If I remember correctly all 3 have had substantial changes (new deans and faculty).  I can only speak for UVA:  great teaching faculty (most of the faculty are available all day, many evenings and come in on weekends for crits and informal discussions); they are very friendly, collaborate with each other and are often available to chat with outside of school.  The pedagogy is one that values of classical architecture (Palladio and Jefferson are studied studiously), modernism (a few of the older practitioner-instructors) and contemporary design theories.  The varied faculty challenge and exchange ideas both in and outside of the classroom and are very open to various design philosophies within architecture and its allied professions.

As for post graduation employment, the majority of the alumni of the last few years are employed in the profession at a variety of firms and geographic locations (both coasts, the midwest and in europe and asia).  The alumni network is very helpful and loyal.

The overall experience, for me, was fantastic.  The atmosphere fostered is challenging but supportive: faculty are there to help you learn, and the inter-student relationship is that of collaboration.  Like all other programs, the time commitment is intense, but family and personal time is encouraged and respected.

The best part of UVA is the cross-over with the various departments, all of which are strong in their respective fields and are well represented in coursework and crits (it's rare at the graduate level to have a crit with only arch faculty.  It makes it a very enriching experience that translates well to post-graduation experiences.

The recent trend seems to be emphasizing more student driven research (leading to a culminating project, thesis or similar)

Michigan and UC-B are also very reputable programs, I don't think you can really go wrong.  The surrounding cultures would be very different (Charlottesville, while being  a college town, is very Southern).

Exactly in the order you've got them listed:  Michigan, Virginia, Berkeley - with the last 2 being real close.

Did you visit the schools before applying?  Just wondering.  If so, what did your gut tell you?

@observant

Thank you for the input. My gut tells me Michigan but I have yet to visit any of them. I am in the process of scheduling a visit for these schools but I am waiting to hear back from a few more.

What exactly is your justification for this ordering?

It's just what would work for me, lopes, and my read of these departments, and schools as a whole:

Michigan - competent and fairly unpretentious

Virginia - exclusive and maybe "slightly" pretentious

Berkeley - tries to be cutting edge and intellectual, and a little quirky in the process

I see. My gut definitely tells me Michigan. Ideally I would like to end up working on the East coast post graduation, or possibly getting a post professional degree.

Lopes, those are MY opinions.  Since you had a portfolio strong enough to get you into all of these schools and if you feel your 4-year (UT-Arlington, IIR) gave you an excellent base in various aspects of architecture, you could go to any of them and be in good shape.  They are all accredited, highly ranked, and very respected.  Maybe what you can do is do a list of pluses and minuses for each, based on your needs and feelings, and then weigh it out.  For one thing, I don't know what the finances for you will be at each of these places.  Nor do you need to tell us. 

@ lopes0421

I am also in the same shoes. I am accepted into Umich, Upenn and Berkeley, however, leaning towards Berkeley and Umich. Berkeley > Umich because I want to work on the west coast after graduating.

Did you attend the open house at umich? if you did, what are your thoughts?

I'm currently in my second year at UMich and I'd be happy to help with any questions. I had a really hard time deciding between Columbia, Penn and WashU but I couldn't be happier with Taubman. The amount of opportunities I've had outside of school have been great and I really believe that Monica pulls in the best young professors from a wide range of schools that allows the school not to be pulled in one pedagogical direction. One semester you can learn about digital formalism at UCLA and the next you can learn from someone obsessed with Dutch design, etc. so personally I think you get the most comprehensive architectural education, and then by thesis you can decide what you want to really focus on. Also, I'm a 3.5 year MArch, so I think the extra 3 semesters really make a difference.

@ Frocean

Thanks for your insight. Since you are doing the 3.5 year MArch, I assume you do not have a background?

I am coming from a non background, and would like to know how well the faculty cater to those students?

I did a summer program at GSD and enjoyed their intense studio culture, how would you describe the studio culture at Taubman and how is the vibe between the students?

I have a background in art history but I also did the GSD summer program and worked for a firm for a couple years after undergrad. The faculty seem to really enjoy the students from non-architecture backgrounds. From my experience in the first three studios, the professors can push the students in a more interdisciplinary direction, because they already have an undergrad education that pulls from a variety of interests. As far as the studio culture, most people work in studio, which I really enjoy. When the studio is full, before deadlines its a pretty crazy place, but a lot of fun. You have ample workspace and all the fabrication stuff you would ever need. There's a wide range of different skill and ambition levels. Personally I think 60 2G students is about 20 too many. Competitiveness has not been an issue at all and people are very collaborative with each other, which is nice. A lot of people team up to do competitions outside of school.