Hi guys, I just need your opinion on the two summer programs Sci-arch and UCLA have available. I've done research and it looks like both programs is beneficial for helping to build my portfolio for M.arch applications. I was just wondering if anyone had more insight on the difference between the learning outcomes, average work load, etc.
About me: I have no architectural background and I am looking for an intro/crash course to architect that will help build my portfolio. I have a degree unrelated to architecture.
Thank you !
gordon31991
Mar 8, 16 1:14 pm
bumps
chigurh
Mar 8, 16 1:28 pm
they are both gonna be pretty similar - huge workload - huge learning curve.
Go where you want to go to school if you have a preference.
Similar pedagogy, faculty and critics bounce back and forth between the two - maybe environment is a consideration - downtown vs. westwood and commute, that one is up to you. no h sciarc.
C. Watts
Mar 8, 16 3:09 pm
Because of the similarities between the schools, I would take price into consideration. Go with whichever is cheaper for the summer. If they cost the same... flip a coin?
gordon31991
Mar 8, 16 9:24 pm
The cost is going to be relatively the same. I think the program that will be beneficial for building my portfolio will be my deciding factor.
gordon31991
Mar 13, 16 5:23 am
Any additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you !!
Janosh
Mar 13, 16 4:44 pm
Both are well-suited to prepare you (or pre-interview you) for that particular school, but UCLA probably has more application elsewhere.
Okada
Mar 13, 16 6:00 pm
I don't have experience with UCLA's program, but I can tell you my experience with Making+Meaning. I come from a non-arch, non-design background, and did M+M as a way to get a taste of architecture school and build a portfolio. M+M was an intense experience, and we made a lot of physical models in a variety of media. During M+M, SCI-Arc offered us the chance to meet with admissions officers who gave us tips on creating a portfolio, and they also created an ad-hoc photo booth and tripod for people to photograph their work.
After M+M, I made a portfolio that consisted mostly of M+M work that I photographed, plus a few drawings and photography I did on my own. I applied to M.Arch I programs this past fall (entering Fall 2016), and so far I've been accepted to every school I've heard back from, including UCLA, several Ivies, and a few others. The only school I'm still waiting to hear from is Yale. So based on my own anecdotal evidence, the work you make at M+M will allow you to create a portfolio that can get you admitted to a broad range of schools. I've heard of other M+M students from prior years who were also admitted to Harvard, Yale, etc.
gyou0818
Apr 25, 16 9:03 pm
Do you know when the program is closed for application? And how many people are in the class?
gordon31991
Jul 6, 16 6:28 pm
@okada Thanks for the insite ! I really appreciate it. I was wondering how well did you do without having a design or architectural background? I don't feel very confident going into the program since I do not have any previous experience.
Hi guys, I just need your opinion on the two summer programs Sci-arch and UCLA have available. I've done research and it looks like both programs is beneficial for helping to build my portfolio for M.arch applications. I was just wondering if anyone had more insight on the difference between the learning outcomes, average work load, etc.
About me: I have no architectural background and I am looking for an intro/crash course to architect that will help build my portfolio. I have a degree unrelated to architecture.
Thank you !
bumps
they are both gonna be pretty similar - huge workload - huge learning curve.
Go where you want to go to school if you have a preference.
Similar pedagogy, faculty and critics bounce back and forth between the two - maybe environment is a consideration - downtown vs. westwood and commute, that one is up to you. no h sciarc.
Because of the similarities between the schools, I would take price into consideration. Go with whichever is cheaper for the summer. If they cost the same... flip a coin?
The cost is going to be relatively the same. I think the program that will be beneficial for building my portfolio will be my deciding factor.
Any additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you !!
Both are well-suited to prepare you (or pre-interview you) for that particular school, but UCLA probably has more application elsewhere.
I don't have experience with UCLA's program, but I can tell you my experience with Making+Meaning. I come from a non-arch, non-design background, and did M+M as a way to get a taste of architecture school and build a portfolio. M+M was an intense experience, and we made a lot of physical models in a variety of media. During M+M, SCI-Arc offered us the chance to meet with admissions officers who gave us tips on creating a portfolio, and they also created an ad-hoc photo booth and tripod for people to photograph their work.
After M+M, I made a portfolio that consisted mostly of M+M work that I photographed, plus a few drawings and photography I did on my own. I applied to M.Arch I programs this past fall (entering Fall 2016), and so far I've been accepted to every school I've heard back from, including UCLA, several Ivies, and a few others. The only school I'm still waiting to hear from is Yale. So based on my own anecdotal evidence, the work you make at M+M will allow you to create a portfolio that can get you admitted to a broad range of schools. I've heard of other M+M students from prior years who were also admitted to Harvard, Yale, etc.
Do you know when the program is closed for application? And how many people are in the class?
@okada Thanks for the insite ! I really appreciate it. I was wondering how well did you do without having a design or architectural background? I don't feel very confident going into the program since I do not have any previous experience.