2008 DI Ranking

College Majors Architecture Majors
1

<p>I found this online so thought I’d share in case it’s not already here. (I searched and couldn’t find it). I’m hoping this is right because I’m too cheap to pay for the real thing when my son is already pretty well set with his undergrad list. If this is right, just curious, what happened to Rice? Not to get into a big discussion of rankings, that’s been done here before. But, specifically, he just added Rice back on to his list, is there something Rice specific we should know (aside from the fact that rankings are biased)?</p>

<p>Subject: From Design Intelligence</p>

<p>Top 10 Architecture Programs</p>

<p>Undergraduate</p>

<p>1 Virginia Tech</p>

<p>2 Cornell University</p>

<p>3 Syracuse University</p>

<p>4 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo</p>

<p>5 University of Cincinnati</p>

<p>6 University of Texas at Austin</p>

<p>7 Carnegie Mellon University</p>

<p>8 Kansas State University</p>

<p>9 Pennsylvania State University</p>

<p>9 Pratt Insitute</p>

<p>Graduate</p>

<p>1 Harvard University</p>

<p>2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology</p>

<p>3 Columbia University</p>

<p>3 Cornell University</p>

<p>5 Virginia Tech</p>

<p>5 Washington University in St. Louis</p>

<p>7 University of Cincinnati</p>

<p>8 University of Washington</p>

<p>8 University of California, Berkeley</p>

<p>10 Clemson University</p>

<p>10 University of Texas at Austin</p>

2

<p>Well I think DI’s ranking system is flawed that it is almost worthless as a guide on architecture schools. Unlike USNWR, DI uses a practitioner ranking system as its means of determining rankings. There are several problems associated with this system. First off, schools that have rather large programs in terms of students will invariably have an edge over other smaller programs that produce less graduates. Cornell, which until two years ago, produced about 80-100 graduates a year- definitely had/has and edge— I am guessing that V-tech produces a lot of graduates as well. The second obvious problem with the ranking system is that it works on a national scale. This means that schools like Cornell or even Rice with rather largely popular and well heard names will receive high marks based on this condition alone. Whether a firm that is participating in the survey has ever had a graduate or not had a graduate from that school isn’t fundamental in the ranking. Also, because architecture is more a regional practice than a national one, national practitioner surveys have little meaning. Then there is the problem with education. Why does one go to an architecture school? So that they can have a degree which looks good to firms- I think not. An architectural education shouldn’t be ranked on that condition if it is the quality of the program that one is interested in. Finally, the very fact that DI caters to large firms means that this ranking system is only good if one wants to become a corporate architect- but irrelevant if one wants to do anything more than that. For all of these reasons and probably a few more, DI’s rankings should play little weight in anyone’s decision.-
As for the fact that Rice has dropped off— I would not draw any meaning out of it-- the schools on this list range a good 20 places for whatever reason.</p>

<p>PS- I felt like ranting…</p>

3

<p>Tzar, while I agree with quite a bit of your reply and I do wish there was more than one assessment of architecture programs (if there are others maybe it would be nice for “those in the know” to post links, names, etc. for potential students/parents to see), it was helpful to have at least some initial information/feedback from DI when we started looking. As you said, I think it is important for people to remember to use it as a piece of information and not overemphasize its importance in making a decision about schools.</p>

<p>It is amazing, though, that every one of the schools that my son looked into (and almost all were on this list) touted the 2008 -and prior years’- rankings either on their websites or in mailings as a form of “look at us- we’re ranked __ in DesignIntelligence!” It’s definitely used as a recruiting tool by them.</p>

4

<p>How can Yale not be on the graduate list?</p>

5

<p>It has a small program. Also notable among the missing: Princeton, which has a tiny, incredibly selective program. A great illustration of one of Tzar’s points…</p>

<p>I too would like to see more factors included, as well as some weighting given to practitioner rankings (to compensate for geographical and size factors), such as facility quality/access, architectural context, abroad program or community studio availability, faculty quality or publication stature, exam pass rates, employment statistics… so many other factors.</p>

6

<p>I graduated from Columbia and then went off to LA to join my husband to be. It was very, very difficult to find a job there, though I would have found one easily in NYC. One should seriously consider studying architecture in the town you want to spend the rest of your life in, unless you plan to be working for a hotshot international firm.</p>

7

<p>There reason that the rankings have changed is that a couple of years ago they changed the survey and expanded it beyond just professionals. I know that they have included 75 Deans, and another group which I can’t remember (students? faculty?). Did you get the full survey or just the summary? I think there is a lot more backup information in the full survey.</p>

<p>Nobody should pick a school based on a survey, but it is not a bad place to start when narrowing down your choices. It breaks the top ranked schools down by region, strength (design, technology, planning, etc.), and programs offered. When my daughter was looking for a school we used it to give us a perspective, but the final choices were based on visits. I had lunch with the Dean of a school which did not get a high ranking, and she went ballistic when I mentioned it. Nobody likes a low ranking.</p>

<p>rick</p>