What university is the best for architecture?

Thomb

14

I know UCL and Cambridge are up there but where else is really good?

Also if I mess up where should I go?

Reply 1

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

21

Other than UCL and Cambridge, I've heard that Bath is pretty good. Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester and Sheffield are also up there.

Reply 2

Farchitect

10

Assuming we're talking about undergradute...

UCL, Cambridge and the AA are probably the most prestigious. Cambridge mostly because of the university's overall reputation and the fact you have to have 10 million UCAS points to get in, the actual department doesn't have brilliant facilities and compared to UCL doesn't have as many high profile practitioners working for it. AA is stupidly expensive.

UCL is most highly regarded by employers by a long way, from memory something like 28% of employers ranked UCL as there favourite school to recruit from, followed by Sheffield with something like only 5%, so that's pretty significant. The Bartlett at UCL is also currently ranked as the second best school of architecture in the world after MIT, according to QS World Rankings.

Obviously in reality, you'll get a decent job wherever you go if you work hard and get a good degree, so don't worry too much. I went to Leicester School of Architecture at DMU for my Part I, I got a job at arguably London's leading practice on graduation and I got a place at the Bartlett (UCL) for my Part II. So yeah I can definitely recommend DMU. DMU has quite a few tutors it shares with Cambridge/UCL/AA.

I've heard lots of great stuff about Edinburgh and Manchester has amazing great facilities, probably second only to UCL.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 3

inuni14

Original post by Thomb

I know UCL and Cambridge are up there but where else is really good?

Also if I mess up where should I go?

Although many may not like ranking table for different reason, Bath has been no 1 on this list for 5 consecutive years. There must be some truth in it that worth consider.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Architecture

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 4

SebastianMesser

11

Original post by inuni14

Although many may not like ranking table for different reason, Bath has been no 1 on this list for 5 consecutive years. There must be some truth in it that worth consider.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Architecture

Rather than looking at League Tables which have weird and spurious weightings (e.g. Research will have next to no impact on teaching at undergraduate, UCAS entry tarrif - what does this have to do with the quality of the Course?! - and "value added" actually means the proportion of 2:1s and firsts)look at the RIBA Validation Reports. These are not without their own biases, but at least they are looking at the teaching of architecture!

https://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Becomeanarchitect/Qualifications/Visitingboardreports.aspx

Whilst the National Student Survey is also flawed - almost by definition, students can't compare their experiences with other institutions - unlike newspaper League Tables, at least you get some sense of the actual student experience. Just bear in mind that these figures vary significantly depending on how courses are aggregated by Unistats combining UCAS codes (architecture is K100), by the number of students in a cohort and by the response rate.

Reply 5

inuni14

Original post by SebastianMesser

Rather than looking at League Tables which have weird and spurious weightings (e.g. Research will have next to no impact on teaching at undergraduate, UCAS entry tarrif - what does this have to do with the quality of the Course?! - and "value added" actually means the proportion of 2:1s and firsts)look at the RIBA Validation Reports. These are not without their own biases, but at least they are looking at the teaching of architecture!

https://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Becomeanarchitect/Qualifications/Visitingboardreports.aspx

Whilst the National Student Survey is also flawed - almost by definition, students can't compare their experiences with other institutions - unlike newspaper League Tables, at least you get some sense of the actual student experience. Just bear in mind that these figures vary significantly depending on how courses are aggregated by Unistats combining UCAS codes (architecture is K100), by the number of students in a cohort and by the response rate.

Haha. What I can say is let the fact and data speak, not individual like or dislike for their own interest.

Reply 6

SebastianMesser

11

Original post by inuni14

Haha. What I can say is let the fact and data speak, not individual like or dislike for their own interest.

I quite agree, however, as I said there aren't any "facts" available, so the OP has to make a judgement which is best done on ALL of the available data, rather than having faith in one, biased, league table (if you read my comment, I give three reasons why ALL League Tables are flawed, I don't "dislike them for my own interest"). Ultimately, the "best school of architecture" is the one that fits you as an individual and enables you to do the best work you can there.

Reply 7

Thomb

OP

14

What I really wanted to know is what good universities are down the league tables a bit.

Reply 8

inuni14

Original post by SebastianMesser

I quite agree, however, as I said there aren't any "facts" available, so the OP has to make a judgement which is best done on ALL of the available data, rather than having faith in one, biased, league table (if you read my comment, I give three reasons why ALL League Tables are flawed, I don't "dislike them for my own interest" :wink:

. Ultimately, the "best school of architecture" is the one that fits you as an individual and enables you to do the best work you can there.

Those league table make it very clear before and during their study (they never hide their objective) that they are comparing certain aspects of the course (the FACTS) among different universities (entry standard, student satisfaction, research assessment, graduate prospect), with open and true data they actually collected in real world (they didn't make it up, and people can request for verification).

But you dislike their objective:

"Rather than looking at League Tables which have weird and spurious weightings (e.g. Research will have next to no impact on teaching at undergraduate, UCAS entry tarrif - what does this have to do with the quality of the Course?! - and "value added" actually means the proportion of 2:1s and firsts)"

If someone claimed that these table are flawed simply because he dislike their objective, methodology or end result that not in their own favour, he is just recklessly naive.

"Whilst the National Student Survey is also flawed - almost by definition, students can't compare their experiences with other institutions - unlike newspaper League Tables, at least you get some sense of the actual student experience. Just bear in mind that these figures vary significantly depending on how courses are aggregated by Unistats combining UCAS codes (architecture is K100), by the number of students in a cohort and by the response rate."

Reply 9

SebastianMesser

11

Original post by inuni14

If someone claimed that these table are flawed simply because he dislike their objective, methodology or end result that not in their own favour, he is just recklessly naive.

Hilarious!

Reply 10

Stewie2011

12

League tables have come out with a lot of rubbish in the past. Like the time a few years back the UCL got an overall of 100 percent when none of there others scores were at 100 percent. So what was this 100 percent based on was totally unclear. The UCL hide behind a lot of pretentiousness to cover up that they are not really any good at architecture. As far as their lecturers are concerned I would wipe the floor with them as far as my architecture skills are concerned.

Reply 11

Ravensbourne

13

Original post by Thomb

I know UCL and Cambridge are up there but where else is really good?

Also if I mess up where should I go?

Hey there! :smile:

Here is an alternative, Have you heard of Ravensbourne?

We are based in London and next to the 02!

As you mention Architecture course, it'll be great for you to check us out during our Open day to see it for yourself :smile:

If you have time, you can check our Degree show to see all the 3rd year Architecture work and other courses!

Hope this helps and good luck
Ahlia :biggrin:

Reply 12

inhuman

2

Original post by Thomb

I know UCL and Cambridge are up there but where else is really good?

Also if I mess up where should I go?

ETH

Reply 13

Farchitect

10

Original post by Stewie2011

League tables have come out with a lot of rubbish in the past. Like the time a few years back the UCL got an overall of 100 percent when none of there others scores were at 100 percent. So what was this 100 percent based on was totally unclear. The UCL hide behind a lot of pretentiousness to cover up that they are not really any good at architecture. As far as their lecturers are concerned I would wipe the floor with them as far as my architecture skills are concerned.

You can sweep the floor with your "architecture skills" with the likes of Niall Mcloughlin? Behave...

Reply 14

Stewie2011

12

Original post by Farchitect

You can sweep the floor with your "architecture skills" with the likes of Niall Mcloughlin? Behave...

Of course I would, though to be fair his work is better than the usual standard we have come to expect from Bartlett professors. CJ Lim just seems to be struggling with how to use a renderer.

Reply 15

Farchitect

10

Original post by Stewie2011

Of course I would, though to be fair his work is better than the usual standard we have come to expect from Bartlett professors. CJ Lim just seems to be struggling with how to use a renderer.

Can you qualify that then? Presumably this means you have multiple award winning built works to your name? Guessing you've also been shortlisted for the Stirling Prize a few times?

Reply 16

Doones

21

Original post by Stewie2011

League tables have come out with a lot of rubbish in the past. Like the time a few years back the UCL got an overall of 100 percent when none of there others scores were at 100 percent. So what was this 100 percent based on was totally unclear. The UCL hide behind a lot of pretentiousness to cover up that they are not really any good at architecture. As far as their lecturers are concerned I would wipe the floor with them as far as my architecture skills are concerned.

Thats how the table works. The university ranked top for that subject gets 100 overall and then those ranked below are scored relative to that. Check any subject, you'll see the #1 uni has 100. It's not a conspiracy :wink:

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 17

Stewie2011

12

Original post by Farchitect

Can you qualify that then? Presumably this means you have multiple award winning built works to your name? Guessing you've also been shortlisted for the Stirling Prize a few times?