I went to U of O. Laid back atmosphere, studios tend towards smaller scale projects with a community, sustainability oriented focus. It's not as much about "pushing towards a new theory of architectural expression", though you can still do it if you want.

The big difference is that core studios are not graded - it's all pass/no pass. Your reviews will usually be one to one - presentations are informal and you will not stand in front of a panel of reviewers until your thesis project. Be careful with this freedom. Some will thrive, others might need more of a kick in the ass.

I went to RISD, and I know nothing about the other schools, so I'll just talk about RISD here. It being one of the best art schools in the world itself is a big prestige I think. It really depends on how you think of architecture, but if you think that architecture is more about creative design, you can't go wrong with RISD. You will spend the first year in the foundation studies working like a dog on drawing/2d/3d design classes, which will build--in my opinion--a strong basis for your design work. After the first year, you will need to work even harder in studio going through core and option studios. 

When I was a freshmen at RISD, it was noted as the school with the most workload in the nation, with MIT marking second place. It is a very rigorous and creative environment with exposure to all kinds of designers and artists. Your concern of networking can pretty much be solved through connections with Brown, if you decide to take classes there or party a lot.

RISD grads are respected pretty much everywhere in the creative field, and students also make it to top-tier graduate schools including the GSD, YSOA, MIT, GSAPP... every year. There is a very strong group of architecture faculty (although some are not) and the department is known for its strong connections with the GSD if you're interested in gradschool.

Cons: Too much work, and it's extremely difficult to achieve high GPA's in the architecture program. Providence could be a nice city for some, but too small for others.

Also, the school's not going to train you as an AutoCad or Rhino genius. If you are interested in digital tools/production, beyond a certain level, you should pretty much teach yourself. Although this could also be a pro, since it's going to teach you how to think like a designer better than any other undergraduate programs in my opinion.

Hope it helps, and do understand that this is a biased opinion. 

Hi, I'm graduating Syracuse B.Arch this year, and maybe I should share some views on this program.

Firstly, please be aware that this program is changing fast these days, as the new Dean came, who brought a whole new cabin of faculty members and I'm pretty sure the curriculum should be revised as well. So what I'm gonna be talking about in the following paragraphs is gonna be some of the "tradition" that might or might not be looming around if you come here.

The program is very solid. The curriculum is (was) designed in a way that make sure you can design buildings that are both interesting and viable. Simply put, compared to schools that put heavy emphasis on theory and discourse, Syracuse is down to earth, while compared to programs that focus on building method and small scale, Syracuse can be a lot fancier. I personally joke around saying that Syracuse is a technical school - by making that statement what I mean is that most students from here have developed a very solid set of skills that  they can go out and easily adjust to a work environment. And compared to Cornell, I would say a lot fewer students in Syracuse would want to go to grad school.

In my opinion, it is due to the size of the program that you can get a very balanced professional education. A typical class is make of 8 studios, each faculty member having very different project, approach, and expectations. Over the years, you meet very different studio professors, some being old-school that impart knowledge on formal compositions, while others being techno that push you to try a variety of fabrication methods. So over the years, you can begin to develop your own interest and understanding of what you want to do for your career or grad-school studies.

Arch students tend to stick around with each other a lot. But you can surely meet other people.

The study abroad programs are good. London and New York invite local practioners to teach studio course, while Florence faculties are the old people from Syracuse. 

My final decision when I was a highschool senior was also between RISD and Syracuse. Finance was a factor for me, and it turned out to be that the program in Syracuse and the fact that it is a large university are really suiting me. So I'm quite glad. Funny enough, my thesis advisor graduated from RISD's undergrad programs, and as she suggests, you should choose place where you can have loads of fun.

I have eliminated my choices down to Syracuse and Virginia Tech. I have already visited Syracuse and I love it. However, I have not visited VT and am wondering what is it like there. I have not received any financial aid packet from Syracuse yet so all of my concern is the comparison between the two campuses. Particularly the architecture studios, if any one can compare the two or just talk about one that would be great! And also the friends, learning environment, sport facilities (especially soccer), DORMS, connection after graduation, etc.
 

Thank you very much!