Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi,
    I'm thinking of applying for architecture at Northumbria, Nottingham Trent, Kent and Manchester. I've been to the Kent and Notts trent open days and was really impressed but I'd like to know more about what students thought of the course and their overall experience at any of the four universities.
    Thanks.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I've now moved this to a more appropriate area
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liz L)
    Thank you.
    Hi Liz, I'm looking at Kent aswell - a lot of graduates I've asked haven't heard much about Kent for Architecture even though it seems okay on league tables.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liz L)
    Hi,
    I'm thinking of applying for architecture at Northumbria, Nottingham Trent, Kent and Manchester. I've been to the Kent and Notts trent open days and was really impressed but I'd like to know more about what students thought of the course and their overall experience at any of the four universities.
    Thanks.
    edit: Just seen that although your thread title asks for general thoughts about architecture, your post makes it more specifically about those universities - I've left in my post though, because it took a while to type :lol:

    In short, architecture isn't worth it as a profession. The pay is far lower than comparable degrees, mainly due to how the degrees are difficult in the amount of work required, but not of the complexity of the work.

    One of the problems is that architecture is a value-added profession. Whilst you need lawyers to stop you getting into jail, or doctors to stop you expiring on a cold operating table, you don't need an architect to build a building. It's all in the design work, maximising efficiencies and creating a harmony. And obviously that's hard to quantify, especially if you've never employed an architect before. You'll think the work provided by a contractor and builder alone is sufficient because you've never experienced anything better :dontknow:

    I think there's plenty of potential for good candidates. However there is a massive surplus of students currently (I believe it was only around 8000 enrolling per year in 2003, now it's 30,000!!!! There's 44 architecture schools, put simply, there's too much mediocrity. You've got 300+ students applying per position advertised in London (by the big names, anyway) and even if you're in the upper 2% of that group it can be pretty hard to get noticed unless your university is a good target for headhunters.

    So in answer to your thread title (doh!), architecture is a difficult career to do well in, and rise above the more mundane job positions drawing up plans day after day. However IF you make it to the higher cohorts, you've got a pretty rewarding job with a ton of variety and a load of opportunities to meet different people and have a positive impact on people's lives
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Archengsculp)
    Hi Liz, I'm looking at Kent aswell - a lot of graduates I've asked haven't heard much about Kent for Architecture even though it seems okay on league tables.
    Hi Archengsculp, Ok. That's too bad because I'd really value some thoughts on their architecture course from a student's point of view.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    edit: Just seen that although your thread title asks for general thoughts about architecture, your post makes it more specifically about those universities - I've left in my post though, because it took a while to type :lol:

    In short, architecture isn't worth it as a profession. The pay is far lower than comparable degrees, mainly due to how the degrees are difficult in the amount of work required, but not of the complexity of the work.

    One of the problems is that architecture is a value-added profession. Whilst you need lawyers to stop you getting into jail, or doctors to stop you expiring on a cold operating table, you don't need an architect to build a building. It's all in the design work, maximising efficiencies and creating a harmony. And obviously that's hard to quantify, especially if you've never employed an architect before. You'll think the work provided by a contractor and builder alone is sufficient because you've never experienced anything better :dontknow:

    I think there's plenty of potential for good candidates. However there is a massive surplus of students currently (I believe it was only around 8000 enrolling per year in 2003, now it's 30,000!!!! There's 44 architecture schools, put simply, there's too much mediocrity. You've got 300+ students applying per position advertised in London (by the big names, anyway) and even if you're in the upper 2% of that group it can be pretty hard to get noticed unless your university is a good target for headhunters.

    So in answer to your thread title (doh!), architecture is a difficult career to do well in, and rise above the more mundane job positions drawing up plans day after day. However IF you make it to the higher cohorts, you've got a pretty rewarding job with a ton of variety and a load of opportunities to meet different people and have a positive impact on people's lives
    I understand what you're saying and realise just how competitive architecture is nowadays, which is partly why I'm looking for a students opinion, because to get the most out of the course I obviously need to go to a university that suits me but I don't want to waste my time at a mediocre university for architecture.

    Yes, I really do want to make some kind of impact because I feel like I've known for ages that I want to be an architect and can't picture myself doing anything else.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liz L)
    I understand what you're saying and realise just how competitive architecture is nowadays, which is partly why I'm looking for a students opinion, because to get the most out of the course I obviously need to go to a university that suits me but I don't want to waste my time at a mediocre university for architecture.

    Yes, I really do want to make some kind of impact because I feel like I've known for ages that I want to be an architect and can't picture myself doing anything else.
    Ok cool!

    In terms of architecture schools, would you say that you're a more artistic/conceptual person, or a realistic/building-designer person?

    For example some of the end-of-degree work from the Bartlett weren't even buildings, but were responses to an abstract theme with elements of buildings and spaces being used. Whereas Bath would have you designing an actual building complete with structural detailing to present and explain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Ok cool!

    In terms of architecture schools, would you say that you're a more artistic/conceptual person, or a realistic/building-designer person?

    For example some of the end-of-degree work from the Bartlett weren't even buildings, but were responses to an abstract theme with elements of buildings and spaces being used. Whereas Bath would have you designing an actual building complete with structural detailing to present and explain.
    Silly me! I should have metioned that. I'm certainly more of an artistic/conceptual person so somewhere like Bath would not be my ideal choice and probably wouldn't suit me. So when I went to the Notts Trent open day they definately seem to put the emphasis more on the arty side of architecture, whereas somewhere else like Nottingham seem to focus more on the maths/ building designer aspect of architecture.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Would have thought they are seen as mediocre uni's for architecture for that sort of stuff, lol. Not into arty/conceptual stuff but would havr thought the bartlett, westminster, London met, Oxford brookes or the mac are the ones thought of by many as the ones to go for, for that stuff, not to day the others have not dôme good work, they just havent got the recognition for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stewie2011)
    Would have thought they are seen as mediocre uni's for architecture for that sort of stuff, lol. Not into arty/conceptual stuff but would havr thought the bartlett, westminster, London met, Oxford brookes or the mac are the ones thought of by many as the ones to go for, for that stuff, not to day the others have not dôme good work, they just havent got the recognition for it.
    I'm not so sure I know that places like Oxford brookes are really up there but even on the guardian league tables for architecture places like Notts trent are still in the top 30 which is great. All the universities I'm considering are also accredited by RIBA so they are also recognised for their work.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liz L)
    I'm not so sure I know that places like Oxford brookes are really up there but even on the guardian league tables for architecture places like Notts trent are still in the top 30 which is great. All the universities I'm considering are also accredited by RIBA so they are also recognised for their work.
    Just going to pop in that being accredited doesn't mean anything special, it just means that the education is sufficient to set you up for the Part III exams (with the right level of experience). It doesn't mean that they're marked out for greatness, I think 44 out of 50 university architecture courses are validated
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of the four unis, you mention, I have heard the best things about Northumbria, but that may be just because I'm from Newcastle, Manchester scores fairly well consistently on tables, I've heard very little about Trent though. I'm always skeptical of said tables though.

    And just since you mentioned the RIBA accreditation, if you're looking for a career as an 'architect' rather than in architecture, it is categorically not even worth considering a non-accredited uni.

    However, assuming you're going for the full architecture career, to some extent, where you go for your Part I degree doesn't matter so much, as long as you can make sure your portfolio is great and that you can get into some experience. Where you go Part II is more important, because after this you're realistically starting to look for a 'proper' job and getting into it as an actual career. Kind of like GCSEs compared to A Levels when your applying for uni.. To my knowledge, the Part I architecture criteria for RIBA accreditation is more restrictive than at Part II, so all universities offer fairly similar courses (or so I have heard).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Ok cool!

    In terms of architecture schools, would you say that you're a more artistic/conceptual person, or a realistic/building-designer person?

    For example some of the end-of-degree work from the Bartlett weren't even buildings, but were responses to an abstract theme with elements of buildings and spaces being used. Whereas Bath would have you designing an actual building complete with structural detailing to present and explain.
    Hello. What schools do you consider being more artistic/conceptual oriented and those realistic/building ones ?

    Because I'm thinking of studying architecture but not to necessarily be an architect, as a job.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gherkinsnolives)
    Hello. What schools do you consider being more artistic/conceptual oriented and those realistic/building ones ?

    Because I'm thinking of studying architecture but not to necessarily be an architect, as a job.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hmm, what sort of job would you be looking to go into instead? I wouldn't recommend taking architecture if you're specifically choosing to not become an architect..
    More artistic are Oxford Brookes / AA / Bartlett, more sciencey are Bath / Nottingham

    Those are the ones I know off the top of my head
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    My thoughts are - DON'T DO IT.

    The statistics are absolutely dire.

    44% of architecture graduates are unemployed and a further 18% are employed in a non-architecture-related business meaning only 38% of graduates are making it into the profession.

    That's a lot of time to invest into training for a profession that the chances are you'll never get work in.

    http://www.archdaily.com/341449/bd-s...ts-unemployed/
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    My thoughts: Ted Mosby , that is all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Hmm, what sort of job would you be looking to go into instead? I wouldn't recommend taking architecture if you're specifically choosing to not become an architect..
    More artistic are Oxford Brookes / AA / Bartlett, more sciencey are Bath / Nottingham

    Those are the ones I know off the top of my head
    What are your thoughts about CSM's architecture degree?

    I really like product design or event interior design. but to my parents they kind of want me to get into a more general course like only BA Arch first instead of simply doing ID or PD.

    Is it a wise thing to do?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gherkinsnolives)
    What are your thoughts about CSM's architecture degree?

    I really like product design or event interior design. but to my parents they kind of want me to get into a more general course like only BA Arch first instead of simply doing ID or PD.

    Is it a wise thing to do?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have 'no' idea, I'm just an architecture undergrad myself, I couldn't even list all the architecture schools, let alone provide a summary of them - I hadn't heard of CSM until you mentioned it though, so read what you can from that.. I'll look up their end-of-year show in my copy of the AJ at work and get back to you.

    Personally I think architecture is hard enough when you're studying it with enthusiasm. If you take the course without wanting to go all the way you're far more likely to either get awful grades or flunk out. I'm not sure what the transference rate is but my understanding was always that students took architecture to become an architect, since it's quite a specific skillset that you learn, and a very challenging course (in terms of time, not difficulty)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    From what I know they started the Architecture course up at CSM just a few years ago, believe it is now RIBA accredited, CSM is an arts type of school, Jeremy Till (ex-Westminster, ex Bartlett) took over last September I believe. Think the course looks ok, students seem quite positive about it as far as I have heard, would be interesting to hear from any though, what their thoughts are. Don't think it is quite your usual modular structure most courses use, could be wrong on this though or some of the above info so look into it. Fairly mediocre grades to get in I think but probably not as low as UEL - University of East London. So reputation ok to fairly good I think, perhaps a fairly smallish number of students on course, not really got the 'name' branding of Westminster, Bartlett or London Met which some people are attracted to, not myself personally.

    In any case I would say ID, PD and Architecture tend to be a whole different kettle of fish. Sure they're all design based but someone who is good at designing buildings isn't necessarily good at designing product or not as good and vice versa. With ID I think you need a particular interest in interiors, often people excel at designing exteriors, i.e. architecture but hold little interest in the interior beyond the floor plan, its a different interest thing, maybe a slightly different focus of the mind. Often Architecture students are asked to design interiors on the hoof with little training and the result I think are often mixed, often poor even as they have been given little training or time devoted to designing interiors. On Architectural Technology, CIAT courses there is often an avoidance of doing interiors which I believe is the best way. After all, they were split into several subjects for a reason, for efficient use of time and a different mindset I think, doesn't make sense to exhaust oneself treading on each others toes and risk a poorer overall result. Also if your naturally skilled in one subject area why waste time with other subject areas, I mean if your innovative in designing new products you can really cash in as they can be worth a mint when brought to market. Worth saying though that last time I looked most PD courses were hard to get into, high grades, quite a hard course perhaps.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.