Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
SCI-Arc B.Arch?
Hey guys, I recently got accepted to SCI-Arc's B.Arch program, and I'm quite interested in attending. SCI-Arc really stands out to me due to the location, the style of works produced, and the emphasis on computational work. Yet, I want to know how effective, or reputable the B.Arch program can be at SCI-Arc for the entering the work-force, or in fact the program itself. I know this topic has probably been mentioned many times, but I want to receive some realistic answers myself. (Which could be hard on this forum...)
Through some browsing on this forum, I've always encountered this "myth" that people coming out of SCI-Arc have a rough time finding a job because of the "extreme" avant-garde style of the school (Why do people even criticize explicitly on SCI-Arc? Is it because this "myth" is really true, or these people are simply trolls/naysayers who are not used to a different style of architecture?). And on the other side of the spectrum, I hear that SCI-Arc grads are often well prepared to enter the workforce. What are your opinions/experiences with this? Is it even SCI-Arc's problem that the grads can't get jobs?
I don't know much about how architecture programs work, but with all this experimental and design oriented models/projects at SCI-Arc, but there will be some sort of studio that will teach structures and how to make these experimental designs make sense realistically... right?
I really like the school, but I really do not want to take a leap of faith (or is this something I do have to take), and then later regretting that I've wasted an immense load of money on an useless education. SCI-Arc's B.Arch is NAAB accredited, so I really do not get why people bash on it's employability (Did I just answer my own question on it's employability, or does NAAB Accreditation not have to do with being able to obtain jobs and such?).
Thanks,
arch1997c
It's a bit of give and take. The reality is that when you are looking for a job some firms are really fond of people who do avant-garde work, while others prefer much more conservative design. This is not to be critical of either position because one is not necessarily better than the other. Typically though this is reliant on the individual's work more than the school.
BUT... SCI-Arch is more uniform with the position of it's students/design, which I think creates a stronger opinion about the school itself, and thus people who go there. Personally, I don't like their approach to design, but I know some people who went there that I think are pretty good designers, so I'm not that biased.
The reputation of the schools is pretty good though, so your odds are probably about average.
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.