发表于 昨天 23:46 |只看该作者 Buddha 发表于 2013-3-26 07:49
parsons, Pratt, which is better?
Why is ucla the best in west? How about SCI-arc, according to DI.
S'发表于 昨天 23:46
UCLA资源好,师资也比较好,各方面都强过sciarc,尤其是march的项目。sciarc的本科很牛,march这几年学校资源也是越来越好,牛人也越来越多,但整体师资还是没有ucla好吧。比如thom mayne在ucla代课但在sciarc只当投资人.....
======================================================
Buddha 发表于 2013-3-26 22:49
parsons, Pratt, which is better?
Why is ucla the best in west? How about SCI-arc, according to DI.
MIT seems to be more and more interested in architecture and fabrication. Yale and MIT have the best technical resources for this type of research in the country, but MIT seems to make it a higher priority in the design studios. At Yale, there are many avenues to explore these interests, but it is more in seminars than in studio. My impression is that MIT has made strong connections with other departments, such as the media lab, engineering, etc., where architectural research across disciplines is more common. MIT does have a strong history and theory component if you are also able to take classes at Harvard. Though I don't know if that is common.
As for the studios, MIT is a much smaller school, with fewer options. My partner did an advanced studio there last year and she was one of only three choices. Yale has about ten each term.
With Yale, you probably have a greater variety of choices both in studio and other classes. You begin with a required urban design studio, and then the last three are your options. However, the studios are usually more standard building-oriented or urban design studios, though with some very impressive critics. The architecture school building is amazing place to learn, and the relationships between faculty and students is very close, closer than any school I know of. Also, the dean is very engaged in the school. You can craft your studio experience to your interests.
MArch I開始三學期非常非常累。後面會好些,加上很多RA/TA,接觸新東西的途徑和機會其實還是很大的。由於是以research起家,所以設計-研究特別是多學科交叉方面遠遠超越很多學校。對新技術新理論新建造方法很重視,做很多實驗性的工作。我不確定LZ說的結構課偏是什麽概念,但我瞭解到的是結構課曾經和土木一起上,對純建築學背景的學生可能會有難度。但難並不代表偏。歐洲學校比如ETH也是以工程師為驅動力的。同時學生還可以去修結構或者規劃或者其他專業的certification。(當然要看個人能力,我知道的是有一些前輩修了,而且沒有延長學制。)
在那封邮件里面的有几个地方个人感觉有点误导:
MIT seems to be more and more interested in architecture and fabrication.
提到MIT的fabrication大家最多的想到的是MEDIA LAB,和一些SMARCH的小组(它们确实很cross displine)。但是,实际上就MARCH而言,这两个项目和march的课程设置真心关系不大。就MARCH 课程设计本身而言,尤其是设计课,还是较为正统的,比较关注建筑本身
that MIT has made strong connections with other departments, such as the media lab, engineering, etc., where architectural research across disciplines is more common.
MIT does have a strong history and theory component if you are also able to take classes at Harvard. Though I don't know if that is common.
这是说哈佛的理论很强,MIT可以去选那边的课,事实上这种情况非常少(我目前还没有见到有人这么做),在建筑学校呆过的基本都知道,必修就排的满满的,很少有人会跨校去选课,尤其还是理论课。
My partner did an advanced studio there last year and she was one of only three choices.
adv.studio不清楚,但是就前两年来说每学期三个critic,是随机分配而不是选的。所以并没有choice,并且这三个常常风格类似,而YALE的10个是可以真正的选择并且风格各异的
---------------------------------------