What do employers think about sci arc? how is it viewed in the professional world?
Median
Mar 12, 13 3:13 pm
In the latest DesignIntelligence ranking, SCIARC was rated number 1 from firms in the west as the most desirable school to hire from. The head of Gensler recently lectured at the school saying sciarc and Gensler was much closer in thought then it may seem, many students intern for Gensler, SOM and NBBJ... those that go the more corporate root, then of course you have a vast number working for Morphosis, Gehry, UN Studio, Asymptote ... etc.
There of course are probably some firms who would not hire a sciarc graduate, and make that decision as company policy without ever looking at the candidate, but really those firms are quite meaningless to the industry and are irrelevant.
accesskb
Mar 12, 13 3:20 pm
ahaha Gensler's work is no where like any work I see coming out of Sci-Arc.. far from
nocturne
Mar 12, 13 3:20 pm
Students rave about sci arc. flashy parametrics, cool-looking buildings, sweet renderings. The professional world views it differently. I have heard from many professionals that put a sci arc grad at a computer and they can code that facade or render that building but in terms of being able to actually think and design, they can't do it. Being an architect isn't about making a cool building or an awesome rendering, you actually need to be able to talk and think about architecture. This is also a primary criticism of parametric design, it often involves the computer making the decisions, not you. I'm speaking of this as someone who has learned parametric design from coders who work for Zaha and I have used it myself to push a design to the next level, but not as a primary driver of design. Employers want to see how you think rather than how you produce (even Zaha's office, they're a very design oriented firm, parametrics just help get the design to where they want it).
SO, you may get a job but it may only be as a technical computer monkey...
Just what I've heard.
observant
Mar 12, 13 4:15 pm
It's very love it or hate it, from what I've heard. The office who deliberately wants to stock up on Cal Poly SLO grads probably isn't too keen on Sci-Arc grads. Sci-Arc fulfills a niche for certain students and certain types of firms. That's why it keeps on thriving.
accesskb
Mar 12, 13 5:30 pm
balance my friend, balance
observant
Mar 12, 13 5:39 pm
^
It's cutting edge. If a person wants a more traditional experience, it wouldn't be for them. Its grads license and go work in offices and/or start firms. That can't be disputed. Neither is the notion that it's not for everybody.
sameolddoctor
Mar 12, 13 6:55 pm
Actually, these days a lot of SCIARC fresh grads get hired at places like Gensler. From my experience though, most of the employees who come from SCIARC are not given much responsibility, other than Rhino (+ Grasshopper), and in some cases, Revit modeling.
The thing about SCIARC is that one has to constantly be in touch with the outside world of real architecture, to be able to do real architecture after one graduates. Otherwise, ones going to lose a good 3-4 years just getting used to real buildings.
accesskb
Mar 12, 13 7:10 pm
^ Observant can you name some Sci-Arc grads running firms and doing well with projects?
observant
Mar 12, 13 7:38 pm
^
We have one architect on this very site who has his own firm. I know a grad who has around a handful of employees (previous engineer). It wasn't for me - didn't feel right. Some people love it. If someone teaches there and has a practice, I'm sure they'll also employ their grads.
0e8r0908
Mar 12, 13 8:01 pm
if you're asking this you probably can't afford the tuition
trischiqurei
Oct 16, 16 5:40 am
Fitting to see they can't seem to crack the lists of top architecture schools, trophies just for placing I guess, although one of the highest tuition costs in the country doesn't seem justified if the prestige isn't really all that great with hiring firms. Not as advertised in my opinion (though they do seem to self-advertise heavily), it is a good old boys club as far as I am concerned, intelligence takes a backseat and only a handful of students who play that game will really thrive from a system like that. They seem to take whoever they can get, with a very high acceptance rate for an "elite" school. In my own experience making the mistake of attending the MArch2 program for two semesters, the literacy rates were dreadful, "easiest A you'll ever get" I had heard a few times in conversation when I mentioned that it bothered me some of my graduate peers struggled to read English at a supposedly elite educational institution in the United States. For how "competitive" they lauded the student body to be when I voiced complaint, in my architectural theory classes most of the students could hardly read written English, much less participate their words in any meaningful discussion with professors who struck me as the incredibly elitist type that could care less who they're teaching. After all it's not like they will remember many of the student livestock, mostly mislead into coming from overseas, once they've paid for the last semester of extremely over-priced tuition. It's also worth mentioning that the studio instructors browbeat students into spending what I always considered a second tuition cost on supplies, pedestals, expensive 3d-prints due most classes, and in render-farm credits necessary to finish animated assignments. The burden of most of those payments is thrown damn near entirely on the student. Just in case I haven't supplied enough of a warning, have fun with your sorry excuse for a workspace. That's right, each student was given what was called a desk made out of a few trash pieces of plywood or particle board that must be some sort of minimalist inside-joke between the faculty. Maybe with the previous dean it was a better situation, but Hernan has not been very impressive. But again that's just my opinion, perhaps if they were more transparent concerning graduate job placement statistics, or lack thereof... 0/5 Avoid Like The Plague
chigurh
Oct 16, 16 7:01 pm
Sciarc is a good school for those students that have technical inclination (previous architectural or related construction based degrees and/or experience) and want to explore creative approaches outside of the normative architectural realm. When the two are combined it can lead to some of the most interesting and cutting edge work out there. Many starchitects hire sciarc grads for this reason, but they are selective.
On the flip side, there are many students that drink the koolaid without any real world sensibility to ground the pedagogy - or to even understand that in real life they will have to use what they learned at sciarc and combine and constrain that work against real world fabrication, budgets, expectations - even in the rare times when that kind of work is expected or to be explored.
I would hire a low percentage of sciarc grads depending on their interests, backgrounds, and portfolios. The others would be better suited for hollywood, special effects, UX design type stuff. Gotta also factor in the dilettante rich kids looking for something burn a couple of years on, those would be the worst hires. Never learned the value of hard work/ambition and no reason to do so.
What do employers think about sci arc? how is it viewed in the professional world?
In the latest DesignIntelligence ranking, SCIARC was rated number 1 from firms in the west as the most desirable school to hire from. The head of Gensler recently lectured at the school saying sciarc and Gensler was much closer in thought then it may seem, many students intern for Gensler, SOM and NBBJ... those that go the more corporate root, then of course you have a vast number working for Morphosis, Gehry, UN Studio, Asymptote ... etc.
There of course are probably some firms who would not hire a sciarc graduate, and make that decision as company policy without ever looking at the candidate, but really those firms are quite meaningless to the industry and are irrelevant.
ahaha Gensler's work is no where like any work I see coming out of Sci-Arc.. far from
Students rave about sci arc. flashy parametrics, cool-looking buildings, sweet renderings. The professional world views it differently. I have heard from many professionals that put a sci arc grad at a computer and they can code that facade or render that building but in terms of being able to actually think and design, they can't do it. Being an architect isn't about making a cool building or an awesome rendering, you actually need to be able to talk and think about architecture. This is also a primary criticism of parametric design, it often involves the computer making the decisions, not you. I'm speaking of this as someone who has learned parametric design from coders who work for Zaha and I have used it myself to push a design to the next level, but not as a primary driver of design. Employers want to see how you think rather than how you produce (even Zaha's office, they're a very design oriented firm, parametrics just help get the design to where they want it).
SO, you may get a job but it may only be as a technical computer monkey...
Just what I've heard.
It's very love it or hate it, from what I've heard. The office who deliberately wants to stock up on Cal Poly SLO grads probably isn't too keen on Sci-Arc grads. Sci-Arc fulfills a niche for certain students and certain types of firms. That's why it keeps on thriving.
balance my friend, balance
^
It's cutting edge. If a person wants a more traditional experience, it wouldn't be for them. Its grads license and go work in offices and/or start firms. That can't be disputed. Neither is the notion that it's not for everybody.
Actually, these days a lot of SCIARC fresh grads get hired at places like Gensler. From my experience though, most of the employees who come from SCIARC are not given much responsibility, other than Rhino (+ Grasshopper), and in some cases, Revit modeling.
The thing about SCIARC is that one has to constantly be in touch with the outside world of real architecture, to be able to do real architecture after one graduates. Otherwise, ones going to lose a good 3-4 years just getting used to real buildings.
^ Observant can you name some Sci-Arc grads running firms and doing well with projects?
^
We have one architect on this very site who has his own firm. I know a grad who has around a handful of employees (previous engineer). It wasn't for me - didn't feel right. Some people love it. If someone teaches there and has a practice, I'm sure they'll also employ their grads.
if you're asking this you probably can't afford the tuition
Fitting to see they can't seem to crack the lists of top architecture schools, trophies just for placing I guess, although one of the highest tuition costs in the country doesn't seem justified if the prestige isn't really all that great with hiring firms. Not as advertised in my opinion (though they do seem to self-advertise heavily), it is a good old boys club as far as I am concerned, intelligence takes a backseat and only a handful of students who play that game will really thrive from a system like that.
They seem to take whoever they can get, with a very high acceptance rate for an "elite" school. In my own experience making the mistake of attending the MArch2 program for two semesters, the literacy rates were dreadful, "easiest A you'll ever get" I had heard a few times in conversation when I mentioned that it bothered me some of my graduate peers struggled to read English at a supposedly elite educational institution in the United States.
For how "competitive" they lauded the student body to be when I voiced complaint, in my architectural theory classes most of the students could hardly read written English, much less participate their words in any meaningful discussion with professors who struck me as the incredibly elitist type that could care less who they're teaching. After all it's not like they will remember many of the student livestock, mostly mislead into coming from overseas, once they've paid for the last semester of extremely over-priced tuition.
It's also worth mentioning that the studio instructors browbeat students into spending what I always considered a second tuition cost on supplies, pedestals, expensive 3d-prints due most classes, and in render-farm credits necessary to finish animated assignments. The burden of most of those payments is thrown damn near entirely on the student. Just in case I haven't supplied enough of a warning, have fun with your sorry excuse for a workspace. That's right, each student was given what was called a desk made out of a few trash pieces of plywood or particle board that must be some sort of minimalist inside-joke between the faculty.
Maybe with the previous dean it was a better situation, but Hernan has not been very impressive. But again that's just my opinion, perhaps if they were more transparent concerning graduate job placement statistics, or lack thereof...
0/5 Avoid Like The Plague
Sciarc is a good school for those students that have technical inclination (previous architectural or related construction based degrees and/or experience) and want to explore creative approaches outside of the normative architectural realm. When the two are combined it can lead to some of the most interesting and cutting edge work out there. Many starchitects hire sciarc grads for this reason, but they are selective.
On the flip side, there are many students that drink the koolaid without any real world sensibility to ground the pedagogy - or to even understand that in real life they will have to use what they learned at sciarc and combine and constrain that work against real world fabrication, budgets, expectations - even in the rare times when that kind of work is expected or to be explored.
I would hire a low percentage of sciarc grads depending on their interests, backgrounds, and portfolios. The others would be better suited for hollywood, special effects, UX design type stuff. Gotta also factor in the dilettante rich kids looking for something burn a couple of years on, those would be the worst hires. Never learned the value of hard work/ambition and no reason to do so.