PS. If you suck self-awareness might not be your thing...so ask people around you.

kthxby

well you should still go to the gsd if you suck. they need more suck.

great, now the people who DO suck will go just to p!ss YOU off. gee, thanks!

but we need those people for our self esteem improvement....

and!
if you are a stuck up fuckin pretentious asshole,
then well,
i'm just sorry.

Says the guy who only got a conditional acceptance to GSD.

But, you know, whatever.

(SUCK!)

wow.
theMan is
a)probably wait-listed somewhere
b)a small insecure kid
c)a stuck up fuckin pretentious asshole
d)sees the world through a straw
e)just a plain idiot

tough one huh?

I say C

bingo

Sometimes I can be such an ass.

In all seriousness though the original post still stands.

for all you kids going to grad school:

If you suck and go the GSD or the GSAP or whatever, you will still suck after you are done with it.

If you are really good and sadly dont get accepted into one of the big name schools, you will still be good after grad school.

Grad school is just one very small step in the steep ladders youve to climb, for architecture. If it was law it;d be a different story.

lol ...

alright "the Man" ... what's the story behind the rant..

should be interesting ...

"First one to go negative is a sign of weakness."

Grad school is not intended to give anyone license to determine what sucks and people only say someone else sucks to abate their own insecurities.

Grad school, in its ultimate entirety, is an opportunity for bright, self-motivated men and women to explore ideas and - albeit potentially corny - grow. If you don't seem to "suck" in grad school, you're not being challenged, you're not taking risks. Most likely you're staying in the comfort zone of "big fish/small pond", doing what you know, doing what is safe. If you're the "best" student all of the time, you've done yourself a very expensive disservice.

It is very difficult to understand the mindset of a colleague when his/her thinking is radically different from our own. Still, the opportunity to gain new knowledge and insight should be enjoyed and not attacked so arrogantly on a public forum.

well said "S"

alternatley ... who decides, who sucks? .. it's all relative.

* not dimissed so arrogantly on a public forum.

i would say 'the(mini)Man' is

f)all of the above

jaser,
almost all accepted m.arch I students who are going to top tier schools are accepted conditionally. all it means is that your background education is probably in the liberal arts such as sociology or philosophy and more power to you. you just have to satisfy a college level math or physics, which you won't be using as much in grad school anyways. you, and people like you, will bring in a different perspective to the field.
theMan really doesn't know what he's talking about.
actually, he absolutely is making no sense at all. if he thinks that you, or anybody sucks, then does that mean he's like a prodigy child or something?
or just a child. throwing a temper tantrum.
kinda sad really.

I applyed to Oxford and the Sorbonne. Harvard's my safety

*applied

good luck with that...

theMan
parsons a good school, but tiny and expensive. if you made the deadline and got into sciarc, i would recommend going there.
didn't you ask about whether you should go to these colleges in other threads?

give it a rest already. grad school is a major decision for everybody applying, especially those who gave up thier former career to pursue a dream, and path.

again good luck with oxford and sorbonne. you always got the gsd to fall back on right? (said with my best poker face)

over and out.

For those of us who were worried, it's good to know that future generations will have a steady supply of successful pretentious, pompous, prima-donna architects as well as wannabees like 'theMan'.

The elitist attitude espoused by 'theMan' (who obviously isn't) wouldn't have been out of place in the days of southern slavery and northern robber barons. This attitude is in direct contradiction to architecture's humanitarian, socialist, and artistic motivations. It's nothing less than a plague on architecture.

Real prodigies don't go about reminding 'everyone else' that they're great. theMan is an obvious poseur and I feel the most sincere sympathy for his future classmates. what a knob.

I was regularly mocked by my graduate school peers who, not incidently, didn't have the fellowship I did. The unnecessary ridicule certainly sucked for me, though I came to understand it was ultimately their loss. My fellowship indicated that I was an asset to the program, an asset they were never smart enough to benefit from.

you are a serious loser "the man", get over it not everyone sees the world like you.....i used to hate one of my class mates in my undergrad but that was becuase her way of thinking was so different from my own, and it posed a threat to my views....by the end i learned how to appreciate this fresh perspective and learn from it. no one really sucks, some people just don't care to put so much time and effort in their work and so what? get over it, get a life and concentrate on some positive things.

Stick it to theMan! He doesn't even deserve the attention for such innapropriate and immature behavior. Let's let this thread die a quick and painless death.

i suck, and i managed to get through the cracks... and then i realised everyone else sucks in their own right too.

40%er and proud of it.

who`s the man?

Actually some of the most famous architects have been poor students.

Everyone is a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Graciously,

theMan

except theMan clearly. He is a jaded, hateful piece of hail.

i want to see the man's work, I am not so sure he doesn't suck himself.

I'm diversifying my client base, by exploring some new styles.

doesn't look like theMan has any real balls.

nice balls. i mean, er, uh, hails.

Hey theMan, you should suck MyDick

j said

"but we can't judge bad students? who creates all of this bad architecture? the same sucky students that 'the man' is talking about, who went on to become sucky architects."

judge whoever/whatever the fu#k you want. those of us with a little more class will keep the whole "graduate school is for learning" thing top secret. admissions committees tend to accept students with potential. the real tragedy? some bonafide d#$chebags "slip by admissions" and ruin it for everyone else. So...........................

If you're a d#$chebag, don't go to a good graduate school just because they made the mistake of letting you slip by admissions. It just pisses everyone else off.


Thanks,
Everyone Else

thenewold -

"This attitude is in direct contradiction to architecture's humanitarian, socialist, and artistic motivations. It's nothing less than a plague on architecture."

First off, if you think good architecture is motivated by humanitarian and socialist reasons you're in serious trouble, you are in fact, the person that sucks and slipped past the admissions committee. If you actually cared about helping people, you wouldn't do architecture, you'd either go do aid work in africa and donate your time, or go into banking and donate your money. But instead, I'm pretty sure you just care about "appearing" to help people, so you probably talk some shit about how you make tree hugging buildings and the help poor people, but in fact you have no effect on the problems.

On another note, "the man was obvously somewhat sarcastic in his responses calling himself a c) stuck up fuckin pretentious asshole, so everyone taking him completely seriously needs something better to do with their time.

However, I agree with "J" why can't we judge shitty architects and students? they are obviously out there, most of them suck, and pretending that everyone has potential is crap. You can tell who in your class is completely worthless.

"the man's" comment about the snowflake is perfect.

theMan, j, Ivan-

If the reincarnate of Jimi Hendrix was standing next to any of you, he wouldn't care to ask if you were experienced.

He would know you weren't.

ooh, that was unfair. you're entitled to freely post your opinions too. i hope one day you are able to see how kindness is the reflection of a secure person.

ciao!

Ivan,
First off, if you think good architecture is motivated by humanitarian and socialist reasons you're in serious trouble etc.

...
AFH

Design Like You Give a Damn

for example....

AP-

wow, so clever, as if I was unaware of these organizations. I'm not saying that those are not good intended organizations, simply that they are not good architecture. They are mostly simple sheds, which is what they should be, simple, cheap, easy to erect. But can you honestly say that if you truly want to help people you should put your effort into designing more little sheds? The problem is solved architecturally, its the economic and political problems that need to be solved, and if you think designing little sheds is going to solve that, you're in trouble, you need a dose of Tafuri


S-

are you joking, I know loads of people who are nice and insecure, and loads of people who are assholes and secure

"i hope one day you are able to see how kindness is the reflection of a secure person."

that's just something your mom told you to feel good about herself, she probably told you "true beauty is on the inside" also, right? or "you're special in your own unique way"

Ivan, your statements color you angry and narrow-minded.

There is no singular definition of what is "good" in Architecture.

On Tafuri - Capitalism can be humane.

No need to be an ass, attacking for the sake of the fight...

As you were.

Nice little fight.

Ivan makes some nice points on the effectiveness or lack thereof of architecture to solve problems outside architecture.

I would argue that architecture has very little effect on actual problems aside from the basic need of shelter.

However, AIH and others are architects acting together and using their skills to fulfill a need/solve a problem, not to design a showhome. The need dictates the architecture, and I am sure that there is ongoing work by AIH to develop need-based architecture that also has some architectural qualities aside from those qualities derived from fashion or the latest copy of domus. Architecture is not a static entity, and notions of good and bad are in constant flux and disagreement.

I have often, over the years, stated on this forum my frustration with the inability of many students in my company - mainly because they were letting the "team" down - I dont want to be associated with the inferior, although it did make me look even better in school...

However, the attitude in the original poster very much resides in the world of student academia, which as we are often reminded, counts for very little in the real world.

that's such a copout, just because there is no definition of what "good" architecture is doesn't mean you can't critique it. Are we supposed to simply accept all architecture to be good because there is no exact definition? if that is the case, Architecture for humanity's architecture is good like Walmart's big boxes are good. Cheap and easy to assemble. Only difference is Walmart realizes they can design it once and hit copy/paste.

Where as for AFH, a bunch of fancy architects thinking that they are helping people sit around and design the same shed slighty different each time because lets be honest, designing even crappy sheds is more fun than helping people, but if you design sheds, you can have fun and pretend you're helping people, the best of both worlds!!

above post intended for AP, not diabase

diabase, you mean AFH...

Yeah.. you're right.

"i hope one day you are able to see how kindness is the reflection of a secure person."

that's just something your mom told you


No, actually Ivan, that's just something I wrote to make you feel like an ass.