hello. ive been looking through this site for a while now, but never posted anything. i couldnt seem to find a comparrison between sciarc and usc so i was hoping somebody could help me out.
im currently a highschool senior and i got accepted by both schools and im not sure which school is better..? or which school would ultimately make me a better architect. well your input will greatly be appreciated!
I am a huge proponent of not getting your bachelors degree at a specialized school. You are 17 (or 18) and have no idea what life holds in store for you. Life is about more than just architecture. Take a journalism class, take a biology class, take a painting class, take a history of 20th century fiction class. Then, after four years of learning about more than just architecture, if you still want to be an architect, dedicate yourself and get a masters at SCI-Arc or where ever. Don't specialize so soon, broaden your horizons. So I am saying go to USC or where ever you can learn about more than just architecture.
I second what black francis is saying, SCI-Arc is also really not geared toward the undergrad students needs. You'll have to take credits off campus and the non-studio courses vary greatly in the quality of instruction.
Ultimately you'll be a much better architect if you know about more than just architecture.
go to a large university, get exposure to a new world and graduate.
go to sci-arc for grad school (if you've decided that is what you really want by then) and be thoroughly thankful you're studying at a place that doesn't have fraternities, a football team or an (official) mascot.
on the other hand, i think sci-arc's undergrad program has produced a lot of really exceptional people: many who have done things outside of architecture. so perhaps you might look at it this way: you can study architecture now and pursue other areas later, or study other fields now and pursue architecture later. architectural study doesn't need to be the end goal at your age. perhaps what new yorker cartoonist saull steinberg said about architecture being the best education for everything except architecture might be true for you.
Cannotsleep, It looks like this discussion is focusing on two things: 1) Which school will give you a better architectural education? and 2) Which school will give you more "exposure to life in general" (that is, if we are going by the standards provided on TV)?
Hands down, SCI-Arc is the better place to study architecture. SCI-Arc's faculty are better and more distinguished. SCI-Arc's resources are the latest and greatest, while USC's are a joke! It's as if USC's program hasn't changed in 30 years. The proof is in the student work, that shit is amazing! And also in what recent SCI-Arc alumni are doing. When I applied to USC, they told me, "Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne went here." Yeah, well 40-50 years ago! SCI-Arc graduates are all over the place.
Also, some might tell you, "You're too young, you don't know what you want to do with your life." I think that's crap. Who says that 18-year-olds don't know what they want out of life? And even if that were the case, the answer isn't to go to a crappy architecture school while you figure things out. Why settle for a bad architecture education at USC just for the off chance that you MIGHT want to take a jornalism class? Besides SCI-arc requires general ed classes, too.
Seriously, dude, go for the best, don't settle. The reality is that you will gain nothing from studying architecture at USC. Just call a random architect at any substancial firm (even USC's darlings, Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne), and they will set you straight.
The question is this: What do you want out of college? Do you want to become a great architect, or do you want to become a good "well-rounded student"?
I thought I might contribute to the fantastic logic governing these school decision threads:
You should go to USC because as far as my last count, there are more threads comparing USC (USC vs. Columbia, USC vs. Parsons, etc etc) than any other school! Go to the place that people are talking about the most! yeah.
more seriously:
To expound on what FOGLite says, I took courses in film, Japanese, acting, literature---and I must say they informed my education and continue to influence me in ways that I don't even realize. Plus USC gives money, and lots of it. I won a traveling fellowship after graduation, and there are lots of those sorts of opportunities.
For the money you pay at USC, SCI_Arc is a way better Deal. Plus even at a "Big" university your only going to have time for Studio Classes.
If you want a broad education don't do a 5 year Barch. do a four year degree that gives you more time to focus on liberal arts. Undergrad programs like UPenn, UVA.
Can Anyone list 5 Influential Alumni from USC in the Past 20 years? or Even Faculty?
for a 5 year Arch program SCI_Arc is the best on the west coast(maybe the country?)
Bottom line going to USC for architecture is a waste of your time and money. in my opinion
Good Luck.
thanks everyone who gave some suggestions! i would like to have some input from undergrads at sciarc and usc! it would be very helpful. but as of now, i think im more inclined towards sciarc.. but i still need some assurance that im making the right decision
Yes, that's right, "The Thriller in Manila", I can't wait to waste my money at USC for grad school this fall!
Oh that's right, they are giving me more money than any of the other programs I applied to....and I might get to go to China next year....so should I say, "I can't wait to waste their money? In China?
You want "influential" alumni? Thom Mayne, perhaps? Frank Gehry? Or do they not count?
One-sided, obviously biased posts like yours really don't help people make informed decisions, but in my opinion, comparing the two undergrad programs at USC and SCI-Arc is like comparing apples to oranges for many of the reasons already stated.
Christoph Kapellar (Alexandria Library, etc.)
Thomas Spiegelhalter (sustainability guru)
Quingyun Ma
James Steele (I bet you've got two of his books on your bookcase right now)
Scott Johnson
Mia Lehrer
Michael Lehrer
Michael Maltzin
Ed Niles
formerly, Pierre Koenig (may he rest in peace)
I'll count the people who only stay for one semester as one: Todao Ando, Sejima, Eric Owen Moss...
Oh, wait, that's a lot more than five.
I would say that comparing USC and SCI_Arc is less like comparing apples and oranges, and more like comparing steak to passionfruit. You get such completely different experiences out of the two places... Obviously there's the University Experience vs. the single-school, transfer classes in experience. Then there's also the question of whether you want to be pushed to work on theory and experimentation and blobs really hard for five years, or be allowed to explore what you want to explore, be it theoretical blobs, or landforms, or tectonics, or preservation. Because that's what USC offers: in addition to the broad idea of the university experience, they also offer the opportunity to explore different ideas and facets of architecture. By contrast, SCI_Arc seems (to an outsider, admittedly) to have a very singular direction to it: you can definitely identify that the student's work came out of SCI_Arc, whereas at USC there is a lot more variety of work going on. If you really like that direction that SCI_Arc pushes, then it could be a great place for you. If you want a chance to explore more, then USC could be a great place for you.
cannotsleep - obviously we're seeing some very biased opinions from current or former students of both schools. just go visit the schools, see what resources are available, see what work is being produced and make your own decision. both schools are very different, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. there is something to be said about getting a broader education... besides just architecture, and USC would be superior to SCI-Arc in that regard.
You can always transfer too. I know several people did just that, and I think came out with a better education because of it. You aren't locked into one school for 4 or 5 years, but if you're willing to take an extra year or two to get a degree, you can use the strengths of both programs to create a more well rounded education for yourself.
Sure USC can give more money, because it's over 100 years old, and has a huge endowment that comes with a historically successful football team.
But the tuition at USC is twice as much as the tuition at SCI-Arc, and the architecture school has nothing to show for it: cramped studios, no CNC machinery, and the last time I checked there was no 3-D modeling or rendering courses.
And let's return to USC's legendary alumni: Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne. Let's see who's working in their offices--not one person listed at Morphosis graduated from USC, and easily 25% graduated from SCiArc. http://www.morphosis.net/
Besides, both of these men went on to affiliate themselves with sCI-Arc: Mayne co-founded it, and Gehry sits on its board, and was an early faculty member.
Drizzler is right, however, visit the schools and see for yourself.
"the last time I checked there was no 3-D modeling or rendering courses"
Then you must have last checked at LEAST ten years ago. ARCH 207 teaches basic modeling and rendering, as well as autocad, web programs, and basic graphics programs. ARCH 407 teaches more advanced modelling and rendering. In addition, many architecture students who know cad, etc. and only want a modelling/rendering course choose to take one from either the engineering or animation departments.
parametricboy, way to introduce yourself! Using your first two posts on this forum to insult anyone who's ever gone to USC's architecture school or intends to. Way to go! Welcome!
You know what else?! I always totally judge the quality of an architectural education based on the existence of a CNC machine. I mean, what else are you supposed to base it on?
</sarcasm>
Can we all step back for a minute and consider that perhaps an architectural education is about more than producing "amazing shit"?
The superiority complex of the SCI-Arc "cheerleaders" on this thread alone would be enough to drive me away from the school. Of course, since I am going to USC and my future roommate (who sounds like a very nice person) will be going to SCI-Arc, I'll hold out judgment until I see what some of her classmates produce, and hopefully I'll get a chance to crit some at my own school. In the meantime, I'm sticking with rationalist.....steak to passionfruit.....
hey man eat the steak and have a passion fruit afterwords. and turn around the corner and eat some frozen burritos after you get your license and open your office.
cannotsleep, i also agree with drizzler. visit the schools, check out their campus and facilities, talk to students and faculty or at least hear them speak during a review or lecture. usc and sciarc are so completely different that you'll probably have a strong feeling, whether positive or negative, about one of them. choose the school that you feel more comfortable at, that's where you'll be more comfortable to express yourself and create some really kickass sht. don't get disillusioned about either usc or sciarc by what you read here, go and find out for yourself.
oh and regarding which school will make you a better architect, the answer is neither. if you want to be a kickass architect, you'll make it happen regardless of what school you are at. both have great reputations, albeit for different reasons. so as long as your portfolio and resume reflects your outstanding abilities, you won't have a problem finding a job after graduating. the fact that you are on archinect researching schools already says a lot about you.
this thread is funny. maybe cuz I just had a half a bottle of NZ savvy blanc. But maybe cause neither school really gives a crap what's going on at the other school, and comparisons are always odious.
hey, sci arc doesn't have a football team. go trojans.
i agree - this thread is funny. seems like a lot of sc people have built up sciarc angst. that is okay though. visit the schools, make a choice and enjoy. both are good.
Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed- interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit- crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing you last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life.
Brightside, SCIArch offers a very good curriculum for graduate students at the introduction level. It's a little different than some of the other programs, but it is a very good one especially when it comes to "baby-stepping" students into the direction of design. One of the things I particularly liked hearing about is their influence with the computer and how that becomes a required and a heavily encouraged output tool (noticed I said 'output' and not design. I didn't go there, but I know a few people who did go there who swore by it and I know two of their faculty members who are really good to learn from.
As for the guy putting down USC, it's pretty nonsensical especially when the lack of a CNC machine is among the main reason. In my school we had one but neither I nor a vast majority of the other M.Arch students ever used it. Oh well. It's been discussed time and again, that the ability to produce using digital models does not make one a good architect. Sometimes the opposite takes place and we end up with extremely bad architecture.
Either ways both schools are very good. I would prefer USC if I had the choice, but that's my personal preference. I like the big college campus experience especially when it's a place that is vibrant with strong academics and athletics (obviously USC is good like that). Again, just my personal preference.
Both schools are pretty dope. But they do things differently. All I'm saying is that Sciarch has a good program for the grad students who are just getting the feel for architecture. That's all.
of course everybody thinks that their architecture program was the best.. but better is a blurry concept. you need to think about what kind of architect you want to be or what interests you..
as a sciarc b.arch i liked the experimental encouragement students get there, you have the potential to do anything you want, which isn't that easy at older more established schools.. if experimental design freedom doesn't excite you then don't go to sciarc...
Hey Wonder K and anyone curious about what SCI_Arc is about. Come down to the End of year show on Saturday. you can see a full cross section of the school, Grad and Undergrad.........You can see the huge advantage digital techniques present at SCI_Arc. of which I think is a major difference between the schools.
as an alumnae of SCI-Arc, i am glad that i went there. it prepared me an exceptional foundation and experience of architecture, for invention, exploration and criticism. it's a life changing experience, there’s a lot more than just architecture at SCI-Arc. i've classmates end up in fashion, film/ movie industry, etc. of course many of us, including myself stayed in architecture field.
if you’re not afraid of challenge and like to take risk, SCI-Arc is the place for you.
somehow it does.. at SCI-Arc, you're open up to different kind of possibilities, it educates students to be experimental..
with an architecture degree doesn't mean that you're only limited to the traditional path to be an architect, i too want to do something other than (but somewhat related to) architecture once i get my license
el duderino - the two posts you mentioned (USC vs. columbia) and (USC vs. parsons) are both from me, so i'll comment...
i am going to be a grad student at USC this Fall (M.Arch). i am very very excited and really looking forward to it. i am born and raised in LA, and i have been working in architecture here for 3 years. I did my undergrad in berkeley, but that only for 4 years. so i have been in LA my whole life. My boss (architect) tells me that she refused to hire ppl from Sci-Arc because they "dont believe in gravity." their buildings dont stands up. accoridng to my friends who work in prestigiou firms in LA, the workers from Sci-Arc have the weakest understanding of practic. though this sounds harsh, this IS NOT my opinion. this is what others in the field have said. i am only the messenger.
my personal opinion is that school is the place TO make these crazy buildings. if you cant go crazy with design in school? where can you? so i would say go to a school that lets you be creative and design away! if you think Sci-Arc will let you be free, then go there! if you think that going to a regular big university would help you grow, then go there!
when i look at your initial thread, i see that you dont ask "which school would help me grow," or "which school would make me the most well-rounded." you say, "which would make me the better architect?" i think sci-arc would make you a better designer but USC will keep you grounded in reality more, and even though you might not belive it, you really SHOULD take classes in other fields. you have the rest of your life to specialize, you might as well have a broad educaiton for undergrad.
i think that the "small art school" type of environment is better for grad than undergrad, but that might just be me. i would say go to USC for undergrad and then Sci-ARc for grad.
Go to USC. si-arch, to my knowledge does not have Deep Water Cruising A,B,C, and D.
I have fond memories of getting course credit to sail a boat between Long Beach and Catalina Island during thesis. The marine weather section of DWC – B was great as well as celestial navigation!
Good, bad and indifferent USC also has a Greek system. My experience with APX was great.
wonderk, as i mentioned i just did it for 'adding fuel to the fire' did not really mean any disrespect - sorry bout that. By the way i went to UCLA, so just got some of THAT rivalry in there (!)
to come to think of it though, what i said about USC grads being more suited to corporate companies etc. seems to be more and more untrue these days. In my experience, some of the graduates I have met in the older days did not really seem like very innovative designers, but it does look like that is changing very fast. We interviewed with one recent grad, and was pleasantly surprised to see the quality of the work.
Alright, that's more like it. Fair play to you. I certainly don't fit into any stereotype of what it seems people might expect from USC grads, and I didn't think you did either, even if you are a UCLA grad.....aw smack! (Sorry I think I'm supposed to perpetuate this whole rivalry thing even though my heart's not really in it)
sciarc vs usc?
hello. ive been looking through this site for a while now, but never posted anything. i couldnt seem to find a comparrison between sciarc and usc so i was hoping somebody could help me out.
im currently a highschool senior and i got accepted by both schools and im not sure which school is better..? or which school would ultimately make me a better architect. well your input will greatly be appreciated!
I am a huge proponent of not getting your bachelors degree at a specialized school. You are 17 (or 18) and have no idea what life holds in store for you. Life is about more than just architecture. Take a journalism class, take a biology class, take a painting class, take a history of 20th century fiction class. Then, after four years of learning about more than just architecture, if you still want to be an architect, dedicate yourself and get a masters at SCI-Arc or where ever. Don't specialize so soon, broaden your horizons. So I am saying go to USC or where ever you can learn about more than just architecture.
I second what black francis is saying, SCI-Arc is also really not geared toward the undergrad students needs. You'll have to take credits off campus and the non-studio courses vary greatly in the quality of instruction.
Ultimately you'll be a much better architect if you know about more than just architecture.
go to a large university, get exposure to a new world and graduate.
go to sci-arc for grad school (if you've decided that is what you really want by then) and be thoroughly thankful you're studying at a place that doesn't have fraternities, a football team or an (official) mascot.
go to sci arc. graduate. get a job. drink milk. stay out of trouble. take vacations and don't drink and drive..
on the other hand, i think sci-arc's undergrad program has produced a lot of really exceptional people: many who have done things outside of architecture. so perhaps you might look at it this way: you can study architecture now and pursue other areas later, or study other fields now and pursue architecture later. architectural study doesn't need to be the end goal at your age. perhaps what new yorker cartoonist saull steinberg said about architecture being the best education for everything except architecture might be true for you.
Cannotsleep, It looks like this discussion is focusing on two things: 1) Which school will give you a better architectural education? and 2) Which school will give you more "exposure to life in general" (that is, if we are going by the standards provided on TV)?
Hands down, SCI-Arc is the better place to study architecture. SCI-Arc's faculty are better and more distinguished. SCI-Arc's resources are the latest and greatest, while USC's are a joke! It's as if USC's program hasn't changed in 30 years. The proof is in the student work, that shit is amazing! And also in what recent SCI-Arc alumni are doing. When I applied to USC, they told me, "Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne went here." Yeah, well 40-50 years ago! SCI-Arc graduates are all over the place.
Also, some might tell you, "You're too young, you don't know what you want to do with your life." I think that's crap. Who says that 18-year-olds don't know what they want out of life? And even if that were the case, the answer isn't to go to a crappy architecture school while you figure things out. Why settle for a bad architecture education at USC just for the off chance that you MIGHT want to take a jornalism class? Besides SCI-arc requires general ed classes, too.
Seriously, dude, go for the best, don't settle. The reality is that you will gain nothing from studying architecture at USC. Just call a random architect at any substancial firm (even USC's darlings, Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne), and they will set you straight.
The question is this: What do you want out of college? Do you want to become a great architect, or do you want to become a good "well-rounded student"?
I thought I might contribute to the fantastic logic governing these school decision threads:
You should go to USC because as far as my last count, there are more threads comparing USC (USC vs. Columbia, USC vs. Parsons, etc etc) than any other school! Go to the place that people are talking about the most! yeah.
more seriously:
To expound on what FOGLite says, I took courses in film, Japanese, acting, literature---and I must say they informed my education and continue to influence me in ways that I don't even realize. Plus USC gives money, and lots of it. I won a traveling fellowship after graduation, and there are lots of those sorts of opportunities.
Good luck with your decision.
For the money you pay at USC, SCI_Arc is a way better Deal. Plus even at a "Big" university your only going to have time for Studio Classes.
If you want a broad education don't do a 5 year Barch. do a four year degree that gives you more time to focus on liberal arts. Undergrad programs like UPenn, UVA.
Can Anyone list 5 Influential Alumni from USC in the Past 20 years? or Even Faculty?
for a 5 year Arch program SCI_Arc is the best on the west coast(maybe the country?)
Bottom line going to USC for architecture is a waste of your time and money. in my opinion
Good Luck.
thanks everyone who gave some suggestions! i would like to have some input from undergrads at sciarc and usc! it would be very helpful. but as of now, i think im more inclined towards sciarc.. but i still need some assurance that im making the right decision
Yes, that's right, "The Thriller in Manila", I can't wait to waste my money at USC for grad school this fall!
Oh that's right, they are giving me more money than any of the other programs I applied to....and I might get to go to China next year....so should I say, "I can't wait to waste their money? In China?
You want "influential" alumni? Thom Mayne, perhaps? Frank Gehry? Or do they not count?
One-sided, obviously biased posts like yours really don't help people make informed decisions, but in my opinion, comparing the two undergrad programs at USC and SCI-Arc is like comparing apples to oranges for many of the reasons already stated.
5 influential recent/current faculty from USC:
Christoph Kapellar (Alexandria Library, etc.)
Thomas Spiegelhalter (sustainability guru)
Quingyun Ma
James Steele (I bet you've got two of his books on your bookcase right now)
Scott Johnson
Mia Lehrer
Michael Lehrer
Michael Maltzin
Ed Niles
formerly, Pierre Koenig (may he rest in peace)
I'll count the people who only stay for one semester as one: Todao Ando, Sejima, Eric Owen Moss...
Oh, wait, that's a lot more than five.
I would say that comparing USC and SCI_Arc is less like comparing apples and oranges, and more like comparing steak to passionfruit. You get such completely different experiences out of the two places... Obviously there's the University Experience vs. the single-school, transfer classes in experience. Then there's also the question of whether you want to be pushed to work on theory and experimentation and blobs really hard for five years, or be allowed to explore what you want to explore, be it theoretical blobs, or landforms, or tectonics, or preservation. Because that's what USC offers: in addition to the broad idea of the university experience, they also offer the opportunity to explore different ideas and facets of architecture. By contrast, SCI_Arc seems (to an outsider, admittedly) to have a very singular direction to it: you can definitely identify that the student's work came out of SCI_Arc, whereas at USC there is a lot more variety of work going on. If you really like that direction that SCI_Arc pushes, then it could be a great place for you. If you want a chance to explore more, then USC could be a great place for you.
cannotsleep - obviously we're seeing some very biased opinions from current or former students of both schools. just go visit the schools, see what resources are available, see what work is being produced and make your own decision. both schools are very different, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. there is something to be said about getting a broader education... besides just architecture, and USC would be superior to SCI-Arc in that regard.
You can always transfer too. I know several people did just that, and I think came out with a better education because of it. You aren't locked into one school for 4 or 5 years, but if you're willing to take an extra year or two to get a degree, you can use the strengths of both programs to create a more well rounded education for yourself.
just to clarify: I did not mean to come off as dissing sci_arc. The crap stated about USC just got my defenses up.
go with steak!!
USC is great for undergrad and grad all together.
SCIarch is great for m.arch candidates with no previous academic experience in architecture.
sciarc is fun
Sure USC can give more money, because it's over 100 years old, and has a huge endowment that comes with a historically successful football team.
But the tuition at USC is twice as much as the tuition at SCI-Arc, and the architecture school has nothing to show for it: cramped studios, no CNC machinery, and the last time I checked there was no 3-D modeling or rendering courses.
And let's return to USC's legendary alumni: Frank Gehry and Thom Mayne. Let's see who's working in their offices--not one person listed at Morphosis graduated from USC, and easily 25% graduated from SCiArc.
http://www.morphosis.net/
Besides, both of these men went on to affiliate themselves with sCI-Arc: Mayne co-founded it, and Gehry sits on its board, and was an early faculty member.
Drizzler is right, however, visit the schools and see for yourself.
Then you must have last checked at LEAST ten years ago. ARCH 207 teaches basic modeling and rendering, as well as autocad, web programs, and basic graphics programs. ARCH 407 teaches more advanced modelling and rendering. In addition, many architecture students who know cad, etc. and only want a modelling/rendering course choose to take one from either the engineering or animation departments.
parametricboy, way to introduce yourself! Using your first two posts on this forum to insult anyone who's ever gone to USC's architecture school or intends to. Way to go! Welcome!
You know what else?! I always totally judge the quality of an architectural education based on the existence of a CNC machine. I mean, what else are you supposed to base it on?
</sarcasm>
Can we all step back for a minute and consider that perhaps an architectural education is about more than producing "amazing shit"?
The superiority complex of the SCI-Arc "cheerleaders" on this thread alone would be enough to drive me away from the school. Of course, since I am going to USC and my future roommate (who sounds like a very nice person) will be going to SCI-Arc, I'll hold out judgment until I see what some of her classmates produce, and hopefully I'll get a chance to crit some at my own school. In the meantime, I'm sticking with rationalist.....steak to passionfruit.....
hey man eat the steak and have a passion fruit afterwords. and turn around the corner and eat some frozen burritos after you get your license and open your office.
cannotsleep, i also agree with drizzler. visit the schools, check out their campus and facilities, talk to students and faculty or at least hear them speak during a review or lecture. usc and sciarc are so completely different that you'll probably have a strong feeling, whether positive or negative, about one of them. choose the school that you feel more comfortable at, that's where you'll be more comfortable to express yourself and create some really kickass sht. don't get disillusioned about either usc or sciarc by what you read here, go and find out for yourself.
apparently i am missing all the drama in here....
oh and regarding which school will make you a better architect, the answer is neither. if you want to be a kickass architect, you'll make it happen regardless of what school you are at. both have great reputations, albeit for different reasons. so as long as your portfolio and resume reflects your outstanding abilities, you won't have a problem finding a job after graduating. the fact that you are on archinect researching schools already says a lot about you.
hey 9 you just made my day.. hahah just kidding but yea thanks for everyone's input! hopefully ill make the right choice!
Tell em Wonderk!
Go somewhere that you sense suits you and don't worry too much about what school is supposedly better.
this thread is funny. maybe cuz I just had a half a bottle of NZ savvy blanc. But maybe cause neither school really gives a crap what's going on at the other school, and comparisons are always odious.
hey, sci arc doesn't have a football team. go trojans.
Is there a way I can filter out all the threads with the letters 'vs' in them?
i agree - this thread is funny. seems like a lot of sc people have built up sciarc angst. that is okay though. visit the schools, make a choice and enjoy. both are good.
Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed- interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit- crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing you last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life.
um. ok. maybe i shouldn't have opened this thread.
Brightside, SCIArch offers a very good curriculum for graduate students at the introduction level. It's a little different than some of the other programs, but it is a very good one especially when it comes to "baby-stepping" students into the direction of design. One of the things I particularly liked hearing about is their influence with the computer and how that becomes a required and a heavily encouraged output tool (noticed I said 'output' and not design. I didn't go there, but I know a few people who did go there who swore by it and I know two of their faculty members who are really good to learn from.
As for the guy putting down USC, it's pretty nonsensical especially when the lack of a CNC machine is among the main reason. In my school we had one but neither I nor a vast majority of the other M.Arch students ever used it. Oh well. It's been discussed time and again, that the ability to produce using digital models does not make one a good architect. Sometimes the opposite takes place and we end up with extremely bad architecture.
Either ways both schools are very good. I would prefer USC if I had the choice, but that's my personal preference. I like the big college campus experience especially when it's a place that is vibrant with strong academics and athletics (obviously USC is good like that). Again, just my personal preference.
Both schools are pretty dope. But they do things differently. All I'm saying is that Sciarch has a good program for the grad students who are just getting the feel for architecture. That's all.
of course everybody thinks that their architecture program was the best.. but better is a blurry concept. you need to think about what kind of architect you want to be or what interests you..
as a sciarc b.arch i liked the experimental encouragement students get there, you have the potential to do anything you want, which isn't that easy at older more established schools.. if experimental design freedom doesn't excite you then don't go to sciarc...
Hey Wonder K and anyone curious about what SCI_Arc is about. Come down to the End of year show on Saturday. you can see a full cross section of the school, Grad and Undergrad.........You can see the huge advantage digital techniques present at SCI_Arc. of which I think is a major difference between the schools.
as an alumnae of SCI-Arc, i am glad that i went there. it prepared me an exceptional foundation and experience of architecture, for invention, exploration and criticism. it's a life changing experience, there’s a lot more than just architecture at SCI-Arc. i've classmates end up in fashion, film/ movie industry, etc. of course many of us, including myself stayed in architecture field.
if you’re not afraid of challenge and like to take risk, SCI-Arc is the place for you.
just my 2 cents.
SCI_Arc
April 21st - Saturday
End of year show/ undergraduate thesis presentations.
See for yourself.
http://www.sciarc.edu/
somehow it does.. at SCI-Arc, you're open up to different kind of possibilities, it educates students to be experimental..
with an architecture degree doesn't mean that you're only limited to the traditional path to be an architect, i too want to do something other than (but somewhat related to) architecture once i get my license
el duderino - the two posts you mentioned (USC vs. columbia) and (USC vs. parsons) are both from me, so i'll comment...
i am going to be a grad student at USC this Fall (M.Arch). i am very very excited and really looking forward to it. i am born and raised in LA, and i have been working in architecture here for 3 years. I did my undergrad in berkeley, but that only for 4 years. so i have been in LA my whole life. My boss (architect) tells me that she refused to hire ppl from Sci-Arc because they "dont believe in gravity." their buildings dont stands up. accoridng to my friends who work in prestigiou firms in LA, the workers from Sci-Arc have the weakest understanding of practic. though this sounds harsh, this IS NOT my opinion. this is what others in the field have said. i am only the messenger.
my personal opinion is that school is the place TO make these crazy buildings. if you cant go crazy with design in school? where can you? so i would say go to a school that lets you be creative and design away! if you think Sci-Arc will let you be free, then go there! if you think that going to a regular big university would help you grow, then go there!
when i look at your initial thread, i see that you dont ask "which school would help me grow," or "which school would make me the most well-rounded." you say, "which would make me the better architect?" i think sci-arc would make you a better designer but USC will keep you grounded in reality more, and even though you might not belive it, you really SHOULD take classes in other fields. you have the rest of your life to specialize, you might as well have a broad educaiton for undergrad.
i think that the "small art school" type of environment is better for grad than undergrad, but that might just be me. i would say go to USC for undergrad and then Sci-ARc for grad.
Go to USC. si-arch, to my knowledge does not have Deep Water Cruising A,B,C, and D.
I have fond memories of getting course credit to sail a boat between Long Beach and Catalina Island during thesis. The marine weather section of DWC – B was great as well as celestial navigation!
Good, bad and indifferent USC also has a Greek system. My experience with APX was great.
usc is to saltine cracker as sciarc is to ranch flavor dorrito chip
to add fuel to the fire:
if you go to USC you will mostly land up in a acronymed corporate firm. you will also talk a lot.
if you go to Sciarc, you will actually learn cutting edge technology and theory.
i'll be a little fair...
usc is to boxes as sciarc is to blobs
why are we reviving this discussion more than a year after its death? is it really that important to you to insult USC?
sameolddoctor....such a pity. I thought you were better than old tired cliches. Guess I was wrong.
And like rationalist said, are we really doing this again? Seriously?
daaaaaa` someone didn't make the cut...
wonderk, as i mentioned i just did it for 'adding fuel to the fire' did not really mean any disrespect - sorry bout that. By the way i went to UCLA, so just got some of THAT rivalry in there (!)
to come to think of it though, what i said about USC grads being more suited to corporate companies etc. seems to be more and more untrue these days. In my experience, some of the graduates I have met in the older days did not really seem like very innovative designers, but it does look like that is changing very fast. We interviewed with one recent grad, and was pleasantly surprised to see the quality of the work.
Alright, that's more like it. Fair play to you. I certainly don't fit into any stereotype of what it seems people might expect from USC grads, and I didn't think you did either, even if you are a UCLA grad.....aw smack! (Sorry I think I'm supposed to perpetuate this whole rivalry thing even though my heart's not really in it)
party listen to rock and roll ride motorcycles with women drugs design buildings. you guys are too serious sometimes...
i like drugs and bananas
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.