Hey, I'm new to the forum and to architecture and I was recently accepted into both, Sci-Arc in LA and Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston for their B.Arch programs. I did not receive a scholarship from Sci-Arc. However, I recieved a merit scholarship from Wentworth. I was just curious to know if people had more information and professional opinions on both programs and which one would they would consider. Thanks
WITgrad
Apr 3, 17 4:36 pm
Hi,
I graduated from WIT with a B.S. Arch degree in April of 2016. Within a month of graduation I had 5 interviews and two offers (partially because Denver's economy is booming!) but I felt prepared and successful in job seeking. I am now project managing at an arch-engineering firm specializing in telecom projects.
Wentworth's education and arch program is great in my opinion. Read: the program is great, Wentworth is mediocre and run by money hungry pricks, but maybe thats every school. For example, they just announced and broke ground for their second new building in the past four years, but we don't have color plotters, and the plotting room (two plotters, two color printers) is across campus from the arch studio. That was infuriating.
The architecture department was fantastic. All of my professors were experienced and really overall great. Workload is heavy, but manageable. Your first mandatory internship is the summer of sophomore year, which I think is far too young considering all of the surrounding competition from other schools, but its great to graduate with two summers of internships. I felt very pushed and like my weaknesses were exposed and turned into strengths. They also offer a masters for only one year if you do it right after undergrad. They push it a lot, I did not do it as I want an outside experience.
College life itself: its a tech school, not a party school. That said, its in the heart of Boston with an amazing location and lots of surrounding schools that are tons of fun, just be social.
Also all of the colleges of the fenway thing is a marketing tactic. You can technically register for classes at other schools.... but their time slots do not match ours and its nearly impossible with an architecture work load.
media-ns
Apr 4, 17 3:05 pm
These two programs are light years apart - I mean this should be a super easy decision just look at the work as these two programs basically have zero things in common, if you want a more technical path and the construction aspect interests you the answer would be wentworth - as design and theory will take a backseat or be non-existent. If you want a program primarily in the art realm with a heavy focus on digital, computation and robotics SCI-Arc probably is the best in the world in that regard... many though won't go into architecture and find themselves in the film industry in LA (probably living a far more exciting life as well)...
WITgrad
Apr 5, 17 1:36 pm
Wentworth is not that cut and dry. Our studios are very design oriented and higher level arch. electives are all theory and research. I learned much, much less than I would have liked to about actual construction. We weren't even taught the basics of a stick framed building.
Lee Robert
Apr 6, 17 8:13 pm
Most people will say Sci-Arc. I'm A WIT grad as well and there are definitely pros and cons to consider.
Pros: The faculty members are amazing. There are lots of opportunities to study whatever aspect of the profession you find interesting. Both technical and conceptual. It prepares you well to work in the profession and it's relatively affordable.
Cons: I feel self-conscious that I didn't attend a well-known school. This is more of a personal issue than it is anything else; and it's decreasing the longer I spend working in the industry. People in the north-east know and respect the program, but its name recognition is limited.
Sc-Arc is a very different animal, hard to compare. If you go into either program with a desire to learn and to discover what interests you then you'll do fine.
matdez6
Apr 6, 17 9:25 pm
Any current students at sci arc here? would be cool to ask a few questions
Prestejohns
Apr 9, 17 9:50 pm
yeah its obvious that medias knowledge of wentworth came put of a brochure. one of my grad professors at WIT did a wentworth undergrad and went to Sci Arc for grad school, i can point you towards him, hed probably have better insight than most of us here
Michael Bellefeuille
May 9, 17 4:41 pm
I can't speak to SCI-Arc, but I had a great experience at Wentworth (graduated in 2008). The faculty were engaged and accessible, and there was a wide range of topics and courses from tectonics to theory. The school does have a technical reputation, and part of that is its origins as a trade school, but another part is the commitment to teaching the technical side of the profession (both construction and drawing--not construction drawings, but the skills to present your work in a compelling manner). I think that's critical in a profession as closely tied to engineering, trades and physicality as ours. Nothing against schools with more of a conceptual focus (which you'll get as part of the larger curriculum at Wentworth), but in my view the point of architecture is not to do beautiful renderings but to see compelling works built.
Hey, I'm new to the forum and to architecture and I was recently accepted into both, Sci-Arc in LA and Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston for their B.Arch programs. I did not receive a scholarship from Sci-Arc. However, I recieved a merit scholarship from Wentworth. I was just curious to know if people had more information and professional opinions on both programs and which one would they would consider. Thanks
Hi,
I graduated from WIT with a B.S. Arch degree in April of 2016. Within a month of graduation I had 5 interviews and two offers (partially because Denver's economy is booming!) but I felt prepared and successful in job seeking. I am now project managing at an arch-engineering firm specializing in telecom projects.
Wentworth's education and arch program is great in my opinion. Read: the program is great, Wentworth is mediocre and run by money hungry pricks, but maybe thats every school. For example, they just announced and broke ground for their second new building in the past four years, but we don't have color plotters, and the plotting room (two plotters, two color printers) is across campus from the arch studio. That was infuriating.
The architecture department was fantastic. All of my professors were experienced and really overall great. Workload is heavy, but manageable. Your first mandatory internship is the summer of sophomore year, which I think is far too young considering all of the surrounding competition from other schools, but its great to graduate with two summers of internships. I felt very pushed and like my weaknesses were exposed and turned into strengths. They also offer a masters for only one year if you do it right after undergrad. They push it a lot, I did not do it as I want an outside experience.
College life itself: its a tech school, not a party school. That said, its in the heart of Boston with an amazing location and lots of surrounding schools that are tons of fun, just be social.
Also all of the colleges of the fenway thing is a marketing tactic. You can technically register for classes at other schools.... but their time slots do not match ours and its nearly impossible with an architecture work load.
These two programs are light years apart - I mean this should be a super easy decision just look at the work as these two programs basically have zero things in common, if you want a more technical path and the construction aspect interests you the answer would be wentworth - as design and theory will take a backseat or be non-existent. If you want a program primarily in the art realm with a heavy focus on digital, computation and robotics SCI-Arc probably is the best in the world in that regard... many though won't go into architecture and find themselves in the film industry in LA (probably living a far more exciting life as well)...
Wentworth is not that cut and dry. Our studios are very design oriented and higher level arch. electives are all theory and research. I learned much, much less than I would have liked to about actual construction. We weren't even taught the basics of a stick framed building.
Most people will say Sci-Arc. I'm A WIT grad as well and there are definitely pros and cons to consider.
Pros: The faculty members are amazing. There are lots of opportunities to study whatever aspect of the profession you find interesting. Both technical and conceptual. It prepares you well to work in the profession and it's relatively affordable.
Cons: I feel self-conscious that I didn't attend a well-known school. This is more of a personal issue than it is anything else; and it's decreasing the longer I spend working in the industry. People in the north-east know and respect the program, but its name recognition is limited.
Sc-Arc is a very different animal, hard to compare. If you go into either program with a desire to learn and to discover what interests you then you'll do fine.
Any current students at sci arc here? would be cool to ask a few questions
yeah its obvious that medias knowledge of wentworth came put of a brochure. one of my grad professors at WIT did a wentworth undergrad and went to Sci Arc for grad school, i can point you towards him, hed probably have better insight than most of us here
I can't speak to SCI-Arc, but I had a great experience at Wentworth (graduated in 2008). The faculty were engaged and accessible, and there was a wide range of topics and courses from tectonics to theory. The school does have a technical reputation, and part of that is its origins as a trade school, but another part is the commitment to teaching the technical side of the profession (both construction and drawing--not construction drawings, but the skills to present your work in a compelling manner). I think that's critical in a profession as closely tied to engineering, trades and physicality as ours. Nothing against schools with more of a conceptual focus (which you'll get as part of the larger curriculum at Wentworth), but in my view the point of architecture is not to do beautiful renderings but to see compelling works built.