<p>I am quite interested in Notre Dame’s unique approach to modern architecture, and it would still be my first choice if the responses here are not complimentary. *How does the architectural community view Notre Dame’s classical and neo-urbanist pedagogy? *Is it looked down upon by other professionals and schools or what? *</p>
<p>At UVA, I spoke to the dean of architecture there and when I mentioned I did a summer program at Notre Dame, she was somewhat judgemental towards the classical focus of the school.</p>
<p>The lines between the modernists and classicists seem to have hardened in the last few years, and Notre Dame definitely falls into the classicist camp. That may explain the reaction you got from Dean Tanzer. There are really not a lot of prominent classical firms in the commercial arena, most are residential architects. However they all go recruit at Notre Dame.</p>
<p>I think there is value in studying the rules of classical composition, but I don’t know how big a handicap it will be when interviewing with more mainline practices. Perhaps after four years at Notre Dame you will only want to work in a classical firm, in which case you will be perfectly positioned.</p>
<p>I think the resistance to Notre Dame’s curriculum is not that it focuses on classical pedagogy, but that that it gives precedence to history over design and creativity. This may be more perception than reality, but ND continues to reinforce its niche positioning.</p>
<p>An understanding of classical heritage is hugely important to any architect and many cutting edge firms draw on classical elements in their designs, but a balance with creativity and a grasp of modernist theory is also essential.</p>
<p>There’s certainly no shortage of classical influence at Virginia’s architecture school, so they may be overcompensating in their emphasis on design.</p>
<p>It’s really is too bad that the profession is so split between these two camps. Things can be learned and respected from both the classical and modern traditions. However, it is also a shame that most architecture schools don’t put a larger emphasis on traditional composition and methods, which ND champions. Neoclassicism should not just be dismissed as reactionary or pastiche, because it is still more relevant in the 21st century than many think. Perhaps the next generation of architects can remedy the stormy climate that exists in the opinions of architects and the public on this issue!</p>