Architecture courses that don't do Architecture

My course and uni, however the final output is always a 'building'.

Where are you studying now? Westminster?

Yes, plus a few others on the forum studies there too. We get taught a very abstract form of architecture where the design concept is based on narrative, it could be something random as a film, graffiti, wedding dress, a pin hole camera, an umbrella, or a flower. my class mates have made random things during their time on the course ranging from baking cakes, sewing wedding dresses, bags, making a chocolate stand, ink experiments in water.
this is then translated into a building later on where you have to do technical detailing and environmental report.

Youre not going to get a course that doesnt design a building, its the final output no matter how conceptual that design is in the beginning.

Wow. It sounds so interesting to study in Westminster. I like to be more abstract and conceptual when it comes to design. I feel so glad to finally know a student from Westminster. So since you are studying in Westminster, can you explain why is Westminster being ranked much lower than any other schools? http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-guide-architecture
I know that Westminster can produce President Medal winners every year, so the quality of the students' works should be of a great standard. And can u tell among GSA, Edinburgh and Cardiff, which school would be using a more conceptual approach in architecture (similar to UCL and Westminster)

I was discussing this with my tutor recently, we're all not really pushed into taking these surveys that determine a number of things that contribute to the rank, this coupled with the fact Westminster is a city ex-poly makes it difficult to rise up the ranks. The Post-grad course is one of the most reputable in the country in our circles, and the undergrad work speaks for itself nowadays. The projects tend to start off as arty fluff then you refine that into architectural details, as yeahyeahyeahs said, the best way to judge the schools are to look at the work they produce.

Doesn't Westminster kick a large number of students of their Architecture course at the end of the first year?

Doesn't Westminster kick a large number of students of their Architecture course at the end of the first year?

Thank you so much. I think I have just made my mind to place Westminster as my second option after UCL. Is it true that Westminster offer a few full scholarship for those who want to pursue Post Graduate Program? I have forgotten where did I get this information, but I did remember I read about this somewhere. It seems that students from Westminster are mostly happy about their school. (at least so far Westminster students that I have met in Student room are all praising and defending their school.)

you can but you need a good academic record of 2.1 and a above, with references to why you deserve the money and contributions you made during your time at westminster.

It only kicks out those who fail twice. When i mean fail, I mean barely scrapping 30 percent for summer school.
I think its impossible to fail 1st and 2nd year if you took the time and effort to do the work, especially when you can resubmit during the summer. i have yet to go to summer school (touch wood).

But how many fail or come close to it, I mean particularly in the second and third year a fail or what might in the end amount to a third for your design module could be a disaster. If it mean't you ended up with a third overall it could be more difficult to find employment, particularly within architecture to say the least. Just doesn't seem much point getting grades to get into what many think of as a good school just to be sunk a year or two later by being given a fail or close to it which from what I hear is quite a large proportion of the school. Perhaps better to consider a school that is more positive on the marking front I think.

I am not afraid of failing. Why should I spend time worrying that I might fail before trying?