i already have a pretty good idea of what my interests in SCI-Arc are, but i'd like to hear gossip from other people.
I know SCI-Arc is notoriously disorganized and flakey. But my question is if the flakiness and disorganization worth it? Is there ANYTHING, anything at all promising about studying there? Because I hear so many negative things about the school that discourages me from committing the next 3.5 years of my life to them.
It is shady all right. As I said in another post. I meet very few people here on the east coast who know what the hell Sci-Arc is. You get this feeling the school was made to make money for it's founders or something. It's accredited but is it worth the huge costs to attend, not to mention the costs of living in L.A. Is the education practical at all? All I see is computer renderings of squigley lines and theoretical shit.
I went to their graduate thesis review this past winter break and was impressed. Walking through the studios there was lots of model making everywhere, the shop is pretty well stocked...two large cnc, woodshop with standard equipment and a welding area as well.
The thesis projects ranged from digital blobby stuff, to artsy, to sustainable, etc.
What I liked about it is the atmosphere felt more like an art school, not conservative at all. I like that.
I also visited UCLA, and while it was pleasent, it in no way had the energy that Sci Arc did...nor did it have the facilities Sci Arc had...both of these things caught me by surprise because SciArc gets such a spattering of ill informed opinions...I too felt somewhat like GT about sciarc but was glad to visit the school and gather my own opinion...I would advise anyone interested in any school to do the same.
Yeah, hey March06 I'm sorry they're in money trouble, I know they had had some issues with their building, and I don't wish anything bad for the school but maybe if they allowed there students to coop and even out the practical world with all that hot air they would gain more students. And as Jason says I'm sure there is alot of energy and some talented kids but it still seems like a lot of hot-air compared to most schools no. . .
isnt this discussion dead yet? Isn't there a bazillion threads asking this question popping up every month or so? it seems like if you want to be a better architect, you go to sciarc, but if you want a job at SOM you go Ivy. I guess that's the choice. Sciarc has a better rep than my school, Arizona, so it's a choice because no every school is Columbia. Besides, sciarc has the most interesting bloggers, and I dont even have a blogger, but i have a crappy job and a degree from a crappy school
oh and every blog, every school. is full of work thats nothing but squiggly lines and theoretical shit. sciarc has buildings littering the entire LA landscape. good or bad, its built.
as someone in the m-arch program at sci-arc, these are my thoughts:
-yes it is disorganized. one reason for that is that most faculty have extremely busy schedules even by architecture standards, i view this as a positive.
-very little m-arch 1 work is blob architecture, which is one of the absolutely greatest things about the school.
-you are pushed to pursue your specific individual interests. this catalyzes a body of work among students that shows great diversity.
-in retrospect, chosing sci-arc over more prestigious school on the east coast was certainly the best choice for me.
-at this point in time, i dont think any of the programs on the east coast are producing the depth and range of work that comes out of sci-arc.
-sci-arc's anonomity in the general public is mirrored by its reputation among respected architects. classmates have had great success in getting jobs over the last few years. the la (arch) market is also strong right now relative to other cities.
btw, sci-arc will be getting a new director in the next 12 months, for better or worse. havent heard rumors on any names yet
I agree, I think most of the negative comments are BS from outsiders. Am I a sci-arc student? No. But I've at least been to the school and checked it out.
The school has a great feel to it. The amount the students are involved with things going on with the school is also good. I saw a lot more than "blobs" being produced. sci-arc has the type of environment I'd enjoy learning and working in.
Threads like this really make me believe east coasters are terribly geocentric... From my understanding SCI-Arc is one of the most innovative and forward thinking architecture schools out there, something I consider more valuable than a name brand school. I'd go in a heartbeat.
what does forward thinking actually mean? can you define that? i agree that the school gets a bad rap, but equally terms like "forward thinking" get thrown a lot just as much. that sculpture above is pretty cool...that makes them forward thinkers? is it maya? what makes them forward thinkers? how are they different than columbia or UCLA? and i don't mean they have a better woodshop, im talking students and faculty?
i apologize in advance if the tone of this sounds like im an a-hole...this is a legitimate question i have
a mill? Ok, i'll bite. its forward thinking, but its not unique to arch schools right now. i don't know, im just playing devil's advocate. the school gets a bum rap i will admit that, but i also wouldn't call it unique or forward thinking [in the respect that its "forward" of most every other school]
taht is two mills...look through the pics...a vacuum former the size of UCLA's shop. tons of metal working, etc....and obviously people actually use it.
tell me about columbias forward thinking shop facilities and use.
i visited and was pretty blown away...it is definately in my top 3 school I will be applying for next year. UCLA was ok, but it's like in country club ville...and the energy just was not what experienced at sciarc...much quiter.
MArch06 - perfectly legit. question. Perhaps to clarify, I never said SCI-Arc is the end all - there are plenty of amazing, innovative schools out there, I just happen to think SCI-Arc is one of them. What defines forward thinking? Well I guess I used that term in lieu of innovative. Why do I use that term? B/c from my observations, gathered opinions, etc. I think SCI-Arc students/grads would kick my ass in regards to creativity (and I consider myself fairly creative) - which both terrifies and excites me. I can't weigh the school against Columbia or UCLA b/c neither school I applied to nor do I know much about either. Even so, how can you truly compare one school to another? I personally think there's a "best" school for everyone, but I find it hard to believe there's a singular "best" school in general.
well slow down a bit. that vac former is big, but its also old and breaks down quite a bit from what i hear. i've also heard that while yes there are two mills, most of the time one is down. i've also heard that the software interface for the mills couldn't be more confusing.
that's not forward thinking.
mab82.
i guess i just question these end all, be all statements people throw around here. to each his own, that's what i say. if you love the school, more power to you. schools should be filled with people that love and want to be there.
UCLA has two vacuum formers one quarter the size and both were down. laser cutter can be used after one year...so a year and a half...bah.
there was not as much work done using this equipment as I saw at sciarc...this is important to me...not that a scholl has equipment...but that it is getting used...I want to learn...you can only learn from people who are doing when it comes to making....so sometimes they are down...but they are being used...there was proof everywhere.
I am vocal because I think the place gets a very bad wrap here based on heresay. I thought the same thing...decided to visit the thesis review and like I said...I was impressed...not everything was my cup of tea but it was all presented well. Students were easy to talk to and all spoke highly of the school.
I was sold...I knew then all the talk was 98% bullshit with the rest being what most school deal with...some level of their own ineptness...all schools are afflicted to some extent.
MArch06 - don't you think they throw the same statements around with many other schools? I certainly hear end-all statements about the GSD, Columbia, MIT, UVa, Berkeley, etc.
absolutely, im not trying to pick on sci_arc...the thread was just staring me in the face. although i think we would both agree that blanket statements aren't helpful to anyone, sci_arc no matter how forward thinking it gets won't ever have the reputation or name brand that the GSD, columbia or MIT have. for better or worse
MArch, Ill never understand people who come into forums to shit on everything. What do you know about sciarc? The school is in big financial trouble? The equipement is always breaking down? That because the mill software is not easy that the school isnt forward thinking? That SCI-Arc will never have the rep of gsd or mit or columbia? Yes some of the equipment goes down, find me a machine that doesnt ever break down when its being used to teach novices. NO the school is not in big financial trouble. And it depends on what you mean by rep. ON the west coast architects know sciarc. And check with anyone at those REP schools and id guess that they are all aware of sciarc. Put the work of sciarc against any on those schools and itll hold its own cause it doesnt have the rep to lay back on.
some of the descriptions here have been interesting....i thought all these things when i first heard of the school and started exploring it. a little dissapointed by the issue of it not having an open house type deal like ucla. but upon visiting the school, you can REALLY see what sciarc is all about. couches everywhere, conceptual models abound, strange structures...i mean just noticing the details of the place, you can tell the type of energy that the school has. what taospan has said above is pretty smack dab what we're all about. sciarc is definately a different gem out there...sometimes misunderstood as too experimental or disoraganized...but in all honesty, i believe this is the type of culture that has evolved here. we are pretty much allow to do anything we want...want to tear down a wall? make a crazy parasitic structure in one of the halls? have a bonfire in the parking lot? we are given so much freedom (creative as well as in general) that you can really play out your experiments (whether they be architecturally or in our friday's @ five [weekly social gathering]). with that type of freedom there comes a small price...and that price is freedom from adminitration-type control (which is what ultimately controls small things like organization). i gladly pay that price.
some of us were actually having a discussion about this...sciarc vs ucla and other schools. for sure we are structured much differently, and granted your instructors as well as lectures etc will NEVER run on time, but this is a place for full independency. a studio mate was saying how if you want your hand held throughout your instruction...sciarc is not the place for that. but if you want to stretch and challenge your creativity/independence, sciarc is the place.
it takes some getting used to at first, but i soon realized that sciarc was most definately the right choice for me (ucla was first choice when applying).
as for reputation...you should choose a school dependant on which will be able to give the most back to you...one that you can allow yourself to grow most from. sciarc is not too well known in non-architectural circles...but pple who know their shit will know that sciarc is a statement in and of itself. and it is true that it is more well known on the west coast (architects that i used to work with told me if i plan to work on the west coast, they are very aware of sciarc, just as risd is with the east coast...). if you are going to a school just for the name/prestige of it...you obviously could be making the wrong choice for the wrong reasons.
"The thesis projects ranged from digital blobby stuff, to artsy, to sustainable, etc.
What I liked about it is the atmosphere felt more like an art school, not conservative at all. I like that."
"it seems like if you want to be a better architect, you go to sciarc, but if you want a job at SOM you go Ivy."
"we breed/shelter a certain kind here."
I like that.
but for fun...
"oh boy. im not shitting on anyone."
"this one looks a little like turd, but i like it:"
"might want to check your colon if your dumping shit like this out"
"I'd go in a heartbeat."
"that doesn't look like drawings of my bowel movements"
"i apologize in advance if the tone of this sounds like im an a-hole"
"then all the talk was 98% bullshit"
To all those presently going to Sci-Arc
I am choosing between UCLA, COlumbia, and Sci-Arc for M.Arch I
I think I am definitely most interested in theory and arch. history, I know Sci-Arc is great in design but how is the theory/history part of the program? My worry being if I want to go for a Phd later, UCLA or COlumbia may be the better choice simply for academic/university connections to arch and art history. Do you think going to Sci-Arc would compare on that level?
with my experiance so far, sciarc does not focus or make much of a priority for the arch hist portion. though instructors i've had for them (amy kulper in particular) are incredibly knowledgable and gifted in the area, some instructors in all areas will even work around your studio sched (this just goes to show, theory is not a #1 priority). you may want to look at certain instructors you are interested in. i have to agree with you though....sciarc may not be the best place for theory...unless you plan on carrying out experiments with those theories. others may say differently...this is what i can say for the 1st yr here.
heard of the school, has some pretty nice stuff, i would think ny would be a little more expensive to live in, but whatever. in the end, u'll be paying off the loans you borrowed from any of those sexy schools!
I got waitlisted last year for the M Arch II,
came out for final reviews, talked to a few teachers, within
a week of going back home I was in.
A friend was also waitlisted a few years back and got in after a long
summer of campainging for himself.
No guarentees but I think if you come for a visit, talk to some
faculty, especially those on the admissions committe, and make it plain you really want to come, good things can happen.
What program are you applying for? The summer program making and meaning is taken by many M Arch I incomers, and Micheal Rotondi told me if you take that you'll automatically get off the wait list.
It's always good when people have strong opinions about a place be it good or bad, doesn't matter- they still know who you are. I did my undergraduate studies in New York and SCIarc was well known among my professors- that was also the case when I studied abroad. But to echo what some people have said, if you really want to make an informed decision about a school, VISIT. Fun gossip is one thing, but generally that's all it is. SCIarc doesn't have a traditional open house, however e-mails were sent out to students that applied letting them know that the ADMISSIONS OFFICE WILL BE OPEN THIS STAURDAY & OFFERING TOURS. So to ANYONE that will be in LA and considering SCIarc, you should call the Admissions office @ (213) 613-2200 or stop by this Saturday APRIL 1st. Walk around, ask about rumours that you've heard- I'd seriously pay to hear someone ask about the dead bodies in the basement. Plenty of students will be around.
Anyways SCIarc isn't right for everyone. There are some people that come here and love it and then there are others that hate the place and leave faster than you can say maya. But generally the school is design and theory based. For graduate students at least, the school does not offer survey courses in Architecture History. I'm finishing up my second year here and have had some really interesting theory instructors- Michael Speaks, Amy Kulper, Norman Klein... But design studio is KING here - most of your seminars will relate to what you are doing in studio. More digital studios will study theory that relates to their work, and so on. But you can pick and choose from theory electives as well. It's what you make it.
A lot of undergrads and grads have checked out the school via the Making + Meaning summer course. If you're interested in learning about the schools approach to architecture, M+M is a good introduction- but from my knowledge it really doesn't guarantee you anything as far as admissions goes. What I do know is that a lot of people that take it, apply for admission. Instructors get to know them and their work and in turn they get to know the school.
BTW, Jason- thanks for posting the picture of the metal structure near the mezzanine stairs. I love that thing.... I think that was 1A (first semester, first year, undergrads).
I didn't want to suggest that getting admitted is simply a matter of schmoozing with faculty or taking M + M. Nothing is officially guarenteed. However from experience, I think coming here and making yourself known to people works a lot better then sitting at home and crossing your fingers. Plus it's a fun place to hang out.
SCI-Arc, yay or nay
i already have a pretty good idea of what my interests in SCI-Arc are, but i'd like to hear gossip from other people.
I know SCI-Arc is notoriously disorganized and flakey. But my question is if the flakiness and disorganization worth it? Is there ANYTHING, anything at all promising about studying there? Because I hear so many negative things about the school that discourages me from committing the next 3.5 years of my life to them.
This is for M.Arch I.
what are your alternatives?
You can skateboard around the building.
That *may* be a promising reason to study there...
It is shady all right. As I said in another post. I meet very few people here on the east coast who know what the hell Sci-Arc is. You get this feeling the school was made to make money for it's founders or something. It's accredited but is it worth the huge costs to attend, not to mention the costs of living in L.A. Is the education practical at all? All I see is computer renderings of squigley lines and theoretical shit.
school was made to make money? i heard they are in big financial trouble
I went to their graduate thesis review this past winter break and was impressed. Walking through the studios there was lots of model making everywhere, the shop is pretty well stocked...two large cnc, woodshop with standard equipment and a welding area as well.
The thesis projects ranged from digital blobby stuff, to artsy, to sustainable, etc.
What I liked about it is the atmosphere felt more like an art school, not conservative at all. I like that.
I also visited UCLA, and while it was pleasent, it in no way had the energy that Sci Arc did...nor did it have the facilities Sci Arc had...both of these things caught me by surprise because SciArc gets such a spattering of ill informed opinions...I too felt somewhat like GT about sciarc but was glad to visit the school and gather my own opinion...I would advise anyone interested in any school to do the same.
Yeah, hey March06 I'm sorry they're in money trouble, I know they had had some issues with their building, and I don't wish anything bad for the school but maybe if they allowed there students to coop and even out the practical world with all that hot air they would gain more students. And as Jason says I'm sure there is alot of energy and some talented kids but it still seems like a lot of hot-air compared to most schools no. . .
you don't have to apologize to me, i was just adding something i had heard to the debate.
isnt this discussion dead yet? Isn't there a bazillion threads asking this question popping up every month or so? it seems like if you want to be a better architect, you go to sciarc, but if you want a job at SOM you go Ivy. I guess that's the choice. Sciarc has a better rep than my school, Arizona, so it's a choice because no every school is Columbia. Besides, sciarc has the most interesting bloggers, and I dont even have a blogger, but i have a crappy job and a degree from a crappy school
see there you go...its all about perspectives and alternatives
oh and every blog, every school. is full of work thats nothing but squiggly lines and theoretical shit. sciarc has buildings littering the entire LA landscape. good or bad, its built.
Can you please post a link to gallery of student work that doesn't look like drawings of my bowel movements? Just Checking. . .Thanks in advance.
might want to check your colon if your dumping shit like this out
.jpg)
feel free to look through my pics i have up on my server here
http://factor27.com/images/school/LA/
and they post their lectures live, it's live now.
http://www.sciarc.edu/live/stream.htm
thi one looks a little like turd, but i like it:
.jpg)
that structure is cool
In M.Arch 1 you will not be doing blobs, unless you want to. What I mostly am seeing in this thread is BS from people on the outside.
Name another school that lets you get away with this???
the turd photo is from jasoncross server. Burning its drafting tables, how symbolicly prophetic of sciarc!
as someone in the m-arch program at sci-arc, these are my thoughts:
-yes it is disorganized. one reason for that is that most faculty have extremely busy schedules even by architecture standards, i view this as a positive.
-very little m-arch 1 work is blob architecture, which is one of the absolutely greatest things about the school.
-you are pushed to pursue your specific individual interests. this catalyzes a body of work among students that shows great diversity.
-in retrospect, chosing sci-arc over more prestigious school on the east coast was certainly the best choice for me.
-at this point in time, i dont think any of the programs on the east coast are producing the depth and range of work that comes out of sci-arc.
-sci-arc's anonomity in the general public is mirrored by its reputation among respected architects. classmates have had great success in getting jobs over the last few years. the la (arch) market is also strong right now relative to other cities.
btw, sci-arc will be getting a new director in the next 12 months, for better or worse. havent heard rumors on any names yet
No 'drafting tables' were harmed. That was a large scale model, generously gifted.
I agree, I think most of the negative comments are BS from outsiders. Am I a sci-arc student? No. But I've at least been to the school and checked it out.
The school has a great feel to it. The amount the students are involved with things going on with the school is also good. I saw a lot more than "blobs" being produced. sci-arc has the type of environment I'd enjoy learning and working in.
is that director thing confirmed? I think Moss is just having his scheduled review.
i got wait listed at sci arc. could anyone tell me how this works?
do the waitlisted people get a chance?
anyone who share some insights.. please do.
Threads like this really make me believe east coasters are terribly geocentric... From my understanding SCI-Arc is one of the most innovative and forward thinking architecture schools out there, something I consider more valuable than a name brand school. I'd go in a heartbeat.
what does forward thinking actually mean? can you define that? i agree that the school gets a bad rap, but equally terms like "forward thinking" get thrown a lot just as much. that sculpture above is pretty cool...that makes them forward thinkers? is it maya? what makes them forward thinkers? how are they different than columbia or UCLA? and i don't mean they have a better woodshop, im talking students and faculty?
i apologize in advance if the tone of this sounds like im an a-hole...this is a legitimate question i have
forward thinking
[img width=400]http://factor27.com/images/school/LA/Picture%20153%20(Small).jpg[\img]
[img width="400"]http://factor27.com/images/school/LA/Picture%20153%20(Small).jpg[/img]
plus it's next to Magetoys
.jpg)
a mill? Ok, i'll bite. its forward thinking, but its not unique to arch schools right now. i don't know, im just playing devil's advocate. the school gets a bum rap i will admit that, but i also wouldn't call it unique or forward thinking [in the respect that its "forward" of most every other school]
mega toys are cool.
jason-
do i understand correctly that you don't go there? if not they should hire you for marketing. what's your story, are you in school, applying?
taht is two mills...look through the pics...a vacuum former the size of UCLA's shop. tons of metal working, etc....and obviously people actually use it.
tell me about columbias forward thinking shop facilities and use.
i visited and was pretty blown away...it is definately in my top 3 school I will be applying for next year. UCLA was ok, but it's like in country club ville...and the energy just was not what experienced at sciarc...much quiter.
MArch06 - perfectly legit. question. Perhaps to clarify, I never said SCI-Arc is the end all - there are plenty of amazing, innovative schools out there, I just happen to think SCI-Arc is one of them. What defines forward thinking? Well I guess I used that term in lieu of innovative. Why do I use that term? B/c from my observations, gathered opinions, etc. I think SCI-Arc students/grads would kick my ass in regards to creativity (and I consider myself fairly creative) - which both terrifies and excites me. I can't weigh the school against Columbia or UCLA b/c neither school I applied to nor do I know much about either. Even so, how can you truly compare one school to another? I personally think there's a "best" school for everyone, but I find it hard to believe there's a singular "best" school in general.
My, I've really gone on a tangent.
well slow down a bit. that vac former is big, but its also old and breaks down quite a bit from what i hear. i've also heard that while yes there are two mills, most of the time one is down. i've also heard that the software interface for the mills couldn't be more confusing.
that's not forward thinking.
again, the school gets a bad rap, but its no MIT
mab82.
i guess i just question these end all, be all statements people throw around here. to each his own, that's what i say. if you love the school, more power to you. schools should be filled with people that love and want to be there.
UCLA has two vacuum formers one quarter the size and both were down. laser cutter can be used after one year...so a year and a half...bah.
there was not as much work done using this equipment as I saw at sciarc...this is important to me...not that a scholl has equipment...but that it is getting used...I want to learn...you can only learn from people who are doing when it comes to making....so sometimes they are down...but they are being used...there was proof everywhere.
I am vocal because I think the place gets a very bad wrap here based on heresay. I thought the same thing...decided to visit the thesis review and like I said...I was impressed...not everything was my cup of tea but it was all presented well. Students were easy to talk to and all spoke highly of the school.
I was sold...I knew then all the talk was 98% bullshit with the rest being what most school deal with...some level of their own ineptness...all schools are afflicted to some extent.
well i wish you luck then and hope you get in. as i said every school should benefit from people who want to be there
MArch06 - don't you think they throw the same statements around with many other schools? I certainly hear end-all statements about the GSD, Columbia, MIT, UVa, Berkeley, etc.
absolutely, im not trying to pick on sci_arc...the thread was just staring me in the face. although i think we would both agree that blanket statements aren't helpful to anyone, sci_arc no matter how forward thinking it gets won't ever have the reputation or name brand that the GSD, columbia or MIT have. for better or worse
MArch, Ill never understand people who come into forums to shit on everything. What do you know about sciarc? The school is in big financial trouble? The equipement is always breaking down? That because the mill software is not easy that the school isnt forward thinking? That SCI-Arc will never have the rep of gsd or mit or columbia? Yes some of the equipment goes down, find me a machine that doesnt ever break down when its being used to teach novices. NO the school is not in big financial trouble. And it depends on what you mean by rep. ON the west coast architects know sciarc. And check with anyone at those REP schools and id guess that they are all aware of sciarc. Put the work of sciarc against any on those schools and itll hold its own cause it doesnt have the rep to lay back on.
oh boy. im not shitting on anyone. sorry you have a chip on your shoulder, go put it to good use.
in all seriousness, i apologize if i've offended you, wasn't my intent.
i'm finishing up my first yr march I at sciarc.
some of the descriptions here have been interesting....i thought all these things when i first heard of the school and started exploring it. a little dissapointed by the issue of it not having an open house type deal like ucla. but upon visiting the school, you can REALLY see what sciarc is all about. couches everywhere, conceptual models abound, strange structures...i mean just noticing the details of the place, you can tell the type of energy that the school has. what taospan has said above is pretty smack dab what we're all about. sciarc is definately a different gem out there...sometimes misunderstood as too experimental or disoraganized...but in all honesty, i believe this is the type of culture that has evolved here. we are pretty much allow to do anything we want...want to tear down a wall? make a crazy parasitic structure in one of the halls? have a bonfire in the parking lot? we are given so much freedom (creative as well as in general) that you can really play out your experiments (whether they be architecturally or in our friday's @ five [weekly social gathering]). with that type of freedom there comes a small price...and that price is freedom from adminitration-type control (which is what ultimately controls small things like organization). i gladly pay that price.
some of us were actually having a discussion about this...sciarc vs ucla and other schools. for sure we are structured much differently, and granted your instructors as well as lectures etc will NEVER run on time, but this is a place for full independency. a studio mate was saying how if you want your hand held throughout your instruction...sciarc is not the place for that. but if you want to stretch and challenge your creativity/independence, sciarc is the place.
it takes some getting used to at first, but i soon realized that sciarc was most definately the right choice for me (ucla was first choice when applying).
as for reputation...you should choose a school dependant on which will be able to give the most back to you...one that you can allow yourself to grow most from. sciarc is not too well known in non-architectural circles...but pple who know their shit will know that sciarc is a statement in and of itself. and it is true that it is more well known on the west coast (architects that i used to work with told me if i plan to work on the west coast, they are very aware of sciarc, just as risd is with the east coast...). if you are going to a school just for the name/prestige of it...you obviously could be making the wrong choice for the wrong reasons.
we breed/shelter a certain kind here.
"The thesis projects ranged from digital blobby stuff, to artsy, to sustainable, etc.
What I liked about it is the atmosphere felt more like an art school, not conservative at all. I like that."
"it seems like if you want to be a better architect, you go to sciarc, but if you want a job at SOM you go Ivy."
"we breed/shelter a certain kind here."
I like that.
but for fun...
"oh boy. im not shitting on anyone."
"this one looks a little like turd, but i like it:"
"might want to check your colon if your dumping shit like this out"
"I'd go in a heartbeat."
"that doesn't look like drawings of my bowel movements"
"i apologize in advance if the tone of this sounds like im an a-hole"
"then all the talk was 98% bullshit"
~Marlin
To all those presently going to Sci-Arc
I am choosing between UCLA, COlumbia, and Sci-Arc for M.Arch I
I think I am definitely most interested in theory and arch. history, I know Sci-Arc is great in design but how is the theory/history part of the program? My worry being if I want to go for a Phd later, UCLA or COlumbia may be the better choice simply for academic/university connections to arch and art history. Do you think going to Sci-Arc would compare on that level?
with my experiance so far, sciarc does not focus or make much of a priority for the arch hist portion. though instructors i've had for them (amy kulper in particular) are incredibly knowledgable and gifted in the area, some instructors in all areas will even work around your studio sched (this just goes to show, theory is not a #1 priority). you may want to look at certain instructors you are interested in. i have to agree with you though....sciarc may not be the best place for theory...unless you plan on carrying out experiments with those theories. others may say differently...this is what i can say for the 1st yr here.
heard of the school, has some pretty nice stuff, i would think ny would be a little more expensive to live in, but whatever. in the end, u'll be paying off the loans you borrowed from any of those sexy schools!
In response to Meta-
I got waitlisted last year for the M Arch II,
came out for final reviews, talked to a few teachers, within
a week of going back home I was in.
A friend was also waitlisted a few years back and got in after a long
summer of campainging for himself.
No guarentees but I think if you come for a visit, talk to some
faculty, especially those on the admissions committe, and make it plain you really want to come, good things can happen.
What program are you applying for? The summer program making and meaning is taken by many M Arch I incomers, and Micheal Rotondi told me if you take that you'll automatically get off the wait list.
i've yet to meet someone on the east coast who hasn't heard of sciarc
It's always good when people have strong opinions about a place be it good or bad, doesn't matter- they still know who you are. I did my undergraduate studies in New York and SCIarc was well known among my professors- that was also the case when I studied abroad. But to echo what some people have said, if you really want to make an informed decision about a school, VISIT. Fun gossip is one thing, but generally that's all it is. SCIarc doesn't have a traditional open house, however e-mails were sent out to students that applied letting them know that the ADMISSIONS OFFICE WILL BE OPEN THIS STAURDAY & OFFERING TOURS. So to ANYONE that will be in LA and considering SCIarc, you should call the Admissions office @ (213) 613-2200 or stop by this Saturday APRIL 1st. Walk around, ask about rumours that you've heard- I'd seriously pay to hear someone ask about the dead bodies in the basement. Plenty of students will be around.
Anyways SCIarc isn't right for everyone. There are some people that come here and love it and then there are others that hate the place and leave faster than you can say maya. But generally the school is design and theory based. For graduate students at least, the school does not offer survey courses in Architecture History. I'm finishing up my second year here and have had some really interesting theory instructors- Michael Speaks, Amy Kulper, Norman Klein... But design studio is KING here - most of your seminars will relate to what you are doing in studio. More digital studios will study theory that relates to their work, and so on. But you can pick and choose from theory electives as well. It's what you make it.
A lot of undergrads and grads have checked out the school via the Making + Meaning summer course. If you're interested in learning about the schools approach to architecture, M+M is a good introduction- but from my knowledge it really doesn't guarantee you anything as far as admissions goes. What I do know is that a lot of people that take it, apply for admission. Instructors get to know them and their work and in turn they get to know the school.
BTW, Jason- thanks for posting the picture of the metal structure near the mezzanine stairs. I love that thing.... I think that was 1A (first semester, first year, undergrads).
I didn't want to suggest that getting admitted is simply a matter of schmoozing with faculty or taking M + M. Nothing is officially guarenteed. However from experience, I think coming here and making yourself known to people works a lot better then sitting at home and crossing your fingers. Plus it's a fun place to hang out.
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.