I apologize if everyone is sick of seeing this topic come up over and over again.

I'm an international student and I currently hold offers for both the Bartlett's BSc Architecture and the AA's Diploma, and like many others before me I am now in the dilemma of having to choose between these two schools. I’ve just finished my Foundation course. Here are some of my thoughts so far - please feel free to agree/disagree and say why...
 

PRO AA

• It’s historic reputation needs no introduction, especially with the list of its alumni. After speaking to some architects, it also seems to have a better reputation internationally
• This reputation has additional benefits such as the school being able to attract high-profile tutors and speakers
• It’s actually cheaper by £1000 per year compared to the fees of UCL, but this may change over the years.
• Because of the lack of a ‘Home student’ fee status, the distribution between local and international students is more equal - a more culturally diverse student body
• I like the ‘vibe’ of the school and campus more in terms of their appreciation of impeccable presentation, precision, ‘style’ - I don’t mind the elitism/snobbery and it’ll probably be more beneficial in terms of the connections I can make (I’d love to live in a socialist utopia but let’s face it, in this world, having friends in high places is a useful thing).

CONS AA

• According to some: while the AA has a better historic track record, at the moment Bartlett has the better reputation and the AA is resting on its laurels and there is the worry of diminishing standards - true/false?
• I’m still not 100% sure I want to pursue a career in architecture and while the AA diploma and its professional accreditation is highly recognized within the industry I cannot say the same for outside of the architecture industry. Should I be concerned that the AA does not grant a true Bachelor’s degree, but rather just a diploma? Will the lack of a undergrad degree be detrimental for my future job applications if I choose to work outside of architecture?

PRO Bartlett

• It’s an university (UCL!) not just an architecture school - this brings with it some benefits:
• Academically diverse student body: can meet people not just doing architecture but studying natural+human sciences, arts, philosophy, mathematics etc instead of being fully submerged in prospective architects. I am academically all-rounded and have interests in a range of academic disciplines and this is one of the main reasons I’m currently leaning towards UCL. (in an ideal world where I don’t have to worry about getting a job, I’d probably go with my offer to go to UCL’s BASc Arts and Sciences course)
• Access to a larger library in addition to Bartlett’s own architecture/built environment library
• I will get a BSc degree after I complete the course - versatility in case I choose to pursue a career outside architecture...
• The Bartlett will be getting a refurb for their building and in the mean time, the faculty will be moving to a temporary large warehouse space.

CONS Bartlett

• The Bartlett (especially the first year) seems to shy away from the use of technology. While I understand the use of a good foundation of drawings skills, I don’t believe that using technology is running before you can walk - let’s face it, the industry is going to become more, not less, involved with technology, and telling our generation of digital natives to ignore technology is something Luddites would do...
• Too artsy? One year in an art school Foundation has given me enough artsy bullshit to last me a lifetime - I hate seeing projects with ‘cute’ ideas for the wow factor and no actual rational justification or viability. A lot of people seem to think having a ‘wild’, ‘out-there’ idea does equates to ‘creativity’. The work I see at the Bartlett does worry me in this respect....
• I am interested in a diagrammatic approach towards design but the Bartlett students seems to enjoy doing detailed, realistic visualisations and collages - I’m not sure if this trend is because of the faculty or the students.
• I am worried about the cohort and what it means for studio culture etc. I know quite a few  less-than-stellar (to put it diplomatically) students have been admitted to UCL so that is worrying me about the standards of admission at UCL and how that translates to the students of the cohort. I cannot, however, draw a comparison with the AA as I am the only person I know who has applied using the early deadline and others are still waiting to hear back.

More thoughts:At the moment, I’m leaning towards UCL (about 70% to 30%) but I keep on having doubts about whether I’m overvaluing the wrong factors (such as whether I’ll actually have the time to socialize with non-architecture students at UCL) and undervaluing the right ones (such as the culture/vibe of the place).

At the moment, I think it’s too early to judge which Units I would be interested in and using that to inform my choice.

I'm also worried about 'house styles' and whether the schools will try to squash their students into their mould of an archetypical AA or archetypical Bartlett student (first through the admissions process and and then through the education).

I think that from what I feel about my work so far, I feel that the AA would be a better fit for me, but I also have to consider whether the contrasting ‘style’ of the Bartlett would be better for me as a way of diversifying my approach rather than getting more of what I know and like.

This is a horrible dilemma because I know that whichever I choose, if I dislike anything about the course I will regret not choosing the other - it’s mutually assured self-destruction...

The bright side is that should I choose the Bartlett for my part 1, I can still apply for the AA for my part 2, though for the diploma there are additional options such as the Royal College of Art. Also there is the possibility that after my part 1 I might decide not to do architecture at all.

What does everyone think? Your opinion/advice would be greatly appreciated...