[Stewie2011]

Thanks Squiddly for letting us know how things have gone there I only hope those old pre Spiller tutors can hold on I think that they could do a good job of running the place with Spiller gone. I think Spiller and co got impatient for promotion at the Bartlett and decided to take over another uni to make a name for themselves, pre-decided all along! I remember some waffle about this AVATAR thing in the first year, nothing to do with the film it seems no it apparently was something that came with Spiller another one of his pet projects, oh we should be sooo...o grateful. Suffice to say there seemed to be little interest in it and it died a quick death but it looks from what you say that his ego has resurrected it for another try at floating this one. I think it was some rubbish about advanced, virtual blah blah blah more pretentious waffle than substance it seemed.

Yeah anyway, I don't see the point of pushing all these Bartlett designs, they seem to think they are something special, the best way to do architecture and they seem dismissive of any other possible way of doing architecture. It's all so passe though, its been done, the Bartlett have had there moment of doing this type of work and trying to export this type of designing to other schools is pointless, we don't need more of it when there is nothing more to see here. Bartlett designs have been throughly discredited in recent years after Peter Cook set up CRAB(P?) Architecture in which all of his Archigram style designs either failed at competition stage or were later dismissed after winning the competition as unfeasible/unfunctional by so many organisations. Even the one or two things he has built is far removed from Archigram and is really rather formal and rigid like how most stuff has traditionally been designed and built. I don't knock him for at least getting out there and putting his name and design style to the test (many wouldn't of and would have just scuttled of after academia reputation intact but designs untried) but it is a test that his design style which is basically what you do at the Bartlett has totally failed. To my mind Architecture can only be fulfilling if you allow different directions in design to flourish rather than try and supress them, at Greenwich this is the approach they took before Spiller's arrival and it was starting to pay off, RIBA bronze medal etc. Spiller only wants his own design style from the Bartlett there his ego would be humilated for anyone else who designs in a different style to gain any recognition, no he is a selfish self obsessed egotistical nutter who no doubt lost any sense of reality years ago something I think most of us would hope to avoid turning into.

[archi-student]

I actually find it ridiculous how there is this much intolerance to the direction Greenwich is going. So what if he has taken his "gang" from the Bartlett. The school has been top of AJ's Poll (where they ask practices which school they think has the best graduates) for as long as I can remember. If Neil Spiller wants to push a school in that direction, I'm all for it.

[Stewie2011]

Well perhaps he should have told existing students that when it was annouced he was going there instead of keeping it a hidden agenda for a whole year. That way students could have jumped ship before it started to sink instead of being pulled down with it. After all 2nd & 3rd year students were already there before Spiller came so their original choice was neather for Spiller or the Bartlett. Same for the majority of 1st years most had already firmed their choice and made preparations long before it was announced that Spiller was going there. Many students at Greenwich do not like or aspire towards the Bartlett, its why they chose Greenwich in the first place, it was an active rejection of the Bartlett otherwise they would have applied to the Bartlett. At the end of the day there are so many surveys around based on dubious methodologies for this school being in top 5 according to so and so it is rather meaningless. The Bartlett tend to come high in many of these as people tend to stick with the status quo, it is what they are familiar with, they feel it is what they are expected to say if only for their own creditability sake, it is what they have learn't, its a self fulfilling prophacy they are asked which school is the best they have been repeatedly told in the past it is the Bartlett so they repeat each year it is the Bartlett, it is all they know.

Who says there is'nt some obsure architecture school up north that have produced exellent work for the past year or so while in comparison the work at the Bartlett may have been poor. Doesn't matter because people will regularly trott out the name the Bartlett without actually comparing the work the two have produced that year, and I mean real students work not quasi-professional editing of students work that happens at the Bartlett for the end of year show. No if someone said for example the University of Huddersfield for example produced the best work this year people would laugh and many would not take it seriously, since they have not been rated well in the past to the point that few have heard of the school, not been there myself so would not know their work just used it as an example really. No people are afraid to consider anything other than the status quo particularly if the wealthy are in the profession, they love sticking to the status quo it is reassuring to them regardless of wether the work they produce is rubbish. So for and industry that often associates itself with looking to new horizons it is incredably bogged down in sticking with previously echoed reputations rather than investigating what else is out there instead for themselves.

[archi-student]

Ok lets put aside whether a school produces better or worse work, its subjective and I doubt one year at greenwich is enough for anyone to make this judgement. If you total up the hours students at the Bartlett spend studying compared to the students at Greenwich, I am pretty sure the Bartlett will win every year. Regardless of whether their work is good or not, the school produces harder working students and it shows in their work, of course this is desirable to employees.

So which schools are desirable to you now that you have left Greenwich?

[Stewie2011]

Possibly the students may put in more hours into their work but from what I have seen it does'nt really show. If you look on You Tube their are some first year students work from the Bartlett that have put their portfolio work on there, the presentation is rather poor to say the least most sheets just comprise of photo's that have been printed out then stuck down on large A1 sheets without any thought for presentation, it looks awful. Many of the sheets to are just too sparse with just three or four small photos just cut out and stuck on, ok you don't have to fill the whole sheet but many of these sheets are barely a quarter full. I just get the impression that it comes across as more of an exercise to produce quantity rather than quality with little thought over the point of the sheet and its presentation. Compared to many Greenwich first years including my own last year our sheets were far superior in presentation and the thought that had gone into them. I just think the Bartlett have been getting away with far too much because of their name and lauding it over other architecture schools whose students in fact produce far better work but don't get the credit for it, you look at the Bartlett portfolio's on You Tube and tell me what you think.

As far as schools that are desirable now that I have left Greenwich I would tend to err towards those that do Architectural Technology as these courses seem to fill in many of the gaps that many k100 Architecture courses seem to be full of and if there is one thing you don't want to have in architecture and that is gaps in your knowledge and skills in my opinion. As far as k100 is concerned I think Oxford Brooks looks a good one as they seem strong on presentation (use of colour, style, etc) so if you have the grades its one to look seriously at, far better than the Bartlett I think. Also worth a look are ones where architecture is linked with engineering or planning to broaden the skillset you can offer. Some people go for Westminster rather than the Bartlett and they have won more silver medals than the Barlett so they might be worth a look but apparently they are not without their problems mainly over the numbers of students they currently take on but have difficulty supporting from what someone wrote on here a few months ago. Important to look at what you learn as any school can get there students to run around alot doing pointless tasks that sound clever but that add up to nothing which is what you get at the Bartlett by the look of things.

[lisajanepiggot]

Hi, Greenwich is my first choice for uni in september. Is this the same for anyone else ?

[A128]

(Original post by lisajanepiggot)
Hi, Greenwich is my first choice for uni in september. Is this the same for anyone else ?

It is for me. Are you at avery hill?

[lisajanepiggot]

Yeah, are you moving in?

[mossqa]

Hi everyone,
i'm just about to start my 2nd year in Architecture.
To all of freshers:
-be prepared that tutors are about 30-40 mins late
-don't be scared of Susanne, she'll give you really good advice
-you'll be confused with your tasks during first months but it only gets better
-there's no such thing as "too crazy" or "it wouldn't work in real life"
-don't think technically!!!!!!! art is more appreciated with some technical details
-make drawings look intresting, even if they're crap
-focus on your portfolio, not essays or other crap
-don't always listen to your tutor. if you think his idea is awful just learn ho to defend yours
-try to make your drawings tell the story of the project
-you can surive 1st year without models

have fun guys!!

[Stewie2011]

"make drawings look interesting even if there crap" - is that the really good advice Susanne gave you! No, seriously interesting to here how things are going there I tended to get the impression that one of Spiller's real beefs was that Greenwich students were not using the same approach to produce work as the Bartlett and he seemed to think that the Bartlett approach was superior, i.e the only way and students should have their lives messed up to do this. Got to say I'm glad I did'nt repeat, I think doing the above would feel that I would just be 'sucking eggs' as the saying goes, producing work to satify the Bartlett approach rather than doing work that I would want to achieve. What do you reckon the pass rate was like this year for first years?

[lisajanepiggot]

well the bartlett is one of the top most respected architecture colleges so surely its good to be changing their ways ?

[Stewie2011]

Well not everyone in the architecture industry believes that the league tables of recent (the Guardian) have been called into question since they were given 100% overall but the cumulative totals of their scores were far less than 100%, their student satisfation scores were particulaly low as were Greenwich. In particular criticisms leveled at the Bartlett tend to include a focus on art rather than architecture (technical aspects) and a lot of the same stuff re-occuring year on year, framented buildings, dystopia, even a lack of focus on buildings. The thing is this year and perhaps last is I think some people are choosing Greenwich because they think they are going to get Bartlett teaching and status that they would otherwise be unable to obtain as they would not get into the Bartlett itself. Well they may get some Bartlett teaching but Greenwich has so far failed to catch on statuswise like the Bartlett and I don't think it will do. Many of those that get high grades and portfolio's go to Westminster, Oxford Brookes, Cardiff, or maybe even Bath, Edinburgh or Glasgow or possibly London Met. Greenwich is still far down many peoples list including the Guardian if that's worth anything. More importantly, they are still failing a high proportion of students, I think squiddly says it was 50% or so of second and third years and I'm guessing it was similar for first years which was why I was asking. I can see why some might want to gamble on the Bartlett teaching and status thing if that there thing but I can't see why someone would want to pay near £9k when that money and there chances could be flushed down the swanny at the end of the year when a load of students are failed. I mean it is money that most people are going to end up paying back as inflation will soon bring wages up to the 21k repayment level (maybe 5-10 years or so). If you still want to give it a try after hearing all this like A128 then go for it, but personally weighing it all up I decided last year against it being worth it there any longer.

[lisajanepiggot]

well its my first choice uni i think if your hardworking yourself it doesnt really matter where you go so long as your willing to spend a your time studying which i am. all the top unis are more art based especially places like westminster oxford brookes and i even went to a summer school at cambridge and that was heavily art based, i thought if you wanted a more technical course you study architectural technology ? also i have an architecture mentor that went to greenwich not too long ago and he is a dean of a major architects now. hm you just kinda worry me how badly you put it down :/

[mossqa]

(Original post by Stewie2011)
"make drawings look interesting even if there crap" - is that the really good advice Susanne gave you!

hahah no, it's actually my personal tutor's advice. What I meant was if you think your work is **** try to play with it in photoshop etc. and it often gives you suprisingly good stuff.


this year about 50% students failed 1st approach (you car resubmit in August) but it's only their fault. They thought they wouldn't have to do much and a lot of them didn't really care. Those who passed got 2nd or 1st grade.

[Stewie2011]

Oh I see thanks for explaining that one Mossqa. Anyway Lisa, it doesn't necessarily matter how hardworking you are, do you really think the 50% or students that failed are all not working hard enough? When I was there, there were some in the second and third years that got a first in previous year only to receive less than 40% mark and fail to pass when Spiller came. To think that their work had deteriated so badly is laughable, it was passed by RIBA after all (in case you don't know Spiller only became Dean of Greenwich Architecture School in July/Aug 2010). Greenwich also had a favourable RIBA inspection before Spiller arrival and a RIBA bronze medal winner a year or so before Spiller's arrival. If anything Greenwich was doing better before Spiller arrived on the scene, Greenwich lost some of their best students due to Spiller failing them which is bound to happen when you fail 80% of all three years for the first year that he was there then 50% or so in the year after. As a result Greenwich is not likely to win any RIBA medals or major competitions for a long time to come. In fact some of the students that did pass were not particularly hardworking, their designs were simplistic and would not have taken long to do but I guess was more along the lines of what they do at the Bartlett stylewise. So to be honest if your hardworking and care about Architecture you are most likely to fail there. Your friend who is principal of a major Architects would have certainly gone there before Spiller's arrival when Greenwich was still good so that only supports the case at hand. Architecture is about buildings not art, you can present your work in quite an arty way but if the building doesn't stand up its not architecture. Besides that CAD is making it unnecessary to put a very arty look to your work, you can do a great real life render that means that overly staging an arty look to your work is no longer needed or necessarily desirable.

[lisajanepiggot]

so basically because i have chosen this uni im going to fail? so im going here to not pass...

[Stewie2011]

That's about the size of it, but I guess the odds are evens with the fail/pass rate and I'm guessing it will probably remain that way for the years following, but good luck!

Thanks Mossqa for the update, it looks like the failure rate is about the same for the second and third years as for the first. I suppose some that failed the first year would have been repeat students while others would have been new students. Wonder if they will get rid of some of the new tutors they took on last year with that fail rate, I hear some are for the chop in the second & third year. As I recall last year few made it through from the summer resit, I think once they have decided against you might as well throw in the towel there and look for new pastures. I know a lot of people were trying the other uni's in London, i.e London Met and UEL, a few got in but time was not on our side that late in the UCAS application cycle as many left it to after the August resubmission result. Apparently it was sheer mayhem down at London Met with Greenwich Uni Architecture students wanting in, jam packed with students for portfolio interview there, probably not too dissimilar this year I would imagine. Anyway, thanks for letting us know the shape of things there, handy for those about to embark on the course there I would have thought.

[lisajanepiggot]

so if my second choice is london met should i go there instead ?

[Stewie2011]

Well London Met has a good reputation, not far behind Westminster, I think they changed their modules slightly this year. It has been far more stable than Greenwich in recent years with regards to passing students so the pass rate there is good. I know there has been one person on here a few months back that felt she did'nt learn enough on the course, .i.e CAD in particular, but that's the same for a lot of uni's, Greenwich only give two/three days on it at the end of year 1 on Autocad, 3DS MAX and some photoshop sessions during the year, in fact when I was there you got far more sessions on photoshop than you did on CAD which is ridiculous really. If you were to fail at Greenwich you would almost certainly have to restart year 1 or whatever year you happen to be in at another uni as if you fail the main design module its pretty much impossible to transfer into the next year on at a uni elsewhere. It's a real killer to applying to other uni's in general as it makes it rather awkward to explain, some uni's/admissions tutors will be more sympathetic than others, you will basically be saying, 'I've failed the design module but my work really isn't that s*** its just because I was at Greenwich (hopefully they will know what you are talking about so you can avoid the awkwardness of explaining the 'Greenwich situation') are there any places left?' which of course does not sound great to admissions tutors. Some of your former student colleagues from Greenwich will be doing the same and so will be in competition with you for a place as will a few students that have been failed at Westminster, the Bartlett and elsewhere. You will also have the pain of doing a portfolio interview with whatever work was done at Greenwich which Greenwich has already slated whether rightly or most probably wrongly.

Back last summer I rather wished that I would have chosen London Met originally, but of course when I chose Greenwich, firmed it and arranged accommodation, it had'nt even been announced that Spiller was going there, when it was announced he was going to become Dean at Greenwich. I did wonder as the Bartlett even to me back then I regarded as a bit of a joke but I thought who knows maybe he will be ok and want to help students, add to their learning, but that did not transpire, no revisions were made to course structure or learning during the year, there was word going around that year on year improvement was sought for in students work after the Christmas hand in but that was little warning that nearly all of us would be failed out of hand at the end of the year. So, if I had chosen London Met I would have avoided all of that, would have avoided losing most of my summer doing a doomed resubmission, would have avoided time passing by and would probably be jogging along quite nicely at London Met (campuses not as nice as Greenwich 'Old Naval College' even Avery Hill and all but that doesn't help the situation if you fail). Did not get into London Met of course or anywhere else, may have something lined up now so might work out better in the long run I think if it all pans out & now better with CAD than I was before and before for a first year with little prior CAD use I don't think I was half bad. So if I started over in first year Architecture design module now I would be like a second/third year level up against mostly first year novices, so my stuff would most liekly look real impressive in comparison, not how it is really supposed to be but when you aren't progressed when you should be that's what you get.

[lisajanepiggot]

hm ok im kinda confused as to what to think