Hey David,

I spent my first semester at CalPoly and can tell you that it is an amazing Arch school.  Their B.Arch program consistently ranks in the top 5.  UCLA, as far as I know hasn't been in the top 10 in many years.  So if you're concerned about reputation, I believe that a Bachelor from CalPoly is more highly regarded than an M.Arch from UCLA and you wouldn't need to get a Masters afterwords.  But that is just opinion. SLO is an amazing (smaller college) town with plenty to do, but don't get your hopes up, because you WILL be busy all the time. There's no way around it.  Unless they've changed the program in the last 2 years, your first year classes will consist of about 12 hours a week of architecture studio/lecture (which is only 6 credits) in addition to all of your electives. On top of that, you will be up until about 1am and waking up at 8am daily to finish your models/projects.

I don't want it to seem like I am dissing UCLA, because I actually just applied for their M.Arch no more than a couple weeks ago.  From the advice I get from my studio teachers, what's more important than the specific program is where you want to live/work and where the work matches your interests.  For instance, LA is kind of a hub for architecture, so when you study at UCLA, you will make connections with faculty and instructors that will really help you down the road. Also, SCI-Arch has a great program and an even better studio environment, but the work is very different from USC or UCLA, so that affects your decision as well.

*Cliche comment to follow:* In the end, it depends on personal preference how well you fit with each school.

But hopefully I answered your questions.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the above, and while UCLA has not "ranked" in the top 10 for a while, still maintains a top reputation.  Most of us that I know that went there chose the school for the quality of the professors, not any rankings (as those rankings rarely reflect how things are and have some less than important criteria for ranking, imho).

That said, I wouldn't get a undergrad in something that won't help you.

I do agree with the second part.  I was told the same thing when discussing Columbia vs. UCLA and what it came down to (besides the absurd cost of Columbia and NY), was where you wanted your network to help you.

But think about that hard, I was sure I'd be one place, things change and I am far away from LA (LA is pretty absurd in its own right).

My continual advice will be to get a business degreee, somewhere, along your journey.  If I were looking at professors credentials, first thing I'd look at is their business experience.  Too many theoretical professors out there that never teach you about how buildings get built (with money), etc., etc.  Even if you never taught it directly, having an understanding of financial markets (where money comes from) would make a big difference.

The only constant is change, as they say, and you can be sure your path will not be what you think it will be.

Good luck! 

Do you want to go to ucla because you have another friends going there too or because of the program? both schools are good depending on what you’re seeking. you won’t be designing as much compared to other B.Arch programs because you’re dealing with the programs prerequisites. Their M. Arch program is another story. At some point, you might develop hunger for more and regret going to the program which is why you’re saying you might continue seeking a M.Arch II. But by that time, you have accumulated 10’s of thousands of dollars in student loans. There’s nothing wrong with community colleges and transferring into a B.Arch program. At least you’ll get a feel for it without damaging your wallet. If you have the passion for it, then apply to a B.Arch program and not a BA in architectural studies or at least major in another field and apply for an M. Arch degree later on. At least you’ll know what program suites you best and haven’t spent too much money. It sux paying for student loans after college. If you can get most of your education paid for, do it! 

I wish everyone would stop mentioning the rankings.  This isn't law school, nobody cares. 

You are also asking your question prematurely.  Unless I am mistaken these schools have not given out acceptance letters yet.  UCLA's undergrad in architecture doesn't start until your 3rd year of college and it is super difficult to get into.  Both schools are very good and very different.  Thom Mayne likes SLO graduates so much that he went out of his way to get them accepted to the MArch II program he was in charge of last year.

UCLA's undergrad is very proscriptive and design heavy.  It is two years of design vs 5 years of architecture at SLO.  I personally like the idea of getting a less theoretical undergrad combined with a more conceptual grad degree. 

There are plenty of solid grad programs outside of those 3 schools you mentioned UCLA included, you will have plenty of time to worry about that however.  Both UCLA, and SLO will adequately prepare you to get into a school that will impress your friends.

Tuna, good advice on saving money but trust me, this kids parents have plenty of it.

If not, he has an impressive amount of ambition for an 18 yr old.