RPI, stay away from IIT.

dale, i think that you need to provide a little more info if you're going to make a blanket statement like that...

i don't have a whole lot of experience with either institution... regarding RPI, one of my good friends is a graduate of their program and she is very talented... also, i know that their dean is 1 of 4 finalists for the open dean position at georgia tech... so they could end up in a period of transition over the next few years...

regarding iit, i think that the program is improving from where is was a few years ago... they have a lot of excellent adjunct professors pulling from the deep pool of talent in chicago... that being said, i visited iit last year while considering their phd program and i decided that it wasn't the place for me...

if i had to rank the 4 schools that you have applied to... based on my personal impressions alone i'd put UT-A at the top, followed by usc, iit, and rpi...

ok phil, thanks for the heads up.

RPI!!

have to support my old school...but have fun in troy if you're from socal.....i went to rpi to get out of nys....goin from troy to la was a nice transition, but vice versa, you're in for some fun, some cold, gray fun...lol

or, you could just be a prick...

IIT's b.arch program is pretty strong. its intense, and as architphil mentioned, the profs available for studios represent virtually all the best young architects in chicago... jeanne gang, john ronan, martin felsen, ross wimer and more.
I dont know much about RPI's program but I am 100% happy with my choice to do my b.arch at iit. it has served me really well, and has made finding a job in chicago afterwards all the more easy. Its still a highly respected program in the community, with almost all of the prof's in contact with local principals. my office is litterally staffed by IIT because my bosses actively recruit there through contacts (former students and profs)

feel free to email me if you have any specific questions about IIT. i graduated recently so i have a good feel about the current climate there.

I had no idea that Jeanne Gang taught undergrad at IIT. The little I know of her, she seems to rock.

Is she a good teacher? I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between "rocking" and being a good teacher. I never had her. I had her partner and thought him an arrogant, self-centered prick who wasn't interested in teaching.

I have no idea if she is a good teacher or not, nor did I say she was a good teacher. I did say that she seems to rock. That's prevelant to me in her studio's work, her approach to design, and her push for innovation in terms of materials and technology. Whether she can voice her pedagogy is a different story.

thanks for all of your helpful comments!

sorry for merely making a blanket statement without giving much infor architphil...here it's my thought

I consider USC as my first choice because I think the program is well-rounded and LA is a great city (good weather too). I have visited their Watt Hall and I think the student works are quite good.

I wound consider Austin too if I am being accepted, because their program seems strong too, but I don't know much detail about it. The program is highly ranked in the "DI ranking" (but seems everyone says that the ranking is not a good reference). There's a thread in this forum says that UT's design is quite conservative, but I don't know if that's true or not. I am quite interested in their sustainable design workshops, and Austin seems to be a fun town too.

For IIT...it seems cool to study architecture in the crown hall, but seems there's lots of negative comment about the school and program (btw, I just heard that it's not good, but I never know why it's not good. Dale, why stay away from IIT?). The school seems still emphasize the Mies thing....and I am not sure if it's good to stick with Mies' idea so much nowadays (designs that people make today don't look like that way anymore I think)

Lastly...I've heard that RPI is a great design school (it was ranked as one of the top 60 design schools by businessweek), and it's a decent school in overall. There are many great resources....but I don't know anything about the program. The student works that they show on their website are not that impressive. Also, the school has a specialize research in architectural lighting, but I am not sure if I would like it or not. Dale and Mister, can you please tell me a bit more about RPI's program? Is it more design oriented or structural oriented?

Personally, I would like to get in a program that is more progressive in design. However, seems that none of these 4 schools have a emphasis on that. Initially I really wanted to apply to sci-arc, but my family wanted me to graduate from a "university" with good name (I am an international student), and that's why I gave up eventually.

Actually I have also applied to UCLA and Uva for their 4-year pre-professional program, but personally I like the 5 year program a bit more, because the 5 year program's curriculum seems more "complete". But the 4-year program would enable me to graduate much earlier although I still need to take the master (my family would be very happy about that).
There are so many factors that I have to consider that make me really confused
but at this moment I want to figure out which 5 year program I've applied is the best before choosing between the 5 or 4+2

p.s. my opinions about the schools might be a bit naive because I have never had any architecture education....correct me if I'm wrong

word on the street is ms gang's about as good a prof as she is a principle...

LA sucks.

rizo--

ill talk about your IIT point for a bit just for your reference. In regards to following the 'Mies thing' this is both true and un-true. The first 2 years of IIT's program are largely based on the concepts of Mies' original curriculum. CONCEPT is the crucial word. There is no stylistic agenda pushed, and you should not expect to see Miesian modernism everywhere you look. As a matter of fact, Miesian design was so prevelant (studying at crown, eating in the commons, classes in perlstein etc etc) that students actively pursued updating the ideas rather than copying them.

If you will be starting in year 1 of the b.arch, you can expect to build things. Produce lots of models and complete full scale construction details. There is a lot of emphasis on understanding the thought process of detailing, much of which comes from classic miesian ideas. This is more about, like i said, the thought process of detailing with steel, masonry and timber and concrete. After you complete the 'core years' (2/3) when you'll likely do 1 project a semester using the mentioned materials, 4th and 5th years are completely elective. You'll have 12-15 (maybe more) studios to choose from and can select your studies based on prof's, project of subject.

for instance my elective studios were focused on...

innovative long span structures

a proposal for a new athletic center on campus (got stuck in this one unfortunately)

creating prototypical buildings or building systems which could be easily reproduced in any location.

and lastly i did a monastery. which was just fun, nothing academic about it.

along the way i also took a lot of secondary arch electives which included history, theory, sociology, and physical computing.

Dont let people convince you IIT is a rigid school, it is absolutely NOT that way anymore. The only real structure exists in the first 2 years when you're being taught the fundamentals. After 2nd year, you can get away with anything you want as long as it has merit. You will get ripped, as you should, for drawing things you dont understand, cant explain or could never build.

ps, chicago kicks the crap ouf of LA..

Heres some info on RPI's undergrad program for you. from a current 4th year in the program.

The school currently seems to be in transition from a practical building slash history theory approach to more of an experimental research and design atmosphere.

My experience here began with two years of core studios and history theory courses. The first year studios focus on design and creative thought process and slowly begin to draw in architectural implications, which become the main issues in your second year.

The third and fourth years are your choice of usually 6-8 different studios each semester, focusing on the breadth of the spectrum or architecture, and then your fifth year which i am getting ready for at this point is your own interest driven faculty advised thesis.

In my opinion the strongest aspect of this school, is the ability to take courses and especially studios that pertain to where you want to go with your degree in architecture. My time here has been very computer driven, my interests are in parametric modeling and advanced computational design, some of my peers experiences have focused more on social programmatic driven design or an all out approach to ecological design, materials and conditions.

Troy is terrible though, and the college outside of architecture leaves a lot to be desired also. But Albany's right next door (if thats any consolation) and there are studios in Rome, Shanghai, Delhi, and in the offices of SOM in Manhattan.

hope that helps, good luck

seriously, IIT just SOUNDS lame from these descriptions. after hearing all this, (if i was looking for schools) i would stay FAR away from it.

one last thing from your post rizo i forgot to address...

studying in crown is amazing, if you ask most IIT kids, they will all say the same. Its open, and vibrant. And as it is an arch school, it is always busy. Makes the late nights a million times more bearable when you can hear the rustling of students working right along with you.

As for Dale's comments, i would be apprehensive to accept negative or even positive comments from people without their clarifications. You can see that Dale has spoken negatively of IIT on many occasions but has done so in only blank or generic terms. Ignore him, there are intelligent people who are willing to honestly discuss all the programs you mention; both their positive and negative qualities.

I am a recent RPI alum and I would have to say that the program is excellent in my opinion. It's a good combination of research and experimentation with practicality and technical knowledge. There are many opportunities to focus more on one or the other, depending on your interests, and being that the school has such a technical focus, the software and technology at your fingertips is a great benefit.

And I have only been at my job for only about 5 months, but already I have been given more responsibility than other coworkers that are 2-3 years out of school. I have been told by a number of people that they are surprised that I have so much knowledge for being just out of school and it has defintely helped me to push my career forward.

The school is going through a transitional period at the moment, there was a bit of that going on when I first started, and if anything, it's made the program stronger by creating a lot more diversity within the architecture school and campus as a whole.

ok, to back up my comments; every IIT grad i've ever hired is the most incompetent architect ever. they seriously don't know anything, and the firm spends a great deal of time educating them....

that sounds, perhaps, more like a problem with bad choices in hiring than a common IIT flaw, as it runs counter to reality in the rest of the city.

yeah, i guess so. i don't speak for the entire city, like you do.

haha, i dont speak for the whole city. You're experience just runs contrary to what i have experienced, what my friends have experienced, what my class mates have experienced, and what the preponderance of employers have experienced, given that (though i know we dont believe in rankings) IIT was recently ranked in the top 15 arch schools nation wide (top 3 in the Mid west) by arch employers.

well, how many places have you worked? how long have you been out of that place? 3 out of 5 iit grads that we interview/hire, require serious training on the part of the firm, and it slows it down....also, if you 'don't believe in rankings' why would you go and quote them?

ive been out of school long enough to see that the majority of my classmates have had immediate success, and i bring up the rankings because obviously they come from somewhere. They are subjective of course, but lend credence to my assertion that IIT graduates who are poorly prepared is the exception rather than the rule.
At this point though, im done arguing about this... i cant really take you seriously

IIT served me very well, and the same would be said of the large majority of the people who graduated with me recently.

well, i wouldn't hire you only because you blindly defend any negative comment and cannot take any criticisim.

thank god dale, because for a person who claims to do 'hiring' i cant find one thoughtful negative comment or criticism... frankly i think your making it up.

"iit sounds lame"

"the most incompetent architects ever"

youre clearly a troll

this is the greatest conversation in the history of the world

When I went to IIT in the early to mid 90s, this was the case for many of us. I don't know what the case is now. I think some very good people teach there now (and did in the part.) The real weakness at IIT was the studio system and a lot of dead weight faculty that didn't do anything. Again, that was over 10 years ago.

A strong argument can be made for going to a strong community college where you get attention with creating and drawing building sections and learn the basics of drafting. So the person is on the right track. That's good. You'll know how to detail a wall section whether or not IIT shows you.

As far as a professor "rocking," that goes in the hero worship file. There are really good teachers that can teach you to think and use materials in very creative ways. Then there is the stararchitect thing. Why not just read a magazine article? Really good teachers and celebrity architects rarely are one in the same.

i never understand why IIT gets debated with such fervor here. Seems more so than any other school, besides the big names and the ivey's, IIT gets ripped and praised, but there seem to be almost no middle ground.

whoo, third tier school pissing match!

that's because iit is crap.

i go to rpi, 3rd year currently. rpi is in a very big state of transition, whether balfour (the dean) leaves or not. with balfour here, he's pushed parametric computing A TON. we have a few professors that are huge into it, and theyre even starting to integrate it into the core studios.

if you are interesting in computer/scripting driven architecture go to this school

i personally, am not. i took a studio last semester where i was forced to learn scripting. i now understand the true potential and raw power of scripting but i also understand one very, VERY important thing about scripting and this school in general (maybe architecture today)

people get carried away in their hedonistic desires. i.e. if this shit looks cool i like it. that is a HUGE problem with some teachers/studios here, where throughout the entire semester youre working on a solid foundation, then at the last month the spring on you "oh hey make this into architecture" (which yes, is assumed but when learning scripting youre just trying to get it to work for your building) but then in the end all that matters is if it looks cool. its bullshit. i'm glad im done with that semester (though it was my best and favorite semester yet)

flat out, troy sucks. without a car its even worse. rpi's architectural school has (apparantly) moved very fast away from history and theory to pure design (much like grahm said, which goes with my if it looks cool it is good thought).

it is largely hit or miss with verticals you get (3rd and 4th year, where you choose). the core studios are very good, and are only getting better and better each year. with verticals most people get their first or second choice and there will always be at least one studio you really want to take, but for example this semester there was a studio no one wanted to take so some people got the shaft.

we're getting a lot of new professors. some are good, some are bad, some are fucking amazing.

rpi is not very practice oriented, which i think is fine for school but also has its drawbacks.

holz.box: i'm interested in your comment, but based on it i say this. we are ACTIVELY trying to compete with tier two and even tier one schools (if rpi is tier three then what schools are tier one???)

we have a great staff foundation (the old timers and big ups). unfortunately the god of professional practice just left, the year before i could take our design development studio :(

ummmm thats pretty much all i can think of. studio's are 100% what you make of them. i have a project due on monda and i'm the only one in my studio right now (a room with 3 studios, no one here)

i feel like what grahm said is slightly dulled down and un-biased, but what he said is true, it is (for me), and can be a really great place to pursue areas that you are interested in. to get a broad architectural knowledge it may not be the #1 school

I think I know what I want already
thanks so much for all the comments...

i miss 'i love ny pizza'.....thats the only thing troy has goin for it.....la pizza sucks.....