I graduated from SAIC last year, so I was a member of the first class. I chose to attend (turning down two top five schools) for three reasons: first, because they offered a lot of money. Second, my wife had a great job in chicago, and really didn't want to move. Third, It was a chance to take electives with world class artists.

The money part was a pain. The financial aid staff there is basically illiterate, so plan on meeting with them multiple times every term so that they don't sell your loans to your arch enemy. If you go, get to know Patrick James (head of Fin services) as he is the only person who can solve a problem. If you are firm and creative, yo can get through with the equivalent debt of in-state students at a state school.

The second made the first easier -- peace at home is a must-have for a good grad school experience. It meant I didn't need a part time job to pay for my expensive supply habit. But actually, being in the same social network I'd worked in for a decade found me a part-time gig I wanted to do that enriched my experience.

The electives at SAIC were simply amazing. I imagine you could take similar classes if you went to Yale or RISD, but neither of those programs has as much flexibility. I was able to talk my way out of some bullshit required courses by replacing them with advanced studio courses in a similar topic. That means I can program my own 3D immersive environments, work with c-hash robotic controllers, weld, cast, and forge steel and aluminum, and I'm getting pretty bad-ass at watercolors and pen & ink.

The department itself is a work in progress. Apparently they are trying to sell themselves as a theory school, but beyond Ben Nicholson, they don't have any theorists in the department. If that's your cup of tea however, there are a number of really good people in other parts of the school. I've heard something like , "you went to the art institute, you must be into theory," something like a dozen times in the last year, so clearly they are projecting that message.

There are parts of the program that are really uneven. The 3D modeling, iterative design, and drawing skills of students are all stronger than at the other area schools. The studio curriculum is demanding (sometimes unnecessarily so) and treated as if it is the only thing that matters. Building systems, materials, construction methods, professional practice, contracting, project management, etc. were all poorly taught and not treated as serious courses.

They show some promise to build a concentration in advanced information technologies, but they need some senior faculty in that area to guide the program. Frankly, they could use some senior faculty in all areas; 2 out of three faculty started in the last five years, and I think there have been three or four tenure reviews a year for the last three years. To my knowledge there is not one single full professor in the department. The ones who have been there a long time were employed in a bachelors of interior architecture program that wasn't even CIDA accredited. Some of them are nice people.

SAIC shares the same pool of adjunct instructors with IIT, UIC, Harrington, and Columbia College, so at a base level, the quality of instruction at these schools is fairly comparable. The facilities at the art institute make the others look like amateur night though, so if you are self motivated, you can pretty much make anything you want there.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to share.

I was in the same graduating class as mespellwrong...


I chose it over urban planning master's at columbia and pratt and m.arch at university of miami because I liked the culture/art school environment. I was also like 22 when I was making this decision.

the bad:
I have not been able to find a job, and I think a good chunk of the graduates have also had lots of trouble finding work. This may have to do with the economy, but it also may be due to the fact that saic has a very limited alumni network in the design world at the current time.

as mespellwrong said, the studios were intensive to a fault, which makes taking studio electives in the arts very daunting if not impossible.

Finally, for an "art" school, we were forced to adhere very strictly to producing very dry competition boards for every studio...In a sense this was necessary and could have been fine, but didn't quite match with the "making/doing" philosophy. I think we all paid for it in our final "show".

The good:

I can't say enough good things about SAIC as an institution and Chicago as a city. There are world-class artists that you could maybe meet at yale or risd, but you are also in Chicago which blows New Haven or Providence out of the water. The cost of living is low and chicago has a vibrant arts scene to get involved in. A much healthier place to be a student/emerging artist than NYC.

The facilities, while not as spacious (downtown chicago real estate) as the ivies, are better than most.

While I have not been able to find good work, I have won a grant to do independent research and Berlin and been accepted at harvard's GSD for an MDesS, if that means anything.

In sum:
SAIC as a school and Chicago are tough to beat. the department (aiado) is in transition, but I have no doubt it will be up there with sci-arch/risd/etc after a few years. It's a great environment and you can thrive, but it may take more personal initiative than just going somewhere more established.

<though SAIC is set to be accredited Feb 2011. Did the Pros outweigh the Cons? I have been offered a lot of Aid to go there, but I have concerns about accreditation.>

Actually, if the program has its initial accreditation NAAB visit in spring 2011, the decision on their accreditation would be made by NAAB in July 2011. Assuming the decision is positive, the accreditation would be retroactive to January 2011. In addition, you should know that NCARB will consider you having met the NCARB Education Standard - see below.

"You will have satisfied the education require- ment for NCARB certification if you hold a professional degree in architecture from a program accredited by NAAB or CACB/CCCA no later than two years after graduation."

Finally, NAAB only provides continued candidacy if the program is making adequate progress. In other words, you can expect that accreditation will be granted if SAIC is doing all that it says it will. With that said, you should ask them for a copy of the Visiting Team Report (VTR) from their last NAAB visit.

Also, consider contacting NAAB for more details.

yes - I don't think accreditation is an issue beyond that it is making the department less flexible, less experimental and less saic-like....

Thank you all for your input. These are some compelling comments. I'm hoping this particular program will gain more national notoriety as it develops. The Art Institute carries a very strong name for itself, and I surely hope that the school would do everything in its power not to lose the opportunity to become accredited. I spoke with NAAB today, and they confirmed Dr. Architecture that the final decision would come in July 2011.

I am concerned about the content, or lack there of that mespellrong mentions. Part of going to graduate school for me is to get the more grown up education in Architecture, and not more of the "fun" studios I got as an undergrad in arch. Of course these studios are supposed to push us to develop as a designer, but I hope to come out of school knowing more about construction, management, and professional practice; all things I haven't gotten out of 3 years working in firms.

I'm sure I'll have more questions as this last week carries out, and I find out if I got into any other schools. So far this is the only school I've gotten into, so I don't know if I will have any other options.

By chance, were any of you in the Emphasis in Interior Architecture program?

Neither marcuse nor I were i the interiors track. In retrospect I think perhaps I might have enjoyed it more -- in general their project ideas were more conceptual, and their solutions at a more modest scale.

I'll offer the correction that I don't think the program lacks for content as a whole, but rather that it does not have as strong content in specific areas. As an example of the contrast, when I visited IIT in 2006, there was an intensive track for MArch students to really learn how a tall building goes together, which looked quite thorough.