<p>I think it’s true that the architecture programs can vary in their emphasis on practical and theoretical. Although the top rated programs endeavor to be comprehensive and balanced, different schools channel their resources into different areas. The top programs are, however, more balanced than this Arch Daily article suggests, and schools that rate highly in design are not unaware of the importance of teaching to construction, collaboration and sustainability. Conversely, architecture is still a creative field and even the schools with a more practical tech or engineering bent, have to keep up the quality of their studios. </p>
<p>These various facets overlap and converge so it’s difficult to compartmentalize specific strengths without considering overall strength. The important take-aways from this survey are that students should make an effort learn about individual cultures when they make their application lists, and that good schools can be found all over the country.</p>
<p>What’s a bit misleading in this article is that the Ivy League schools referenced – Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton – only offer the M.Arch. (Cornell the only Ivy League school with the B.Arch isn’t mentioned.) USC and some of the other schools mentioned offer both the B.Arch and the M.Arch, and although Design Intelligence rates undergraduate and graduate programs separately, it’s not clear in this article how these sub-category votes were grouped.</p>
<p>This differentiation is important because most M.Arch students will have some architecture undergraduate experience. Thus the M.Arch focus on theory at the expense of practicality may be more valid than it would be in undergraduate programs where students are being exposed to architecture for the first time.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what exactly Arch Daily considers a “worrying trend.” Is it that the top rated schools are too design oriented and their graduates are not prepared to function in the real world? Is it that sustainability isn’t getting enough attention? Is it that students under-appreciate the collaborative nature of architecture? All are interesting and valid points of discussion, but despite the Design Intelligence poll, I think these issues already have a high level of visibility among architecture school leadership. </p>
<p>An interesting corollary to the design-construction dichotomy is the schools’ lack of emphasis on the licensing process. Few schools teach to the specific exams, and consequently many students don’t fully comprehend the amount of time, expense and energy that the licensing process entails. Once graduates enter the workforce they will understand the importance of licensing to their career advancement, and in many cases their firms will mentor them through the process, but the whole transition from student to intern to licensed architect seems less transparent than it could be.</p>
<p>NCARB has recently announced that they would like to see more coordination between the colleges and the licensing process. <a href=“http://www.ncarb.org/en/News-and-Events/News/2014/05-BODendorsesLTF.aspx”>http://www.ncarb.org/en/News-and-Events/News/2014/05-BODendorsesLTF.aspx</a>
The impact of such a move on architecture curricula would be significant, and I think a positive. </p>
<p>By comparison LEED certification is fairly simple to obtain. I don’t see a lack of interest in securing LEED certification as reflection of the school’s understanding of the importance of including sustainability in their curriculum, but rather a low level of information about the process.</p>