(L-R) Kristy Balliet and Marcelyn Gow, SCI-Arc Undergraduate Programs Chairs. Image courtesy of SCI-Arc.

Archinect's Deans List series allows us to connect with architecture's academic leaders (deans and chairs) to learn more about their pedagogical stances, academic perspectives, and what they envision for the school during their tenure. 

SCI-Arc is an institution known for its historic and influential presence within Southern California's architecture and pedagogy. This legacy of progressive pedagogy continues with the appointment of Kristy Balliet and Marcelyn Gow as SCI-Arc's Undergraduate Chairs. During the Fall 2023 term, in an exclusive interview, I spoke Balliet and Gow, to discuss their new role and the observations they see for this incoming wave of undergraduate students.

In October 2022, both women were appointed program chairs, following SCI-Arc faculty members William Virgil and Darin Johnstone, who sat as acting Undergraduate Program Chairs. 

Diving deeper into their goals as academic leaders and the institution's undergraduate programs, we chat about what makes SCI-Arc applicants different, how they aim to support faculty, and the changing nature of student culture in academia.

*This conversation has been transcribed and edited below for clarity.

What brought you to SCI-Arc? How long have you been part of its faculty? 

Marcelyn Gow (MG): I first visited SCI-Arc in 2002 for an exhibition opening. It happened to be Hernán Díaz Alonso’s exhibition Emotional Rescue. I was amazed by the vitality of all the faculty and students who were there discussing and creating discourse in real-time. There was so much energy. I was amazed. I’d never seen that level of activity in a school gallery context where everyone was engaging with an installation designed by a faculty member specifically for that space. That opening party was a real introduction to the school for me. Prior to that, I had been teaching in Stockholm at the Royal Institute of Technology, and I was in the process of moving back to the US. I made contacts and met some faculty at SCI-Arc, and it felt like a great fit for me. SCI-Arc is a place where ideas are constantly being created, so it’s a pleasure to be here.

Kristy Balliet (KB): I first came to SCI-Arc as a visiting faculty member in 2016. I was teaching at the Knowlton School of Architecture at Ohio State at the time, and I had just submitted for tenure. A change of scenery seemed like a great idea. I had always admired SCI-Arc from afar, so, the opportunity to come, visit, and teach here for a year was fantastic. I knew I would enjoy the energy and excitement, but I was pleasantly surprised to see how the school was so invested in constantly evolving. As I was moving into the middle of my career, I decided this was the best place to grow, develop, and test my ideas in pedagogy, practice, and research. In 2018, I joined SCI-Arc as a full-time faculty member.

In terms of undergraduate students, so many people “walk through” SCI-Arc. How would you characterize/describe SCI-Arc’s undergraduate program, and what makes it different compared to other architecture UG programs in Southern California? 

KB: I spent the morning with our “newest crew” (first-year undergraduates). One of the things that differentiates SCI-Arc’s UG program from other programs is the type of student it attracts. By that, I mean at other institutions, students may come to architecture through their knowledge of the larger institution, and there’s a culture around the institution. But here, for an undergraduate student to seek out SCI-Arc in the early part of their education suggests that they have encountered the design, architecture, art community and are excited to explore a professional degree in architecture within an alternative model of education. To pursue a five-year Bachelor of Architecture degree and to know you want to become an architect at age 17-18 and to seek out a school that doesn’t fall into the standard category of an undergraduate institution—those two things juxtaposed together tend to attract an intriguing student. And then what that brings you is a class of fascinating students who begin to develop camaraderie, skills, and encounter architecture together. So, I really think that the intensity at the school starts with the energy the students bring. 

To pursue a five-year Bachelor of Architecture degree and to know you want to become an architect at age 17-18 and to seek out a school that doesn’t fall into the standard category of an undergraduate institution—those two things juxtaposed together tend to attract an intriguing student. - Kristy Balliet

MG: Our students are thinking about how to engage spaces within the built environment and building works of architecture, but they are also extending their vision into cinematic realms, new technologies, immersive simulations, and environmental mediums. Kristy and I often talk about how students are both designing buildings and building worlds. The coursework fosters that duality in the context of design studios as well as seminars in the liberal arts, history + theory, applied studies, and visual studies where students can extend their architectural thinking into other realms that are both a part of, and adjacent to, architecture. We are a thesis school, so the five-year curriculum culminates with the undergraduate thesis project. This is a moment where each student’s vision about the world becomes embodied in a work of architecture. 

You bring up a great point, Kristy. I think that a 17-18-year-old who just graduated high school and is deciding to pursue a school like SCI-Arc is unique. But both of you described and gave some insight as to why SCI-Arc is interesting, and it’s because of its students. 

Shifting gears slightly, I want to focus on you both as individuals who run practices and are educators. Now, you’re in this academic leadership position. Being placed in this leadership role, is that something you thought you would be doing when pursuing architecture? How did this opportunity to work together as chairs come about?

MG: When I arrived at SCI-Arc and began teaching, I was impressed by the strong sense of community and the conversations happening throughout the school. Since we have several different academic programs, everyone can catch a glimpse of what others are designing and making. I was excited about getting involved and helping to facilitate some of those conversations. Also, the SCI-Arc discourse aligned with my research in history + theory, and my engagement with the curricular aspects of how one can begin to learn and reflect through the design process. I often think about what aspects of the curriculum we want to transform and what direction we are headed in currently as an institution. How can our curriculum stay current and engage with important issues that architects are confronting today, some of which haven’t been foregrounded historically? So it is quite rewarding to participate in some of these conversations and speak to one another as students, alumni, faculty, staff, and other members of our community. I think our collective focus is on how we can make the school the best learning environment it can be.

I often think about what aspects of the curriculum we want to transform and what direction we are headed in currently as an institution. How can our curriculum stay current and engage with important issues that architects are confronting today, some of which haven’t been foregrounded historically? - Marcelyn Gow

KB: I don’t think it’s ever fully one or the other. Looking back, I have had many leadership opportunities, some that I understood as leadership and others you only discover later. Teaching is a form of leadership. Marcelyn and I approached the decision to pursue being the undergraduate chair(s) first through conversations with colleagues, followed by several conversations together. We both had a desire to have an impact at this level, but also, given our personalities and strengths, we were both interested in maintaining teaching as a part of how we lead and engage the school. These combined desires led us to consider the chair position as a team. That team dynamic allows us to engage in teaching activities to some degree and use that knowledge together to inform some of our leadership decisions. 

It’s important to note that the call was for a chair, singular. Marcelyn and I put a proposal together to do it as a team. We are grateful to Hernán and the search committee for considering this an option that can work. To be engaged in teaching, I believe, is essential. A leadership position like this in 2023 requires many types of engagement. The needs of the students, the curriculum, faculty, and staff have always been there, but I think the “ratio” is constantly shifting. The two of us work together to focus our energy in strategic ways but also to work together on crucial topics that get into “gray zones.”

MG: We're also very excited about the forthcoming launch of our new Bachelor of Science program. We have two undergraduate programs, the five-year Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch) program, and a four-year Bachelor of Science in Design (BS in Design) program. Working as a team of two chairs allows each of us to take point on one of the two undergraduate programs.

What advice do you wish you had received during your career OR advice you did receive that you wish to pass on?

MG: The advice I’d share is something I was told by my advisor while I was writing my doctoral dissertation. That can be a lonely endeavor, culminating years of research and writing. The first part of the advice was: never throw anything away, which is good advice, especially for design studio work. The second piece of advice was to take time every day to make something (in my case, it was to write something), but don’t be afraid of the blank sheet of paper. Even if you think this is something that won't make it into the final project, just continue to do it at a pace that feels comfortable, but also make it into a daily practice that’s part of your life. Sometimes, if you feel stuck on a project and you leave it alone for a week, it can be hard to come back to. Making those quick daily attempts to develop the work helps to keep moving forward

KB: One thing I wish that someone had taught me is to spend the time to define your values and let those lead your priorities. I think as architects and designers, we can chase things and get easily distracted. In some ways, that’s encouraged, but in order to be productive, it’s important to define your values and set priorities. I wish I had learned that earlier. 

A piece of advice I did receive, and I continue to share that has been invaluable to me, was when an undergraduate professor told me, in the context of applying to grad school, “while pursuing what is next, remember that you already know everything you need to know.” I needed to hear that at that moment in my life because sometimes there is a sense that "you need to do this next thing, and after you achieve that next thing…then you’ll be ready." This advice gives you permission to do something. It doesn’t mean that there’s nothing else to learn, but it implies that you know enough to act.

What message do you hope to convey to new/emerging faculty and current staff at SCI-Arc?

KB: We want faculty to bring their skills and interests into their teaching, but we also want faculty to understand how the students are arriving. We talk about this in different ways. One aspect is really spending the time to understand where the student was before this class. Asking, “Where are they coming from? What is their previous education, culture, and experience? What are they bringing to the class?" Second, we ask faculty to understand what they hope the students learn after taking this class. 

The SCI-Arc staff, in a lot of ways, are already doing this, and maybe we’re even learning it from them. Our staff work quite holistically, and each of them supports and develops the student in different ways. I think the more we can do that as faculty, the stronger we are as an institution.

We want faculty to bring their skills and interests into their teaching, but we also want faculty to understand how the students are arriving [...] One aspect is really spending the time to understand where the student was before this class. – Kristy Balliet

MG: Another important aspect, exemplified by our work as a team in the chair position, is emphasizing the importance of collaboration in design, critical thinking, and discourse. In a core design studio, for example, there may be four instructors. Every student has their own instructor, but the curriculum is designed to include moments where everyone in the studio gathers to look at the studio projects collectively and have a discussion as an entire class. So we think it’s quite important to create those kinds of spaces where the conversation is shared. The design work and ideas become more collective in the shared space of the studio, and even more public to visitors from outside the school in reviews and thesis presentations. We want to cultivate a space of collaboration, while also ensuring that every student benefits from the experience of working individually at certain points in the curriculum. 

Today, students have a stronger desire to be a part of the lines of inquiry. The moment something is uncomfortable, there needs to be a discussion, and I think there are advantages and disadvantages to that. One of the ways we address this is to increase the clarity and frequency of communication. – Marcelyn Gow

What lessons/observations about student culture have you noticed as educators?

KB: Students have always had questions—that’s part of the job as a student—but what we notice is that students are asking the question at the same time that they’re developing the question. An inquiry arises, and the question is asked. Education is developed intentionally to have moments that require “jumps.” A certain amount of information is given, and then there is a certain amount of information that is redacted or withheld to prompt a jump or reach. Today, students have a stronger desire to be a part of the lines of inquiry. The moment something is uncomfortable, there needs to be a discussion, and I think there are advantages and disadvantages to that. One of the ways we address this is to increase the clarity and frequency of communication. We involve students by saying, “These are the goals. These are collectively what we hope to achieve here.” 

MG: A big shift has been that the current generation of students is increasingly recognizing the importance of their co-curricular activities outside of the classroom. These are experiences that facilitate students’ learning and improve their ability to engage in the space of the design studios and seminars, or to borrow a term from bell hooks, the “learning community.” I think it’s a valuable skill to know “How can I achieve that? How can I pace my working process? How can I plan and schedule?” Allowing time for reflection is so important. It’s remarkable how much students learn and discover throughout the years they spend at SCI-Arc. Each year, they’re taking on more and more responsibility and becoming attuned to taking the steps of working in different contexts, from collaborating as a team to working individually and discovering what that shift entails. I believe that adaptability is a significant aspect of how the current learning culture is changing.

KB: Students today are very proactive.

What are some challenges students are facing today?

MG: Several challenges that all of us have become increasingly cognizant of in the past few years are the impacts of environmental change, the urgency for social justice, and the transformative role of artificial intelligence. The necessity to rethink and alter the way we work as architects and designers in response to these challenges is evident. The manner in which we access information has also changed radically. We have many conversations in the school about how to use contemporary technological tools creatively to foster critical thinking. Another major consideration is the access to so much information and our ability to engage meaningfully with it. I think these are some of the challenges, but they are also opportunities. The current generation of students will be the architects and designers of the near future, and the opportunity exists for them to lead the way in the conversation, embracing what has been overlooked or left out of our conversations, and engaging with those voices. They will add to the architectures, the archives, and the words that shape our world.

KB: Architecture has always had the challenge of “scale.” It works on large things that engage with many parts of the environment, culture, finance, etc. Marcelyn just indicated that even for architecture — including buildings, cities, and urban planning — things have always worked at a large scale. The challenges that face an architectural citizen are so large that it can sometimes feel overwhelming to know where to begin. That is a challenge but also an opportunity because architects have always been asked to use design in large and small ways. Design has a direct impact on communities around us. To manage these complex issues, designers are uniquely set up to use their skills to zoom into and zoom out of a problem. That skill now needs to be expanded, and I think that’s a challenge both for students and for pedagogy because there’s only so much room and so much time. So the question is, how do you make room for these big changes?

*SCI-Arc's Undergraduate, Graduate, and Post-Graduate programs are accepting applications with a Fall 2024 Priority Deadline of January 15, 2024. To learn more about each program, click here.

*This editorial feature is brought to you by an Archinect Partner School. Interested in becoming a school partner to showcase featured editorial like this? Reach out!