[plinko]

Cirrus is absolutely correct. Internationally, it's hard to say. Traditionally, the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris was a place to do such study as well, but I don't know if it's still taught in that vein.

That being said, don't neglect modernism simply because right now it doesn't appeal to you. If you want to go to architecture school, you should study all forms, because I assure you, you'll run into all forms in professional practice. If you think you know alot about architecture now, architecture school will open up your mind (in good and bad ways) to a whole new world beyond a basic level of appreciation or thinking. If you're looking at this as a Master's program, you should be able to specialize as you want (to some extent), but if it's a Bachelor's you are looking for, the curriculums are basically broad and cover a little of everything.

And on that note, I find it wholly disappointing that most current curriculums neglect classical architecture (other than history classes). The roots of most current architecture are all grounded in classical forms, proportion, etc. It's hard to start designing when you don't have a basic knowledge on how to begin. When Mies began the IIT curriculum in the late 30's, he required the students to spend 3 years learning to draw classical buildings and forms, sketch, take photos, make models and collage, and learn history BEFORE ever allowing the students to design a building. It was called the 'visual learning' sequence. Unfortunately it was abandoned as a model curriculum in the late 1970's.

I guess my point is this: Alot of people dismiss neo-classicism (and the study thereof) as pure cake decoration. Many of those people tend to miss the point and thus have trouble appreciating architecture that follows that set of rules. However, I think simply dismissing modern architecture and the tenets that it follows can be just as foolhardy, regardless of whether or not one wishes to practice it.