Hi guys, I just need your opinion on the two summer programs Sci-arch and UCLA have available. I've done research and it looks like both programs is beneficial for helping to build my portfolio for M.arch applications. I was just wondering if anyone had more insight on the difference between the learning outcomes, average work load, etc.
About me: I have no architectural background and I am looking for an intro/crash course to architect that will help build my portfolio. I have a degree unrelated to architecture.
they are both gonna be pretty similar - huge workload - huge learning curve.
Go where you want to go to school if you have a preference.
Similar pedagogy, faculty and critics bounce back and forth between the two - maybe environment is a consideration - downtown vs. westwood and commute, that one is up to you. no h sciarc.
Because of the similarities between the schools, I would take price into consideration. Go with whichever is cheaper for the summer. If they cost the same... flip a coin?
I don't have experience with UCLA's program, but I can tell you my experience with Making+Meaning. I come from a non-arch, non-design background, and did M+M as a way to get a taste of architecture school and build a portfolio. M+M was an intense experience, and we made a lot of physical models in a variety of media. During M+M, SCI-Arc offered us the chance to meet with admissions officers who gave us tips on creating a portfolio, and they also created an ad-hoc photo booth and tripod for people to photograph their work.
After M+M, I made a portfolio that consisted mostly of M+M work that I photographed, plus a few drawings and photography I did on my own.I applied to M.Arch I programs this past fall (entering Fall 2016), and so far I've been accepted to every school I've heard back from, including UCLA, several Ivies, and a few others. The only school I'm still waiting to hear from is Yale. So based on my own anecdotal evidence, the work you make at M+M will allow you to create a portfolio that can get you admitted to a broad range of schools. I've heard of other M+M students from prior years who were also admitted to Harvard, Yale, etc.
@okada Thanks for the insite ! I really appreciate it. I was wondering how well did you do without having a design or architectural background? I don't feel very confident going into the program since I do not have any previous experience.
Jul 6, 16 6:28 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Sci-Arch Making+Meaning or UCLA Jumpstart
Hi guys, I just need your opinion on the two summer programs Sci-arch and UCLA have available. I've done research and it looks like both programs is beneficial for helping to build my portfolio for M.arch applications. I was just wondering if anyone had more insight on the difference between the learning outcomes, average work load, etc.
About me: I have no architectural background and I am looking for an intro/crash course to architect that will help build my portfolio. I have a degree unrelated to architecture.
Thank you !
bumps
they are both gonna be pretty similar - huge workload - huge learning curve.
Go where you want to go to school if you have a preference.
Similar pedagogy, faculty and critics bounce back and forth between the two - maybe environment is a consideration - downtown vs. westwood and commute, that one is up to you. no h sciarc.
Because of the similarities between the schools, I would take price into consideration. Go with whichever is cheaper for the summer. If they cost the same... flip a coin?
The cost is going to be relatively the same. I think the program that will be beneficial for building my portfolio will be my deciding factor.
Any additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you !!
Both are well-suited to prepare you (or pre-interview you) for that particular school, but UCLA probably has more application elsewhere.
I don't have experience with UCLA's program, but I can tell you my experience with Making+Meaning. I come from a non-arch, non-design background, and did M+M as a way to get a taste of architecture school and build a portfolio. M+M was an intense experience, and we made a lot of physical models in a variety of media. During M+M, SCI-Arc offered us the chance to meet with admissions officers who gave us tips on creating a portfolio, and they also created an ad-hoc photo booth and tripod for people to photograph their work.
After M+M, I made a portfolio that consisted mostly of M+M work that I photographed, plus a few drawings and photography I did on my own. I applied to M.Arch I programs this past fall (entering Fall 2016), and so far I've been accepted to every school I've heard back from, including UCLA, several Ivies, and a few others. The only school I'm still waiting to hear from is Yale. So based on my own anecdotal evidence, the work you make at M+M will allow you to create a portfolio that can get you admitted to a broad range of schools. I've heard of other M+M students from prior years who were also admitted to Harvard, Yale, etc.
Do you know when the program is closed for application? And how many people are in the class?
@okada Thanks for the insite ! I really appreciate it. I was wondering how well did you do without having a design or architectural background? I don't feel very confident going into the program since I do not have any previous experience.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.