ARC H3117

a lot because its a studio course! but her class was surely easier than the other two intro courses

Your grade is broken down as follows: participation in the 12 Wednesday Seminars 12% (you must speak at least once each week!) weekly reading response questions 12% seminar presentations 16% written assignment 1 (400-500 words) 10% written assignment 2 (400-500 words) 10% term paper outline 5% term paper drafts 15% term paper final submission (2500-3000 words) 20%

2 major projects -collages, study models, drawings etc A lot of throw away work because you never know what she wants

overall she is a good teacher. she has a monotone way of speaking, which can get quite boring, but she usually is saying something of worth. she doesn't seem to expect too much from the students, her demonstrations of drafting techniques for example was so slow and easy that she could have been talking to a first grader. i know it must be hard for her to remember what every student's project is about because there are sixteen of us and she runs her own architecture firm, however, sometimes i feel she can do a better job keeping on top of these things. like the reviewer before, i don't think she takes effort into a lot of consideration (or atleast as much as i would like her to). she is approachable and friendly.

I have mixed feelings about this course. Firstly, there is the whole three professors thing. Ralph taught Monday lectures and then the class was split into three sections for Wednesday seminar. The professors rotated the sections as the semester progressed, so you got each one for several weeks. At first, I hated this chaotic organization but I came to appreciate the fact that, unlike most classes with discussion sections, the seminars weren’t in addition to the M/W periods. The workload is fairly heavy and attendance is required. There are approximately 60-80 pages of reading a week and “reading response questions” due every Sunday night at 7PM. The majority of your grade, however, is determined by two short writing assignments and a term paper. The two writing assignments require off-campus visits on your own time (one to an exhibit at the MoMA; the other to the Seagram Building). The term paper is due progressively over the second half of the semester. The first draft represents the first half of your paper; the final draft represents your entire paper. Finally, you are twice required to co-lead the Wednesday seminar along with another student in your section. Each of you must present one of the readings for that week. Arguably the most annoying thing about this course is the due date for written assignments. Hard copies of all written assignments are due Friday mornings by…

If you can avoid having her as a teacher I would highly suggest that move! She is erratic and wacky. Some days she can be helpful in helping you produce a product or model and other days she changes her directions completely making you start your project all over. She can be very rude and blunt in ways that are not productive to your learning. I truly believe she grades based on who she likes and who she doesn't. Her projects do not make you want to pursue architecture any further. However, if you do things inspired by the human body she will love it. Everything is architectonic if it doesn't make sense, but if you think something through and explain it she will not like it. I found this class very hard to enjoy. I started every day with a headache when I had her. I look forward to other architecture professors and not having her again. The class was a waste of time. She can be nice if she wants to be, but mostly it's her complaining about her multiple sicknesses .

Very interesting, even if the class being organized thematically made it difficult to follow. I also think some of the content was not really suited for an intro to modern architecture class. If you are seriously thinking about becoming an architect, I would do more research into the canon.

reading assignments for every week, two midterm papers and one final paper

Maria is an incredibly encouraging and friendly professor - if you can get into her studio, I definately would. She likes innovation and creativity in your projects and gives you restraints on what you can use, but lets you go freely from there. The class wasn't very structured - pretty much presenting the project, maybe a mini discussion on a packet of reading, and then pretty much desk crits all the way. I just wish she were a little more critical - she would be incredibly positive about your projects during desk crits, but during the final reviews she would bring up criticisms that she hadn't mentioned before... In general, though, a good professor who's more laid-back than most.

I honestly don't know why this class is required for the major. Not a good or fun way to be introduced to the theory/history of architecture. Some of the topics seemed interesting but the lecture and discussion sessions make them extremely boring. To architecture minors and civil engineers: if this class is not required for you, do not take it.