<p>I have been accepted to UCLA for undeclared (I plan to transfer to arch.) and Cal Poly SLO for architecture. I am split between the two schools because they are so different. Cal Poly is accredited and is ranked high on DI, but doesn't have the prestigious name. UCLA has the prestigious name and is known for their graduate architecture program, but their bachelors program is still new and is not accredited. What is a good path to take? I plan on getting a masters later either way.</p>
<p>Many people tell me to go to UCLA because the name will make it easier for me to find a job later on and UCLA will make it easier for me to get into graduate school. I'm not so sure if that's true.</p>
<p>What do architecture firms look for?</p>
<p>Please help. I need to make a decision soon. Thanks :)</p>
<p>i have heard from other forums, that it not necessarily easier to get into a grad school because you did undergrad there. </p>
<p>I would go to Cal Poly b/c you can walk out with an accredited program that is ranked for undergrad. then you can get your license immediately and then maybe work to pay off any loans (i don’t know your financial situation). then i would go back to UCLA for grad. That way you get a highly ranked undergrad program with a highly ranked grad program and the experience at both schools. </p>
<p>the only catch is the application to grad school, which i am not familiar about. </p>
<p>Do you plan to be a practicing architect or are you more interested in architectural-related fields like construction management, development, etc.? In order to get your license, you need EITHER a B.Arch. OR a M.Arch. degree from an NAAB-accredited school to sit for the licensing exam. </p>
<p>If you go to UC-SLO, you will have your degree from one of the top 10 B.Arch. programs in the country in just 5 years. Then you’re done with your education and you can go get a job.</p>
<p>If you go to UCLA, you will have to go to graduate school in order to get your M.Arch., which at UCLA is normally a 3-year program. If you get your B.A. in Architectural Studies, I think you shave a year off that. But that means you would still need to be in school for a total of 6 years. (Of course, you don’t have to go to UCLA’s architecture program but most other graduate programs in architecture are similar.) And UCLA’s M.Arch. – while excellent – is not generally considered among the top 20.</p>
<p>UCLA’s name will probably not make it easier to find a job when you graduate. On the West Coast, SLO’s reputation is just as strong – if not stronger – for architecture specifically. Architecture firms will put far more weight on your portfolio than on the name of the school on your diploma.</p>
<p>As you make your decision, you should also consider just how strongly you feel about architecture (in other words, how likely are you to change your major?) and the cost of the extra year or two of schooling. If you are not sure about architecture (and many students do drop out of this major because it is so work-intensive), then UCLA will give you more time to explore other options before committing to the architecture major.</p>
I don’t know, however I’d guess an employee that can successfully complete billable work? </p>
<p>I’ve read much about how ‘Brand Name’ degrees can open doors, at least interview doors, but have notice in employment ads the requirements contain phrases such as, ‘accredited degree,’ ‘licensed’ and 'portfolio.</p>
<p>Cal Poly SLO’s architecture program is supposedly one of the best in the nation. The firms that are hiring you know this. Thus, if prestige is the determining factor, go with SLO.</p>
<p>However, if you aren’t 100% on architecture, UCLA may be a better path to follow. Cal Poly doesn’t have much aside from architecture and engineering programs, and switching majors is hell. Going into UCLA will allow you to explore your options a bit.</p>