Hi everyone,

I'm a transfer student from community college in California, currently choosing between UCLA (BA in architectural studies program, which isn't accredited by NAAB) and CCA (B.Arch accredited program). I already got accepted into both schools, but I'm still weighing my options of going for 2 years BA in UCLA+3 years M.Arch, or 4 years of B.Arch in CCA and not continuing for master degree..

I've heard that UCLA's undergrad is quite new and some website rank UCLA in top lists only for their graduate program. I've also seen its typical 2-year program, and it seems like UCLA emphasizes more on theories and not much on practical studios as in CCA B.Arch. I'm afraid that would affect my portfolio and my readiness for master school. Of course I am not certain about this, so I'm wondering if anybody can give me an insight of the program. 

Also, how is CCA's reputation in US architecture? I went to the open house day and the program sounds great, but I always have a thought that UCLA (in general) has greater reputation. It has better campus environment (although I prefer San Francisco), and going there would also allow me a couple years break to work before continuing to M.Arch school. 

Really in dilemma right now. Any thoughts, suggestion, or advice are much appreciated!! Thanks.

Diandra