[clay_to_n]

This article is spot-on. I've seen this firsthand at both USC and Wash U. in St. Louis, and the author's conclusion (that universities think building in the style of their oldest buildings will give them more donor money) is correct in my view from how the universities talk about it.

It's sad that top private universities today are so revenue-focused that they're okay with dropping any semblance of innovation when it comes to architecture and design. But these universities don't care about their architecture schools - those schools don't put out enough rich alumni to bring in the cash.

At USC a few years ago, the architecture school was stuck with old (and few) 3d printers - I don't remember the model, but students complained and got nowhere with the faculty as far as better equipment. Next door, the USC Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young Academy of Arts, Technology, and Business of Innovation (read: try to make startups) opened their first class with a whole lab of 3d printers and laser cutters, including a Form 1 (which was quite nice at the time for the price). The school doesn't take architecture seriously. And I don't see how that would change anytime soon.

[joelwilliamson]

American universities being fairly conservative architecturally is hardly a new development. Look at how popular faux-Gothic is at any Ivy League school. They are all full of modern buildings trying to look like Oxbridge.

[clay_to_n]

Absolutely, it's not a new thing. I don't mean to be implying it's a new development, or limited to these schools. Just expressing how sad and frustrating it can feel as an architecture student at a good university. It's talked about a lot among students, and I liked this article for sharing it among a wider audience.