and slightly confusing. =)</p>
<p>momrath...as I mentioned, my D chose MIT over Columbia (and other programs) and she has a classmate now at MIT who chose it over Harvard. :D I was under the impression that MIT is very well regarded for graduate architecture. And not that I'd put too much stock into the so called "rankings", it was rated number 2 for arch grad schools. </p>
<p>If your son happens to visit and wants to talk to a current student, let me know. She really likes it so far (it is a lot of work!). Great faculty.</p>
<p>soozievt, yes I do think there are benefits at the undergraduate level, but not as pronounced as at the graduate level. In the past it did seem like Cornell had a pipeline into Harvard GSD.</p>
<p>Why not MIT? I am looking at this from the perspective of a practitioner. At times MIT has had a reputation for a lot of analysis and not much design work. It is a science/tech school, it does not typically attract artistic types (not unlike Stanford), and this influences the architecture school. Things could have dramatically changed, so I am just explaining my bias. I have interviewed kids with a masters who had a done a year of research into urban patterns in Tel Aviv and had a two inch thick text to show for it. Very hard to figure out how a person like that fits into a practice, however probably a great future as a college professor. This is a gross generalization, and I am sure that individuals can get a great education there.</p>
<p>Why Princeton? It is one of the smallest but most selective schools. The faculty is generally outstanding, and the networking among Princeton alums is some of the best that I have seen. They definitely seem to stay in touch. The ease of getting to NY helps them get lots of good visiting critics.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Interesting your thoughts on MIT. I think one would need to examine the actual School of Architecture and its programs rather than look at MIT as a whole. I only know that my kid is immersed in design studio. Many on the faculty are current practioners. Her advisor owns her own architecture firm. There are many programs within the school. I don't know who you interviewed but they also have Urban Design and Planning and so perhaps those students came out of that program. There is even a Visual Studies department and center within the School of Architecture at MIT. Examine the curriculum. It is similar to that at other design schools and not more science/tech.</p>
<p>sooziet, you have much more current knowledge about MIT than I do, and I was just explaining my bias. It had a great tradition in the days when Aalto was the Dean, and it would be great to see it achieve that level again. I know that in recent years even the high tech firms have come to the conclusion that design is one of the great differentiators, so I assume this must be having as great an impact on attitudes at MIT as it has had on Stanford.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>I think Rick makes a good point, if you want a high powered career those big name schools help a lot, however keep in mind that those connections you make through professors will only work if 1) you impress them and 2) you are willing to go where the connections send you. Unfortunately, while I won one of the top prizes my last year at Columbia, the professors I knew best were not the big name guys and I wanted to go off to LA to join my husband to be. In retrospect I would have been better doing my M Arch at a top tier school in Southern California. (Not that it would have helped me when we returned to the NY area 10 years later!)</p>