If you want to experience beatiful weather every day for a change , I would go to Ca, although I dont know anything about the schools themselves

If you are going 3 year: UCLA, Berkeley, USC*, Sci-Arc

If you are going 2 year, and how some structures/tech under your belt:  Berkeley, UCLA, USC*, Sci-Arc

*USC, much like Cal Poly SLO, has the B.Arch. as its principal program, so I am NOT aware of its graduate offerings, but know that it has produced the majority of SoCal's architects.

Ok. Thanks for the input. Is Berkeley pretty well respected for their concurrent MArch/MCP program vs UCLA?

I think when you look at schools that are relevant to the discourse of where architecture is headed, who are thrown in the mix whether controversial or accepted, the answer is going to be sciarc, and you will have many fighting tooth and nail against it, but it only shows how relevant the school is to the discussion of architecture.

No one talks about schools that are irrelevant.

I went to UCLA so I'm probably biased, but I also have friends from every one of those schools and am well aware of their general pedagogy and studio output. I've also visited all of them to witness pinups and reviews. Quick generalizations: Berkeley is more traditional and somewhat behind the cutting edge and contemporary. USC grad program is not considered to be a serious option. They're not relevant to the LA architecture scene. Even the USC arch undergrads talk so much crap about their grad program. SCI-Arc is generally a good school but their students don't even know why they're doing what they're doing or how to argue for it. They're making art with little grounding in real life. UCLA is the most reputable. Its the smallest program and the hardest to get into. Its a great balance of theory, art, real life pragmatics... In the end, school is what you make of it. You make yourself. Your decision is between UCLA and SCI-Arc.