The condensed ‘Architecture’ thread: hints for applicants

College Majors Architecture Major
41

<p>Now, Bneg, you clearly don't understand what DI bases it's rankings on. I will write it once again:</p>

<p>They are based on employers rating on which students are the most employable. </p>

<p>Clearly a pre-professional program will make someone more employable as an architect than a theoretical program preparing you for graduate school. (Cinncinnati's program is preprofessional.)</p>

<p>I am saying that for ranking undergraduate programs that are not pre-professional you have to look at graduate school placement, not employability. DI looks exclusively at employability, ergo the ranking does not apply to pre-professional architecture programs.</p>

42

<p>I talked to several architects who have their own firm in the bay area, and asked them if they are looking at schools if they employ new architects for their firm, and people from which schools are in their firm...what I found out:
almost all of the architects who work in these firms either have a B.arch from Cornell or a M.arch from Harvard, Columbia or Yale. When I asked them about other schools like Cal Poly, Cooper and Rice...they told me that they usually like M.arch students better, because they have a broader education....
This might be totally different at the East Coast....just thought this is interesting!</p>

43

<p>sorry snipanlol I know i sounded mean.</p>

<p>here applicants: DI is based on employability, and for me I think being able to be employed, ie. actually doing architecture is by far the most important thing a school can train a student for. Snipanlol argues that some some HYPMS schools are good but cannot be ranked because they aim at grad school placement. I personally think that is still comparable since U cincinnati is also preprofessional but they made it, and I think that if the students still need to go to grad school which can be attended by someone with a bachelor of commerce than I'm thinking that the level of education HYPMS provides in undregraduate is either very bad or just very diffused (lacking focus). Anyway, i am also pointing out that NO SCHOOL IS GOOD AT EVERYTHING, which should be obvious but when it comes to a rather unpopular field like architecture which we don't hear a lot about we just assume big name=prestige=very wrong. so it's up to you to decide, like I said, you should apply if these schools happen to combine various interests of yours (but I'm sure you'll also find some other schools that do a better job in variety than HYPMS). ALso, regarding the research culture rankings provided: I am well aware of this ranking but I didn't want to bring it up to you because isn't research more about the faculty and more about Graduate school? </p>

<p>and for future posters of advice: my sincerest thanks but please do not treat me like I've never done any research or logical thinking, ie. a retard, and I'd appreciate if the advice were presented as more illuminating than confusing, thanks!</p>

44

<p>Are people here interested more in commercial or residential architecture? Or some other more specific area?</p>

45

<p>sorry spinan, but im on bneg's side too</p>

<p>i live in princeton and i've definitely checked the school out. I noe the school is ranked decently as a grad program, but the barely any form of undergraduate study is available. the most you'll get at most HYPMS or equivalent schools are a few electives. even the hyped up, "intensive 4 yr programs" such as washu or upenn dont give u studio space until your 3rd year in which u still aren't emersed in architecture.</p>

<p>when i meet prospective architects, which rarely happens, i've met a few who tell me they really want to enter the field. this is exciting cuz then we can talk about schooling and 5 yr programs, etc etc. one who was adamant on becoming an architect told me he was doing ED for princeton. i asked him why and he ddnt have a credible response.</p>

<p>bneg is right, just because those top ivies have architecture classes doesnt mean they even have a proper program valid enough to be called a "4 yr". if you're definite on architecture, please, please, please disregard prestige and check out the programs individually. schools like cornell, carngie mellon, etc are so so so much better and helpful.</p>

<p>lastly, judging an undergraduate "4yr" by the ranking of the grad program is idiotic. no offense snipan. these teachers are hired to teach in the ACCREDITTED PROGRAM at harvard, yale, etc. in most cases they dont even teach at the undergrad level. thats why those programs are ranked so highly. DI's rankings are credible and rational. </p>

<p>bottom line: you WILL NOT get the same intensity and value in education at harvard, yale, princeton as u will in top accredited programs. but also in HYP's defense, you will probably get the best grad education at these top ivies.</p>

<p>different schools, different levels of education.</p>

46

<p>broknchopstyx: I did not say to rank them based on the ranking of their grad programs, I said rank them on grad placement, which means rank them based on how the students fare in graduate school admissions. A good pre-professional undergraduate program is good at getting its students into top graduate programs.</p>

<p>Also, broknchopstyx, I agree with you that DI's rankings are credible and rational - when ranking professional programs. Ranking pre-professional programs based on employability is like ranking football players based on how good they are at playing hockey - you are not basing the ranking on what they are actually doing, you are basing it on something else. It would eb very interesting if DI surveyed graduate schools and asked which undergraduate pre-professional programs provide the best applicants.</p>

<p>Bneg: We are carrying two discussions at once.
The first is whether it is accurate to rank pre-professional programs based on employability, which you argue it is. I argue that the DI rankings are not valid for pre-professional programs. Simply put, the preprofessional programs don't aim at employability, so ranking them based on something they don't aim for is a fallacy. If they aim for A, and you rank them based on B the ranking can not be valid. U Cin doesn't apply since a part of their program statement is to make its students employable - hence it is a form of professional program.* I am sorry to be blunt, but when it comes to this discusison your argument just doesn't hold. I am sorry if I have sounded concescending when I pointed out that your argument is a logical fallacy, but I wanted to be clear on each logical step.</p>

<p>The second discussion we have been carrying is which route is better - a prestigious four year school and then a masters degree, or a five year professional bachelor.
In this case, neither of us can present arguments that are not based on personal opinions. I prefer the four plus two route, and you prefer the five year route. There is nothing factual, it all boils down to personal preference.</p>

<p>On a side note, the programs at most four year schools - here I talk specifically about Princeton and Penn, both of which I have very close knowledge - really are just majors in architecture. I am pursuing a major in architecture, not a professional degree. Still, the quality of the program for what it is - pre-professional - is very strong. The teachers are shared between the graduate school and the undergraduate department - the former dean of the graduate school is teaching a studio.</p>

<p>Again, I am sorry to keep this discussion going, but some things had to be pointed out.</p>

<p>*Quote from U Cin undergraduate architecture program homepage:
"However, the pre-professional degree, combined with co-op work experience, makes them employable in companies throughout the field of architecture."</p>

47

<p>hey some thoughts</p>

<p>-cornell, ranked 1 on the DI list, is very theoretical based. so does that mean its graduates are employable simply because they're practical? the way cornell teaches its students makes them great designers, which makes them employable to firms out there. so yes, employability is an important factor in determing the quality of education. </p>

<p>i think it's important to go to a school that has a strong alumni network. a recruiter from a good school that you attend (once you graduate of course) will feel comfortable hiring you because he or she knows what you have gone through. Those schools listed on the DI list for employability shows that many recruiters out there come from these schools and would be happy to employ students of their own school. The recruiters know the intensity of the school and the kind of students their own school produces. if they weren't happy with the students their school produced, they would never hire them in the first place.</p>

<p>ahh back to ap studying. physuuucks</p>

48

<p>bneg-</p>

<p>i was looking through your DI list of rankings-</p>

<p>i think students place too much emphasis on these rankings. i mean yeah, they're all great schools but anything in the top 10 really depends on your personal preferences really.</p>

<p>some cornell students wouldn't agree that cornell should've been ranked no. 1 in the list. they say in the past few years, there has been so much conflict between the professors that the school was not very effective and productive. NCARB threatened to pull its accreditation away because of poor facilities (i mean, look at rand haha). but the school is moving in a good direction and things are much better now with the new dean and they're building a new studio.</p>

<p>rankings don't reflect tuition either...keep in mind if you can go to a good school but a cheap one, you could spend it on travel or starting your own firm later on, which could be important to an architect's eductation. but cornell def provides a great education at its high price.</p>

<p>i think rice deserves more than 'superior' but it's based on my personal preference. the fact that it's cheaper than most private schools yet provides an amazing curriculum (with its preceptorship), focus on students, research based focus should really be applauded...even if it's so humid.</p>

<p>i've heard bad reviews on syracuse from several architects but again...everything is so subjective based.</p>

<p>carnegie mellon is a great school...i've talked to a student who has transferred from cornell arch to cmu's arch and said that cmu was way harder and better. of course, her decision was probably based on what she likes to learn (she said cornell was too focused) so it differs for everyone.</p>

<p>there are some great state arch schools...like Arizona state, u of arizona, berekley...etc. they dont' provide a 5 year program (cept for u of a) but getting a more broad education isn't a bad thing. guess it depends what you want to do.</p>

49

<p>For four years when DI ranked graduate and undergradute programs together, Cornell was first and Harvard GSD was second for three out of four years. Anyway, from what I've seen so far if you want employment you can get it from top schools, if you want to be a true and good architect that is totally up to your passion and talent.</p>

50

<p>I have a couple questions for anyone who might be able to help me and or have an interest.</p>

<p>First of all, I was wondering if anyone could reccommend a site, probably a picture-sharing site, that was easy and safe to use for a portfolio. I want to post my portfolio online so that my distant friends and family can see what I've done because I probably won't be seeing them for quite some time. I figured a lot of you had posted yours and could advise me.</p>

<p>Secondly, is there anyone else here interested in salvaged items in construction? I've always been fascinated by buildings that make use of salvaged materials, whether it's old beams, fallen trees, recycled glass counters, slate roofing, ANYthing, and recently I've been reading a book called Redux that talks a lot about it. I was just curious if anyone else shared this interest of mine and whether or not they planned to investigate it in school or career.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

51

<p>flickr from yahoo is good and easy to use, but I don't know how to use the friends/family setting...it might not be so convenient because I think they might need an account or something if you want to limit viewers to friends/family; hope you find something out because I'd really like to have that too~!</p>

<p>I've seen the idea in quitei a few sustainable design books; it'll be so hard to find a program or even courses that talks about it!! I'm terribly into sustainable design, but I think I am more interested in the environmental aspects of it. If you think you might be interested, you can try reading Ken Yeang's the Green Skyscraper...if I remember correctly there is a secion on reuse. By the way, there are, I think, only two sustainable design programs in the entire world: grad at UT Austin and CMU. I hope by the time we've graduated there would be more options relevant to our interests~</p>

52

<p>architecture is horrible as a career; you aren't exactly 'needed' like the civil engineers. basically you do what the civil engineers don't want to do: cost analysis, code research, site analysis, construction documents, specification research, and document coordination, bidding, and oh, maybe design. and doing these things require at least 5 years of school and a license, which is pretty absurd since you're not professional at all - just supplemental to the civil engineers who ensure that houses work. People usually think that architects need to know how houses stand up and therefore they can do the job of a civil engineer and therefore get cases easily and have design as a nice compliment and entertainment to a good-paying job - totally untrue unless you get a degree in civil engineering or structural engineering (which is possible though, just go through grad school). Anyway, if you are just intersted in the art of architecture, might as well go do arch history and become a professor who teach peo someone like you. </p>

<p>So the question to ask is not whether or not you can get into a good school - because good school graduates just have an easier time finding the chance to do the boring stuff listed above - but rather how your design will be essential. Astoundingly beautiful doesn't really cut it. I urge you to read sustainable design book because not only are they cool they teach you what kind of purpose can be injected into your designs - you can prevent cancer and mitigate the energy crisis actually!!</p>

<p>don't underestimate yourself and just go with the flow thinkin that you will be happy as long as you're doing arch. I wish you all a purposeful career that satisfies beyond what you've imagined when you first encountered architecture!!</p>

<p>by the way, an arch degree may qualify you for other design jobs that don't require a license...believe it or not interior design does require licensing. this kind of licensing which protects nothing but the insecure and talentless is probably going to develop in other professions, but if you work outside of north america you might find more use with your arch degree. i think arch is a 'top' design degree that allows you do what other design program graduates can do (again, maybe not int.des.), but you do put more effort in getting this degree.</p>

53

<p>Thanks bneg! I'll definitely have to check out the green skyscraper and see what it's all about. I'm interested in working with the environment and with history, which is probably why those types of things interest me (combining relics of past structures to conserve matierals and create modern, practical-for-today buildlings.) I think Frank Lloyd Wright kind of summed it up for me with some quote of his about a building shouldn't sit on TOP of a hill, it should sit IN the hill, as if it is just part of the landscape.</p>

54

<p>After reading sustainable design books Frank Lloyd Wright seemed to be a lot less impressive, since he presents only a facade of the integration of the built and natural enironment with his theories and representative pieces. Whether or not his 'integration' really creates harmony between the two or simply pollutes and exploits nature is then quite debatable...I hope sustainable design will bring a whole new level of excitement and inspiration for you too!!</p>

55

<p>nothing important, but here's news on IIT: I didn't bother to accept waitlist status, but got mail today that I got in architecture with an international scholarship. </p>

<p>I got waitlisted, so I didn't couldn't attend camras interview for architecture, but I think from their letters I COULD if I switched to a less-popular major. it specifically said that if I wanted to accept waitlist status for architecture I forfeit scholarship opportunities but i think the international scholarship (5000, renewable, +4000 if living in old residence, +3000 bonus if going on J-1 visa) is an exception. I didn't accept waitlist status, because all I wanted from IIT is camras.</p>

<p>I thought it was a trick to avoid int'ls from getting a camras (which is up to full), but that can't be it because Jrock was invited and competed for camras last year. Unless they've changed their plans this year. Anyway the other odd factors is that: my required recommendation never went through...the system kept on telling my phys teacher that he was missing a field. I emailed them several times and they didn't bother replying.</p>

56

<p>heh two people from my school this year got into cooper- out of the 20 accepted.</p>

57

<p>Finally I can post my stats:
Chinese, was born in US but lived in Indonesia for 15 yrs --moved to US on 2nd semester of 10th grade
School in Indo was a private school w/ 100 ppl per grade
School in US is a public school w/ total of >3800 ppl</p>

<p>don't get shocked: SATI: 670W 550C 690M SAT IIs: 750 Chem 670 IIC 710 IC
TOEFL 280/300
5 AP Chem 4.0 uw GPA school doesn't rank</p>

<p>Summer activities:
Mostly travel & self-study, USC Summer Exploration of Arch (summer after jr yr), Montecito Summer Intensive Program (also arch related)
activities/honors/etc:
piano, art classes (figure drawing, illustration, architecture, perspective, etc), church activites, choir
Indonesia-- osis (like Associated Student Body), class secretary, volleyball team, all kinds of committee (there weren't any volunteer opportunities in Indo). US--a bunch of clubs+officer
work-- piano teacher, tutoring; no extraordinary award -- some art awards, NHS/CSF.</p>

<p>Portfolio for Rice, Cornell, USC + update portfolio for Rice & Cornell (each about 20ish works, 25-32 pages; update portfolio was 6ish works).
will give link to portfolio later. still working on it. </p>

<p>accepted: USC, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley</p>

<p>rejected: UT Austin; waitlisted then rejected: Cornell, Cooper Union</p>

<p>about the waitlist:
I did everything I could for Cornell waitlist; unfortunately, they didn't go over the waitlist this year. to anyone waitlisted: waitlist doesn't mean indirect rejection. pursue it if you're really wanna go to that school.</p>

<p>going to: Rice</p>

58

<p>Suggestions:
Focus on portfolio for schools that require it, Check on each school's program--design oriented/technical-practical, class size, etc
I agree with Jcro-- don't apply to too many schools because it gets pretty complicated--BUT do a lot of research/visit before you regret not applying to this or that school. It's better to focus on few schools that you're really interested in and put your best efforts on the apps. If you apply to too many schools, you're wasting time on the app process, money on app fees + all the stuffs you have to mail!! Plus each porfolio costs (well, for mine) about/more than $40.
Summer programs are great!! They aren't free..., but I think it was worth it!!
If interview is an option, go for it; it can only help! Plus I learned so much from it :D
don't rely too much on school rankings. go to where YOU wanna go: the program that best suits you, the place where you can "thrive and be challenged" --> my arch teacher said. </p>

<p>About Cooper Union:
The 10 pages home test was really fun to do, but make sure you put a LOT of thoughts and time (repeat: TIME!!!) into it; I thought I wasn't gonna submit it, but I did--I finished in 3 days with another friend and we didn't really sleep.</p>

59

<p>i kinda promised myself not to go back on CC...but i guess i'm back.</p>

<p>"architecture is horrible as a career; you aren't exactly 'needed' like the civil engineers. basically you do what the civil engineers don't want to do: cost analysis, code research, site analysis, construction documents, specification research, and document coordination, bidding, and oh, maybe design."</p>

<p>-yes, although architecture is a super competitive career, architects have always been needed. have you ever thought about the flip side, that civil engineers do what architects don't want to do? while architects get to be in charge of the project, engineers have to do the specific calculations (unless you like that kind of work)...very analytical stuff. no design at all. the architect makes the plans and ideas. the engineer makes sure they work.</p>

<p>"and doing these things require at least 5 years of school and a license, which is pretty absurd since you're not professional at all - just supplemental to the civil engineers who ensure that houses work. People usually think that architects need to know how houses stand up and therefore they can do the job of a civil engineer and therefore get cases easily and have design as a nice compliment and entertainment to a good-paying job"</p>

<p>-architects are not supplemental to the civil engineers. architects are pretty much the leaders throughout the whole projects, while the civil engineer only plays a small part of the whole process. Engineers aren't in charge of building anything. They make their specific scopes work, and that's it. They don't care about the site. They don't care about context. Those things are the architect's job. Architects are in charge of making <em>their</em> scopes work together. It may seem weird, but those guys don't play well together - none of the consultants care about what the other one needs. Architects are the only ones who care about the overall vision, and that's why they're in charge. They guide those guys to their purpose, which is to make something that carries the weight of culture, and which expresses creativity and ideas, and which serves proper functions, and which represents a true and intended experience of space. Their job is to be the overseer, the arbitrator, the negotiator, the carrier of the project's culture. </p>

<p>"So the question to ask is not whether or not you can get into a good school - because good school graduates just have an easier time finding the chance to do the boring stuff listed above - but rather how your design will be essential. Astoundingly beautiful doesn't really cut it. I urge you to read sustainable design book because not only are they cool they teach you what kind of purpose can be injected into your designs - you can prevent cancer and mitigate the energy crisis actually!!"</p>

<p>-Well, everyone starts out doing the 'boring' stuff. it's necessary, because if you don't know how to do redlines, or know how to detail, or know what the codes are, how does anyone expect you to know how to design a building? Academia only shows you the design aspect of the profession. The real world comes with a lot of experience knowledge that you don't learn in school and it is in those intern years that you begin picking up essentials that will make you know how to put a building together. sustainability is important but it is not the only way to inject purpose into a project.</p>

<p>"don't underestimate yourself and just go with the flow thinkin that you will be happy as long as you're doing arch. I wish you all a purposeful career that satisfies beyond what you've imagined when you first encountered architecture!!"</p>

<p>-you won't hear many ppl in most professions happy with their jobs. sure there are a lot of times in the field of architecture when it sucks. But you have to look at the long run. Your expectations won't come to you right away. architecture is a looooooooong process and it takes time. if you care about design, and if that's what you love, in the long run, all those things you mentioned above won't matter to you.</p>

<p>"i think arch is a 'top' design degree that allows you do what other design program graduates can do (again, maybe not int.des.), but you do put more effort in getting this degree."</p>

<p>-totally =)</p>

60

<p>ok fiiiiiine i'll post my stats...after a long debate with myself.</p>

<p>top 6% in class. i think i did ok academically. my test scores were OK, not the best though. </p>

<p>hmm...worked on my portfolio for 2 years. most of the time was really planning though. i wanted to give a kick ass portfolio. made it really small (6 inch long) so it was flippable and cute. not haha...but i guess it's easier to carry around a small portfolio.</p>

<p>black belt, 11 yrs piano, varsity debate, church leader, um..lived in hong kong for 4 years. went to the cornell summer arch program. had a blast there! i have taught at FLW Taliesin west, was a guest speaker at their fundraising banquet, was a summer program student...worked at arch firm, went to panama and china for mission trip. had some club officer positions at school. always wanted to do architecture since 7 yrs old...i blame it on legos hehe</p>

<p>got into cornell ED and Rice Interim Decision. CMU accepted me even though i never finished my application. i'm going to cornell this fall. best of all, i'm getting myself into horrendous debt. whopeee</p>

<p>the cornell summer program helped a lot because it was a stepping stone for me to show professors my potential since the program is very much like the real thing. </p>

<p>my suggestions- be dedicated, be individualistic, be yourself in your portfolio. don't be afraid to be who you are. work hard, and make sure you know architecture is for you! good luck everyone!</p>