Carnegie Mellon University.
While on a roadtrip, I tweaked the route so it would include a brief stop in Pittsburgh so I could meet with the who’s whos of the Architecture department at CMU (one of my top choices for grad school).
From speaking with both the head of the School and the head of the program, I learned that the three year M. Arch would not even be launching until Fall 2020 at the earliest. They just hadn’t uploaded their website. This admission (about the update) was the first in a string of red flags: I do not want to be in a program that is an unreliable source of information. What if I had purchased flight tickets and gone out of my way, across the country, only to get told that my questions weren’t even relevant, due to administrative neglect??
Of the individuals I met with, one suggested I start in a different program within the school for one year, apply internally to add a degree, do two years in architecture (he explained that they were crafting an experimental curriculum that essentially made it impossible to take courses outside of the discipline for the first two years. This part of the program would be off campus, atelier-style), then juggle classes for both degrees in my final year and graduate with both an M. Arch and a tangential M.S. in four years (paying tuition for both, of course, because why not).
The other said that, first of all, he does not believe in a direct transition from undergraduate education to graduate school. While I understand where he is coming from, I am shifting from an unrelated background into the field in which I want to make a career. I do not want to waste time dallying around in limbo when that is essentially what I was already doing while pursuing alternate undergraduate degrees. This is not a general red flag, but one that demonstrated my ideological disagreements with the powers that be. Aside from just disagreeing with his beliefs, I simply don’t find this program to be one worth waiting for when there are so many other schools I could apply to that will allow me to start in the year I want. He also said that he does not believe in a comprehensive study abroad program (CMU offers studio courses that sometimes involve few-day long site visits overseas). In a three year program, spending a semester abroad is losing a crucial semester at the home institution. Another red flag. In a field such as architecture, what could be more crucial than a diverse and broad understanding of global design? Every bit of exposure to foreign climate and environmental concerns, as well as anthropological and artistic backgrounds and history, makes an architecture student into a better and more versatile architect. The statement also shows the school’s value of its own way of doing things over the experiential benefits for students. While from the school’s point of view, this is clearly desirable and logical, it is highly unpalatable to prospective students.
Other red flags popped up here and there. The alumni network / general career services were only recently generated after student outcry (a red flag because the school hadn’t considered this before, apparently. Also because as a prospective student, I want a strong infrastructure for networking/internship/career support.) When I asked about portfolio specifics, I was told that artistry and hand drawings are valued much higher than software skills. “I want to see that your hands can create something, that you have spatial talents.” And while, of course, graphic abilities are necessary for success in this discipline, software skills are the most important factor in securing employment. It is a red flag for a school to assume that software skills can be picked up later on but drawing skills are innate and superior. Drawing skills can be taught and improved with practice just like software skills can, but a certain set of the above skills goes much further toward putting bread on the table and that is critical for a school to recognize, accept, and promote.
Overall, I am of course glad I went. First, I learned details about the program that were *cough cough* unavailable on the website. Second, I got a feel for the faculty and their guiding principles. Third, I discovered- based on the above points- that Carnegie Mellon University is not a good fit for what I am looking for. Importantly, that does not make it a bad program by any means. It’s very much a fledgling one, but perhaps it could be someone else’s perfect match. Fourth, I saved myself nearly $100 in application and GRE mailing fees, to say nothing of the time needed for filling out a personalized purpose statement. Sure, many schools will now compete for CMU’s spot on my list (figure of speech- it’s just me making lists and wanting to apply to everywhere because it all looks cool. No schools are pining after me.), but at least I made an informed decision.
