Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
So most of my grad school list for fall 2014 is ready, but I'm VERY confused between UCLA and UT Austin for one of my mid-reach schools.
Apart from the program I'm considering cost of attending, cost of living, the city experience and employment prospects. While California could offer some great opportunities, UT Austin's program is consistently top-15 rated and far higher than UCLA. Austin has a three/four semester track as compared with UCLA's one year suprastudio, but factoring in the cost of living in LA and tuition, i doubt the difference would be that great.
My gut tells me to go ahead with UT Austin but general advice seems to suggest UCLA.
Obviously they are very different cities. I personally can't stand LA, but it does have tons of opportunity. Why are you not applying for both, see where you get in, then visit the schools that you finally short list?
Well, I'm applying to a limited number of schools and currently cannot accommodate an extra one in my list, therefore the dilemma :)
I think they are radically different schools in terms of curriculum and pedagogy. UCLA is definitely more digitally oriented (for lack of a better term) and is rather cutting edge in that regard, and UT Austin is (I think) more urbanistically oriented. So you need to see the portfolios and decide for yourself. They are both well regarded in the industry so that should not be an issue, I dont think...
Apple GK...are you an International student? Have you done your B Arch? If I were you, I'd anyday go for UCLA...I feel cities like LA bring better opportunities...Im not sure about M ArchII but its Urban Planning programme is pretty renowned.