So I think we are blessed with pedagogical traditions that go a long way to meeting pedagogical goals which to other disciplines are relatively newcomers. I am also very glad that within the last 2-3 years our research agenda is now conducted not just at the master's level but also the doctoral level. I believe that the true interaction as intellectual contributors is conducted at that level. I was a strong supporter of the idea of the doctoral program because I felt it would be good for the college to have those kind of interactions taking place. On the whole, I would say that the combination of the studio methodology with which some of our faculty are experimenting, with the development of graduate work all of the way up to the Ph.D. level, has produced some considerable improvement.
Architecture is an extreme case.
We accept between 4 and 5 times as many students into our freshman year as we are going to be able to accommodate in the upper division. During those first two years, significant number of students decide not to stay on track and choose other courses of action. We've provided several carefully developed alternative routes for those who decide not to pursue an architecture degree. We try very hard to place those we aren't able to accommodate into courses such as the interdisciplinary humanities program within the architecture concentration in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Quite a few students go to the School of Construction Management.