Hey, I know how you feel like. I got into Sci arc Barch, and that was the only school I applied to at that time.. As much as I wanted to go and loving the school's pedagogy and style. I decided to take a year off and apply to more schools. And that was the best decision of my life. It gave me time to think about the choices of school more critically. A year after, I got into all the schools that I applied to, and that gave me many options and opportunities to take from. If you really want to go an IVY or another dream school, you should wait. Sci arc is not going anywhere but I cant gauranteed that you will be accept again. All I am saying is waiting a year doesn't hurt, it only would open up more doors and options for you, assuming that you will be accepted. Good luck. 

DO NOT ATTEND SCI ARC. 15K OFF IS NOT A DISCOUNT. THERE ARE MANY THREADS DISCUSSING HOW BLEAK EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS ARE FOR SCI-ARC GRADUATES, AND HOW THEY ARE UTTERLY BURIED IN DEBT.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

If you're unsure, I'd advise waiting.  You don't want to go through grad school with the nagging feeling that you should have gone somewhere else.  

Check with SCI-Arc as to whether deferring admission for a year is permitted.  Some schools offer that option, some don't.  If they do, that would give you a year to explore your options elsewhere.  If they allow a deferral you'll lose your deposit if you don't eventually enroll, but that's better than spending a year somewhere where you're not sure you want to be.

I wouldn't count on the suggestion above that you can put in a year and then transfer. Transferring at the M.Arch level is rare, especially to an Ivy or other of the programs with the toughest admissions, and it can mean starting over with first year studios and losing a year or most of it.  The transfer application success rates in the Ivy M.Arch programs in particular are in the single digit percentages, there aren't usually as many institutional financial grants availabe for transfers, and in some years there are no transfers admitted at all at some schools.

Also if you do decide to follow someone's suggestion above that you put in a year and then take a leave of absence, check the policy on that ahead of time too.  This won't necessarily guarantee that you can re-join the program.  Most schools allow a 1-year or sometimes 2-year leave of absence without requiring that you reapply, but some have other policies (ranging from any leave of absence means you must reapply for admittance, to "once admitted always welcome back".)

I was deciding between SCI-Arc and UCLA a few years ago and was pretty torn between the two schools but ended up going with UCLA. Both are great schools and I had some "what if" moments but I feel like I made the right choice.

So as a student of UCLA who also frequents SCI-Arc and has a few friends in the program I can offer you some advice. 

SCI-Arc curriculum is heavily design-oriented but there is not much knowledge about so called "real" architecture, perhaps more so now with Hernan as the new dean.

UCLA's program is more balanced in my opinion. They are still very design oriented but the projects have more depth to them instead of being one-liners (again just my opinion). If you look at projects from SCI-Arc on their website or other blogs, they all look very similar since the school breeds a certain design aesthetic. At UCLA you are able to develop your own aesthetic and there is a higher emphasis on theory, especially with Sylvia Lavin as head of the critical studies department. 

UCLA has the advantage of being a very small school, if that's what you're into. You can develop a strong relationship with the faculty, who are some of the best in the world right now (including many ex-SCI-Arc professors such as Thom Mayne and Neil Denari). 

SCI-Arc ends with a thesis where as UCLA ends with a research studio. The difference is that you get to choose a studio doing a research topic that you are interested in and develop your own project based on the communal research. 

Where SCI-Arc really beats UCLA though is the facilities and resources. UCLA's building is pretty old and the studio's are a lot smaller. Since it is a state school there is a lot less funding for these kind of things. Although we have a pretty great shop, a lot of the machines are beginning to fall apart and its sometimes hard to find a spot when you need it. Another disadvantage is the rumor that UCLA's M.Arch 2 students are moving back to the main campus from the Playa Vista IDEAS campus making the building a bit more cramped. UCLA is starting the process of a new architecture building but that is at least 10 years away. SCI-Arc has a really great building and just built a second fabrication space, although it has been having some issues. So as far as the facilities goes, SCI-Arc wins hands down.

Now about tuition, even with the scholarship you received UCLA is going to be much cheaper. I received advanced placement into SCI-Arc's second year but that was still more expensive than UCLA's three years (with the first year being out-of-state tuition). Another big advantage that UCLA has is the fact that you are part of a University. This allows you to take classes in other departments or TA in any department which you might have some experience in. For instance, I TA in the German department each quarter, which provides me a tuition waiver (minus the yearly professional fee) as well as a pretty good monthly stipend (about 2k, pretty sure that is standard for all departments). This makes UCLA extremely less expensive than SCI-Arc.

So if you have some doubts about making the right choice, I would strongly recommend taking a year off to do some more research and decided what you think is right for you. No matter what school you choose, it is going to be a huge investment so you should be absolutely certain it is a place which will help you develop your skills and help your career before committing. Don't worry about time, I would estimate that 70% of students at both programs took at least one year off between schools.

TIme off would also give you a chance to improve your portfolio, which sounds like it was rushed. I would be happy to take a look at your portfolio if you want. 

OP, given that you have a bachelors in urban planning and seem quite uncertain about the direction to take I'd strongly encourage you to take a year or two off to work for a planning/architecure firm. I think you'll have a much better awareness of what you want to get out of school once you've worked a bit. Without that basis its impossible to say which school is best for your goals.

That said, it's worth noting that all of the schools you've mentioned are respected and capable of providing you a solid education. As a graduate student the onus will be on you to make sure you get what you need to support your career. Try to look past the school and consider what you see yourself doing once you've graduated and maybe that will help you know what to look for in a program.

FWIW I work with graduates of both sci-arc and and ucla and see no clear influence of their schooling: the sci-arc alum is a project manager while the UCLA grad is a lead designer (and jokingly bitter about his career choice).

Hello everyone, thank you all for your wonderful and very thoughtful advice so far, I'm very grateful that all of you would take the time to offer your insight.

I'm sorry that I've been a little absent. I think right now what I'm most likely to do is take the year off, even though I'm very attracted to SCI-Arc, I've already worked on my portfolio a bit and would be happy to show it to anyone who cares to look. I called SCI-Arc yesterday and informed them that I want to defer; they were very helpful and said that they would consider me 'enrolled' for the time being so I can have some more time to think about it and research without losing the grant money.

I've looked through some GSAPP and UCLA student work, and the combination of design theory, global focus and urbanist studies at the two schools really intrigues me; It seems like GSD has a similar approach however I'm wary of applying to only big-name schools (low likelihood of admittance and all that). However as a native of San Diego I've always been completely and utterly in love with LA so I'm leaning more towards UCLA or SCI-Arc in the end. USC in the end was not an option, I was not too blown away by the work or the faculty of the M. Arch I. I think I will visit NYC sometime soon to get a feel for things there.

I do know at least that I want a program that pushes design theory, but an urbanist and global pedagogical approach is also very desirable. My parents are Mexican and I spend a lot of time all over Mexico which has really interested me in studying informal urbanism across the globe....

@dawnchorus, yes, as I've continued to research I've become more acutely aware of just how cutting-edge SCI-Arc's production facilities are. I had an idea before, but it's become very appearant that they truly are at the forefront of fabrication and digital design, which to me is actually quite interesting. Do you think I would miss out on this too much if I were to go to UCLA?

And yes, I would be glad to show you my portfolio. It's not *entirely* finished as there are a few edits I still have to make (pagination, etc.) but this is the working version for now. I'll leave it here in case anyone else is willing to offer some advice:

http://issuu.com/alduran93/docs/alejandro_duran-_portfolio

@midlander: that's reassuring to know, from what I've been gathering my impression was that going to a certain school pigeonholed you into a somewhat specific field/type of work. It's reassuring to know that this is not necessarily the case. My goal is to practice and enter academia, a little broad I know, but I'm expecting that my interests will change as I progress through grad school, so I want to keep an open mind. However I do know that I want to work and teach in some capacity. Would going to a particular school over another affect my career trajectory if I were to decide to pursue academia or independent practice?

I think where you go to school will have more impact on an academic career than in practice - though of course it might influence your outlook as a designer at least initially in practice.

If you want to be involved in research and publication and all that an academic career entails you should pay particular attention to the faculty of the school you decide to attend. You will depend on their support to get a foothold; good professors whose work you respect and whom you personally like will be a big advantage in that.

I imagine you could find suitable mentors in any of these schools since they're well-known and respected at least by some people. What you should do is look into the backgrounds of the faculty and contact a few who seem interesting to get a sense what they can offer and how you would feel working with them. Obviously you are just a prospective student and don't know in detail what you want to do, but getting in touch with people early on will help you greatly. It really is the specific people you study with and not the school that matters - if you make an informed choice it's always a good decision.

also note that some schools offer phds and post-professional programs (most of the ivy does for example) - often these schools have the perception of catering to those students; make sure that you can get the education you want (that the faculty are available to you outside of class).

@alduran, although SCI-Arc has some really great new facilities, UCLA has all of the same digital fabrication resources. UCLA has always been just as cutting-edge in terms of digital fabrication. But since the student body is about a 1/4 of the size the facilities are a lot smaller. In fact, SCI-Arc students come to our facilities from time to time when they're school gets too busy. So I don't think you'd be missing out in terms of digital design and fabrication opportunities, the facilities will just be newer at SCI-Arc.

But with your urban planning background, if still have an interest in that, UCLA has more options to incorporate urban issues into your studios and seminars. CityLAB is UCLA's urban issues research lab and is part of the architecture school. They always have projects that you can choose to be a part of and are led by Dana Cuff and Roger Sherman. http://citylab.aud.ucla.edu/ 

I've actually read some of their literature- I've been reading through a Dana Cuff volume since I started my undergrad. Quite fascinating. So maybe I really should take the year off? 

Yeah I definitely recommend it. Even though I did a lot of research and think I ended up at the right place, I kind of regret not taking a year off. Everyone recommended it to me but I didn't want to miss an opportunity and didn't have a steady job to start paying loans so I went straight into grad school. It seems like people who take time off come in knowing more what they are interested in and what exactly they want to do. Its great that you got a grant at SCI-Arc (from what I hear they normally don't give out much money) but if you brush up your portfolio instead of submitting a rushed version, you might get even more money there or anywhere else. 

Anyway, I would visit the schools you're into and talk to the students about their experience. Faculty and guided open houses just show you the good side of the schools. For UCLA they didn't even take us into the studio spaces (which aren't spectacular compared to the newer architecture buildings) and just showed off their new robots. So I went to the studio spaces myself and talked to some of the students to get a better sense of the school and what is not so great about it (their answer was mainly about how unorganized the administration is, which is somewhat true since they are understaffed, but they have hired a few new people this year so its getting better). I liked UCLA because of the smaller size. You get to know all of the faculty and students pretty closely and a lot of this year's grads already got jobs at some of the top firms in the world because of faculty hookups.

Also there is a lot of faculty at UCLA that have their office partners at SCI-Arc so there is a connection between the two. It sucks that they are so far away from each other because it makes it difficult to go to their lectures and other events. 

Yes- I got that impression about UCLA and SCI-Arc. I went Heather Roberge's opening at SCI-Arc last month and I also noticed that, on top of Hitoshi Abe having gone to SCI-Arc, there's a lot of communication between the schools. I think a year off would be nice to let off some steam too- I'm a little tired of school atm.

Any advice on applying/my portfolio? I've been looking for a job but I haven't gotten any responses yet- I sent out a lot of applications at the beginning of last week, so I'm afraid schools will look at my Resume and wonder what I did for the whole year. I mean, I have a job right now....as a valet driver...hahaha. I haven't been able to get any leads in terms of finding an architecture job.

@alduran

I hate to say it but if you don't already have a job at an architecture office for the summer, then your chances are pretty slim. Firms normally hire interns around April and May. It's pretty competitive even for graduate students in architecture. But it wouldn't hurt to try. 

You can try to get a job in any related field. Like at a gallery, or working for LA metro, etc. UCLA prides themselves on their diverse student body and I would say about half of the students coming in have no architecture background. They just like to see that you're interested in something, anything. But even if you don't get a job this year, it wouldn't hurt your chances that much. I think plenty of people take time off and do random jobs while improving their portfolio.