I feel like a lot of people are accepted to Sci-Arc since people are asking Sci-Arc or some-other-school question. First of all, I hope I am not offending anyone in this post! I was very curious about Sci-Arc and hopefully I can word this correctly. I have worked with recent graduates from Sci-Arc and I have heard from my project managers that Sci-Arc graduates have a totally different education than other accredited universities in LA. My coworker barely knew how to use CAD and had difficulties delivering simple drawings because they did not fully understand how real buildings are built. One coworker opened the code book and yelled "I did not know codes book had pictures!" (because it was his first time opening it and never saw diagrams before). My question is, although architects are supposed to think out of the box, isn't it very challenging to apply Sci-Arc's education in normal architectural firms? (I can't imagine planning review comments to crazy curvy buildings...) And still Sci-Arc is one of the frequently mentioned schools in this forum. I do believe that it is a high-end education that some universities cannot immitate but firms still prefer CAD/Revit over Rhino and straight lines over curves. So why Sci-Arc? 

On a side note, I was very surprised to see that Cal Poly SLO and Pomona are very underrated. Most of my coworkers were from SLO, Pomona, and USC. A friend of mine back in the days preferred UCLA's 2-yr undergraduate program over Pomona's 5-yr undergraduate program (Not accredited vs. accredited). I have graduated from Pomona and had 12 job offers  but it is unfortunate that it is not as respected as other schools.