Rankings

College Majors Architecture Major
1

<p>Inevitably, rankings become of interest to college applicants (and in no small measure to graduates and professionals). Given that USN&WR has apparently ceased reporting on design schools, and that the DI (DesignIntelligence) rankings have become so popularized, I wonder if two or three additional data points can be found, namely:</p>

<p>1) Which of the most accomplished faculty members and practitioners in the field teach at which schools? and</p>

<p>2) Which schools were attended by the most accomplished and/or celebrated members of the profession? </p>

<p>Does anyone keep such a list? We'd need the names of the specific people in the list so that anyone assessing the quality of the rankings could come to his/her own conclusions about their validity. I know that Brian Leiter makes such lists for Law Schools, and uses his data to drill down for meaningful distinctions.</p>

<p>Then, maybe, 3) a category for student selectivity? I know the ASCA journal has published these data, but I don't know where they are compiled.</p>

2

<p>I'd like to keep a list of what factors might be useful in establishing which architecture schools provide the "best" education, and in that effort it will be critical to define what we mean by "best". Everyone's quick to say which college they think is "best" but I definitely want to know what they mean by that. Then I wonder, what measurable information might feed into such an analysis. I still think Brian Leiter's methods are translatable, but it would be a lot of work :) </p>

<p>Meanwhile, I've moved some of my remarks from another thread here because they were becoming off-topic in the other thread: </p>

<p>
[quote]
Relying on practitioners, as opposed to, say, the snobs of academia, provides a pretty reasonable metric of preparedness, education, and value

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Quite the contrary. After all, which practitioners are being surveyed? I doubt even you would maintain that the professional opinion of Lucky Lewis of Lubbock Texas who, on his best days, designs loading docks for strip malls, tells us so very much about the quality of education at Cornell, which he may never have heard of. Exhibit "A" for my argument is the total absence from this list of the five-year program at the Cooper Union. Call it snobbery if you like, but the alternative is to say that all things are equal, which they are certainly not, and which might call into question the purpose of this site, among other things. </p>

<p>DI's rankings have too many functional flaws to count. Who are they interviewing? Why? Is it a scientifically meaningful sample? In what ways are the contributors qualified? The mere fact that they're licensed architects tells me little--most architects are hacks. Same in many professions, of course. You may know that when USN&WR started out with its rankings, they interviewed (by mail) a random sample of college presidents -- not really random because it mainly depended on who chose to respond -- and asked them which colleges they thought had the best reputation. Since then, with all the attention they've gotten, USN&WR has had to shape up and make its process both more scientific and more transparent. </p>

<p>If you call up our Lucky Lewis, he's going to tell you "Texas Tech" or "Texas A&M" or whatever college is closest to him. That's all he knows. His knowledge isn't very useful to us. Moreover, the sample is bound to skew in favor of the largest schools. Because if it's not a statistical sample, we cannot know how to control for the size of the school. For all we know, the DI report relies on the opinions of the least-qualified practitioners. I have already invited you to show otherwise, but so far you have declined. </p>

<p>It's "pretty ridiculous" to maintain that the inevitable alternative to a random sample of people who happen to have an architect's license is to consult only "the snobs of academia" (who are they btw?). Of course, if your favorite architecture school is at or near the top of a list, you're probably going to think the list is authoritative. But is it really?</p>

3

<h2>Here again, for reference, is the new DI ranking from Cornell's site. No secret why *they *published it! I'd say it's the lower half of the undergraduate ranking that is most suspect. They probably should have kept that list at 5. In the graduate ranking, I see only two or three programs that raise an eyebrow. I still don't get the Cincinnati thing, but perhaps someone will fill me in with some specific information? </h2>

<p>Undergraduate</p>

<ol>
<li>Cornell University</li>
<li>Rice University</li>
<li>Syracuse University</li>
<li>Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University</li>
<li>Rhode Island School of Design</li>
<li>Auburn University</li>
<li>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo</li>
<li>University of Kansas</li>
<li>University of Texas at Austin</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University</li>
<li>University of Notre Dame</li>
<li>Kansas State University</li>
<li>Illinois Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Iowa State University</li>
<li>Pratt Institute</li>
<li>University of Oregon</li>
<li>University of Southern California</li>
</ol>

<p>Graduate</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard University</li>
<li>University of Cincinnati</li>
<li>Yale University</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</li>
<li>University of Virginia</li>
<li>Cornell University</li>
<li>Rice University</li>
<li>Washington University in St. Louis</li>
<li>Columbia University</li>
<li>Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>Princeton University</li>
<li>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign</li>
<li>University of Texas at Austin</li>
<li>Rhode Island School of Design</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>Southern California Institute of Architecture</li>
<li>University of Florida</li>
<li>Texas A&M University</li>
<li>University of Notre Dame</li>
</ol>

<p><a href="http://www.aap.cornell.edu/news/news...eid_2892=32902%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.aap.cornell.edu/news/news...eid_2892=32902&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

4

<p>"Moreover, the sample is bound to skew in favor of the largest schools."</p>

<p>not really. the top two schools (according to DI) for undergrad have very small student bodies. rice only admits 25 students a year..and cornell admits 55 students a year.</p>

<hr>

<p>quality of faculty is certainly important to the quality of the education, but also do be careful between distinguishing someone who is simply famous and accomplished to someone who is good at teaching architecture. </p>

<p>There are many professors out there who spend most of their time in academia and they are very good in helping understand architecture because of their many years of experience in academia. There is also criticism that many of the starchitects who teach at the top schools are there only briefly and are only available to very few students within the school.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
not really. the top two schools (according to DI) for undergrad have very small student bodies. rice only admits 25 students a year..and cornell admits 55 students a year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh thanks that's good to know. </p>

<p>
[quote]

quality of faculty is certainly important to the quality of the education, but also do be careful between distinguishing someone who is simply famous and accomplished to someone who is good at teaching architecture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Definitely... a very good point, however hard to quantify.. Reminds me of Ralph Lerner, who was dean at Princeton--notable architect, but a nightmare at teacher-student interaction. So, very good point.</p>

6

<p>*Okay... So far, you've quoted a nameless friend of yours who says
Quote:
UVA's grads as "worthless" </p>

<p>and now you claim that UVA grads (the grads, not their knowledge, mind you)
Quote:
aren't immediately practical, which brings into question their practicality at all. *</p>

<p>Actually, you were the one that claimed they may not be immediately practical, or at least less so than Tech's.</p>

<p>yet the one putatively objective source you have quoted places UVA's program 3rd in the nation in 2006 and 5th in 2007.</p>

<p>Again, you seem to be mistaken, confused, or to be intentionally misleading, as the conversation concerned the undergraduate architecture programs at Tech and Virginia. The ranking of 5th to which you are referring is at the grad level. Apples and oranges, and yet you continue to try and compare them.</p>

<p>*Since you seem to be promoting Va Tech here, should we assume you are a VT student or grad? *</p>

<p>Hardly. Nor am I UVA grad (it was tough, but I turned down Mr. Jefferson's University), nor did any of my family attend either Tech or UVA. I've got no reason for bias. However, you're an Wahoo Arch grad, eh? </p>

<p>*What makes your remarks useful here, especially since you yourself say you know "little" of the topic at hand, which is 'Architecture at UVA"? *</p>

<p>I responded to: I have never seen Tech ranked nationally in this field
in which I pointed you toward a reasonably well known and accepted ranking. I fail to see how my background plays any role in the legitimacy of that point. To the topics end, I do know a little regarding the undergrad program, its graduates, and at least one very strong opinion of them. I contributed that which I knew, admitting full well that the opinion was simply anecdotal. Again, I fail to see the issue.</p>

<p>Or perhaps the issue is not with me, but in fact that UVA does not rank in the undergraduate rankings? I find it odd (well, not really), and quite telling that on one hand you'd champion UVA's grad ranking while seemingly disavowing the undergrad.</p>

<p>Indeed, speaking of haughty UVA attitudes, you seem to carry yours quite well. This comment here is snobbery at its best:</p>

<p>If you call up our Lucky Lewis, he's going to tell you "Texas Tech" or "Texas A&M" or whatever college is closest to him. That's all he knows. His knowledge isn't very useful to us.</p>

<p>What makes you qualified to judge who is useful? Somehow an architect in Lubbock is less useful than say, one in DC? Give me a break. I'm sure Robert Bruno would take pretty strong contention with that claim...and, FWIW, the same person that made the claim about UVA grads also worked on the Bruno house. ;) Glad you seem to know what others only know. <em>All hail the all-seeing Marsden.</em></p>

<p>Suddenly regular ol' joe architects are incompetent? They don't know what it takes to make a good architect? Given that where the majority of Arch grads wind up is in the trenches, I'd say that practitioners would make pretty good judges of what constitutes a good school.</p>

<p>*DI's rankings have too many functional flaws to count. Who are they interviewing? Why? Is it a scientifically meaningful sample? In what ways are the contributors qualified? *</p>

<p>Well, certainly if there are too many "functional flaws to count" you can name some. You've yet to name any. Don't be afraid. My stats background is pretty solid.</p>

<p>*For all we know, the DI report relies on the opinions of the least-qualified practitioners. I have already invited you to show otherwise, but so far you have declined. *</p>

<p>Again, who's going to be the judge of who is the "least qualified"? Would those be the same barely qualified practitioners that ranked UVA #5? </p>

<p>It's "pretty ridiculous" to maintain that the inevitable alternative to a random sample of people who happen to have an architect's license is to consult only "the snobs of academia" (who are they btw?).</p>

<p>Actually nobody made that claim. Note the 'say', in my post. And academics are notoriously snobby...certainly give your alma mater...</p>

<p>Of course, if your favorite architecture school is at or near the top of a list, you're probably going to think the list is authoritative.</p>

<p>I don't think anybody's claimed DI rankings was authoritative. However, many of the best programs in the world seem to find no problem with it...and I suppose that if one's alma mater is absent, they may make a good number of excuses as to why that is</p>

7

<p>Um, "ghostofsnappy", UVA isn't on the undergrad list because it doesn't offer a BARCH. Pretty simple, really. It's ranked 3rd and 5th the last two years on the list *you *provided as your source that Va Tech was somehow "better"... </p>

<p>
[quote]
Or perhaps the issue is not with me, but in fact that UVA does not rank in the undergraduate rankings? I find it odd (well, not really), and quite telling that on one hand you'd champion UVA's grad ranking while seemingly disavowing the undergrad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, sorry but UVA can't rank in a program it doesn't offer. Notice that Harvard, Yale and Princeton aren't on the "undergrad" list either? Do you get the point yet? It doesn't mean anyone is "disavowing" their programs. BTW, no, I'm not a "Wahoo Arch grad" and I'm not championing anything except accuracy. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Somehow an architect in Lubbock is less useful than say, one in DC? Give me a break.

[/quote]
<br>
If you really think the location (which I chose at random) is the crux of the matter, then you're either "mistaken, confused, or to be intentionally misleading" .. which is it? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Given that where the majority of Arch grads wind up is in the trenches, I'd say that practitioners would make pretty good judges of what constitutes a good school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This constitutes, at best, a non sequitur. Else explain the logic. Meanwhile you didn't answer a single one of my questions... </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think anybody's claimed DI rankings was authoritative.

[/quote]
<br>
What a short memory you have! I asked you to provide a source for your Va Tech advertisements, and that's the one *you *presented. Are you now telling us you intentionally presented a source that you do not consider authoritative? </p>

<p>But you have proven a couple things here. You can't read, and you don't know what you're talking about. </p>

<p>Since you like to introduce personal asides, here's a helpful one for you: whenever you see fit, you can stop with your anti-UVA campaign; it's become tiresome. I'm sorry if a "Wahoo" stole your girlfriend, or whatever your problem is, but endlessly attacking one school--and a highly-ranked one, by your own estimation--shows all of us a lot more about you than it does of the school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
<em>All hail the all-seeing Marsden.</em>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At least you got that right.. :)</p>

8

<p>No, I may not know everything, and as I've admitted, arch isn't my field. But your seeming innability to follow and comprehend even the most basic of logical arguments and statements leads me to believe that any "conversation" with you is pretty futile...and you got me. I can't read. </p>

<p>Just another juvenile poster on CC. Shocking.</p>

9

<p>Snappy, try to relax for a moment and take a look at the progression in your "argument"...
I've gently paraphrased, but you did indeed say the following: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>"I know someone who says that all the graduates of that school are worthless!" </p></li>
<li><p>"I bet you went to that school too, so guess what that tells us about you!" </p></li>
<li><p>"I could have gone to that school, they wanted me, but I turned them down because I'm better!"</p></li>
<li><p>"Oh and by the way you're a snob." </p></li>
<li><p>"You just can't comprehend the most basic logic." </p></li>
<li><p>"You're juvenile like everyone else here"</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Sort of begs the question, what are you doing here, genius? ;)</p>

10

<p>ok, back to the topic of rankings in general....</p>

<p>DI does have some major flaws. They publish a whole book of their findings every year, and I had a chance to view it a couple years ago when I was at the AIA convention in Vegas (cause I won't shell out for that book). I was interested in what they had to say about my alma mater, and when I turned to the page on it, I discovered that DI was very confused about what programs they offered in the fields of Historic Preservation and Landscape Architecture. This was just one school, and the most basic information.... how many others did they have incorrect or out-of-date information on? I'll never know, because I don't have the energy to check them on every school, but it certainly made me wonder.</p>

<p>I've also wondered about the practitioner method. For example, the school I went to is regarded as tops in my part of the country, in part due to an extensive alumni network, but I know that people elsewhere haven't necessarily heard a lot about us. That doesn't mean we're the best program because locals love us, and it doesn't mean we're the worst because people elsewhere don't. I too would love to see a rankings system that employed a more objective system- rating things like facilities, employment statistics (how long does it take the average grad to find a job? Do they stay in architecture?), professor quality/accomplishments, as well as the practitioner survey.</p>

11

<p>^^^ I totally agree, and I was hoping, at least, to develop a list of such criteria. That's a good start. Off the top of my head, I was also thinking of perhaps admissions selectivity (which we know from the general UN&WR experience is more complicated than simply the admit rate) and perhaps something about school finances. Because, well, I've been to rich schools and I've been to poor....and rich is definitely better....... There's nothing like having top-notch equipment and infrastructure, esp now that so much is automation... </p>

<p>But I bet arch schools won't want to divulge financial data, or, otoh, it might be suspect information...</p>

12

<p>selectivity is good, but that's a place where you hit a big snag. Some places require portfolios, which you would think makes them more selective, but then the tendency to let someone with a stellar portfolio but an 1100 on the SAT slide brings down the other stats. Then there are schools who still believe that GPA and SAT are the best predictors of success in any field, and don't require portfolios, or don't require them until the end of the second year. How would one attempt to account for these different methods of selectivity? Is one way better than the other, and how can you tell?</p>

<p>I would stand by the assertion that facilities it a better way to rank than financial stats, because the facilities are a good indicator of finances which are out in the open for everyone to see.</p>

13

<p>I apprenticed in two different parts of the country and I've owned and operated offices in two different regions and two different countries.</p>

<p>National rankings are irrelevant. Full stop. </p>

<p>There aren't any Cooper grads working in Topeka. Offices in Spokane aren't that hot about Cornell grads.</p>

<p>Regional Rankings would make the most sense--and be the most useful to students looking for schools. For architecture practices, these are the six different regions:</p>

<p>Northeast/Eastern Midwest</p>

<p>Southeast</p>

<p>Deep South</p>

<p>Texas</p>

<p>Mid-mid West</p>

<p>West</p>

14

<p>and in places like China or Taiwan, the prestige and reputation of the school is very important (with experience of course). If you want to teach, I think where you got your architecture degree is also very important.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
Some places require portfolios, which you would think makes them more selective

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a very good point. (Although I thought all schools required portfolios!)</p>

<p>When I sat on an adcom, I was amazed at what people would overlook if the portfolio was a standout. They'd overlook just about anything.</p>

16

<p>nope, I was admitted to both ASU and UW without a portfolio. ASU actually admits you to "pre-architecture" and does a portfolio submittal for final admission at the end of your sophomore year. Savannah does not require a portfolio at all, unless you want scholarships. The school I ended up at did require a portfolio for freshman admission. How does one try to decide what schools are more selective when there are so many different methods of selection out there?</p>