Pratt

why not sci-arc?

This is a copy post from the "Emergent.." trend:

Someone on a previous post lickened it to a bad film school trying to be an architecture school. SCIArc is like M. Night Shyamalan. A myriad of bad work yet we keep expecting better for some odd reason, too much credit for a myriad of nothingness, and yes it desperately wants to be like Columbia. There's a reason why Mayne has little-to-nothing to do with SCIArc and part of UCLA.

Would you trust the word of someone who doesn't know how to spell 'likened' (lickened???) and repeats the same error.....er....I mean, typo, in re-posting their own post yet again?

Okay that was a bit of a low-blow, but I am honestly curious as to what it is you have against Sci-Arc that you are on this seemingly relentless crusade against it?


So you went to a review and you didn't like what you saw; fair enough, it's not for everyone - but then again neither is CUNY or Pratt (or Columbia's GSAPP for that matter). But that's no reason for you to keep perpetuating blatant lies like "Mayne has little-to-nothing to do with Sci-Arc". He still attends crits and reviews there and still gives the occasional lecture while also still hiring grads from there and UCLA were he teaches.

So again I ask, what's your beef with Sci-Arc?
Did you try to apply there and fail to get in?

I'm not Sci-Arc's biggest fan myself, and I believe that the cabal of Hernan Diaz Alonso and his cohorts and inner clique of professors there is leading the school into a pedagogical ditch with their design philosophy, but not all instructors at Sci-Arc buy into that 'style-over-substance' mentality and train of thought - something you would have discovered for yourself if you were actually paying attention during that visit , whenever it was.

The original poster clearly has a good idea of what they have to offer seeing as they actually took the time and effort to apply there and actually got in. So to take a simple earnest request for advice as an opportunity to yet again launch into yet another attack on Sci-Arc, kinda wears thin on your credibility.

We get it . You don't like Sci-Arc.
Move on.


(P.S. - obviously the bulk of this post is directed at ctrlZ.

As for the original poster, all I can say is that the schools offer vastly different and almost diametrically opposite instructional philosophies and you would probably be better off making your decision based on a little research on the work of some of the more prominent Instructors and professors at the respective schools since they typically tend to carry those ideologies over to the classes they teach.
It's certainly more reliable than seeking the advice of seemingly disgruntled posters on an internet forum)

Thanks Puppermaster. I was waiting for someone to ask if I have an agenda against SCIArc. No, I don't. It was a relatively cheap blow pointing out 1 typo, only because you then agreed with my entire point about SCIArc and made the comments like:

"but not all instructors at Sci-Arc" - I did make it a point to tell the same individual that asked about SCI-Arc in the other posts that there are great instructors at SCIArc like Zellner, Tighe, Oyler etc. However the directors still have their own agenda.

Mayne comment "still attends crits and reviews there and still gives the occasional lecture" - So should Woodbury, USC, Bartlett or anywhere the Mayne has been on the the jury of say that he's as part of the institution as SCIArc would like most to believe? You could have done better than that PM.

I telling you what it's like at SCIArc from knowledge from being in the belly of the beast.

Thanks Puppetmaster!

Well then it's good to know that you've actually been taking all these potshots at Sci-Arc just because you've been waiting for someone to challenge you on them and ask you if you have an agenda against SCi-Arc.

It seems to me to be a juvenile and even puerile way of going about helping someone who's asking for your advice- as opposed to, say, being mature and objective about it - but then again maybe that's just me.
It also seems to me to be a silly way to defend the claim that you don't have an agenda against the school when on first being challenged your first response is to say," I was waiting for someone to ask if I have an agenda" - meaning you already knew it was coming and that your comments are already colored that way and biased and that you know it.
But again, that's just me.

And yes, I did take a cheap shot at you by pointing out that typo which you willingly re-posted from your own quote in the same form, without bothering to notice it a second time nor correct it, and I admitted as much.
For someone who's taking so many cheap-shots at Sci-Arc, seemingly making it his whole purpose of being, on these boards, I would have thought it was just a natural setting for you.

And no, I didn't not agree with your entire point.
Your entire point in this and the other thread is that Sci-Arc is completely worthless in its entirety as a choice to consider to go and pursue one's degree.

That's not what I said.
I said that I do have my own misgivings about Sci-Arc, (AND from personal experience as opposed to your own "vicarious" expertise), but that that being said, I wasn't prepared to entirely dismiss the entire institution on the basis of what I consider to be a few bad apples, regardless how how vocal or politically powerful those bad apples are.

That's not what you were saying.
You've backtracked on it a little bit and are saying it NOW that you've been challenged. But that wasn't the advice you gave the original poster.

The advise you gave the original poster was a summary dismissal by way of a bad analogy to a film school and a discredited film-maker, and there's nothing in that post about how "there's actually some good instructors at Sci-Arc despite all that and that one can get a worthwhile education if you really know what you want and are getting into.".
Only when I called you out on your bullshit did you pull that disclaimer.


As for your Mayne comment, yes it's still bullshit, because the difference between Mayne at Woodbury, USC, or Bartlett and him at Sci-Arc is that unlike those other schools, Mayne was part of the group that actually helped Sci-Arc come into being, and it's a bond he's never dismissed throughout his own career.
Yes, he still gives lectures at Sci-Arc (not as regular as UCLA since he's not on staff like there) and yes he still attends Crits and end of semester reviews. That doesn't sound to me like shunning the school.

How do I know this better than you?
Because I like I said, unlike you who's only had one or a couple at most vicarious experiences with the place beyond anecdotal expertise, I actually have real actual experience with the place having attended there.

So again, yes, I DO know what I'm talking about.

Unlike you.

Mayne is at UCLA for the california public employee retirement package.

@Puppetmaster

I have to honest and say that I had to just skim the polemic at me due to your confused attempt at defending SCIArc while showing that you really know very little of what you claim.

Mayne did not crit at SCIArc all year last year or this year. The year before last, he sat on 2 student reviews. Have you been to a school of architecture? Have you ever seen a juror sit on 2 juror reviews and then claim that they are deeply devoted to the program?

I would have had interest in a back & forth with you if you came with well informed, researched, possibly first hand knowledge or opinion on the pedagogy of SCIArc, its faculty etc rather than an abecedarian understanding on the school and what is actually done there.

I do believe that if you knew what you claim you knew, that this would have been a fun engagement. However, the original question from the poster wasn't about you vs I and your "misunderstanding" of what is being discussed doesn't make continuing this appealing to anyone - except maybe you.

I'm sure that your ego will force you to respond so that you can have the last word so go ahead.

(If you are looking for a contentious discussion on a forum then:
1. we can start another thread on a different topic. My beef for the day is AT&T wireless.

2. I purposely mispelled a word in the post. You can you find it and write a post on it.)

please choose #2.

(hint: I left you an extra special nugget!)

ctrlZ,

Mayne did crit at sci-arc last year, I personally saw him sit in on a full round (6 or so) graduate thesis reviews in September. And yes, this doesn't mean he is deeply devoted to the program, but it does show asserting things which are completely wrong. Still, while this doesn't prove any devotion: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/09/opinion/oe-mayne9

Also, UCLA has tenure and awesome retirement packages. Any agenda's set there are likely to last much longer than any agendas set at sci-arc.

Arfaei: Back to your original question (folks here appear to have gone off on a bit of a tangent), it all depends on where your interests lie. Sci-Arc and Pratt are heavy, heavy design schools, and are on the cutting edge of things like advanced computing and parametrics. I don't know how heavily they emphasize construction technology and the more "comprehensive" aspects of architecture. I go to the architecture school at CCNY, and I picked them over Columbia and Pratt. You get more bang for your buck...CCNY has tons of faculty who have taught at places like Pratt, Columbia, SCI-Arc, Cooper, Harvard, etc., etc. Furthermore, CCNY places almost equal amounts of weight on both design/form making and construction sensibility, and they are also tapping into the advanced computing realms now.

My recommendation would be to get in touch with students at each of the respective schools (or visit the schools if possible) and see how they like being there. Also, check out the student work on each school's website to see how it jives with your aesthetic sensibilities. Admittedly, those sensibilities will likely change once you're in school, but it's very important to keep an open mind.

What thesis reviews did he sit on? I was there as well.

(Since its difficult to tell in text, the question is not an attack. I'm seriously curious. The topic of conversation at the thesis reviews were the absence of a view notable people - one being Mayne.)

Hey guys, I am reading your comments.I was confused when I asked the question in the first place.Now I am ABSOLUTELY confused.

Arfaei,

Within most of the posts, including PM's and mines, there's substantial input on the programs; mostly SCIArc.

Below is a link to a letter sent to SCIArc that is featured on Archinect's home page. I'm not a follower of the firm's work, but the gist of the letter is what PM's basically alluded to and what I have stated. However the decision and what your interest in architecture ultimately is should help you decide on a program.

http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=105409_0_24_0_C

Best of luck on your decision.

@ctrlZ


This is the last time I'm hijacking this thread to address your bullshit.

As has been pointed out by another poster you're full of it.


Where am I coming from?
Since you seem to have missed it the first time I pointed it out, I graduated from there (Sci-Arc - Grad) not too long ago and have been back there multiple times to actually know what I'm talking about and to confirm that Mayne has been there for the past 3 years' Graduate thesis presentations (as he has also been for those that came before) and will be there for this year's Grad thesis presentations as well (schedules permitting).

Furthermore the fact that YOU didn't see him when you were there doing your vicarious "fact-finding" mission is not a mystery. When he attends Grad reviews he does not attend all the student presentations and is in fact hardly ever there for the morning presentations nor even for both days of the presentations.
So it's entirely possible that you were at one end of the school while he was at the other and probably during a time of day when you weren't there.
He also gave a lecture for their annual lecture series last year as well, I believe.

One thing I do know for FACT is that he ws most definitely there when I gave my Grad presentation (not at my jury specifically, but in the presentations themselves) and this was recent enough for me to say that you are absolutely full of bullshit.

Like I said, I actually know what I'm talking about having been there, studied there, graduated from there and still actually keeping links with friends back there (or as you would put it "first hand knowledge or opinion"); unlike you who seems to be a bullshit expert basing your half-baked opinions on a couple of visits you had there during which you did not see someone and clumsily use that as proof-positive to conclude that they want nothing more to do with the school.

I don't mind people taking shots at my alma mater - they are no more above criticism or scrutiny than any of the students they force to endure crits.
I do mind it when the people taking those shots don't bother to ground their cheapshots in any whiff of reality whatsoever and post blatant outright lies like you're doing.



And I'm not interested in your gimme spelling errors.
I pointed out the first one to make a larger point about taking cheapshots at other people while completely missing the larger point - something you seem to be an expert of sorts at.
Naturally you completely missed the point of that as well and thought it was all about the spelling error and typo. Not surprising in the least.

I'll tell you what.
Why don't you bumble your way through yet another bullshit rant at a school or a thing you barely know anything about, make an spelling error therein, and then quote yourself going on that rant in yet another thread while carrying the same error and not bothering to correct it, and then I'll offer to step in with my services to yet again pointlessly focus on, and correct the spelling error, and miss the larger point you're addressing, while simultaneously futilely expecting you, of all people, to get and understand the larger point being made by such an action without having it all spelled out to you like a 2 year old.

How's that sound?

@Arfaei,

Back to you as the original poster and also to bring this back to the topic you initially started.
I can only speak from the perspective of a former Sci-Arc student and grad; but as has already been alluded to Sci-Arc is a design-heavy school with a considerable focus on digital methods of design, production and fabrication.
Naturally this isn't everybody's cup of tea, although I have to point out that not all the instructors share this particular bent towards their classes.
Which is why I suggested researching the Instructors.

Furthermore, while ctrlZ is persitently trying to use what I said to mean that it somehow validates what he is stating about Sci-Arc (bear in mind that he's never studied there and therefore hardly knows what he's talking about) our 2 positions could hardly be any more different.
My position remains that there are instructors there right now who remain grounded and who while still embracing a larger part of the school's design-oriented philosophy, still like to keep their focus more grounded and closer related to real-world construction sensisibilities.
In other words, Sci-Arc, just like any other desing school is not a monolithic creature where all the Instructors think the same or share the same pedagogy and approach towards architecture and design.

As for a comparison to the other schools you mentioned, the only oneI can speak to is Pratt, since when I was at Sci-Arc there was a student who was from Pratt in one of the studios I attended and from the conversations I had with him, he also gave me the impression that Pratt was likewise a design-oriented or design-heavy school just like Sci-Arc with a similar emphasis on Digital exploration, production and fabrication - which is part of what attracted him to Sci-Arc. So it basically all boils down to wanting to study under a particular instructor or program at the respective schools rather than the overall directions or philosophies the schools are pursuing.

Bottom line :
You know what you want to do, or at least you have a very good idea otherwise you would never have applied to these schools in particular nor been accepted to them. As such the best way of splitting the difference between them is to do as another poster suggested which is to get in touch with current or former students at all the institutions and get their opinions, look at their respective websites and possibly at the student work (not always reliable since schools don't always keep their websites up to date with the most current work nor do they vary the range of student work - creatively or philosphpically - enough to give a better picture), try to see if you can research the Instructors (as many as possible) since they are the ones that actually drive the schools' respective design philosphies and are the ones that you will actually be getting your education from, and finally if you can swing it and afford it (considering the fact that the schools are on opposite sides of the country) then yes, do visit them since that is always the absolute best way of getting a first-hand unfiltered opinion of the school. They might even allow you to sit in on a few student crits and reviews which is even better than just walking through.

At the end of the day it will be down to you and what you want to do.
And no one, not even anyone that claims to know more than they really do, can tell you what you want to do and get out of your architectural education better than you.

I received an undergrad from Pratt (1990) and a Masters from SCI-ARC (1994). I am not familiar w/ the CUNY program. If it were me, I would choose the Pratt program over SCI-ARC hands down for an undergraduate degree for a number of reasons. Feel free to e-mail me directly and I can give you more info.

I don't know much about CUNY either, but from being in NYC, Pratt has a very good rep., not at the level of the other dozen or so top tier programs in the area, but still very respected.

As for Sci-Arc, it sounds like a mistake, a third rate film program masquerading as an architecture school. Having spent a significant amount of time in both NY and California, I see the likes of Sci-Arcs and UPenns as the ass end of "name" schools that embodies the problem with an architecture education, pushing their "pedagogy" and theories, their egos and twisted dogmas over a practical education that might otherwise teach anything having to do with the world we live in. I'm not saying most architecture schools confront reality head on, but Sci-Arc is on the extreme end of that fantasy spectrum. In southern Cali, where there is little competition for architecture schools, the name Sci-Arc has an allure that doesn't transcend well outside that region and quite honestly, should be seen as the equivalent of an art degree - to say it is a third-rate film school would be disrespectful to actual third-rate film programs.

I think it's important to know which program you are going into... Undergrad? Grad? M.Arch 1 or 2? Unless I missed that above, we have no idea and so it's hard to talk about the programs with much authority. For example, the Undergrad and Graduate programs are vastly different. Even the 2 graduate programs take a totally different approach.

Just to add to that, the bulk of what most people on this forum are using to gauge to work of SCI-Arc is largely the work being produced in the M.Arch 2 program (i.e. the people who already have a B.A. in Architecture), as this is the work that the school usually uses to market the program. Essentially the view of the M.Arch 2 program (from my personal experience attending said program) is that you already spent 4 years in UG likely doing more "traditional" architecture (which given the portfolios of most of my classmates is pretty true), so why repeat that when you could be doing something different? As mentioned before, it's not for everyone and after the first year, there really is latitude to explore some of the other options available in the school.

Honestly, it really comes down to what you want to be studying. So far, you haven't given much indication what your interests are, instead giving us a "I am incapable of making decisions for myself so here are the 3 very different schools I got into, please choose for me" thread that, as you can see, has resulted in the usually "this school sucks" feces throwing that inevitably occurs on this forum. My advice is to spend some time deciding what is important to you in regards to your architectural education and then see which schools will best meet those goals. There is no one 'perfect' school and not one school is the right answer for everyone. Please don't make a decision based on hearsay and rankings, otherwise you will be really unhappy for 2-5 years.

I haven't posted here in some time because I've fallen out of touch with the architecture community since withdrawing from SCI-Arc after 3 semesters at the school. -A note: please don't waste time attacking grammar errors in this post, let the fact that finding ways to support a heroin habit I picked up there that supplanted my studies be the reason any Lit. brats criticize me here- but this thread (that is overwhelmingly reoccurring),has for some reason tonight, touched a nerve.
Rather than admit the above I structured an argument against why I should continue at SCI-Arc. Why the points I will raise here with respect to SCI-Arc are/were all valid they would not have resulted within my withdrawal without my extracurricular activities.
There is some sort of unofficial credo that SCI-Arc encourages students to pursue architecture through a very individualistic process; which is to say that students have the freedom to choose metaphors or binding a idea that gives it coherence. That is true to the extent that the each student's design has to be developed through the same algorithm of process that has the same parameters set by the instructor. Naturally a common formal language is going to occur.
The same nurbs based geometries emerge in 90% of the student's finals because; the faculty praises students who come up with these forms first, which as a result, causes the other students to take whatever measures are necessary to fit the new baseless architectural form into an increasingly contrived process. That is my take on why the school is thought to be form over substance, but all schools have better students than others and the substance is there.
Indeed much of SCI-Arc's best attributes are the same ones that an earlier poster who apparently does not understand the school's pedagogy found sufficient to summarize and condemn it wholly saying,:

"...a previous post likened it to a bad film school trying to be an architecture school. SCIArc is like M. Night Shyamalan. A myriad of bad work yet we keep expecting better for some odd reason, too much credit for a myriad of nothingness".

One of the coolest and most valuable things about SCI-Arc is its affinity for not only film, but a number of other expressive mediums as well which have principles that correlate with architecture's and expand its discourse and limits. Since the remark was made toward SCI-Arc's integration of film making I'll expand merely on that area.
First while I was attending it was only 4 semesters of the Undergrad program and the SCI-FI graduate program that utilized it as a learning device. That makes the school a film school. Think of what film and architecture have in common -answer: composition of space & form and also sequential experience through an architectural program is equivalent to a movie's narrative structure. Furthermore both ordering systems employ devices to deliver their respective loads through the structure. If doubters on this remain consider Koolhause's whole strategy is based in narrative structure (and it must be duly noted Moss & CO. swing from Rems nuts day and night; so no wonder!) Tschumi also built most of his renown employing scripted events that he translated into sequences of architectural forms he called "events" ie., narrative structure.
Whether the purpose for which undergrads make films
at SCI-Arc is more important than the above is beyond my undereducated sphere of knowledge, but the assignment functions in a couple ways. First, in hindsight it is apparent that professors hope students will notice the aforementioned parallels. But also, when students develop their so-called big idea for the project through a film not only is the idea stronger because of the work that went into making it; for instance, the level of an environmental and contextual understanding that is requisite to making a film. More importantly students with films backing up their theses statements have a sequentially structured point of reference, or body of work to translate into architectural form.
SCI-Arc's quality cannot be judged by where the school ranks in Architectural Records list of which 5o programs have graduates best prepared for professional practice. (by the way, SCI-Arc's Graduate program recently placed 9th.) The school should be considered for the way it helps students to think. We were encouraged to weave many aspects of media and technology into architecture.

I wanted to thank you all for your time and I really appreciate all the advices here,As one has asked I must have said that I got into the M.arch 3yr program as my bachelors degree was not accredited in U.S. For now my first choice is pratt over sci-arc and cuny, That is mostly because of New York and not only the school.But I am waiting for some other results to come out such as michigan(waitlisted) and USC.

One more thought. Ive noticed a good deal of people thinking about loans, employment, and salaries of architects on these message boards, which I think is great and practical.

I was wondering if the schools, or other organizations have employment rates of recent grads? I think this would be an important hard figure if I was making the commitment to a 5 year education. I also would research this number thoroughly, as I have seem some pretty ridiculous employment stats (on the way too optimistic side) thrown out there.

As a side bar, I read an article that this years law students entering class has lowered considerably in numbers because of low hiring rates in the profession and lowered salaries.

Eeeks. I apologize for all the commas and semi-colons missing in my last post. And; furthermore, for the occasional grammatical errors as well. Hopefully these errors are not to the extent that the affected dont read ambiguously, or even worse are redundant. Moreover, I revealed a little bit T.M.I. with respect to my personal life as well. I would say more but keep falling asleep.

Arafei, even you must realize there is lots of ranting in this particular forum. It comes with anonymity; like being in a driver's seat x10; people let out their most cruel and petty emotions because they believe there are no consequences.

My advice is this. Sift through the comments above that have concrete, rational, and unemotional dialogue and those are the advice you should take into account to make your decision.

If I can extend one more advice, look at the work. Simple. Look at the work. We are in a profession that creates real (tangible and/or intangible) product. You don't have to second-guess yourself. If you like what you see and if you want to do the same, then that is the school you should choose. You can argue all you want about who teaches what there and how long a juror sat through a final, but what if that teacher you wanted wasn't available when you are there? This happens all the time.

I am sure you can find portfolios of Pratt and CUNY on-line somewhere, but I hope this satisfy your curiosity about SCI-Arc. I am not sure about film school and M. Night Shyamalan reference, but everyone is entitled to their anonymous opinion. It’s "a" portfolio by someone from SCI-Arc, not "the" portfolio of SCI-Arc. I also can't say I was one of their best students, but maybe that’s what you want to look at, from a pool of average, below average, or off-average students. If you want a more general looks of the program, you can pick up a copy of their "On-Ramp" book of student's work.

http://issuu.com/xmanifold/docs/xmanifold

Sincerely,

xmanifold, M.Arch, SCI-Arc class of 09

http://www.xmanifold.com

Arafei, I actually just registered just to post on this thread. Although i may be a little late in providing any input on this discussion but i figured i throw my 2 cents in.

First of all I am in the exact same boat that you are in right now. I have been accepted to the Masters programs at Pratt, SCI-Arc, Virginia Tech, and Texas A&M (i know all over the spectrum of architecture), none-the-less I have been racking my mind over where to attend as well.

I have come to the conclusion that it has to be based on a few things, Student work, School/faculty pedology, and atmosphere. Primarily i feel that the Student work should weigh the most because it will reflect on the school and faculty, so in that regard i agree with many of the people who have commented above me and feel i cannot expand on this anymore. But after reading through the rants and the rational arguments I see that no one has said anything about school atmosphere. the only way that you will excel is if you feel comfortable in your environment. I would sift through the comments like Xmanifold said and look for insights in how your life might be where ever you may choose.

Either way I'm glad to see that other people are in the same predicament.

Sincerely,

Baffled Graduate Applicant

what is your long term vision, and how does the school fit?

Not to re-derail or anything but, I just had to paste this for ctrlZ:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/04/architect-thom-mayne-joining-sci-arcs-board-of-trustees.html

@ rascuache,

Thanks for posting the link. (I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I genuinely mean "thank you.")

It is an obvious good move for SCIArc and one that should have happened a long time ago. Since you did post and said that you are pasting he link for me, I am sure that you read the article yourself and not suggesting that what I indicated was wrong.

"It may strike some as strange that Mayne isn't already on the school's board, since he was one of the co-founders of SCI-Arc in 1972 and remains actively involved with the school. But his private practice and other teaching positions have apparently kept him busy for the past 39 years."

@ctrlZ


But you WERE wrong.

The proof is right there in the quote which you even copy-pasted from the article itself.

At the beginning of this discussion YOU said:-

"There's a reason why Mayne has little-to-nothing to do with SCIArc and part of UCLA."


And yet the article clearly states:-

"... he was one of the co-founders of SCI-Arc in 1972 and remains actively involved with the school. "

emphasis on "ACTIVELY INVOLVED".


How you try and twist that around to somehow validate what you originally said, when it flat out contradicts you, is beyond mind-boggling.

You were wrong about Mayne's involvement with SCI-Arc just as you were wrong about some of the other spurious nonsense you posted about the school.

@Puppetmaster


The earlier discussion of whether Mayne was actively involved in SCI-Arc really wasn't much of a debate. Anyone that is/was part of SCIArc or UCLA in the past 5 years knows this. So thanks for pointing the "actively involved" even though in reality it holds little, to no, truth.

Of course I imagine that his involved will be increased considerably now that he is a board member. If he was "actively involved" since it's founding, explain how he wasn't a board member prior. Also consider the last time that he was part of the faculty.

Thanks for posting with caps but read the article w/ some resemblance of intelligence and criticism vis-a-vis what I stated if your going to post something to me. As far as nonsense about the school, what I've said has/is echoed throughout this forum, other forums, posts, letters etc so it's nothing new. I don't care to bash SCIArc as I know and linked to it so I hope that Mayne's involvement will help improve it as an academic institution in the field of architecture.

TTYL Puppetmaster

(are you searching me out to debate SCIArc because it's getting old.)

@ctrlZ


How wasn't it much of a debate?

Unless you mean it wasn't much of a debate that you made a patently false statement and are full of crap.
And why does it hold little to no truth that he's been actively involved?
Because you say so? Even when a third party source confirms that he "remains actively involved" at SCI-Arc, we're suddenly supposed to disregard them over you who's never been there for more than a day?

I was part of SCI-Arc in the past 5 years and I can confirm that he has been involved - perhaps not as a full time faculty member but certainly involved enough to completely invalidate what you said.
So there yet again, is another thing you said that is patently untrue.

Where you part of SCI-Arc during the past five years?
And by "part of" I mean either as a full time student or faculty and not just some visitor who happened to pass by during one review session.

If not (as you've admitted as much) then you're not really qualified to make the statement that "Anyone that is/was part of SCIArc or UCLA in the past 5 years knows (that he's not been actively involved there)".



>>>" If he was "actively involved" since it's founding, explain how he wasn't a board member prior."

As to why he's not been a board member even if he's been actively been involved, I believe that was answered in the article linked to.

But if you're too lazy to read it up yourself, then I'll re-post it for your lazy ass:-

>>>"It may strike some as strange that Mayne isn't already on the school's board, since he was one of the co-founders of SCI-Arc in 1972 and remains actively involved with the school. But his private practice and other teaching positions have apparently kept him busy for the past 39 years."

Incidentally it may interest you to know that Mayne is not the only founding member who's not part of the board but who remains actively involved with the school.

In other words, one doesn't have to be a board member to be actively involved with the school.


And don't flatter yourself thinking that I'm searching you out.
It doesn't take that much of a genius to see when this thread gets updated with a new post

@puppetmaster,

Your idiocy takes a turn for the worse every time that you post. I'm not sure if your unable to comprehend what I've posted because of psychological handicap or blinded by pseudo arrogance and a belief that you actually know what your speaking of and/or reading.

Have someone else read what I've posted in the past to you and then feel free to respond to me via email. Enough is enough with the back and forth on archinect over a topic that you know little about and assumptions of my connection to any institution which are completely wrong.

Have a good evening.
:)

@ puppetmaster

seems like Francois Roche disagree with you and your idea of want an idea architecture school is.

http://www.new-territories.com/sci%20arc%20cancel.htm

Sci Arc is by all means not a bad school, but it as a single agenda, and its facility support that single agenda. This is coming from Thom Maynes mouth at a recent UCLA open house lunch. and to whom ever is apply who doesn't know what that agenda is don't apply to that school.

The agenda that sci arc, and the newly recently appointed director of the graduate program is making a once avant garde progressive architecture school, slowly turning it into digital media arts school.

I mean come on last year graduate thesis someone just researched representation as there GRADUATE ARCHITECTURE THESIS??

not saying theres anything wrong with that, it just depends on what you want out of your education. I also know a few people who ended up working for lucasfilms and similar things

I have been apart of sci-arc within the past 5 years and I've already stated I don't agree that Mayne hasn't "been involved". He has been, of course so much less than at UCLA, but yet so much more than any other architecture school in the world outside of that.

I don't even know where to begin if you actually think researching architectural representation as a graduate thesis topic is in any way indicative of a "digital media arts school". Gigantic fucking *architectural* careers have been made on research and theory of representation. In fact, if you want to make the argument that sci-arc is turning into a digital media arts school, there were plenty of other less architectural projects to point out from last year, such as the "alien architectural parasite over Pershing Square", which was essentially a video game introduction trailer.

Everything that Diaz-Alonso and his students do can easily be shoehorned into "digital media arts". Yes he is the new graduate advisor, and the M.Arch 2 and Mediascapes programs very much push digital media, but to say that he would direct the whole school into this kind of work shows you don't know much of anything about him beyond the work he puts out and you don't know much of anything about how sci-arc actually works. The stated goals in changing the graduate program, and pretty evident ones for those in it currently, from Hernan and the faculty, are to actually push the critical and written abilities of students so they can actually make arguments for whatever it is they choose to do, which totally could include digital media.

To pigeon hole sci-arc as a digital media arts school would ignore so much about what is actually happening at the school, and just be a blanket assumption made from less than half of the work that actually goes on. A digital media arts school wouldn't have very recently thrown tons of money into the solar decathlon or a large robotics facility, nor would Coy Howard have a studio each semester, just to name a few counter examples.

If sci-arc weren't creating this discussion about itself, it wouldn't be doing its job. But writing it off as a "digital media arts" school is just flippant.

@rascuache

I agree with some of what you stated and disagree wholehearted with others. "Alien architectural parasite over Pershing Square" was comical as an architecture thesis. Keep in mind that it was given a special display area in the main space; so this doesn't bode well for the argument of SCIArc's agenda/pedagogy/lack of architecture.

Please make no mistake about SCIArc pushing the writing or theoretical design abilities of it's students. That is a spiel at best and footnote in the execution at worst. No-one pigeonholed SCIArc as a digital arts school, SCIArc made themselves a digital arts school. Did you mention the Solar Decathalon as your argument?

(1. Massachusetts College of Art and Design [most of the participants are not architecture majors]

2. Purdue [I believe that there are a few engineering students involved, but most are digital arts].)

What is becoming worse at SCIArc is the introduction of the latest programs that does not bode well for the school and is embarrassing to most alumni.

"Emergent Tech" I am sure will be a sad replica of the AA's program. (probable fail and there just to bring in additional revenue. http://www.sciarc.edu/portal/programs/graduate/emerging_systems_technologies/index.html)

"SCIFI", I have seen some good projects from it, I do like Zellner and this program fits into the design of the environment from an aesthetic and social act more than any other at the institution.


"MArch" you've seen the thesis projects. Relying solely on the SCIArc name which won't be worth much in architecture if things don't change. However would make a fine digital arts program if they would admit and embrace it as such.

"Mediascapes" could be the biggest joke, not only at SCIArc, but any higher learning institution in the western hemisphere. Unexplainable noise, poor arguments in projects, apparently it's an "apply and in" aka "pay to play" program if you ever have the opportunity to visit the reviews or class to see for yourself. MArch students do not want to be associated with Mediascapes, which says a lot. (go to the bottom - http://www.sciarc.edu/portal/programs/graduate/mediascapes/index.html)

@ VuONG


You must have missed the part above where I said that I completely do not agree with the direction that Hernan Diaz Alonso and his "clique" at SCI-Arc are taking the school from a pedagogical standpoint.

I'm not a Hernan fan, never have been, never will be.
Lots of SCI-Arc Graduates past and present graduate students feel this way about not just him but his whole philosophy and attitude towards Architecture and architectural education. Unfortunately lots of students and people there also happen to like him very much not least of which is Eric Moss, which is knd of unfotunate because it now means that he is the Graduate director and basically gets to determine the direction the school's graduate program heads in.

But at the end of the day Hernan Diaz-Alonso is NOT SCI-Arc.
That he's driving the graduate program into a philosophical ditch with his horrifically ungrounded pedagogical approach is not in doubt or in question.

But there's a whole undergraduate program that has nothing to do with him, and there are instructors and professors at the graduate level even, who have nothing and want nothing to do with his type of thinking and his school of thought. And some of them produce very competent talented graduates and thesis projects.

Again, unfortunately these are not the projects you'll be seeing being used to market the school, because as I said before, that's not the agenda that people like Hernan and his cabal want to promote - but they are there.

So frankly speaking, you've pegged me wrong, and would probably serve yourself better by reading my eariler comments and see where I'm coming from.

@ rascuache

My best advise for you would be to ignore this fool ctrlZ (not that I've done too good a job of it myself, but....).

He made a blatant lie about Mayne's involvement (or lack thereof) with the school, based on what he had earlier admitted were his own singular visits to a few Thesis reviews sessions there, and then when challenged on the veracity of that claim by people who were actually students there for longer than "a few days" and can confirm that Mayne's involvement with the schoool extends beyond what he's trying to insinuate, he digs deep until you came linked to that article confirming from a third party source that would kow better that Mayne does indeed still remain actively involved and not only that is to join the school's Board of Trustees.
And now he's trying to backtrack or something or some such silly shit.

He's a clown.

He's been proven wrong and yet still keeps insisting that he's somehow right.

Not worth wasting your time on.
He's had it in for SCI-Arc not just from this thread but from before, and is using that to paint a compeltely distorted picture of what the school is about.

Like I said, not worth wasting your time on.

@puppetmaster,

Wow. If you were admitted into SCIArc then you are a bigger embarrassment than the Mediascapes program. Then again, your retorts on the forum is probably an indication of the extensive critical analysis and argument building skills that you like to believe that you may have learned there.

fyi, bad job with the assumptions, all the way around.

@puppetmaster,

You may not have realized it in your poor attempt at reading, but Rascuache actually disagreed with you similar to me. So skoot on and let the grownups have a discussion.

I told you that if you want to discuss something that you have more knowledge of that I would gladly engage in it with you. At this point I'm guessing that it probably has to do with finger-paints and clay.

:) TTYL

@puppetmaster,

You may not have realized it in your poor attempt at reading, but Rascuache actually disagreed with you similar to me. So skoot on and let the grownups have a discussion.

I told you that if you want to discuss something that you have more knowledge of that I would gladly engage in it with you. At this point I'm guessing that it probably has to do with finger-paints and clay.

:) TTYL

Arfaei , I have recently been placed in almost the exact predicament as you. I was offered a large scholarship to attend Pratt and a seat in the M.Arch 2 program at SCI-Arc. After visiting both schools I have decided to accept the offer from SCI-Arc because I was throttled by the facilities, the lifestyle, the faculty (yes SCI-Arc has a ton of other great professors other than Hernan), and the opportunities the school offers. Yes, maybe the program has an emphasis on digital media, but that is OK with me. As we all know architecture is not always the most beneficent practice. Thus the M.Arch 2 program at SCI-Arc is open ended so that you may have more career choices once you finish (I know we all get mad and want to retire early from architecture as a profession). Plus, SCI-Arc is a not for profit organization, therefore the money you pay in tution comes right back into the school, which is why you have the opportunity to use the best facilities and have the opportunity to meet and work with some of the top practitioners in the field (ie, Steven Holl, Thom Mayne, Monica Ponce de Lione, etc [forget Francois Roche and his lack of aesthetic abilities]). Thus when Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne act as member on the Board, they do it as volunteers, not as a paid position. However, I think that the biggest thing that inspired me to apply and ultimately accept at SCI-Arc is that regardless of what anyone says, it is plainly obvious that on design repositories and journals such as suckerpunch daily 

apologies for being cut off (f this text window, something must be wrong with the script, as it doesn't operate properly). As I was saying, if you look at any design journal that places competency on the works origin, such as suckerpunch daily, http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/, you can see that every school is chasing the same design agenda as SCI-Arc. The only difference is that SCI-Arc and the AA's DRL are the one's that are setting the bar for other schools to jump for. This may be argued as bias on my part or as a fallacy because of a blantant lack on knowledge about what is occuring at the GSD, GSAPP, Vienna, the Bartlett, etc. However, you cannot deny the fact that some of the most fresh ideas and wildest publications are coming out of a lot of the faculty at SCI-Arc (wether teaching directly, touring through, or participating in reviews). So whether the school is viewed as less than a thrid rate film school or a instiution that is morphing into a prostitute for lucas films ltd. the fact of the matter is that it has a lot of people talking about it and we all know publicity is publicity. 

I hope that you join me this fall at SCI-Arc. So that we can show these cynics how it's done. :)

maybe your architecture registration exam skills can help propel SciARC past its current peer schools, such as University of Detroit - Mercy, Andrews University, Louisiana State and UNLV:

http://bit.ly/lh6OLM

Good point sectional healing, and thank you Matt A for the compilation.

That is a generous comparison for Sci-arc. Correction however:

University of Detroit - Mercy, Andrews University, Louisiana State and UNLV all score better than Sci-Arc.

Sci-Arc is one of the biggest architecture schools in the country and it has the advantage of being in Southern Cali where there really is little to no competition for architecture programs, it isn't the northeast or even mid-west by comparison. So in order to keep their film school going they have to be far more lenient with admission, attracting "below average" students (don't get mad, that's just what the chart shows) to meet enrollment. 

Another thing to take note of is the comparison of graduating class size to the actual amount of tests taken that year, which is only 5:1, very small for a "name" school. Andrews University is 20:1, Louisiana State and Detroit-Mercy are about 11:1. What this should tell you is that Sci-Arc lowers your chances of becoming an "architect" - which after all, isn't this the reason why you pay to get an education?

If anyone is thinking of going to school in Cali, the most reputable program there is Cal Poly -SLO, by far.

Paid Pratt's deposit.So its Pratt for the next fall.And thank you all for the advices.

Good choice. What factors led you to Pratt?