When I started the application process, IIT was on the top of my list. It's in Chicago, has some really good faculty, and a gorgeous campus. I went to one of their info days, and the faculty seemed approachable, the administrators helpful, and the students seemed to be engaged in interesting work.

Since then, my opinion has only gone downhill. They have lost three of their strongest faculty since January. Their interest in massively expanding the graduate program has clearly led them to rush through the application process – they admitted me, but told me that I needed more math before enrolling, despite the fact that I've been doing object orient programming for scientific applications for much of the past decade.

I also haven't been impressed with the attitude of some students and former students I've met recently.

Berkeley seems to have gone in the opposite direction from my perspective. I only really applied to them because my wife wants to move to the bay area, and since I did a half assed application, they said no thanks. Since then though, I've seen a couple of talks by recent graduates that were very provocative, and some projects that faculty are involved in that were intriguing. So now I wish I had put the care into the Berkeley application instead of IIT.

Who did they lose?

Is it right that UCB has alot better professional reputation then IIT?

go to berkeley. u will enjoy more. the city is great. alot to do there. great variety of reviewers, strong program, very good professors.

I would choose UCB. Better reputation. But most importantly your expressed interest in a cross disciplinary/ theoretic approcah is what they do best. They focus on the conceptual and social aspects of arch & program based design, more than they do on form.

what would you guys say is IIT's focus?

IIT is the motherfuckingshit

Thanks guys,

I am also concerning about the career issue. which one is better for the future job? Does the connection we make in school relly count?
Well, IIT is in Chicago, but UCB sure has better reputation.

It is mainly centered around the professor... If you get a good one, great... if you get someone who is there because they cannot hack an architecture practice, well, think of it as Daycare For an Architect where you pay to keep him in a BMW and out of the bread line... What's the tuition now?

I have lived in both Bridgeport (an adjacent neighborhood where a lot of IIT students live) and Berkeley...

Hmmmm... xenophobic, blue collar neighborhood where people of color get chased down and beaten with baseball bats or arguably the most diverse and educated college community in America? That's not much of a choice... They do make a good Italian beef in Bridgeport but once you get a pizza at Zachary's on College Ave or shop at the Berkeley Bowl you know that the food gods are smiling on you.

Some of my colleagues went to school at Berkeley and really liked it. They could design and hold their own at major international design firm. I don't know of any of my colleagues from IIT being in those kinds of positions... They were relegated to checking drawings or some kind of management position...

um. i came out from berkeley and it's easy to find a job.
there are more creative designers from berkeley too.
berkeley grad = thinker + designer

makeArchitecture, wait, which degree did you get where?

Addictionbomb,

Were you the one asking about the high-rises at IIT?

I posted because I received a commission from a client to design a 30 story modern, sustainable high rise. They wanted a something that would change the skyline for the better. Something that would stand out and be the most beautiful building on its beach site.

So I set out to assemble a team. One of the places I went was IIT looking for an old professor I like. He's a great guy. I was rather shocked by his inflexibility. He basically said that the loading dock and the parking lot drove the whole project. My partner worked for Chris Wilkinson for 5 years and just shook his head and said "told you so." This is one person at IIT but the way he worked or more importantly didn't work is symptomatic of what IIT's great weakness--the lack of imagination and believe that architecture is foremost a technical problem. It can be but it's far more rich and interesting that that...

There are other people there now, some of whom are probably very good. (I had Chris Wilkinson for instance while I was there. He was fantastic but was only a visiting prof.who showed up 3 times for a semester.) But most of the old guys are still there. For instance, Arthur Takeuchi got up at a faculty meeting and said that "computers are for drafting." This was 1992, the year that Form Z was introduced. He helped keep computers out of Crown Hall for years. Ben Nicholson... I have never seen a bigger asshole in action in my whole life. He would publicly humiliate students who disagreed with him. The kicker was he tried to take an excellent 100 page paper on the Laurentian Library written by one of his students and present it as his own at a Michaelangelo conference. She got wind of this and told the Assistant Dean. She was told that taking credit for student work was his way of working. She got an attorney and Ben backed down. (Ben's was like a cult because he would tell his students up was down and his students would believe it and thrive on it. There were always a number of them who would defend him at all cost and let him get away with a lot of really bad behavior that would have gotten him tossed out of other schools.)

Things change thankfully and new people go through there. I'd love to sees some of the projects done by students under new profs. And who left IIT? I don't know...

Good luck!

Yeah, who left IIT???

Rumor has it Ben Nicholson and Peter Land are leaving. Two of the better professors. I would most definately stay away from the "old guard" that are doing the high rise studio. However, Arthur Takeuchi has always intrigued me. A sincere, nice individual with a profound respect for Mies. Even though the space problem is very rigid, its teachings are very valid. (I say this, but I haven't taken it, so perhaps I'm way off.) I really enjoyed the Visual Training courses.

But today, there is a war. And power is shifting. It's still nice to get both sides of the argument at this point.

Prof. Kearns has begun, (well Nicholson and Felsen deserve a large portion of credit too), to open up the school to newer thoughts and technology. He's young, but lletdownll and I have deemed him the prof that can't do anything uninteresting. It's impossible to say what will happen, but it will be interesting to see what they are doing in a few years.

That being said, you're comparing some yuppie cali pizza kitchen to PHIL'S!!! Forget it. lletdownll, let em have it.

I'm not sure who mespell was referring to as who they had already lost, but Ronan is taking less time as his office is taking off.

Other than that, IIT grads respect IIT grads. (Maybe not the entire graduate program.) But B.Arch's don't have a problem getting a job. (I'm pretty sure I got hired at my firm in high school because I mentioned I was thinking about going to IIT).

However, UCB prolly has chicks. And frankly, IIT has dogs. (Although, there's always the fresh exchange flock every year!)

So that's my input, I can't do a comparison as I've never looked at UCB, but take it for what it's worth.

and that whole ben and peter leaving is just a rumor. so don't blame me for anything.

But I have not found any particular famous professor in UCB.
And it costs a lot more.( about $42,000 a year) I am really wondering whether it is worth the money. Are there alot chances of in-campus work or TA positions? I will need to be sure that I could survive there since my family and I probably could only afford 1 year of the cost there now.

eion ,
Could u offer some more specific info on the cross disciplinary approach you have mentioned? That could be decision making.

iamhappy ,

Thank you for your positive information, but what if I want to work in the east side of US? Will it be the same situation?(Actually I consider NYC my dream city, and I did get accepted by Columbia U. But since it is beyond me expensive, I have to give up the opportunity and choose other schools)

Thank you again.

Here is an article I found that articulates these things better than I could. Hope this helps.


The University of California Berkeley enjoys a reputation as one of America's premier institutions for architectural education. Its School of Architecture has attained a unique position in the field; A humanist, community-based approach powered by a strong building science and technology component. Over the years, the combination has proven valuable, gaining the school a number six ranking in the U.S. News and World Report system (behind Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Columbia and Yale respectively).

The School of Architecture was started in 1894 by Bernard Maybeck. Maybeck's early influence set the direction for the school which, in varying degrees, the school has maintained since the beginning. Maybeck's belief that every project represented a unique problem and therefore a unique solution is visible in the school's emphasis on program-driven design. Studio instruction rewards innovative solutions to programmatic issues over form based design. The client/user and environmental concerns are privileged over an artistic expression by the architect.

As the school matured, the practice of architecture changed from an independent discipline to a component within a greater design field, environmental design. The School of Architecture, with its environmentally conscious, humanist aspirations, realized the necessity and greater educational possibilities available through a multidiscipline curriculum for its students. The College of Environmental Design (CED) was formed in 1959, bringing together multiple disciplines into one department. Included in the CED are architecture, landscape architecture, environmental planning and city/ regional planning. Landscape architecture instruction at UC Berkeley dates back to 1913 and the city planning program was created in 1948. Students at the CED enroll in one of the three professional programs, but are encouraged to take classes within the other two departments.


The College of Environmental Design offers programs at graduate, advanced graduate, and undergraduate levels. The graduate level offers a professional education in City and Regional Planning, Landscape Architecture and Architecture, the last of which has been accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). The CED's ideological stance is clearly evident in the written description of program's objectives. The CED Announcement publication reads,

"The heavy emphasis in the college on service to users and the analysis of impacts of the environment on users and public values is evidence of the faculties recognition that these professions require a high degree of dedication to the service of people and a profound understanding of human values."

This focus comes from the past and current leaders of the school, Chris Alexander, Catherine Bauer, and the current Chair of the School of Architecture, Donlyn Lyndon among others. Alexander's books include Timeless Way of Building, Pattern Language, and Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Bauer is considered a vanguard of the housing reform movement and leader in the fight for social equity. Lyndon's work includes residential projects at Sea Ranch and Austin, Texas as well as editing Places magazine. It is clear that a central concern of the school is the creation of responsible and affordable housing. An entire section of the curriculum called Social and Cultural Factors in Design is dedicated to housing and similar concerns. Classes included in this section are: (1) Housing, an International Survey, (2) Cultures and Settings: Supporting Variations in Residential Design, (3) Housing for Different Subcultures, (4) Colloquium on Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Issues in Environmental Design.

According to Paul Groth, Associate Professor of Architecture, the graduate students are encouraged to continue their education beyond the graduate level. The college offers strong Ph.D. programs in all three fields. Candidates for Ph.D. require an aptitude for creative research and/or teaching. The doctoral students benefit from a large undergraduate student body in need of instructors and teaching assistants for the multitude of courses offered.

Sorry to take so long in addressing the open query to me – I've been trying to track down names to go with rumors I had heard and not really kept track of.

Ben Nicholson will be joining the faculty of The Art Institute of Chicago this summer.

Since I can't seem to track down specifics, I'll be the first to say not to put too much credence into these two claims. Rumor has it that Peter Land is leaving as well. Finally, they recruited some big theory/history guy a little more than a year ago, and rumor has it that he will be leaving at the end of 2007 – or at least so I overheard last month.

I am curious about one of the questions the original poster asks though, the idea of studying, "…interdisciplinary study of architecture combining with urban design and cultural issue…"

Leaving aside the question of what this might have said if it were grammatically correct, I seem to have heard the same thing at just about every school I have visited in the last year, and the others emphasize the same three key issues (with the addition of globalization and environment) prominently in their literature. Does anyone know of a school that is actually putting its money where its mouth is – i.e. by recruiting faculty who are credentialed in interdisciplinary studies, culture, globalization, or environmental science?

Or alternately a mouth where the money is – i.e. "our own graduates are so cool we only hire them to teach you poor fools."

im tired of talking about IIT postal... im sorry,
but...
phils is the best
and bridgeport is not the place described above
chicago is way cooler than berkley, thats for sure
and IIT is half as expensive... is UCB twice as good? i dunno

I agree, Bridgeport is not the place described above, and I would rather be in Chicago than Berkeley.

I think makeArchitecture has no idea what he/she is talking about, especially their description of Bridgeport.
That aside, I hope you have a great time where ever you choose.

not famous? well famous profs probably are too busy to teach you anyways. if you think famous profs are good then.. um.. go to IIT . i dont know many famous profs there either. berkeley has quite a few famous ones. u just have to know them. pretty much everyone teaching there are from the top schools in the US.
check this link for their work

http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/gallery/

i have no problem finding a job anywhere in the world after i graduated.
yeah chicago is probably "much" better because it's hella windy and it snows a lot. whereas berkeley is right next to Sf and oakland, 20 min drive to both cities. 3 hours to tahoe, 5 hours to LA. and of course the kick ass weather all year long. u can go get a cup of coffee at 5 everyday and sit in studio and look over the bay and watch the sunset. well... compare to chicago... ?

UCB is not like twice expensive but sure costs about 1.5 times of IIT.

mespellrong

thanks to your question of "Does anyone know of a school that is actually putting its money where its mouth is – i.e. by recruiting faculty who are credentialed in interdisciplinary studies, culture, globalization, or environmental science? " That just what I want to find answer for.

And sorry for the grammar.

I heard that UCB has better approach in urban planning realm though.

iamhappy,

Sorry for my ignorance. Maybe because I was a little too into the Ivys before. I heard UCB has better connection with the Asian projects? is that true? because asia means great protential of market now.

I am going to post the tuition (with fees per semester for graduate school INSTATE) of these places:

UIC $4897

IIT $8724 ($727 per credit hour with 12 credit hours number listed)

UC Berkeley $4219

I would move and become a resident before applying to school.

Berkeley is cheaper than either school. The Bay Area has more architecture jobs now than people to fill them.

The Asian market depends more on connections than geography... There's quite a bit of Asian work in Chicago, NY and San Francisco. Most of it is on the schematic and dd side with the construction docs being done by Chinese partners. Honestly, most of what I have seen is pretty awful stuff. Most of it is done by big offices like SOM or former partners of places like Murphy/Jahn.

This kind of work has a real boom/bust cycle tied to it as well...

As for Bridgeport I would do some reading...

http://www.chicagoreporter.com/1997/06-97/0697hatecrimes.htm

Lenard Clark wasn't the first kid attacked near the parks that serve the white, black and Asian neighborhoods on Chicago's near South Side.
One year earlier, on April 27, 1996, Chicago Park District employee Michael Bailey, 19, and 10 others jumped two young men at Armour Square Park, 3309 S. Shields Ave. Bailey was charged with a hate crime and aggravated battery for using a softball bat to hit Mark Fajardo, a 20-year-old Asian American, and 19-year-old Richard Nunez, a Latino, police records show. The attackers called the two young men “nigger” and “chink.”

Police recorded the incident as part of their annual hate crimes tally, even though the charges were later dismissed by a judge for lack of evidence. Few hate crimes result in criminal charges.

Bailey, who had three prior arrests but no convictions, lives on the 3200 block of South Princeton Avenue, where Clark, a 13-year-old African American, was savagely beaten on the first day of spring.

Since 1992, four hate crimes have been reported at or near Armour Square Park, police records show. And five bias crimes, including the attack on Clark, have occurred in the neighborhood since Jan. 1.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679752064/102-1374799-3126526?v=glance&n=283155

an engrossing look at the human drama of the cases, including the racially motivated beating of a 13-year-old black boy by the white teenage son of a family believed to be Mafia-connected.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-american.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Even by the standards of turn-of-the-century Chicago, Daley's neighborhood was a grim place. It was Chicago's first slum, known in its early days by the evocative name Hardscrabble. It was settled in the 1830s and 1840s by the Irish "shovelmen" who built the nearby Illinois & Michigan Canal, many working for whiskey and a dollar a day. The area was renamed Bridgeport in the 1840s, when a bridge was built across the Chicago River at Ashland Avenue, forcing barges to unload on one side and reload on the other. When the canals were completed, Bridgeport's dirty work of canal-building gave way to the even less savory trade of animal slaughter.

I think Chicago has a far richer Architectural history than SF, though. We have Mies, Wright, Sullivan, Atwood, et al.

SF offers more possibilities with hills and a climate that is more amenable tp natural ventilation and straw bale construction.

There really is a lot more going on in Chicago in terms of music, culture, theater, etc..

depends:

would you say that you work is more influenced by Al Jorgenson or Jerry Garcia?

At Berkeley there is a GSI (Graduate Student Instructor) program where a select number of graduate students act as TAs for undergrad (and grad?) classes for a semester. If you like teaching I suggest you check it out. Plus, it waives your registration, education, and health fees and pays a monthly stipend.

Information on the program:
http://gsi.berkeley.edu/

Fees waived: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/appointments/pdf/fee_remission_bulletin.pdf

Requirements: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/appointments/pdf/apptknow.pdf

Wages: http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/pay/uawwg.htm

"there is alot mpore going on in Chicago in terms of music, culture, theatre, etc" -- says who? not if you include SF with Berkeley which you must if you're comparing the cities, otherwise you might as well compare Berkeley to Oak Park...

and newstreamlinemodel you risk exposing your ignorance: Ministry is fine and all, but Jerry Garcia my ass as representing the Bay Area music scene, more like: DJ Shadow, Consolidated, Primus, The Donnas, Kid 6o6, Tom Waits, the Game, The Coup, Dan the Automator, Invisibl Skratch Picklz, Deerhoof, Dead Kennedys, Rogue Wave, Green Day, Jonathan Richman, AFI, The Residents, Qbert, Blackalicious, Lyrics Born, Sly and the Family Stone, Metallica, Flaming Groovies, Camper Van Beethoven, Romeo Void, American Music Club, The Avengers, Beau Brummels, Spearhead, Paris, Jim Carrol Band, Translator, Negativeland, Montrose, The Avengers, Flipper, Operation Ivy, Digital Underground, Too Short, Faith No More, Imperial Teen, Mr. Bungle, Red House Painters, Tupac, bla bla bla...

i would pick california over other states. no doubt.

an issue raised in another forum but worth mentioning here is that sf/berkeley is more of a residential city. the actual high-rise downtown financial center in SF is small compared to chic/nyc, and most of outlying areas, berkeley included, are definitely mid-urban at most.

i live just north of berkeley, and travel through and hang out there all the time in addition to SF. personally, i find the housing/building density level going on in this area to be of prime importance in understanding the quality of life here.

i haven't much to say about the schools and their respective programs (although big kudos to folks at both...) i can speak to the intangible quality of life here in the bay area.

having spent a great deal of time in and around big cities, and also quite a bit of time in rural new england, i am happy to say that the sf bay area is one of the nicest places i have ever lived.

it's cultured, diverse, interesting, civic, inspiring and although the weather isn't as nice as one might think, enormous expanses of wildlands are right outside the city. gorgeous, expansive views abound from every part of the city.

i know of no other major american city (las vegas excluded...) where you can literally go from the center of downtown to major parklands and/or wine-country open spaces in about 30 minutes. world class surfing, mtn.biking, fishing, hiking, etc. are right out your door.

seriously, it can be an amazing place.

by comparison, in nyc, you can barely get off the island of manhattan in under 30 min. don't get me wrong, i love ny. heck, i'll probably be back in ny in a couple of years, but for now, sf is the place to be.

don't know how well chi-town compares on that front. chicago definitely has the edge on the urban vibe if that's your bag. it's probably closer to ny in that regard, and you have more/easier access to both coasts in addition to your proximity to canada/toronto. i would count those as big plusses, but what m.arch student willl have time for canada?

and in regards to music, i have to agree with bothands on that one. there's TONS of it going on here.

i would say architecturally, chicago's got great history no doubt, and a resourceful, progressive mentality at present, but does that outshine san francisco? you be the judge of that, but IMHO the sf area is pretty architecturally interesting/progressive/resourceful.

just my two cents from the land that brought you metallica AND john fogerty.

that's right. el cerrito baby!

I'll preface this by saying that I'm biased... I hate the west coast. I would rather lurk in the dark and cold dressed in black and smoking a cigarette, bitching about the weather... New York is the best damn city in the country for practicing architecture, and Chicago is second. SF is quite pretty, but architecture doesn't really happen there. The zoning laws and strict regualtions have killed all originality, and there is really only one internationally renowned architect in the whole city.

But, I agree that Bridgeport sucks. IIT is located in Bronzeville, actually, and it was recently the worst ghetto in the city. Kind of scary, but getting better. However, the nice thing about Chicago is that we have a real public transportation system (verses the BART which doesn't go anywhere), so you can live anywhere in the city and take the train.

Velvet Underground or The Grateful Dead? I know my answer.... I'm tired of the loopy Calibullshit.

That's Chicago, what are you talkin about? -- Chicago is second? It doesn't hold a candle to LA in terms of producing innovative architecture these days. And actually architecture is indeed happening now in SF more than it has in a long while. what "internationally renowned" architects are in chicago now? -- SOM? (they're in SF and dozen other places too)...

plus Velvet Underground is from NYC; the discussion was SF vs. Chicago, and why keep bringing up the greatful dead, after all the bands mentioned above? who listens to them? anyway since you hate the west coast, stay in chicago -- how can one hate an entire region of the US?

mightylittle -- I thought metallica was from oakland? and that fogerty lived in berkeley -- and that primus dude calypool grew up in el sobrante!?! el cerriito's cool though esp. up in the hills.

but the 'urban vibe' - if you mean tall bldgs, chicago has it, but if you mean "vibe" just go to bayview in sf, or oakland, richmond or vallejo

back on topic tho: I think an MArch would ultimately be more fulfilling at UC than IIT -- there's hardly a program out there with a strong BArch that also has as strong an MArch (and I don't think IIT is one of them)...

what club is tupac playin at???

what club is ministry playin at?

bothands - from what i hear, both fogerty and metallica are actually native to el cerrito, though once they started getting big they just sort of became 'from' san francisco or berkeley or oakland. just what i hear around el cerrito.

That's Chicago - allow me to introduce you to the entire mission district of san francisco. all they do is stand in the rain wearing black pants, trucker hats and white belts, smoking fags and bitching about the weather.

did daly put a monopoly on bitching about the weather when i wasn't looking?!?

and the problem with BART is not that it doesn't go anywhere (cuz' it hits most of the area, incl. both SFO and OAK airports) it's that it doesn't go anywhere late at night. last trains to the east bay from SF are at 12:20am. totally lame for my former brooklyn dwellin' self.

but seriously, i grew up in jersey, went to undergrad in ghetto New Brunswick, and as mentioned, used to live in brooklyn. new york city is indeed one of the best cities in the world, but livin' there ain't easy.

by saying nyc is the best place to practise architecture, do you mean that it's the best place to be both overworked AND underpaid? if so then i completely concur.

my apologies to the op for helping hijack this thread.


and bothands, by urban vibe i specifically meant tall bldgs., but yeah, vallejo's got it in going on for shizzle.

Really, these comparisons are stupid. But I can hate the west coast if I want to, bitch!

sure man. hate all you want.

I like both places and have roots in each. I am not much into top 40. Chicago has a tremendous musical history...

The term Jazz was coined in Chicago. Armstrong lived here, King Oliver as well, and of course Jelly Roll Morton whom many regard as the father of Jazz. And the Rat Pack used to play night after night at Maxim's. All the old jazz clubs were torn down for the IIT Campus.

The current Jazz scene in Chicago is stronger than anything else in US save for NY. The AACM is an amazing local organization that is really forging new territory. They also give free lessons to school children. I saw a big band concert at the Cultural Center dedicated to the Black Panther Fred Hampton that was led by Ernest Dawkins. It was phenomenal!!! And free! All of the materal was original--it wasn't a Wynton Marsalis revival--and they played non-stop for 2 hours. The Cultural Center has free concerts every week. SF has no equivalent. And there is no equivalent to the AACM outsde of Chicago.
http://aacmchicago.org/


The blues scene here in Chicago is very strong... Led Zepplin (the Blues turned up) used Chicago as their American base and used to show up local blues dives to play. Muddy Waters lived here... Bo Diddley still has a barbecue place down on 79th. Again SF has no equivalent blues scene and/or history.

The symphony here had Wilhelm Fürtwangler as a conductor. The old Nazi SOB really knew how to get the most out of the CSO. The old recordings are amazing. The CSO has a depth, history and reputation that only the New York Philarmonic can match...

We have a free summer concert series in Millenium Park that's three nights-a-week for a couple of months. There are a gazillion summer festivals as well.

There are a lot of DJs here. I remember going to hear Frankie Knuckles spin a million years ago. Chicago is the home to House. There's the scene at the Empty Bottle.

That's my take on it... it's really the free music that's missing in SF.

Here's Ernest's biography. If you wanna be blown away. goto one of his concerts. He writes all of his own music. And check out the other members like Lester Bowie...

http://aacmchicago.org/members/Dawkins.html

And I agree with you about LA, it's the architectural center now of the US.

Hey guys,

I did not know that my question would result in this much argument,
especially an argument between the east and the west.

It is not that i am not into the musical environment of the cities, but I really appreciate more comments on the quality and opportunities the the M.ARCH programs can offer. But thanks for everyone here anyway.

Honestly speaking I am more leaning to the UCB program since UCB has a better M.ARCH reputation and maybe better fit for me( but I could be well wrong), the problem is if i chooes it, I will on doubt choose to work-study before my second year there, which will be time consuming if I want to cover up my cost by my own; or if I choose IIT, I will not have to do that at all besides internship. That considered, do you guys still suggest UCB a better choice?

As for the location thing, I have not much concept of either of the two, but I feel that both of the areas have some to offer concerning the life their and academic study of architecture. That's where the dilemma lies.

Again it all depends on your interest. I know from my experience as undergrad, after I graduated and began working for a firm, I had no problems settling into a firm far and away from Chicago, and found in pretty short notice so I guess that says a little bit of IIT's reputation. When principals are speaking to me about the design of the buildings we work on, I am able to understand and suggest things to contribute. And I mean overall building designs as well as building details and how it all comes together. I can only speak from my own experience, and that's the sort of knowledge you can gain from IIT. I believe that the March program is similar to the Barch, except for the March is much more condensed, so you will have to learn more in a short amount of time. I hope this helps a little, and good luck

phivphan,

Thank you for the info on GSI. That would be a great help if I could get into the position. Do you know the chance of getting that position? Ro should I contact spercific profrssors for that position?

does IIT has a good march program anyways?

ulysses1983ljj -

were you at the UCB open house?

MArch06,

I was not at the UCB open house. That's a shame.
I only get some info in the other threads here containing statements of people who actually went there.

You were there, weren't u? so how it feels like?

check out the thread about the open house, there are some good thoughts and observations. personally, i was impressed and because of it berkeley has vaulted to #1 on my list

Yeah, I actually have seen the open house thread, and that is why I said I am more leaning to UCB now. I consider my interest more in the thinking and solving "real life" problems of real people than doing cool designs, that's also why I am into urban, cultural and environemntal issues.

I have the feeling that people attracted by UCB are somewhat like me, am I right?