This topic has probably been discussed millions of times here, but I still need your advices.
I am accepted by both schools to their MArch I program, thus I have to decide where to go now. USC's program is much shorter, only 2 years, and with the funding they give me, the cost for USC will be much cheaper than for SCI-Arc's three-yr-and a half program. However, in terms of school reputation I think SCI-Arc is probably better than USC, and I can probably learn much more in the extra one year and half. Furthermore, SCI-Arc's facility is way better, since USC does not even have a 3D printer, which presumably results in a far better learning experience in digital fabrication in SCI-Arc. I don't even know if USC teaches you anything about digital fabrication.
So I think USC = shorter program, sleep well, and much cheaper; SCI-Arc = better curriculum and faculty, better facility, overall better learning experience, but expensive.
How much more expensive are you talking about? 5-10k? or 11-20k?
If it is under or around 10k, I would say go for SCI-Arc. But if it is more, you don't want to be in debt when you graduate.
I don't know about USC, but the accumulation of $$ you would spend on materials/prints/fabrication(if out source) at sciarc after 3.5 yrs will be huge.
They are both good schools. SCI-Arc has more reputation because of its 'style'
I had to go to USC to use a book their library had that the SCI-Arc library didn't. Research project.
While in the USC Architecture library, scanning pages, a USC student came in and had no idea how to use the scanner.
Keep in mind I don't go to USC.
I end up spending the next 10 minutes teaching the USC student how to scan documents, mainly because the USC library already threatened to kick me out.
To start with, I open Photoshop. This elicits the following response:
"I don't know how to use Photoshop!?"
I will admit this particular student had the look of what you would expect the film version of a USC student to look like, i.e. dumb blonde. Later I did meet other USC grads. who were nothing like above mentioned student.
What I will say is that the programs are VASTLY different. There is a lot more at stake here than a difference in tuition cost. Yes, SCI-Arc has a reputation, although that is largely from the M.Arch 2 work. But just because it has a reputation, doesn't mean you should go there. It's not a school for everyone and I saw plenty of students struggle because they choose reputation over program.
Thnx you all for your advises.
I think I will go to USC, for it's much cheaper, and a shorter program. For the extra one year and half, I might eventually go to AA for its DRL after graduation from USC.
No 3D printer at USC?? There was one when I was there (Sp09). There's actually more cross-pollination of sci-arc faculty over to USC now, and some new interesting visiting professors. And there are more digital fabrication/parametric courses.
Kianad,
Yes, because of the length of the program and the funding they give me.
StarvingDesigner,
Thanks for the information.
I do realize that they have 3D-printer, as one of my friends there told me so. However, according to what appears on their website, the 3d-printer was still "coming soon", that's how I was misled.
UCLA is probably closer to SCI-Arc than USC. Many of the instructors from UCLA and SCI-Arc teach at both schools, attend reviews, etc. so you can see some threads of similarity between the work.
I think the difference between them is that SCI-Arc tends to remain pretty unhinged and the work (in general) neglects any real-world parameters, instead favoring the limits of design where the work at UCLA stays a little more focused on real-world architecture. When I went to SCI-Arc, UCLA only had a 3 year option which made the program less attractive but now that there is a 2 year program (they did get that approved right??) I would probably have considered it a lot more.
SCI-Arc's national reputation is still perceived to be one of the top tier schools (ala UPenn, GSAPP, Princeton [GSD which may be above]), as UCLA is still considered on the level of Cal Berk., Syracuse, Mich. - still very good programs... or am I incorrect on the national perception?
The new dean at USC is Qingyun Ma. He's a fascinating fellow. He's taking the school in a really interesting direction, focusing on integrated design methodology.
"USC's program is much shorter, only 2 years..." to their credit the program is only open to students with a pre-professional degree in architecture which makes sense since most three-year track programs spend a year on getting everybody up to speed
"I don't even know if USC teaches you anything about digital fabrication."
this has certainly been a concern in the past but the school is now, from what seems, in a process of transformation which heavily emphasizes emerging technology and parametric design, the appointment of dean Ma and visiting faculty like roche and kokkugia attest to that.
"So I think USC = shorter program, sleep well" yeee,,, im not too sure about that!!! shorter program most likely will be a more intensive experience...if sleeping well is your main concern you should check the therapeutic bed thread...
USC or SCI-Arc
Hello everyone,
This topic has probably been discussed millions of times here, but I still need your advices.
I am accepted by both schools to their MArch I program, thus I have to decide where to go now. USC's program is much shorter, only 2 years, and with the funding they give me, the cost for USC will be much cheaper than for SCI-Arc's three-yr-and a half program. However, in terms of school reputation I think SCI-Arc is probably better than USC, and I can probably learn much more in the extra one year and half. Furthermore, SCI-Arc's facility is way better, since USC does not even have a 3D printer, which presumably results in a far better learning experience in digital fabrication in SCI-Arc. I don't even know if USC teaches you anything about digital fabrication.
So I think USC = shorter program, sleep well, and much cheaper; SCI-Arc = better curriculum and faculty, better facility, overall better learning experience, but expensive.
Help me make the decision! Thnx.
How much more expensive are you talking about? 5-10k? or 11-20k?
If it is under or around 10k, I would say go for SCI-Arc. But if it is more, you don't want to be in debt when you graduate.
I don't know about USC, but the accumulation of $$ you would spend on materials/prints/fabrication(if out source) at sciarc after 3.5 yrs will be huge.
They are both good schools. SCI-Arc has more reputation because of its 'style'
I went to SCI-Arc. M.Arch 2. Graduate F.08
I had to go to USC to use a book their library had that the SCI-Arc library didn't. Research project.
While in the USC Architecture library, scanning pages, a USC student came in and had no idea how to use the scanner.
Keep in mind I don't go to USC.
I end up spending the next 10 minutes teaching the USC student how to scan documents, mainly because the USC library already threatened to kick me out.
To start with, I open Photoshop. This elicits the following response:
"I don't know how to use Photoshop!?"
I will admit this particular student had the look of what you would expect the film version of a USC student to look like, i.e. dumb blonde. Later I did meet other USC grads. who were nothing like above mentioned student.
What I will say is that the programs are VASTLY different. There is a lot more at stake here than a difference in tuition cost. Yes, SCI-Arc has a reputation, although that is largely from the M.Arch 2 work. But just because it has a reputation, doesn't mean you should go there. It's not a school for everyone and I saw plenty of students struggle because they choose reputation over program.
if ur comparing usc and sciarc and cant make a decision then u have way more to think about.... both are very different schools...
I'm in the same boat, I think im choosing USC (although my acceptance to sci-arc was for M.Arch 2)
It seems like you already made up your mind.
Thnx you all for your advises.
I think I will go to USC, for it's much cheaper, and a shorter program. For the extra one year and half, I might eventually go to AA for its DRL after graduation from USC.
Hello ZJZ0819, could u plz tell me how USC is chaper than SCI-arc? Is that merely because of the length of the program?
No 3D printer at USC?? There was one when I was there (Sp09). There's actually more cross-pollination of sci-arc faculty over to USC now, and some new interesting visiting professors. And there are more digital fabrication/parametric courses.
Kianad,
Yes, because of the length of the program and the funding they give me.
StarvingDesigner,
Thanks for the information.
I do realize that they have 3D-printer, as one of my friends there told me so. However, according to what appears on their website, the 3d-printer was still "coming soon", that's how I was misled.
SCI-Arc, Penn or GSAPP?
Is UCLA and USC on par with SCI-Arc?
UCLA is probably closer to SCI-Arc than USC. Many of the instructors from UCLA and SCI-Arc teach at both schools, attend reviews, etc. so you can see some threads of similarity between the work.
I think the difference between them is that SCI-Arc tends to remain pretty unhinged and the work (in general) neglects any real-world parameters, instead favoring the limits of design where the work at UCLA stays a little more focused on real-world architecture. When I went to SCI-Arc, UCLA only had a 3 year option which made the program less attractive but now that there is a 2 year program (they did get that approved right??) I would probably have considered it a lot more.
SCI-Arc's national reputation is still perceived to be one of the top tier schools (ala UPenn, GSAPP, Princeton [GSD which may be above]), as UCLA is still considered on the level of Cal Berk., Syracuse, Mich. - still very good programs... or am I incorrect on the national perception?
I expected some sort of retort from the Bruin faithful.
The new dean at USC is Qingyun Ma. He's a fascinating fellow. He's taking the school in a really interesting direction, focusing on integrated design methodology.
Here's a link to his firm website:
MADA s.p.a.m.
zjz0819
"USC's program is much shorter, only 2 years..." to their credit the program is only open to students with a pre-professional degree in architecture which makes sense since most three-year track programs spend a year on getting everybody up to speed
"I don't even know if USC teaches you anything about digital fabrication."
this has certainly been a concern in the past but the school is now, from what seems, in a process of transformation which heavily emphasizes emerging technology and parametric design, the appointment of dean Ma and visiting faculty like roche and kokkugia attest to that.
"So I think USC = shorter program, sleep well" yeee,,, im not too sure about that!!! shorter program most likely will be a more intensive experience...if sleeping well is your main concern you should check the therapeutic bed thread...
PEACE OUT
Neither they both suck
That was poetic.
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.