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
Help! I’ve been accepted to Cal Poly and UCLA for undergrad and i’m stuck between the two!
I am interested in sustainable architecture. So, Cal Poly’s architecture program looks fantastic. However, I’m conflicted because I haven’t had any experience with architecture. What if I decide to switch my major? I’ve also been accepted to UCLA environmental science program. UCLA’s B.A. in Architectural Studies doesn’t start until junior year. So, if I choose UCLA i’d likely spend my first two years taking some prerequisite architecture electives in addition to my environmental sci major. At that point if I chose to pursue architecture I’d TRY to transfer to UCLA’s school of Art and Architecture for my Architectural Studies B.A. However, I am wondering if the B.A is even worth it? Should I earn a B.S in environmental science instead and then go on to architecture grad school? Would that transition be difficult? I would say that as of right now I’m more attached to UCLA as a school, but more partial to Cal Poly’s program. I’ve been presented with two completely different paths and i need some advice. How would the two different programs hold up in the workplace? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Work wise? Likely no difference, you learn a great deal working that isn't in school curricular.
Future wise? Perhaps go for UCLA - you'll have the opportunity to try architecture without committing to it, as sounds you aren't 100% sure yet career wise... And you can always take a M.Arch afterwards, if transferring mid-degree doesn't work out. Most M.Arch's also have people apply from different pathways, so transitioning shouldn't be difficult.
Up to you, end of day - we're just anonymous wankers here.
Cal Poly's B.Arch is an accredited first professional degree, so you would not need to go on and get a Master's to start working toward licensure. UCLA wants to sell you their accredited M.Arch, so the BA is not accredited. On the other hand, an M.Arch is nice to have.
Both are excellent architecture schools. You are correct that UCLA would offer more options for other majors if you end up deciding Architecture isn't for you.
Another thing to consider, unless they're both offering you full rides, is the expense - both in-state and out-of-state tuition is cheaper at Cal Poly and cost of living is lower than in Westwood. You didn't say which Cal Poly - cost of living is a little higher in SLO than Pomona but still lower than LA, and SLO is an awesome town.
Always got to chime in with Money. Pretty sure CPP is one of the cheapest options out there to get an accredited degree, and UCLA is one of the most expensive.
If you're talking about SLO, no idea.
No idea what sort of aid or resources you have.
for me ucla and cp slo are around the same price because i get tuition free at both. cost of living is more expensive at ucla, but at least this year incoming freshmen get 4 years guaranteed on campus housing
Did you decide? My daughter is experiencing the same dilemma. We went to Bruin Day yesterday and she's still undecided. Originally she applied at UCLA through art as her path to the Architecture studies at UCLA. Now she's unsure about the art piece. She definitely wants to study Architecture.
For those ready to commit to architecture, a 5-year Bachelor of architecture program like CalPoly is the most effective route. Effective in terms of involving the least time and tuition expense.
The Art -> M.Arch route can be a good one as long as she makes sure to take specific courses (I'm looking at you, Math and Physics
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.