I went to USC as an undergrad, and checked out the gallery based on your post. For context, it seems that most of the work is from the more technical classes/programs. There is a lot there where the professors listed are Goetz Schierle (a structures professor), Doug Noble (who has a strong technology focus), or Karen Kensek (who teaches computing/modelling) so that leads me to believe that the projects represented in the graduate section represent a lot of the Masters of Building Science students or the M.Arch students' work from the more technical classes. This is likely just based on the technology-focused professors giving greater priority to things like web presence and making more time to submit images.

I'll stay out of the overall question because my view will likely be taken as trying to sway you in a certain direction, but thought you should have that context. It's a shame you didn't get to visit all three schools.

@ Erin Williams

Thanks for the information, and it's definitely good to know that the gallery isn't a good indication of the studio work, so that's very helpful. I wish I had been able to visit all 3, but I'm from CO and didn't have a long time to be in LA.  But it's good to know that there's more to it than whats shown on the website

My first  thought definitely would go to cost.  It seems USC offer you the best financial assistance.

If you go to USC, you may be able to save.....???     let's say

Tuition ( 1 extra year at UCLA) 34,k 

A year worth of wages at           34,k

You are essentially in negative 68k for choosing UCLA.  If you add up 15k from USC. It would be 82,k. Think about it.

If you're paying 6% interest rate for 82,k, you'll be sacrificing tons of stuffs in your life.

Pedagogy or Price? You should ask yourself if you love what you're doing.

I didn't get any money from UCLA, but I am most likely going. I didn't apply to SCI-Arc for USC for pedagogical reasons.

Random, I am likely a bit biased having finished UCLA's grad program last year, but I'll definitely admit there's a ton of things I dislike about the program.  However, given those choices and what you've stated about your preferences I really think you should do UCLA.  USC is not considered a serious school in LA's architecture scene, even by my friends who teach there.  They say it's going in the right direction under the new dean, but still nowhere near the regional quality of UCLA or SCI-Arc, let alone the national level represented by those schools.  I have a lot of respect for SCI-Arc and sometimes I even think I should have gone there, mostly due to their really fantastic location, studio culture, and facilities; but I would highly recommend that you specifically should not choose it.  In the five years I've been going to see shows of their student work, it's proven to be the most dogmatically brainwashing program I've ever experienced.  You can tell exactly what studio someone is in by looking at their work - it looks (frequently literally) like a 3d xerox of their professors work, and this appears to be across the board, even in thesis projects which are meant to be the fantasy masturbatory playground of the Ayn Randian individual genius auteur.  In a lot of ways this is not a bad thing, because SCI-Arc does have some stellar faculty (Marcelo Spina, Andrew Zago, etc) and you learn a lot by deconstructing and learning how an expert practitioner puts together work.  But especially if that kind of work isn't what you want to do, I think you will either be very unhappy fighting against it for two years, or end up bulldozed and brainwashed by a more powerful ego.  You also need to consider what you want to do when you graduate - the skills you will learn at SCI-Arc (and they are very good at imparting advanced skills in rendering, motion graphics, and physical fabrication; though for me the overriding visual style at SCI-Arc is too overwrought and steam-punky if that makes sense) will prepare you for a certain kind of work, which someone who went there might be able to elaborate on, but seems more useful in Hollywood than in an architecture office (and of course I'm generalizing a lot there).  And to give USC its due, they might better prepare you to work in a large corporate office, if that's what you want to do.  I think UCLA is the best prep of the three for working in an interesting small to medium sized firm.  Unfortunately there are not so many jobs in that kind of firm!  One of my complaints about UCLA (which I'm bringing up so you know I'm not like paid by the administration after all that SCI-Arc bashing!)  is that now that I'm in the professional world, I'm somewhat unprepared in some areas for a lot of the actual necessities of the profession: I never used autoCAD in school, I only know a little about codes and sizing structural members, and while there was some course options for parametrics and scripting (like grasshopper and processing), there were no official courses in something like Revit, which is a pretty marketable skill to a surprisingly wide cross section of firms.  I think at both SCI-Arc and UCLA it's up to the individual student to pursue that kind of skills training, and honestly I may not have taken any courses in that kind of thing even were they to be offered, since my interests lay more in theory and architecture as a form of cultural production. but now that I'm working in a small office I wish I had some more technical skills, because they don't often pay you to theorize!  

Oops, wrote a bit more than I needed too, but I hope my perspective is in some way helpful.  I guess you shouldn't discount the fairly persuasive argument about cost and length (though also remember that you can become an in-state tuition student after the first year - talk to someone at UCLA when you get there about starting that process because the sooner you start it the sooner you pay less tuition); but I think personal fit and considering what you want to do with the rest of your life after grad school might be more important.  Write me directly if you have any questions, and good luck.