If you want to stay in LA you'll make some exceptional connections that can set you up here or really anywhere after graduating. Good luck.

Thanks for the input no_form.  

Does anyone have experience/opinions on which program has more to offer? I've read that that SCI-Arc is one of the most avante garde arch schools and they really tap into your creativity but some say its not as practical. As far as Pratt goes, I've heard it heard its an overall well-rounded program.  

Just looking for other point of views! Thanks

Why is this even a question

Well, as I said in my first post, I'm new to architecture. I'm inexperienced with schools that I haven't been to and I just have what the schools say, other people's experiences, and actual architects opinions to go off of.

Just looking for a little guidance, that's all.

Sci-arc!

Anyone else have an opinion?

pizza!

Just from my experience, if you want to learn the technical side of architecture, you definitely do not want to go to Sci-Arc. I have worked with coworkers that were fresh out of Sci-Arc and had major difficulty with their understanding of architecture. You work extensively with Rhino than CAD and they do not deal with codes and the productive side of architecture. 

Here's the deal... when you invest in an education, you have to look at the big picture. The big picture is that we are Architects, not technicians or engineers. Yes- we should have an understanding about how to build (and there's a wide array of discourse, as to what that means), but the reason why we pursue a higher education rather than an Associates Degree in CAD or BIM is because ideally, we have been trained to think outside of the box.  If someone who can barely get into an associate's degree program at a CC, can learn CAD, BIM, and waterproofing/bathroom details, why would a BArch or MArch major not? Granted, the Assoc. Deg. grad may have a head start, but in a long-run, the B.Arch and MArch major have the larger advantage. Just because B.Arch's and M.Arch's fill the roles of technicians at firms or other production-related jobs, doesn't mean that their education was pointless. I therefore believe Sci-Arc is a much better choice, because it trains the mind to think more outside the box than Pratt. On a different note, Pratt student projects are kind of pedestrian in my opinion... 

Peter Zumthor went to Pratt

Thanks for helpful input everyone!

BulgarBlogger, I agree wth you that SCI-Arc has a better program from what I've read and researched. It seems like they really dive into your creativity. Yesterday I found out that I received a pretty solid scholarship to Pratt and I did not receive one for SCI-Arc. Considering that they are pretty close in tuition, I'm leaning towards Pratt only because I don't want to be drowning in debt in a few years.

Wow. I also got an acceptance from Sci-Arc and Pratt just like you did. I am still under great stress which school I should go....

I'm also considering going to Pratt!

I think they are both exceptional schools. Congratulations! ☺ 

Here's my two cents: NYC and LA are polar opposites in almost every way, so I think location makes the biggest difference here. I would ask not only where you want to be a student, but where do you see yourself 5 to 10 years after you graduate? Each school is going to have a better connections and name recognition in the areas where they are located. If you want to be an architect in California/Southwest, then I would go with SCI-Arc. If you want to be an architect on the East Coast, then I would go with Pratt.

Also, remember this: school is the beginning of your career, not the defining moment of it. Whichever school you go to will just be your jumping off point.

Good luck!