I don't mean to be an ass, but seriously?

Use the search option and you will find not one, but many threads discussing SCI_Arc inside and out.

Go to their website and you will find that a majority of the faculty teach at BOTH SCI_Arc and Columbia. Also notice how a lot of the faculty went to Columbia for school.

And finally, it's one thing to ask for answers to some specific questions regarding the school that are difficult to ascertain from the schools website, but to just blanket ask for people to tell which school you should go to? If this is the level of decision making you plan to bring with you to graduate school, it's not really going to matter what school you go to.

ha...in the interest of not being an ass maybe you could clarfiy who these "majority" of faculty that teach at both institutions are.

i think theres maybe only one or two..

i'm not interested in comparing the two schools, but to clarify, the people that currently teach at both schools simultaneously are hernan diaz-alanso, ed keller, and manuel de landa. those that have taught at both in the past whether as visiting profs or by relocation are lise-anne couture, juan azulay, peter testa, sulan kolatan, jeffrey kipnis, sanford kwinter, michael speaks, neil leach, karl chu, and more...

I don't what you mean "good" it is, but I can tell you my story.
This year(2009), I got admissions from UPENN MArch II and Columbia, furthermore, I also got financial award from Carnegie Mellon, but I merely got the position of waiting list from SCI-Arch. I don't think the admissions of SCI-ARCH is easy to obtain, ans as I know, they have their own very specific views and styles on architecture. SCI-ARCH is a very excellent school,especially for artistic intention. Of course, you can say that I am just lucky to get other admissions, (I acknowledge that I am lucky enough) but your admission of SCI-ARCH somehow shows that they like you and believe that you fit to their school. Of course, you can try again whatever you want, I just want to tell you that you get a very good admission as well.

a few things.

its somewhat misleading to use that list as consituting a majority of faculty. in reality, very few faculty that teach at sciarc teach at columbia. hernan dias alonso and ed keller being the only two. the others you mention dont really "teach" at sciarc but just offered a seminar, but also non of them "teach" at columbia either. they may have in the past, but if the point was that you can get columbias education at sciarc because the faculty is the same, thats hardly and demonstrably not even close to the truth.

also. i believe sciarc isnt that difficult to get into. from what i recall hearing from a faculty member they are nearly 100% tuition driven and as such, cannot be too picky, so they accept more than you would think in order to keep their numbers up at such a high cost private school with no endowment and no government funding so that they can meet payroll and rent, etc.

its a great school. you should go. it offers a true entrepreneurial way to learn architecture and creates a unique type of graduate. you will not though, get the same education/faculty as columbia university though. however. columbia isnt too terribly interesting a school at this point. you got into the better school, i think.

lisido - just a guess, but they may have wait-listed you if you referred to the school as SCI-ARCH instead of SCI_Arc...

bigbear - aside from the theory professors that i mentioned, all the people on the list have taught at least one studio at both schools, and there are probably many more. i'm not trying to make a point, just merely stating a fact.

If you take the time to look at the work currently being produced at both schools, you will find that in the bigger picture, they are fundamentally pushing the same architectural pedagogy, the being a digital-design, form based approach utilizing animation based softwares, i.e. Maya. While Columbia might be slightly more theory based and SCI_Arc might be slightly more visual/form based, when seen in comparison to other graduate programs that have other interests (sustainability/green design, professional practice, architectural engineering, etc.) they are more or less the same school. And yes, it has not been uncommon in the last 2 or 3 years for the faculty to teach identical studios at both schools and have joint crits in New York.

Are they IDENTICAL? No, but no 2 schools are EXACTLY identical. It's called trade-offs... and compromise.

I would say the more important decision is deciding which environment is better for you- studio culture at each school, weather and city, cost of living, housing and university resources, etc.

go to sci-arc! the climate is better, you will learn just as much and have a better time.

Does anyone have (or know where to find) statistics for SCI-Arc such as student:faculty ratio, number of students in each graduate program (for me it would be M. Arch II), percentage of applicants accepted, etc?

Also, anyone have a list of firms that graduates have been hired by or that regularly recruit from the school?

I need to make my decision soon. Thanks in advance!