I've always been interested in digital fabrication, digital and computational design, as well as the conceptual, idealistic and philosophical aspects of architecture.

GSAPP is the way to go .. it has amazing digital design resources ...

Its columbia !! .... its new york .. plus its everything you like in arch ... I dont think that you should be thinking ..!

Do you want a job in architecture or in video games?

If architecture, go to Columbia - if you want to be in games or F/X then SCI-Arch

Congratulations you have two excellent opportunities.  My advice would be for you to give Sci Arc serious consideration.  The digital fabrication facilities are extensive at the school and importantly the faculty and students are always pushing the capabilities of the technology to produce very innovative results.  Additionally the robot lab is a unique facility that really is at the cutting edge of design technology.  Most importantly Sci Arc is a very exciting place filled with innovative faculty and students consistently engaged in experimentation and I think anyone with an interest in computational design and related issues would be very satisfied there.

I really wanted to go to SCI-Arc.  I got in, but the amount of money I would have to borrow to get a degree is absurd (180k).  On an architects salary, that is nearly impossible to pay back.  

My advice is to not look at a school based on the ranking.  Look at which program gives you the most opportunities to do what you want to do.  Schools don't get you jobs.  Portfolios and experience does.  SCI-Arc is a leader in deconstructivism, and if you are into that philosophy of design, I would def give SCI-Arc some serious consideration.

lets get real - 180k in debt? considering your expected pay in architecture - intern at $20/hr for 2 - 3 years? in light of 180k in debt is financial irresponsibility - find a school that gives you a good pragmatic education that shows you how to put a building together with BIM at @50-72K tops. what if another recession hits in 5 years - you will regret it if you take on big debt from SCI-Arc

I got into yale, columbia and upenn (all m.arch), but i decided to go columbia other than anyone else. 

First of all, columbia is always the best experimental institution. Not like other school, they do not just use cool software to design "spaceships", but they do real investigation on the philosophy and theory behind the tool itself. 

Columbia intensively focuses on the future manifestos of architecture.  they have all different kinds of experimental labs cross over the worlds to make those innovative ideologies into practice (like c-lab, studio-x, information lab, etc).  For example, their m.arch thesis studio this year co-upped with Audi in investigating a terminal platform urban proposal in dealing with future urbanism and social network. They are integrating the Iphone or ipad terminal platform ideologies with architecture. 

I would say columbia is a architecture school beyond the definition of building or visualization, it is a real leader of the future architecture revolution. 

I agree, I think taking anything over 40k for debt (for architecture) is a huge huge risk.  Especially for a school like SCI-Arc, which is so focused on design.  I took a job instead of going to the school.  Too bad it is so ridiculously expensive for such a underpaid profession.

I would def go to the cheapest school possible.

@aman

where are you heading?

BTW thanks to all of you guys!

@casafelise I am confused b/w UT Austin and UMich .. No funding .. So probably will go for UT Austin .. I really like the student work there .. But UMich is the first choise ... Let's see if get any scholarships here in India ..

Does anybody have a good link to view SCI-arc student work?  The school website doesn't do a very good job of it.

Some links for GSAPP would be appreciated as well, but I've already seen the work on http://gsappworkflow.tumblr.com/ so at least I have something to compare.

Thanks guys.

@ MadScience, there are a lot of things going on at SCI-Arc. It all depends on what you want to see. Here is a link for some interesting stuff going on with the robots: http://vimeo.com/34278983 

Check out the associated videos (I think there are a handful of others) that came from this past academic year. In the above video you see Andrew Atwood (in black) who is one of the instructors for the robot courses. At SCI-Arc you will have access to him as well as a long list of other amazing professionals who are making a lot of noise in the discipline: Tom Wiscombe, Hernan Diaz Alonso, Wes Jones, Eric Owen Moss, Elena Manferdini, Jeff Kipnis, Sylvia Lavin, Marcelo Spina, Joe Day, Peter Zellner, Thom Mayne, Greg Lynn, Michel Rojkin, Andrew Zago, Marcelyn Gow, Peter Cook, Todd Gannon, Jesse Reiser, Sanford Kwinter, and Xu Weigo just to name a few. If you're unsure or don't know of some of these people you should do some research or just pick up an issue of Log.

Another great video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5KI8HpfpM

This video is of the 2011 graduate thesis week and show and is a pretty good indicator of how things work at SCI-Arc. 

@archicowboy - no, SCI-Arc does not make "spaceships". This statement is a clear indicator of your lack of knowledge about the school, the contemporary discipline, and the history of Architecture. 

@robertdsmith - no, SCI-Arc is not a leader in Deconstructivism. If you know anything about the history of Architecture you would know that Mark Wigley, the Dean of GSAPP is one of the founding practitioners of Deconstructivism. Eric Owen Moss subscribes to his own theory of architecture: "Gnosticism". "Gnostic Architecture" is in fact is quite different than Deconstructivism (this does not imply that there is a linear relationship between Moss' practice and the curriculum taught at SCI-Arc). It is easy to see why the untrained and/or uneducated eye can confuse the two. 

@casafelice, both schools are amazing and you're very fortunate to have such an option. I think the most important thing to understand is the cultural difference between the schools. Columbia is very rooted in east coast principles, which align more with the work of Patrick Schumaker, Zaha, and the DRL at the AA. This isn't to say that GSAPP is a reflection of this program, however it's momentum in the theory of Architecture's purpose for the 21st century is much more aligned with the Autopoiesis of Architecture than that of the west coast schools (specifically SCI-Arc's). 

At both schools you will have access to leading professionals and emerging ideas in the discipline and at both schools you will learn to design and to build. However you will become a part of a different culture depending on what school it is that you choose (not to say that one is better than the other, they are just very different, much like the difference between New York City and Los Angeles). 

SCI-Arc is founded on the principle of finding oneself. By understanding what you are not, you understand what you are. The so called "spaceships" that come from SCI-Arc actually emerge out of both the west and east coast disciplines, from Peter Eisenman to Greg Lynn, however this is not all that is going on at SCI-Arc...it just shocks people and forces them to pay attention (for better or worse). If you were to visit SCI-Arc, you would see that the "spaceship" reputation of the institution is exactly the opposite of what is really going on. It is rather just a small piece of the puzzle. 

I think that looking at some of the lectures at both schools from the past academic year would be beneficial to you. See what the old guys who are running the project AND practice side of the discipline have to say about the schools. 

In closure, both schools are amazing. However, at the moment SCI-Arc is known to have more going on that almost any other school of Architecture in the world. This is NOT to say that SCI-Arc is by any means the best, but rather that there is a lot of movement at the institution right now that is having massive influence on the way the discipline is being thought of (much like IIT in the 60's, the AA in the 70's, and Harvard and Columbia in the 80's and 90's).  

Just to add to this on going list I know most people would say go for GSAPP but umm I live in New York and I don't know how to put it in nice words but COLUMBIA is EXPENSIVE.... yes they give you scholarship and all but living in New York City and actually surviving is really tough. 

Housing cost is ridiculous and food prices are pretty much in the that same category for high price. 

Yes the school is great but take into consideration other factors before saying GO for GSAPP.

Sci Arc is far better 

Los Angeles isn't exactly cheap either. Cheaper than New York City, sure, but still not what I'd call cheap. Also you will probably want a car in LA to get around and the cost of owning and maintaining one adds up quickly.

A few Columbia grads go off to work in UX design. As do some from Sci-Arc.

Upon comparing the student work at Columbia and Sci-Arc this year, I can honestly say the work at Columbia was below its average. Probably for the 3rd year in a row Sci-Arc's was articulated much better and did not recycle Aranda/Lasch/Roche like Columbia has been doing since 2006. Sci-Arc's engagement with robotic manufacturing also gives it an edge over Columbia.

Columbia has some promising studio briefs, but the work output has not been at its best lately.