jwnam,
Yeah I just got the same letter... From what I understand it's not necessarily something they recommend but rather something they deem necessary in order for you to actually take classes in the Fall... i spoke to Wynona Colinco (admission coordinator) about it, that's how she worded it to me... Is that your understanding of it as well? And you know, it's funny... I've been waiting for this goddamn letter to arrive for some time, and now that it's arrived that hundred thousand tuition (for 3 1/2 years) seems rather daunting... Hmm.

"something they deem necessary"? =\

i'm leaning towards not attending - i haven't spent one penny on sci-arc (except for the app fees) but i already feel broke!

If you have no architecture experience at all I would recommend it - i DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S RUN NOW BUT i DID IT BACK IN 96 AND IT REALLY HELPED ME OUT. tHOUGH ALSO AT THAT TIME THEY ACTUALLY ACCEPTED PEOPLE WHO DID m&m WHO HAD MISSED THE APPLICATION DEADLINE AND HAD NO PORTFOLIO (YEP, THAT'S HOW i ENDED UP THERE) OH SHIT, JUST NOTICED THE CAPS LOCK...
If you've got drafting and some architecture background it's a toss up.

Oh! and I can't belive the tuition is realy 100,000 - that means it has doubled since I was there.

R.A. Rudolph,
Yeah it's 30 a year, for 3 1/2 years... I agree with you though, I don't have any graphic/technical skills which apply solely to architecture, although possess a fairly strong background in graphic design. So I'm actually looking forward to it myself; I see it as an opportunity to learn more. Granted it's 3k but, what's another 3k added to 100?

holy f*&K - it was 14,000/yr when I started...I guess that was 9 years ago, but still, ow!

(SIGH) Was your education worth it you think?

Yeah but if I had to do it now I would go for Berkeley or UCLA - you'll never be able to pay off the loans unless your family helps (and I wouldn't have done it even for 14,000/yr if my family hadn't offered to help me out).
No way you'd be able to open your own office (which is what we have done) if you're paying more than $500/month in loans...
Actually, I may not even have ended up in architecture if that was the cost, because the reason I went to SCI-Arc was that I could do making & meaning without having applied and then be accepted right away & the costs seemed reasonable even though I couldn't get a scholarship(long story, but I had just finished another masters and was planning to take a year before applying to grad schools - I had along list of schools - law school, philosophy, film school... and I hated my job and just wanted to keep going to school and sci-arc was the way out)

i think sci-arc is only $20,000 / yr...

which equals about $70,000?

hey rudolph was the M+M a difficult program? my background is actually in economics so i'm getting worried if i'll be able to handle the work.

R.A.Rudolf, I saw that you said chose UCLA or Berkeley for an MArch, now what if you were choosing between pomona and Sci Arc? Also the cost of Sci Arc is 19 and change, the 30 per year comes from estimated expenses.

Ah, that makes more sense... typical inflation for universities these days I guess. I wouldn't have gone to Pomona because I was into the deisgn, furniture making, photography etc. aspects more than the technical. I knew almost nothing about architecture (I had never even heard of Le Corbusier, seriously) but ended up at sci-arc because of timing but also because I was writing my masters thesis for philosophy on prison architecture and social control through the physical environment - for that I had read city of quartz and since Mike Davis taught at sci-arc at the time I thought they had a great theory program, haha... BUT, now I quite enjoy the techincal aspects, especially working with structural engineers, and I wish I had the opportunity to take more advanced structures classes in school. I've just heard Pomona is more focused on techincal business aspects, and what I reaaly wanted was an art school that would let me have a 'legitimate' career (in the eyes of my parents) afterwards. I also had NO idea how little money architects make compared to other professions, and if I had done the research I might not have gone to architecture school at all. Though I was young and idealistic...

R.A.rudolf, thank you so much. That was really helpful.

I too am very interested in structural component, You said you wished you had the opportunity to take more classes in this arena, were they offerred at Sci Arc?
Also would you think it wise to let's say go to Sci Arc or Pomona for a year for and apply to Ucla? I'd like to not be ancient when I graduate...
When you said that Pomona is focussed more on the Business aspect--do you mean the business side of architecture. Like how to run and manage an office?

Sorry I don't know much about Pomona except from a woman I used to work with who went there and occasional conversations... I'm sure there are other threads on here where it is discussed. As for structures, when I was at sci-arc I think they only offered structures 1 & 2 (so one class each semester for a year). We really weren't asked to explore structure in our projects in depth, and design development was a very superficial class in my opinion - though it sounds a little better now. Despite the fact that I stopped taking math after trig, I actually did well in structures, and subsequently had no problem passing the licensing exams. As for business, there were no classes on professional development at sci-arc when I was there - nothing about management, what it takes to run a firm, etc.
I remember my first job out of school my boss asked me to take a look at the structural drawings and draw up some details based on his sketches and I had no idea what I was looking at - but since then I discovered I liked asking questions about structures and it is crucial to design. On a couple of the jobs I did I ended up doing the structural drafting (don't ask - bad business decision on the part of my bosses). It was a pain in the ass, but I learned a lot. You have to be willing to look stupid and ask the most basic questions. So I would say though I wish I had more structures classes, I'm doing fine, and in fact if I had gone to a more technical school I might not have gotten as much out of it because of my background in philosophy and desire to explore other creative outlets (worked in the woodshop, took lots of photo classes, learned some 3D modeling...)

From a review of the SCI-Arc catalog, they are not lacking in structures or professional development. In fact the offerings at SCI-Arc appear to be much stronger (than Pomona's). And I don't see how UCLA is stronger in these areas. I see UCLA and SCI-Arc on roughly the same academic plane, but one thing I noticed about SCI-Arc was the emphasis on design on all levels--from the interesting typography on mundane fliers to the constructed displays/installations for the studio reviews. I understand SFMOMA had an exhibit on past SCI-Arc lecture series posters/fliers. Another unique aspect of the program: SCI-Arc has studios/courses that focus specifically on the suburbs, namely those of the Inland Empire, and I find this focus absent in many other grad programs.

Pip, If money is a huge issue, perhaps wait a year and apply to UCLA. I don't see the value in going to SCI-Arc for a year only to start again at UCLA. Do Making and Meaning or UCLA's summer program in the meantime. Also, check out the work of the SCI-Arc faculty to see if it jibes with your interests. Getting into SCI-Arc is no easy feat, so you should seriously consider it.

jwnam, and others

I also will be attending SCI-Arc this fall in the March-1 program. I too debated the question of attending the M+M program. I talked with current students and recent graduates briefly on the topic to decide if in fact it was something I should invest in prior to starting this fall. They all said: yes, it's great if you can swing it. I decided not to attend.

To be quite honest i think that I would have loved it every minute of it, but like you jwnam, I just can't afford it.

I am sure there will be a learning curve, but I feel based on my personal background(Art, Sculpture, Graphic Design) that not attending M+M is a chance I have to take...I mean, i don't even live in the state of California yet. Obviously my situation dictates a more pragmatic angle into SCI-Arc.

my problem is that i really don't have a background in art. i majored in math and econ in undergrad. i did take a year's worth of arch classes at a jc, where i learned the basics - drafting (by hand), autocad, formz, and took the first year studio. i am hoping this is enough because after reading all the responses, i am pretty confident that i won't be taking m+m.

Pip

I also agree with atown's sentiments.

For me, getting into SCI-Arc and having the opportunity to experience the education they portend to offer feels priceless and exhilarating. Yes the money is an issue and the loans will be with me for quite a while. But if I were in this design game to solely make money(enter idealistic grin) I would have scrapped art and design a long time ago and become an options trader, that career is far more lucrative.

jwnam,

My hope is to meet people such as yourself at SCI-Arc. I don't have that huge Math background and I wasn't an engineer. I think that's what so great about this school, from what i've seen so far. You've got a bunch of people from different backgrounds coming together to form and inform the current and future pedigogical landscape that will ultimately be your education.

I know I probably sound like some SCI-Arc PR whip, but at this point I feel i can learn more from different folks than if everyone came from the same thread. What I don't know now I'll pick up from others. i think it's important to understand how your knowledge plays a part in the development of other students experience. Again, this is me being highly positive and sounding overly idealistic. But I feel it's true.

atown,
True SCI-Arc isn't lacking in the classes offered, however any course outside of studio typically isn't taken all that seriously by students or instructors. What seems to have happened in the last few years is they have laid off most of the quality non-studio instructors in favor of younger and cheaper teachers. I haven't been around the school in awhile so maybe they have some excellent new guys, but the lay-offs I heard about sounded like they gutted the history and theory instructors.

As far as M+M goes, it's a lot of fun. You'll work extremely hard and breathe in plenty of sawdust. Consider it carefully though, unless they explicitly state that you have to take it to be admitted, it's a lot of cash that you are going to be paying interest on for the next 30 years.

not to be too repetitive... but i spoke to wenona and bob simonian (student advisor) and a bunch of grad students on campus and everybody said that it is not mandatory what-so-ever. bob said usually only 8 incoming students take it.
like some of you, i cant spare the cash or the opportunity cost of not working during the summer, so i'm not going to do it, although i really wanted to. the workshops and equiptment at sci-arc are pretty nice if you havent gotten the chance to see them yet.

thanks for the useful info hutcdj1!

FOG Lite, I don't know who they laid off but the urbanist/historian Joel Kotkin is teaching a course on the history of cities this fall at SCI-Arc. I believe he is a visiting pprofessor, however.