If you are asking only for opinions, I can tell you that in my experience GA tech has been difficult to deal with, disorganized, and a bit snobbish. I applied there as well because I am from the Atlanta area, but was really turned off by their attitude towards applicants. I know this has no effect on the curriculum or name recognition of the school, but it does kind of hint that I might not enjoy spending three years in their program.

I also like Maryland's approach to graduate study - especially the vertical studios and practical curriculum. I don't know much about Sci-Arc besides the fact that most of the MArch applicants here on archinect applied there and seemed to love the school. Pratt has great location and is pretty well known in the professional world.

Not having a design background, I can only tell you what I have gathered in my dealings with schools or through the application process as a whole, but maybe that is helpful.

I'm also an international applicant, and I have been accepted by SCI-arc, and decided to go there for the 3 yrs of MArch I program. First of all, I love sci-arc, simply because I'm also very interested in their approach to architecture, i.e. parametric design, non-linear, you name it. However, at the same time I realize it is a difficult approach, especially for that they seem to concentrate too much on the digital stuff. I dont think "they give more importance to artistic values then architectural and technical concerns." In fact, they simply do not ask why, what they are interested in is just the spatial quality, interesting space, although sometimes absurd.
you may question then why I applied for that school and even made my mind to go there. First reason is that, as i said, it seems to be a trend of going digital, parametric, Mel Script. Secondly, I think if you have the ability to make architecture like those by SCI-arc students, those by Herna Diaz Alonso, you should be able to make ordinary buildings as well, at least technique wise. Thirdly, even the school itself lacks a certain emphasis on humanity, by which I mean philosophy, psychology, art history, etc., the student himself can still learn these stuff by themselves, reading books and books. Normally, I would argue that these stuff, the humanity stuff, one can learn by himself by reading books, but what you learn in the studios can never be taught outside the studio, and that is exactly what SCI-arc is about.
Nevertheless, the big question is that, is it always true that a person who can draw a beautiful curve can also draw a very straight straight line?

Sorry to rain on people's SCI Arc parade, but that school is caving to nepotism and false impression of cutting edge. There are some good faculty still remaining but they are being eliminated slowly and replaced by ass kissers of the top brass.
Essentially it fools people with over rated creative identity and thousands of dollars later you are one of many graduates looking for an animation technician work in one of your professor's marginal practice who is struggling to get recognized outside of the school.
I'd stay away from that place.
Having said this, Los Angeles is a good place to study architecture. If you end up in SCI Arc, make sure you search very well who you are going to study with. Hernan is yesterday's news.

Well, for architecture education being a dynamic process, there is no such thing like one generation of faculty being replaced by another. Hernan is certainly yesterday's news, but despite his place in SCI-arc, he is still a major component in Columbia or elsewhere. For me, getting a professional degree is to get all the techniques you need for future work, for one's career. For sure, learning how to use maya is not enough as professional education per se, but i'm sure the school gives you adequate education on building science, structure engineering, etc. All you need to be an architect is there, but whether you will turn out to be an excellent architect depends one your own ambition and your knowledge of stuff other than architecture. Especially the definition of the role of excellent architect itself is unclear, i.e. whether Frank Gehry, Zaha, or Rem Koolhass is excellent? Reputation itself should not say a word.
All I want to say is that perhaps all these schools are pretty good architectural school, when it comes to making a choice, I would say go to some where you can learn more stuff, which would not be taught in other schools, the rest of the education is largely self-education.

thanks a lot for responses..

I think for every school, there are different positive and negative points, but apart from these there are also financial issues. I'll pay out-of-state tuition at state universities which is not creating a big differences between private institutions tuition but there are assistantship opportunities at big universities which can be very helpful at this point. This makes Tech and UMD more appealing for me.

pepto; apart from colleges can you please tell me a little bit about Atlanta in term of living as grad students etc..

zjz0819 ; I totally agree on the idea of self-education. as you said probably these schools may be good choices but I'm just concerning doing wrong decisions due to my possible wrong information or impression..

I personally like Atlanta, but I'm a little biased having grown up there. Getting around is probably one of the worst aspects of atlanta.If you don't have a car, you're in trouble. The public transportation is relatively pricey and unreliable. If you do have a car, traffic sucks, but you'll be okay.

There's a decent arts/culture scene. The city lacks your typical, dense center - everything is relatively spread out. Crime is no worse than any other large city - there are good parts of town and bad parts. ( the west side of tech does border one of those bad parts though). Cost of living isn't too terrible for a large city, def cheaper than a NY or LA.

Hope this doesn;t come off as too discouraging, just trying to give an honest opinion. Like I sad, I do generally like the city, but there are issues that can make living there a hassle sometimes.

koru,

I graduated from the M.Arch program at GaTech last May. First off, your concerns about Atlanta. I must admit, Atlanta was a hard sell after my first visit but I was so impressed with the school that I still chose GaTech over several other schools. After 3.5 years in Atlanta I can say that I absolutely loved the city. Now living in NYC, I still reminisce about the good times I had exploring Atlanta. GaTech uses the city and it's many unique urban/suburban scenarios as a platform for complex design studios, and because of that, the students really learn to explore the city.

As far as safety is concerned, I never felt unsafe on or around campus. There were a few robberies on campus during my 3.5 years, but like I said, I never felt threatened. My advice would be to play it safe, like you would in any big city and you will be fine.

I was very pleased with the caliber of students and faculty at GT. I felt that the faculty expected a lot out of the graduate students and in return received a lot of high caliber work. In my opinion GaTech has a great balance of research and design, letting students explore different digital and analog mediums. The availability of many excellent resources including Z-Core printers, FDM printers, laser cutters, the full works of a wood shop, and the Advanced Wood Products Laboratory complete with CNC machinery you will have plenty of opportunities to design and BUILD.

I couldn't be more satisfied with my M.Arch experience and overall HIGHLY recommend GaTech's 3.5 year program. Good luck with your decision.

Sci-Arc,

GaTech is ok too

sci-arc

odee thanks a lot for your response..

can you please talk about a little about the education system of GaTec,for ex; approx. how many graduate students enter to faculty in a new term, in the website of the school they mentioned about graduate assistantship, is this option only for few students and professional life after GaTech as an architect.. Since you've graduated from there you can give most accurate info.

I think gatech would be my final decision unless other schools offer me an assistantship or financial aid..

I don't understand why people love Scı-Arc but even not mention of Pratt (which has more reputation and different type degree offerings). At the end both colleges has similar design understanding.

UMD , GT are state universities with a lot of facilities and opportunities..

I don't know at all about UIC or IIT...

I went to UMD undergrad but know that the grad program is pretty strong. The grad studios pull local talented DC architects for visiting critics and many are well known. The faculty is very stable - not a lot of one year terms, etc. They offer real estate and urban planning and historic preservation classes now as well.

I loved UMD's setting outside of DC. It makes housing cheaper. You can easily get into DC from the metro. The architecture studio itself is set-up as all the desks around one central space, so there is a strong sense of community and interaction at crits.

meet me at Pratt

Thanks for all of your responses,

I'll be probably at GT or UMD this fall .. But still these sci-arc comments really confuse me..