i don't know the rules in california, but i'm pretty sure that you can't get licensed in almost every state without a professional degree... so if you want to be licensed, you're gonna have to go get an m.arch...

as has been discussed ad infinitum on this site (which is why no one is responding to you), in the end your education is what you make of it... but, that said, the real value of "top grad schools" (however you want to define that) is in the networking with well known architects that teach at the school... so, since you're a california resident and are concerned about the debt that would result from east coast ivies, why not consider UCLA or USC which both have good programs with well known faculty?

so according to u..it is a good idea to go to a top grad school for networking reasons, not so much in education cuz i can perhaps get the same from work exp, my own projects, etc? however without those connections, degree.. can one still get a job.. advance in that innovative/international arena?

Ya. I failed to mention about UCLA. Cost of USC and Sci-Arc is probably comparable to east coast ivies. Any comparable programs for the same price range as UCLA? and for CA.. you can get licensed without m.arch.

Education costs are a moving target these days. UCLA's cost is reaching the cost of going to SCI-Arc, and SCI-Arc is half the cost of East coast ivies. Factor in different schools give different levels of scholarship money, e.g. Rice and Princeton acceptance usually comes full ride - I would do more research on your own.

For me though, after all that's said and done, portfolio is all that matters. All the rest is just jargon. Yes, networking and credentials help, but it really comes down to your portfolio if you want to get into that "innovative" firm. The best test is to put your portfolio out there and get feedback from employers and potential employers. If you get the job you want, gravy, but if they say you're portfolio is not cutting it, consider grad school.