i went through the same thing you did last yr......i chose ucla...one cause i knew more of the faculty and alumni from it and 2, when it comes down to it they re about equal and ucla is waaaay cheaper tuition wise and alot of the faculty between the 2 schools alternate quarters/semesters between the 2 schools...and in my case i was/am goin for an m arch 2 and sci-arc doesnt have a tradition post professional, they have some weird sci-fi degree which i didnt get....

I would say look at the school blogs

http://archinect.com/schoolblog/index.php

Visit both.

One will feel right, the other won't. It's that simple.

There's so little middle ground between their respective environments, I promise you won't leave undecided. Plus, you'll be sure you're moving on to somewhere you're comfortable, which is important.

.mm

yeah it depends on what you want.

do you want westside or downtown?

UCLA's got Denari and Maybe, with frequent appearances from Lavin and Somol...

Sci-Arc might still have somebody-- Moss?

Couldn't agree more with what MMatt said...

there is definitely two very distinct vibes that come from both SCI arc and UCLA...you're bound to favor one over the other after visiting both...

SCI arc has plenty of big names: Moss, Maltzan, Wes Jones, Tom Wiscombe...etc etc..

Thanks for all your comments...I guess visiting the schools is really the only way to figure out what would be the best fit for me.

Does anyone know if SCI-Arc & UCLA share a lot of the same faculty?

indeed, they do...

UCLA has Erdman.....


Oh wait, that as not supposed to be a compliment for ucla....

from what I have seen, SCI-Arc kids have more fun in school (and thier stuff is cool)

Hot co-eds in Westwood, however

choices...choices...choices...

sameold

Erdman is a dick from what I have heard

SCI-Arc also has Peter Testa, Michael Rotondi, Dwayne Oyler, Hernan Diaz-Alonso and so many other great architects that are exceptional instructors.

They are both terrific programs... I actually grew up in Westwood and I love the UCLA campus and surrounding area. However sci arc's 1/4 mile long building has its own charm like no other school in the world; Little Tokyo is becoming a better place as well.

Yes sci arc costs more than UCLA but you have larger work space, a large woodshop and cnc facilities where the student can control his/her project and an environment that is utterly passionate and progressive about architecture. Your studio mates become your family and your love of architecture grows daily.

When you visit it...you will know.

mdler has it spot on...

something also important to consider if you have a 4 year bach degree in arch (not BArch):

SCI-Arc is a 2.5 year program
UCLA is a 3.5 year program (for most)

length vs cost

fun vs hotties

choices...choices...choices...

a 20 minute bus ride to the beach vs. downtown

ucla arch students actually have time for the beach during the semester??

Erdman is currently at Rice and is a nice guy from my interactions with him. I also have some friends at UCLA who have all enjoyed his studios...why the hate?

UCLA is 3.5 years. that means its really not cheaper if your factor in an extra year of tuition, rent, and loan interest accumulating. The only exceptional instructors are Denari and Jason Payne. They also go to sciarc for midterm and final reviews. Its nice to have big names at your school but if they only drop by once a week for a couple of hours its not gratifying. So Mayne and Moss not a factor. They both do go to final review at both schools. What matter are the younger upcoming architects/instructors and if you ask me sci-arc has more to offer than ucla. Hernan Diaz Alonzo, Tom Wiscombe, Marcelo Spina, Elena Manferdini, Peter Testa, Ramiro De Granados, Marcus Novak and much more.... plus if you want to spend grad school at the beach, don't bother with grad school. its not worth it.

Beyond the atmosphere, cost, location and profs, the major difference is UCLA has 3 ten week quarters. compared to two 16 week semesters at sci-arc, so at UCLA you learn to work very fast and efficient. UCLA also has a research studio instead of a typical thesis. In the research studio all students work on the same topic chosen by the professor, they spend 2 quarters on more theory based research and crank out a final project for the remaining 10 weeks. I don't know about sci-arc but UCLA has 24 hour access to the shop. UCLA is only 3 years not 3.5.

Flip a coin.

from what I have heard, UCLA has become a vaccum form tech school; all you do is mill and vaccum form.

Every time I go to Sci-Arc, I am impressed with what the kids are doing. they are building stuff, welding, casting concrete, etc...

If I had to do it over again (I went to Cincinnati) I would choose Sci-Arc.

The hottie in Westwood is definately an advantage that UCLA has, but you do have your fair share of cute mochi eating Japaneese girls downtown...

the sci arc female student body is no chopped liver buddy.

rah

I know ;)

In response to misteranderson. the sci-fi program is not the march2 program its actually a post-professional program for architects who already have there master's degrees. march2 is run by Hernan Diaz Alonzo, Elena Manferdini, Tom Wiscombe, Peter Testa, Marcelo Spina, and more. Its an intensive program, progressive, experimental, and highly digital. There are very few institutions that match the curriculum so intesively. The AA and Bartlett are 2. but ofcourse they are in England.

ucla has : football team, they have a man in a bear suit.

sci_arc has: a chihuahua, our own cafe, python, and 2, grease truck, 4 house dj's, 1964 chevy impalas, grind rails, a halfbuilt halfpipe, trance parties in parking lot, weird indie bands inside, a vending machine that jams, a soccer field with a no-trespass sign, bums with shopping carts, little tokyo pop princesses, and a cross dresser at the local cafe...

ucla has a bigger penis