<p>Hey everyone. I used to come on here all the time, it's nice to see that we have our own sub-forum now... Anyway, I wanted to start a small discussion about SciArc (the Southern California Institute of Architecture.) I'm currently attending CMU's School, but looking at other options. The thing that excites me most about the program is how progressive it seems. I was against L.A. a year ago but i can accept that, even with the smog and traffic, it's a great place to be. Because there seems to be a lack of information on the net about the school, I'm turning to CC before maybe visiting myself. Anything about the school, especially the student body, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>
<p>I'm assuming you mean for undergrad, but if I'm wrong let me know because it changes my advice a lot...</p>
<p>SCI-Arc is soooo 'progressive' that it's hard for their grads to get that first (and sometimes even second) job out of undergrad. They come out of school with their heads in the clouds and can make very little contribution to an architectural office, which can sometimes mean that they don't get paid as well as grads of other schools. I have this directly from instructors that used to teach there (and have since moved on to other schools), that they would never hire a SCIArc grad with less than five years of experience.</p>
<p>However, I am assured that once they get a bit more grounded by real work, SCIArc grads do quite well. This is why undergrad vs. grad makes a difference in my advice- I wouldn't recommend it for a first professional degree, but I think it could be a great option for a post-professional M.Arch for someone who already has real-world skills.</p>
<p>In objective stuff, SCIArc has great architectural facilities- large studios, a great woodshop, a great supply store. It is short on typical undergrad type things though - dorms, student organizations, etc.</p>
<p>could i ask what you dont like about CMU or why your considering transferring, i was considering applying next year</p>
<p>Sorry for not specifying, undergraduate is what I was talking about. Thanks for the informative response. I guess I'm drawn to SciArc because of that basic pedagogical standpoint that you, larationalist, reinforced. I have very little experience with architecture outside of school, so I feel a little in the dark with fully understanding how a student with his head in the sky would have a hard time being hired. I mean, doesn't sciarc have the connections necessary to place their undergraduate students in firms right out of school? Furthermore, wouldn't the architectural skills be what a firm would hire for, seeing as an undergraduate wouldn't be put on the design team right off the bat?</p>
<p>Another opinion question: Would going to sciarc for undergrad and then going somewhere else for a more "grounded" masters be the same or different than going to sciarc for a masters after a "grounded" BArch?</p>
<p>My opinion, which may be naive, is that it would be better to be pushed further and then be grounded than to never see how far you can go. Although I'm sure you can push the limit at any architecture school, I also feel like there's a lot of factors which may enhance or impede that exploration.</p>
<p>Thanks for any imput!</p>
<p>To Ryan: If you want to do architecture, CMU is a grand place to do it at. The faculty is top notch and the courses are spot on. CMU is a warm and inviting place on top of it all. We have outside lecturers come in all the time for some pretty outstanding discussions. My reasons for <em>considering</em> leaving are much more individual and personal. Things like money and the difference in culture.</p>
<p>Trust me, you won't sleep... But those will be the best all-nighters of your week, every week.</p>
<p>"so I feel a little in the dark with fully understanding how a student with his head in the sky would have a hard time being hired. I mean, doesn't sciarc have the connections necessary to place their undergraduate students in firms right out of school? Furthermore, wouldn't the architectural skills be what a firm would hire for, seeing as an undergraduate wouldn't be put on the design team right off the bat?"</p>
<p>That's exactly it.... people with their heads in the clouds haven't taken the time to develop those architectural skills (drafting, space planning, documentation) that are most likely to get one hired right out of undergrad. Many people graduate from SCIArc with grandiose design ideas but no idea how to get them built, and a strong resistance to the low-level tasks of drafting and documentation because they believe that they were trained to DESIGN, and they shouldn't have to put up with that stuff. As you correctly mentioned, people don't get hired to design right out of school, and this conflicts with the education that SCIArc kids seem to be getting.</p>
<p>That is certainly a valid theory, but grad programs don't tend to focus on the nuts and bolts stuff, they tend to focus on theory, because graduate school by definition is advanced theory and research. So it seems that it would be a very hard situation to find, and anyway would only work if you went to grad directly out of undergrad, which is exhausting.</p>
<p>I'm not advocating going to a school that tries to teach a trade, but going to a school that tries to teach BOTH theory and practice, to try and become a well-rounded architect. SCIArc just seems to have disregarded the practice side of things too much.</p>
<p>And a side note: architecture schools don't really 'place' people in the way that some business schools do. You meet people at events, you hear what firms build awesome work, and you go from there. A school that's really, really awesome in this area might help you with sending out resumes, but that's really about it, except for those occasional situations that pop up where one of your professors needs an intern. You may get the contacts from the school, but you're not 'placed', you still need to prove to the firm that it's worth hiring you.</p>
<p>I think SCIARC grads do very well in New York Firms.</p>
<p>So going to grad school without the "nuts and bolts" would just make it that much harder to succeed there as well. I still don't quite understand how you could get an education in design and not be able to express those ideas. I mean, somehow they're expressing their creativity at SCIArc. If it's unconventional, I don't see that as a problem. But at some level it has to be rudimentary or nobody would be able to understand what they're trying to convey.</p>
<p>Maybe I just don't have enough experience to know what the practice side really envolves, but even down to the portfolio that you would go out into the "real world" with after schooling, wouldn't it be about your design work and how well you convey that? They seem to be hand in hand to me.</p>
<p>ohh, and thank you for your responses, they're extremely helpful :)</p>
<p>Spend your schooling learning about history of architecture, design and conceptual architecture. See as many great buildings as you possibly can. Don't rely on photos. It takes years and years and years to fine tune a 'spatial sensibility'. </p>
<p>While you are working on your schosl presentations, push yourself to boost your CAD and model making skills so that when you get into an office you can make yourself useful.</p>
<p>You should spend at least one or two summer working in an office--as good an office as possible--so that when you go looking for your first job, you have something to add to the office.</p>
<p>However, you will learn most practical aspects on the job itself. That is why there is a three year apprenticeship. In that first post-grad job hunt, your design ability will be considered as much as your presentation skills. Realistically though, very few apprentices are allowed to design anythng in major offices. It is a testament to your talent and political skill if you do get that opportunity.</p>
<p>Thanks cheers... to change the topic a little then, is there a point to going to a more "presigious" design school if it costs more? I mean, it sounds like, and i'm pretty sure, a student can make or break his/her education. So any decent school would help you along just fine. Would a "top" school push you in a better way than the decent schools out there?</p>
<p>perhaps my perspective is a little biased because I have to pay a lot for my education and the program that I attend is pretty highly regarded. In life, success largely depends on what you do more than what college you go to and that applies to any major. You can still get a good architecture education from a non-top school. Pay in the field largely depends on your years of experience. </p>
<p>I think the experience you get at a top notch school is better, and this can definitely affect your education. This comes from the transfer students at my school who came from other not as well known schools. Especially for programs that are very competitive to get into, you get a more dedicated and passionate student body, which is very important in the architecture education. This is true for my studio. everyone is very hardworking and there is a great diversity in talent and background. You also then get a better alumni network because they know what you went through. Top notch schools also attract great visiting faculty and faculty. last semester we had many famous architects/theorists such as rem koolhaas, toyo ito, and kenneth frampton come talk. </p>
<p>I think just as important as deciding whether you should go to a top notch school or not is also what kind of education you want. all schools push their students in different directions.</p>
<p>"I think SCIARC grads do very well in New York Firms."</p>
<p>Agree to some extent, and I think one reason is that SCI-ARC is seen as slightly exotic in NY, and most people aren't even aware of its limitations/deficiencies to whatever extent they exist.</p>
<p>I think Marsden's hit the nail on the head. I'm talking about SCIArc from an Angeleno's perspective, which is naturally a bit more intimate than you'll find in other parts of the country.</p>
<p>On a side note, I was there this weekend, and the facilities really do rock. All that space....</p>
<p>As for prestige vs. economy, I would say it depends on whether you'll be going for a masters degree later on (unless you're really, really well off). If not, I would try to go to the absolute best undergrad school you can. If you will be going for a masters, I would think it's ok to do undergrad on the cheap at a state university, and just work your butt off to get into a really good grad school.</p>
<p>The top schools attract the top faculty--and the top visiting faculty. They also attract AMAZING peer talent. You will learn more and raise the standard of your understanding in the most challenging environment.</p>
<p>If you can't get into a top school--make sure you get to a top grad school--or to New York to do your apprenticeship in a top office.</p>
<p>Los Angeles is a curious vacuum of architecture. Gehry, all that money and so little architecture. Mystery, that.</p>
<p>hmmm... could be a good thing though, in LA that is...</p>
<p>thanks for your responses everyone...</p>