Front row: Caroline Crandall, Abel-Diego Romero
Second row: Nithando Thandiwe, Jordan Chazin, Rachel Dawn,
Mae Ryan, Mikal Brewer, and Ben Burdick
Missing: Erin Bell and Rachel Griego
Additional photos from the Senior dinner celebration, June 2009
Showing posts with label Grad Spotlight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grad Spotlight. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Class of 2009
Front row: Caroline Crandall, Abel-Diego Romero
Second row: Nithando Thandiwe, Jordan Chazin, Rachel Dawn,
Mae Ryan, Mikal Brewer, and Ben Burdick
Missing: Erin Bell and Rachel Griego
Additional photos from the Senior dinner celebration, June 2009
Monday, June 9, 2008
Fremont Camp Room-Senior Dinner 08
Freemont Camp Room
Originally uploaded by Stanford Architecture
Senior Dinner McCarthur Park June 08 . For all photos in this set see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanfordarchitecture/2561411227/in/set-72157605500819000/
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Grad Spotlight – Katie
News from Katie – Stanford grad currently in the MIT graduate architecture program
…..as far as applying to architecture schools, i would say that hands-down the most important elements of the application package are portfolios and essays. i don’t know about every school, but most of the ones i applied to were looking for evidence of creativity and critical thought. although architectural experience was probably not a bad thing, most of the people in my level 1 class didn’t have any architectural experience beforehand, and the school certainly wasn’t looking for proof of knowing AutoCAD in the application.
when i applied, i included mostly artwork in my portfolio - i’d been a studio art major also at stanford, and i kept up my artwork while i was working after school (at the same time i was applying to architecture school, i was also applying to MFA programs). i really don’t think i could have gotten into architecture school without the strong art background. also, i think many schools make public the portfolios of admitted students, so go ahead and ask to see them.
i think having worked for a couple of years after Stanford was really valuable. when i graduated, i really didn’t know what i was going to do, so i didn’t want to jump into grad school. i think this was a really important step personally for me, and i also think that in the end it helped my chances for getting into grad school and also keeping grad school in perspective now that i’m here. as far as applying, it also helped to have specific reasons for being interested in architecture - and those weren’t reasons i would have known right after college, they were reasons i learned while working in planning.
so really, i would definitely recommend taking some time to work and also seriously building a portfolio - i’d even go so far as to say that if you don’t have already some body of creative work that you could shape up to put in a portfolio (i mean, if you’re starting from scratch with nothing) then architecture school might not be the right choice (at least MIT).
hope that helps!
Katie
…..as far as applying to architecture schools, i would say that hands-down the most important elements of the application package are portfolios and essays. i don’t know about every school, but most of the ones i applied to were looking for evidence of creativity and critical thought. although architectural experience was probably not a bad thing, most of the people in my level 1 class didn’t have any architectural experience beforehand, and the school certainly wasn’t looking for proof of knowing AutoCAD in the application.
when i applied, i included mostly artwork in my portfolio - i’d been a studio art major also at stanford, and i kept up my artwork while i was working after school (at the same time i was applying to architecture school, i was also applying to MFA programs). i really don’t think i could have gotten into architecture school without the strong art background. also, i think many schools make public the portfolios of admitted students, so go ahead and ask to see them.
i think having worked for a couple of years after Stanford was really valuable. when i graduated, i really didn’t know what i was going to do, so i didn’t want to jump into grad school. i think this was a really important step personally for me, and i also think that in the end it helped my chances for getting into grad school and also keeping grad school in perspective now that i’m here. as far as applying, it also helped to have specific reasons for being interested in architecture - and those weren’t reasons i would have known right after college, they were reasons i learned while working in planning.
so really, i would definitely recommend taking some time to work and also seriously building a portfolio - i’d even go so far as to say that if you don’t have already some body of creative work that you could shape up to put in a portfolio (i mean, if you’re starting from scratch with nothing) then architecture school might not be the right choice (at least MIT).
hope that helps!
Katie
Grad Spotlight – Arch Design 05-06- Julia Hu
News from Julia ‘06 – from the first graduating class of Architectural Design in CEE
Life after graduating from Architectural Design has been productive and practically driven. I am now a CEM coterm (Construction Engineering Management one year masters degree at Stanford) concentrating on sustainability and finance. This program allows you so much flexibility to sculpt your set of classes to prepare you for your goals. I hope to find that one great company that combines environmental consciousness, aesthetics, development, and social equity so that I can start out with an exciting job.
There are a couple of things that I am taking advantage of, and it might be helpful to you as well. Since we are still curious young students, it is the best time to seek out help and information from mentors. Sometimes, knowing that I had 3.5 years of architecture school ahead of me was a large enough safety net to not make myself the loud student. But after I decided on the CEM program, my calm state of mind changed to a determined one. These few months, I have been frenetically exploring the world of the built environment through interviewing everyone from Judy Corbett to a REIT analyst. I also got to volunteer as an intern for a nonprofit organization SPUR to help brainstorm how SF could incentivize green roofs.
There’s also a great program that I want to make a plug for. The Stanford Graduate Student Initiative has started putting out great summer programs (and free!) to bridge the disciplines. I got to join a group of Stanford PhDs and med school students in the Business School to learn about entrepreneurship for a month, and I participated in a weeklong “Radical Design Thinking” charrette to help me become a better designer. Much recommended. Good luck guys!
As of September 2007, Julia Hu has started working for Mogavero and Notestine Architects in Sacramento. Based on her job search goals stated above in which she sought to combine aesthetics, environmental consciousness,development, and social equity, it appears that Mogavero and Notestine http://www.mognot.com is a great choice because they are an architectural, planning, and development services firm.
Life after graduating from Architectural Design has been productive and practically driven. I am now a CEM coterm (Construction Engineering Management one year masters degree at Stanford) concentrating on sustainability and finance. This program allows you so much flexibility to sculpt your set of classes to prepare you for your goals. I hope to find that one great company that combines environmental consciousness, aesthetics, development, and social equity so that I can start out with an exciting job.
There are a couple of things that I am taking advantage of, and it might be helpful to you as well. Since we are still curious young students, it is the best time to seek out help and information from mentors. Sometimes, knowing that I had 3.5 years of architecture school ahead of me was a large enough safety net to not make myself the loud student. But after I decided on the CEM program, my calm state of mind changed to a determined one. These few months, I have been frenetically exploring the world of the built environment through interviewing everyone from Judy Corbett to a REIT analyst. I also got to volunteer as an intern for a nonprofit organization SPUR to help brainstorm how SF could incentivize green roofs.
There’s also a great program that I want to make a plug for. The Stanford Graduate Student Initiative has started putting out great summer programs (and free!) to bridge the disciplines. I got to join a group of Stanford PhDs and med school students in the Business School to learn about entrepreneurship for a month, and I participated in a weeklong “Radical Design Thinking” charrette to help me become a better designer. Much recommended. Good luck guys!
As of September 2007, Julia Hu has started working for Mogavero and Notestine Architects in Sacramento. Based on her job search goals stated above in which she sought to combine aesthetics, environmental consciousness,development, and social equity, it appears that Mogavero and Notestine http://www.mognot.com is a great choice because they are an architectural, planning, and development services firm.
Grad Spotlight – Jackie
News from Jackie - Current senior at U. of PENN, Master of Architecture Program
Getting into architecture school is not always (in fact, rarely) about how good you are as an *architectural* designer. One of the things that my instructors and professors at Penn have told me about the admissions process is that it’s about the kinds of potential that they see in the portfolios of applicants. Just because an applicant has a large array of architecture projects doesn’t mean he/she will get in. I have seen a number of portfolios from my classmates, and most of them are non-architectural designs in majority - sculpture, drawings, graphic design, etc. are all welcome. It seems to be that they are looking for students to have an eye for space, composition, and of course, general visual aesthetics.
The curriculum at Penn and at the other big-name architecture schools is a mix of theoretical and practical. With the exception of the core construction classes, you will never be prompted to do anything like window detail drawings. look at it this way - you go to school to learn how to expand your design sensibilities and you go to work to learn how to make things practical/buildable. There are people who really resist the theory part of architecture school, and if you don’t keep an open mind, it’s tough to enjoy yourself in these programs. That said, there is also consideration given to how real a project can be. After all, you can’t convince a jury that what you are doing is “architecture” if it seems like there is no way that it could possible exist in real life.
Pedagogically, there is a current trend in architecture academia going toward generative designs, the specifics of which I won’t go into because it would take some time to explain. But basically, generative design often use mathematics and computer science to come up with interesting patterns and forms. The trouble people run into with generative design (in my opinion, at least) is that it’s visually very exciting, but often spatially lacking. But that is not to say that if you go to architecture school, you’ll be required to do this kind of design. It’s just good to be aware of it, because there always seems to be students who are completely surprised by (and sometimes dismayed at) this trend. Also, in general, there is less and less hand-drawing, and more and more computer drawing.
In general, the first year (or 1 1/2 years) is very structured. At PennDesign, everyone takes five courses and one design studio each semester. The required courses are construction, environmental systems, structures, visual studies, and history/theory. Some of them are meant to help with the licensing exam in the future. And while the core courses don’t require nearly the time or the brain power that an average undergraduate course does, studio alone will more than make up for it. Design studios are the most time-intensive - the stories about architecture students staying in studio for days at a time are not made up at all, because there are times when that kind of thing happens. If you love designing, you will have no problem spending the time and energy in studio. But I often find that there are people who don’t have their hearts in it, and the whole experience just turns out to be a waste of time (and tuition money).
I would encourage anyone who is thinking about architecture school to evaluate his/her motivation. It is certainly not for everyone. I came to Penn directly out of Stanford, and I felt that I was ready to tackle it. Some people may want to take some time off and work at an architecture office to see if the field is fit for them. And some people, like me, may want to dive right into it because they felt like they hadn’t gotten enough of it yet.
–
I realize that there will likely be plenty other questions, so feel free to have your students email me if they want more advice/answers. I may not be able to provide all the answers, but now that I’m in my final year, I think I can at least guide them in the right direction. If they want to see some of my work, they can take a look at my portfolio. If they want to see more student work from Penn, there is the student work archive.
Getting into architecture school is not always (in fact, rarely) about how good you are as an *architectural* designer. One of the things that my instructors and professors at Penn have told me about the admissions process is that it’s about the kinds of potential that they see in the portfolios of applicants. Just because an applicant has a large array of architecture projects doesn’t mean he/she will get in. I have seen a number of portfolios from my classmates, and most of them are non-architectural designs in majority - sculpture, drawings, graphic design, etc. are all welcome. It seems to be that they are looking for students to have an eye for space, composition, and of course, general visual aesthetics.
The curriculum at Penn and at the other big-name architecture schools is a mix of theoretical and practical. With the exception of the core construction classes, you will never be prompted to do anything like window detail drawings. look at it this way - you go to school to learn how to expand your design sensibilities and you go to work to learn how to make things practical/buildable. There are people who really resist the theory part of architecture school, and if you don’t keep an open mind, it’s tough to enjoy yourself in these programs. That said, there is also consideration given to how real a project can be. After all, you can’t convince a jury that what you are doing is “architecture” if it seems like there is no way that it could possible exist in real life.
Pedagogically, there is a current trend in architecture academia going toward generative designs, the specifics of which I won’t go into because it would take some time to explain. But basically, generative design often use mathematics and computer science to come up with interesting patterns and forms. The trouble people run into with generative design (in my opinion, at least) is that it’s visually very exciting, but often spatially lacking. But that is not to say that if you go to architecture school, you’ll be required to do this kind of design. It’s just good to be aware of it, because there always seems to be students who are completely surprised by (and sometimes dismayed at) this trend. Also, in general, there is less and less hand-drawing, and more and more computer drawing.
In general, the first year (or 1 1/2 years) is very structured. At PennDesign, everyone takes five courses and one design studio each semester. The required courses are construction, environmental systems, structures, visual studies, and history/theory. Some of them are meant to help with the licensing exam in the future. And while the core courses don’t require nearly the time or the brain power that an average undergraduate course does, studio alone will more than make up for it. Design studios are the most time-intensive - the stories about architecture students staying in studio for days at a time are not made up at all, because there are times when that kind of thing happens. If you love designing, you will have no problem spending the time and energy in studio. But I often find that there are people who don’t have their hearts in it, and the whole experience just turns out to be a waste of time (and tuition money).
I would encourage anyone who is thinking about architecture school to evaluate his/her motivation. It is certainly not for everyone. I came to Penn directly out of Stanford, and I felt that I was ready to tackle it. Some people may want to take some time off and work at an architecture office to see if the field is fit for them. And some people, like me, may want to dive right into it because they felt like they hadn’t gotten enough of it yet.
–
I realize that there will likely be plenty other questions, so feel free to have your students email me if they want more advice/answers. I may not be able to provide all the answers, but now that I’m in my final year, I think I can at least guide them in the right direction. If they want to see some of my work, they can take a look at my portfolio. If they want to see more student work from Penn, there is the student work archive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)