<p>I am a 19 year old international student from Singapore, graduated from school (equivalent to Grade 12 in the US) with UK A levels, taking a gap year to work before applying for US university admissions for next fall. While looking up on universities offering accredited degrees, a few questions have began floating in my mind. </p>
<p>Presently I am considering to pursue an architectural education to become a practicing architect in the future. My interest in hands-on craft work, for instance festive card-making and origami, during my early years has since developed into an interest in the design of buildings, the urban plans of housing estates (involving blocks of apartments and amenities such as parks, playgrounds, carparks, and greenery) and how ingenious design and spaces can both influence human interactions and activities, as well as impact the environment. I know for certain that i am not looking for an Art degree, i would say that I am more of a problem solver than an expressive person. However, I have not taken any art or design-related courses in school. The focus throughout my education was mostly on more critical skills such as English, math, the sciences and humanities. Thus, with regards to the portfolio required for most admissions, I have recently started to pick up drawing skills on my own, and began creating pieces of work. And admittedly, my sketching skills are poor, although I believe I may possess other relevant qualities such as spacial awareness and perceptiveness. What I want to ask here is, are my motivations aligned enough to pursue an education in architecture? There is a lot of self-doubt as to whether architecture is suitable for me, or rather, if I am suited to read architecture, as compared to perhaps the majority of other applying students who would have had a strong background in art or design, who possess strong relevant skills as well. (Finding out more through university summer programmes or internships at architecture firms have not been possible.)</p>
<p>In addition, browsing through the student works from various schools, I came across different concepts and ideas, some of which have puzzled me. For instance, students from Cooper Union had this as part of a course brief: </p>
<p>"Social Space: An embodied experience of representation.</p>
<p>5A. From absorbing to projecting: project the film. Turn on the two projectors and continue to absorb footage with the cameras, at the end of each day add the days footage to the projecting film.</p>
<p>5B. From projecting to absorbing: absorb the room.</p>
<p>Using descriptive geometry and perspective the entire first year drawing studio is absorbed into the cylinder. Each student locates their desk within the cylindrical picture plane and constructs the intersection of the cylinder with the axonometric constructed from each individual montage mounted on the desk.</p>
<p>The representation is the social space</p>
<p>Working individually within a group, construct the following drawings:</p>
<p>(1) Locate your individual axonometric projection on the surface of the cylinder.</p>
<p>(2) Construct four critical vertical sections and one critical horizontal section of the first year studio space.</p>
<p>These drawings are cut through the cylinder and are absorbing the individual specified axonometric. Scale: 2"=1’ (3) Two critical vertical sections and one critical horizontal section cutting through the cylinder. These sections locate the individual specified axonometric. Scale: 6"=1’</p>
<p>Site/Interventions</p>
<p>Working together as a class, each group according to its self-defined area of inquiry will LOCATE A BODY OR BODIES within the site. Each intervention will create a situation of passage and inhabitation within the site.</p>
<p>The interventions must anticipate passage of light, passage of the vision, passage of the body. These interventions are relational; they at once crystallize the existing conditions and propose architectonic responses anticipating a body or bodies within the site."</p>
<p>Taken from: [Selected</a> Undergraduate Design Studio Projects–Architectonics Fall 2011 | Cooper Union](<a href=“http://cooper.edu/architecture/selected-undergraduate-design-studio-projects-architectonics-fall-2011]Selected”>Selected Undergraduate Design Studio Projects--Architectonics Fall 2011 | The Cooper Union)</p>
<p>Looking through the brief as well as the end-result, I have not been able to comprehend even to the smallest degree what they aim to convey (read - illogical). In comparison, looking at the student works from Carnegie Mellon has made more sense to me, such as configuration of spaces (link: which is also why it is on my list of schools I intend to apply for. My question would be, how common are such abstract (really, really abstract!) content present in architectural education today? If I am not able to comprehend such, would this mean that I am not suited to read the degree? Is there any action I can take to mitigate this issue? </p>
<p>To find out more information on the different universities, I have had to begin my search based on the top schools ranked by Design Intelligence, those that offer accredited programmes. Reading through the different threads here as well as other forums, I’ve gotten a major information overload and too great a scope to handle. In addition, reading through the course briefs of the schools, they generally convey the same message that they prepare student for the profession by providing a holistic, well-rounded education. Is there a better way to look for and discern schools that suit me in the US? </p>
<p>I am looking for schools that have a good balance of both theoretical concepts of space, ethics, and practical, up-to-date aspects of technology, sustainability and design. For instance, taken from CMU, “What is unique at Carnegie Mellon is its commitment to architectural design excellence linked to environmental, social and technological innovations and its strong link to graduate research in architecture.”, that which seems to closely align with what I am looking for in my future architectural education. I understand that art-related skill sets are essential, but I also want focus on more underlying analyses in critical thinking and design processes. </p>
<p>I heard that SciARC is mostly about the drawing/design/abstract aspect, while RISD seems so too from its strong focus on art and design. Both Rice and Syracuse seem to have generic and similar, but balanced programme introductions on their websites as well. Any opinions? (At this point in time, let me exclude other considerations such as location, student population demographics or cost for now.)</p>
<p>Any sharing or advise would be really, really appreciated.</p>