I'm in the midst of applying there for their MFA design program, and got the chance to visit a couple months ago. The things I liked about them.... 1)very universal attitude about design- they offer elective classes that change every semester based on the interest of the students, and give you room to take classes from different disciplines, and don't care if you come from a different design discipline because "design is design", 2)they aren't snobs. They said they admit about 40%, and they don't care if that affects their reputation, because they believe in giving anyone a chance who looks like they can bring something to the community, and 3) I really liked their campus. The main building of the San Francisco campus is LEED certified, and was very open and fun, and they're in the middle of building a new graduate center right next door, and they've got 3D printing and fabrication facilities on the cheap (like, the cost of the electricity to run the machines cheap) so it doesn't seem like they're trying real hard to screw you over.

I'm a current CCA M.Arch student and would 2nd rationalist's opinions. The M.Arch program is new, but the B.Arch program has some history and momentum so there's an interesting frission between how the program has established itself and how it is growing in the future. If you're applying to both Sci-Arc and CCA, I'd absolutely recommend a visit to the west coast. There's some pretty good lectures coming up this semester, so I'd try to schedule a visit with those in mind.

what's their standing on accreditation?

Correct me if I'm wrong walnut, but from what I have heard this years graduates will be the first accredited graduates of there M.Arch program.

admiller4, the M.Arch program's accreditation is in the works. a NAAB committee is coming this spring for a review/assessment which will then be followed up in 2008 by a 2nd visit and accreditation decision (which would be retroactive three years, including this year's class, and the one from last year).

A bigger question is the current search for a chair for the program. The search so far has resulted in some pretty impressive candidates, but the negotiations at the end never panned out. We're looking to see more candidate presentations soon - but whoever gets the job is going to have a strong influence on the direction the programs (B.Arch too) take in the future.

Yves Behar took the chair position for I.D. a couple years ago and that program is seeing a strong injection of his network and interests.

cpnorris, this year's M.Arch class is the first class to have gone through the whole 6 semester sequence at CCA.

if you're in the CCA/Sci-Arc boat, why not consider Berkeley too?

(Not to turn this into a big school vs. school knockdown, just a thought)

The school made it seem like the accredidation was simply a matter of paperworkl and time (according to the Lisa Findley - who I beleive is the director of the grad program).
In either case, whenever they eventually do become accredited, they retro-accredit the students who've graduated prior.

But of course, if anyone know the real deal (maybe someone who went or is attending) pls let us know.

mightylittle - I was looking into Berkeley for a while but decided not to apply. All my profs said to stay away and apparently that has been many peoples opinions for years as one of my coworkers was told the same thing and she went to grad school 10 years ago. I never really hear anything good about the program, not to say that its not a good program, thats just the word on the street. I have some arch friends in the bay area that say if you wanna go to school there that all the good work is coming out of CCA. whats your experience or opinion with Berkeley?

my opinion, fwiw, is that in the bay area it's a reasonable option because of its affordability when you're a CA resident which i am.

when i was looking into grad school over the last two years (accepted, deferred, now unsure about plans...long story) it looked to me to be a good option...programmatically they seem quite different from the others in your california list.

though many others have their own opinions, i hear often in my small little arch world that CCA is great but really expensive and highly thoretical. some here say that CCA grads take longer to develop into office assets because they have no nuts and bolts training, just big ideas about how things should be done.

that being said, i do love their vibe. their catalogs, their ads in town, their buildings and what not are all definitely high design and attractive. it would probably make for a great design intensive environment to study. i also love their interdisciplinary vibe. very fresh. very modern. when not in arch studio, electives in wood furniture are avilable, or photography, etc.

that doesn't seem to be the case at berkeley, but their approach is different. seems more on the straight and narrow. i wonder if berkeley doesn't get a bad rap because it's still in this wierd transition between old school beaux arts type training and a more modern interdisciplinary approach.

either way, you should look into it yourself, and don't go by what others have told you. UCB has a beautiful campus, and although the city of berkeley has small offerings architecturally (no morphosis here) it's a pretty rich area with close proximity to SF. 25min by train.

and it's hard to buy anyone casually dismissing berkeley as a school to stay away from. it's freakin' berkeley. maybe in some arch circles they're not as shiny as some others, but most of the world looks pretty fondly on the ol' cal bears.

but i'd be curious to hear further discussions too...

Yeah I am sure its a great school. I actually visited the campus a couple years ago. I have been to the bay area 3 separate times on vacation and love it. I decided not to apply Berkeley or CCA because after looking into the programs in depth I just lost interest.

I agree with what you said about Berkeley being on the straight and narrow and there is nothing wrong with that at all, its just not for me. I have been working at the same firm for over 2.5 years so I feel that I am getting paid to get the nuts and bolts training. I am interested in more of the design and theory stuff, though not like SCI-Arch and Columbia.

I didn't apply to CCA because it is just so new and not (as of yet) accredited so that made me a bit skeptical. Don't really want to spend $30K a year to be a guinea pig. I know its a rad school and the interdisciplinary opportunities would be amazing, but I just found other schools that I liked better.

'nuff said. good luck either way.

there's a lot more discussion on this all on archinect if you search.

cpnorris your friends obviously have not seen recent studio work and digital fabrication work by some of the younger in house faculty and recent visitors at Berkeley (Burke, Iwamoto, Choksombatchai, Erdman, Huljich, Wiscombe, etc.) because it stands up to just about anywhere, so thats a pretty innacurate picture your comment implies -- of course one can encounter plenty of crusty old timers on the faculty there too. On the other hand, in the SF area, CCA's defnitely worth consideration also...

Yeah I 'm sure there is good work coming out of Berkeley. I just said thats "the word on the street", which doesn't really mean much. I wanted to hear from people that were actually in tune with Berkeley and could give some real comments because I have only heard second and third hand comments that all had a negative tone. I wasn't trying to imply anything about Berkely as a school, cause I honestly don't know enough about it from a first hand experience to be able to accurately comment on it.

This is fascinating. I've been mulling over my eventual grad school choice (for a few years down the road) and haven't as yet hit on a program that sounds anywhere near to what I want. Now that I've heard the CCA descriptions above, it sounds like it could be a *really* good fit for me. Awesome! I've already got a B.Arch so accreditation is not an issue, woohoo. I just want to expand my overall design vocabulary and pursue some crazy hands-on shit (across multiple media) that I haven't been able to do in undergrad or in the field. Rad! This is great because I already love their campus buildings. He he. I'm excited, now.

Yeah, CCA is definitely an exciting place and SF is one of the raddest cities in the country. They should have the accreditation thing under control soon.

If I may... I'd like to jump in on this discussion. I've been scouring the Archinect forums for info on CCA as I'm trying to decide between CCA and RISD for the fall.

I'm currently finishing up a BA in Studio Art at Wake Forest so I'm looking at programs for non-arch students. I intended to pursue graphic design at one point so I love the interdisciplinary nature of CCA and the art school environment at RISD. I really think I would enjoy both programs equally. I am also in love with the idea of living in SF but the name/reputation/resources at RISD seem just as compelling. Finances are really the issue thats making this hard for me, CCA would be much much cheaper as RISD has offered me no help whatsoever. So, I am trying to gauge whether or not it is worth the heaps of extra money to attend RISD...

Any thoughts?

Maypoleleaves,

I am mos def in the same boat as you, except for arch courses. I got accepted to both CCA and RISD. I've visited both schools. I love San Fran. Providence was pretty cool in it's own right, but it's not SF. I will say though, that I was really impressed with RISD. I'm leaning that way, though it'd be an extra year of study for me. I suppose part of it is the name, but I felt like I really identified with the teaching philosophy there. I guess I just wasn't as excited by the work I saw at CCA, although, RISD doesn't really have crazy mind blowing stuff either. I will say that it looked like there was a large variety of work at RISD, as opposed to CCA which had a fairly uniform feel I felt like the resources were good at RISD, being close to all the other studios. CCA had that too, I dunno, I guess I just felt better about RISD.

I dunno I'm still trying to make up my mind.