ladygirltomboy

Hi and so sorry for the slow response! Thesis writing... I just responded to your PM so be on the look out!

You should see if there's an open house at Rutgers. Talk to students and faculty now, and sit in on some classes. That's the one thing I didn't do that I wish I had. The one thing my friend said about that program is that it's less practical and hands on than she would have liked. It's very internationally focused and it seems very theoretical. Definitely the place to go if you want to work on repatriation or other legal issues, or world heritage sites (from a policy perspective). I think one of the things they are strong in is the interdisciplinary nature of the MA. Funny that you're interested in Oregon. It's lovely, but it's kind of small town all around. But...you'd never be more than an hour or two from the beach or the mountains, and there are some damn good restaurants for a population of only a few hundred thousand. It could be a refreshing experience! Good luck with your field school application. If you go, please come back and tell us about it. I have always been interested in it, and especially now that you've said they take non-degree applicants...

You should apply anyway. Historic Preservation programs rarely reject applicants. I'm pretty sure no one has ever been rejected from Columbia, and every one of my classmates that applied to UPenn was accepted there as well. You should go for it! Have you looked at urban design programs? You might find some preservation work housed in those departments as well. I think McGill has some sort of architectural history program that is actually part of the professional architecture school. You might have a look at that as well. Whatever you do, DO NOT give Pratt your time or money!

I have a friend that did the CHAPS program at Rutgers as a minor to her Art History MA and loved it. I've heard good things about it, and I think it's a really good choice if you want to pair with art/architectural history since it is a part of that department. I have actually taken a class at Rutgers as part of a consortium agreement between schools in the region and I loved it. The professor was great and the students were so engaged with the material and the department. It's an entirely different academic world from Columbia, and I think they have quite a few international opportunities from the posters I've seen around the art history building. If you're interested in that program I could put you in touch with my friend. The only other state school program I know about is University of Oregon. I did my undergrad there, and although it wasn't in preservation, that is where I first got exposure to the field and decided to pursue it in grad school. I believe the program just moved from Eugene to Portland (or will soon, or maybe just some courses are there now), which is a huge improvement. There is not a lot of high-style historic architecture in Eugene (a lot of post-1900 buildings), which is what kept me from applying there. At least in Portland you have more of a lab in the city. I think that program might be more planning/advocacy/cultural landscape oriented, but UO has strong planning, architecture, and art history department so I think you could get a lot out of the cross over. I know they also offer a summer field school in (I think) Croatia. I don't know how the program holds up academically, but I do know that it's really hard to find jobs in Oregon, so if you wanted to stay there after it might be tough. UO does have what's called the GTFF, which is the graduate student fellows foundation or something like that. A lot of friends in different grad programs chose UO over better ranked school because they offer amazing funding and benefits for graduate teaching fellows. I don't know if historic preservation does this since there is no undergraduate major option, but it might be worth looking into. UO is centred around a very activist minded community, which translates to a lot of student groups and interesting things. I will say this: it is a HUGE football school and that is one of the reasons I had to get out. There's a lot of tension between academics and athletics, and it becomes hard to ignore no matter how far away you try to get from it. I think it's a place you can really find your niche though, and people move to Oregon for a reason so I think you will find most of the professors and staff are generally very kind and caring. There is a sense of community (that isn't just based on weekly happy hours) within departments there that I really do miss. Both Eugene and Portland are nice little towns. Do you have any questions about specific programs? I have friends at a few other schools on the west coast and could see if they can ask around if there's a particular place you're interested in. University of Victoria and Carleton University (both in Canada) also have very good programs. The former is more planning/cultural landscapes based, while the latter has a conservation focus. There is also Willowbank that is only a diploma program, but very well respected if you are going the conservation route. Their entire curriculum is based on hands on conservation and conservation treatments. It is a highly respectable school in Canada. I've never heard a bad thing about any of the Canadian schools, though the academic standards are much higher there than at a lot of US schools (apparently even more than the Ivy Leagues that are supposed to be amazing).

If you already have an MArch, you could really easily get on at a preservation firm, especially in NYC if that's where you want to be. I don't really think it's even worth another two years of grad school for you, because you would pick up any of the preservation specific skills on the job. Have you thought about interning for a preservation arch firm?

I think all of the programs end up being focused on their location, which isn't a bad thing as long as they look out a little every now and then. That's definitely something to look for when you go to open houses (just ask the students and they will probably be honest). As for the international opportunities, I suggest you enquire about every detail--when students last went abroad, how many opportunities are available each year, who funds them, is there an acceptance application to attend, etc. Columbia sold itself as an international program, but there really hasn't been anything in the two years I have been there. They make students post about summer or break trips they took which makes it seem like they hosted or sponsored them on trips abroad (or even presented opportunities) which is not the case. Many times profs will go on these trips, which makes them appear even more legitimately like something the school hosted. Just ask lots of questions. Part of my problem is that I went in starry-eyed and believed what was posted on their website, not realizing the last time they went to Greece was five years ago and there were no plans to do anything anytime soon. Good luck with your decision!

Thanks! I hope the open house is good and that things work out! Just ask as many questions as you can possibly think of (I know that's hard when you're taking it all in).

So I was at Pratt for a year before I transferred to Columbia's preservation program. Three people transferred total that year and one transferred to the planning program at Pratt. DO NOT waste your time or money! The director was removed the year I left and they are still re-visioning the program. It's better (I've heard from friends that are there or work there), but nowhere near worth the full cost of tuition. Between my experience at Pratt and Columbia (which incredibly wasn't a world better as it should have been), and other friends' experiences at other schools like Clemson, SCAD, SAIC, etc., I do not believe there is a good preservation program out there. If you are interested in planning, apply to a planning program; if you are interested in architectural history, apply to art or architectural history programs; if you are interested in conservation, then go to Columbia or UPenn (UPenn seems better than Columbia, but I don't actually know anyone that's gone there). As I have said in previous posts, unless you're doing conservation, stay away from preservation programs. And if you're into conservation, Pratt is not the place for it. It's an advocacy-based program. If you have specific questions about Pratt I'd be happy to share.

I just saw your question about adaptive reuse. That was one of my primary interests along with conservation. Basically if you want to follow that path you have to have studied architecture. At Columbia there is one adaptive reuse survey class. I went to two lectures and it was so bad I dropped it. I learned more about adaptive reuse reading articles on Atlantic Cities or in other architecture or urban design publications. There is an adaptive reuse studio at Columbia but you have to have a bachelor's in architecture to take that path. A friend at Pratt that's an architect applied there because of their supposed adaptive reuse focus, but he spent two years without access to any courses focused on that because they were for architecture students only. Seems to be the same thing at Columbia and other schools. You basically need to be a dual MArch and MSHP to get into that field.

Update: she also said that the program is so bad and the amount of money spent so much that she is at the point now where she wants to give up. She said it is the worst choice she has ever made in her life, and she said that pretty much everything I have said above applies to her program at Clemson.

Just heard back from Clemson friend. I asked her if she would pay for her program again and she said it has been a huge waste of time and money. She has a lot of complaints but right now her biggest concern is that she has no support from her faculty or thesis committee where research is concerned. That has apparently been an ongoing problem throughout the entire process.

I have a friend at Clemson that equally feels the program is structured in a way that students are forced to cram so much in that they cannot give much attention to one particular thing. From what she has told me they get a lot of exposure to different subjects, but very little depth to anything. She has also voiced concern about lazy, disengaged students. A couple of people in my program at Columbia did their undergrad there in preservation and they don't seem to have any more knowledge of the field than people that come into the program from art history, chemistry, etc. That could just be those individuals though. I just sent her a message about program specifics so I will update about Clemson when I hear back from her. I also know people that went to SAIC, Pratt, and SCAD. I have never heard a good thing about any of those programs and know three people at Pratt that transferred to other schools or into the Urban Planning Program there. Their director was really terrible and was fired a few years ago so that program is restructuring. I know someone that works there and they said it's getting better but it still has a long way to go. One of the big issues with these programs is they are usually housed in architecture depts. which means they are the last to get money and attention. The arch and urban planning programs ALWAYS come first, and I think that really shows up in the curriculum, career opportunities, and any other thing you would associate with academics. Preservation is seen as a pseudo-field even within it's own school. The other departments at Columbia do not take it seriously (and at Pratt). I know that Cornell is very planning focused, though I don't actually know anyone that's gone there. I can say this: the preservation planning professor at Columbia told some dual degree students in my program that Columbia is pretty terrible for planning and that Cornell is the place to go if that's the interest. She actually suggested tthey get the HP degree at Columbia and go elsewhere for planning. I have taken planning classes at Columbia and they are pretty bad. A lot of looking at pictures of "case studies" and hardly any applicable theory or skills. I've heard really good things about Penn, but I'd heard really good things about Columbia before I started so I don't know if that means much. I do think that based just on the theses posted on UPenn's website there is a much higher academic standard. Most of their faculty also have PhDs which I think is really important. Their educational backgrounds also seem varied (unlike Columbia HP profs who all went through HP at Columbia) which I think brings necessary diversity to the curriculum. At Columbia my profs are only 1.5 months more qualified than I am at this point! There is one new professor at Columbia that was in the UPenn program and he is really on top of it (if that says anything). I have only heard people praise their conservation program (and a number of people that are at Columbia that went to the UPenn open house commented on how it seemed "too serious" and "too competitive" which is likely a good thing for anyone looking for an academic experience). UPenn's classes look far superior to Columbia's as well. We have very limited elective courses, and many of them centre around emotion and advocacy. I remember a course last semester where we spent an entire two hours talking about how people "felt" about trips they took in their childhood to historic sites. No tie in to any scholarly material about memory or place or anything like that, just how fun it was to go to Colonial Williamsburg, the Alamo, etc. It was really disturbing to spend two hours in what felt like group therapy. And that happens more often than I'd like in the preservation classes. There's a much better way to incorporate personal experience into academia, yet Columbia fails time and again to achieve that. I cannot overstate how much this program relies on feelings and emotions rather than critical theory or scholarship. I would also suggest for those interested in conservation NYU's IFA. They focus on art conservation but it is much more rigorous and it is a very well-respected institution, especially if you are interested in archaeological sites. I know a number of people in that program and their level of knowledge about building/materials conservation exceeds mine and I am in a program specializing in that.

Hugely disappointing indeed. Though I don't think it's limited to Columbia. I have friends in a few HP programs in the US and they share my sentiment. By the time you realize what's going on you're a year in and finishing feels like the only option. It seems like (at least from my experience and what I have been told by others) that HP is a lot about feeling, a lot about blaming big bad developers, and not a lot of scholarship to equip a person to engage with the public or other scholars. Again, I can't speak for conservation, but it does seem those people get more for their money no matter where they go. I actually had planned to study conservation at Columbia, but the foundational courses were so disorganized (especially part two, offered second semester) that I decided it wasn't for me. I have enjoyed some of the conservation courses I have taken, but there is a lot of bashing of other professionals in the field, and way too much time spent talking about the same things over and over. I am currently taking a course where we spend more time talking about people that take bad paint samples than learning to take good paint samples (or paint samples at all--I'm still waiting for the conservation elements of the course and we are half into the semester). However, the person that runs the conservation specialization at Columbia, George Wheeler, is an absolutely fantastic guy. He is one of only three full-time faculty in the department, and is kind, extremely intelligent, and accommodating. I can't say as much for some/most of the other faculty, unfortunately. Also, most of the faculty have only ever completed the Columbia HP program in the 70s or 80s. It's very insular. After my experience in the intro conservation courses I decided to pursue the history/theory specialization. Prior to entering the program I thought I might want to pursue a PhD, but I realized I would not be able to acquire the knowledge or skills necessary to be admitted anywhere with just the MSHP (no seminar classes, no historiography, proseminars, etc., all necessary or doctoral work). Since I realized I would need another master's, I decided to take classes in history and art history so I could get real grades on my transcript (rather than GSAPP's P/F), and so I could position myself for the next closest field of study. My ability to take electives in other departments is really the only redeeming quality of the HP program. When I began taking architectural history courses through the Art History Department, I realized how much the academic structure of my program and engagement of my peers differed from the Art History Department. It was like day and night! The latter was precisely what I expected from graduate school. The readings and assignments were interesting and challenging (and not all written before 1970), the students came to class prepared and contributed in each lecture, the professors had prepared lectures with the most up to date material, field trips were centred around contemporary issues/exhibitions/etc., and I was learning some amazing theory that I was able to apply to my research and studies in HP. All of these professors in AH held office hours and were happy to talk about anything. At one point I met with a professor in in art history about a paper, and after finding out what program I'm in, asked if I needed instruction for using the library's search function or Jstor. That's when I realized that HP is not taken seriously by people that I consider real scholars at Columbia. It was actually extremely embarrassing to realize that other departments view us that way. But, there is a culture that created that, and that's what I am hoping to share with others. Additionally, I was/am amazed at how often preservation came/comes up in my art and architectural history courses (and the museum and anthropology courses). These courses have been so stimulating. I honestly don't think I could have made it to the end without them, and each semester I have had to take my one required HP course I have dreaded going to it. It always felt like taking ten steps back. I forgot to mention that the HP program only offers two arch history courses: American Arch I and II. They are taught by people that care most about neo-classicism and post-modernism. Basically a whole semester on each topic. I love architectural history more than anything and I could not stand these classes. They are called American Arch, but it's really NY arch. Just something to keep in mind. So anyway, I guess I will be doing post-bacc or another master's in art/architectural history to try and bridge into a PhD. I really love school and when I began grad school I was ready for a challenge. The only challenge I have faced is trying to complete a thesis while taking three other classes (this is a requirement), which allows me to neither throw myself into the thesis research or my coursework. That was the final point that I realized the program is based on half-assing it. I was even been told by my advisor that I am not prioritizing correctly when I complained that I have to sacrifice either coursework or thesis from week to week trying to get things done. So now I'm writing what feels like I book report rather than a thesis I can be proud of. That is partly my own fault though, because I took three art/architectural history courses this semester rather than preservation courses. If I had taken preservation courses I would have had 30 instead of 3-500 pages of reading each week. It is entirely possible to write a thesis while taking only preservation courses. I do suggest you have a look at some of the theses from previous years. In some cases the writing is quite appalling. Many of them are not even formatted following a style guide. It sounds silly, but it shows how disinterested the department is in academic standards. If you come to NY for the Columbia open house next month I'd be glad to chat with you more. Also feel free to ask me about anything else!

For all of you considering a degree in preservation, I strongly advise you to consider planning or art/architectural history or museum studies or anthropology unless you plan to pursue building conservation as your academic focus and career. I am about to graduate from the HP program at Columbia University and it has been nothing like what I expected. The students in my year all seem very disengaged, and GSAPP (the department HP is within) does not issue grades which breeds a culture of apathy where the quality of coursework and levels of engagement are concerned. It has been my experience that people don't really care what they do because they will have a degree from Columbia. It hardly seems this is an Ivy League education. There is no academic standard whatsoever (just read most of the theses posted on their website). I could go on and on. If anyone has questions about the program I would be glad to speak about what I think is good and what is bad. I have recently come to the realization that I will have to pursue another degree in order to fulfill my academic goals. A number of my classmates feel similarly. What's most unfortunate is that I have come to dislike the field somewhat because of my experience. I know that HP degrees are professional degrees, but I do not believe this should limit the amount of scholarship or academic rigour of such programs. Bottom line: HP programs seem to have very little scholarship at the heart of them. There is NOTHING that preservation programs offer that you can't get in other fields in a much more academic and challenging setting (except for conservation). You can focus on preservation from any other field and I think you would get a lot more out of your education (which you will be paying so much for) in doing so. I want to share because I feel crushed by the money I spent and I am saddened by the number of my classmates that feel like they wasted two years and $100k. I just wish I had known then what I know now!