I'm a bachelors in business administration, finance major, and I've been working in real estate development for the past three years. I'm looking to make a career shift in LA+D.

I'd like some information regarding two certificate programs offered at University of California Extension. One is at Berkeley and the other is at UCLA.

Can anyone tell me what are the differences in these two programs? The program at Berkeley requires 21 courses for completion while the one at UCLA requires 32. And the one at UCLA takes one year longer to complete. I'm curious why there is such a major difference between the two courses and whether one of the courses has a greater weightage over the other.

In addition, I'd like to know whether these certificate programs are sufficient for a furture career in Urban Design after a few years of working in LA.

Thanks so much in advance.

Mystical Design.

California Polytechnic State University
BLA Program
College of Architecture and Environmental Design
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

California State Polytechnic University
BSLA Program
MLA Program
College of Environmental Design
California State Polytechnic University
3801 West Temple Avenue
Pomona, CA 91768

University of California, Berkeley
MLA Program
College of Environmental Design
University of California at Berkeley
202 Wurster Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-2000

University of California, Davis
BSLA Program
Department of Environmental Design
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
University of California at Davis
One Shields Ave, 142 Walker Hall
Davis, CA 95616-8585

University of Southern California
MLA Program
Graduate Studies in Landscape Architecture
School of Architecture Robert Y. Time Research Center, Room 339
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0291

Pasted from ASLA webpage

What I'm primarily interested to know is which of these two programs is better. The one at UCB or UCLA.

Thanks for the reply.
Hope someone can help!

As to your question regarding which program is better, why not take a further look at the courses required for each, and determine whether the extra year and units of UCLA's program fits with what you want to experience? I am assuming you can see the course requirements on-line, or make a call to get more info.

I've known people who did the extension program at UC Berkeley, and I myself started the degree program at UC Davis but transferred to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo's program where I got my degree in landscape architecture, over 30 years ago now. My experience with the extension program that friends attended is that it was not as good a foot in the door for professional work as graduating from an accredited program, but people who graduated from the extension program were and are able to get hired, they just have to sell themselves better, because the extension programs are not as extensive,(they are obviously shorter in duration, and do not have the same amount of design studio time that the accredited programs do).

As an aside, it is perfectly possible to work in a landscape arcthitecture firm without being licensed, but you will not personally be able to stamp drawings with your own seal. I haven't found the lack of being licensed any impediment to what I do professionally...

In terms of which program is better, I have heard very good things about the UCLA program, and it has much more support in terms of the staffing and budget for the program. Hence, the program may be considered 'better' because of this and other factors. I can't speak personally as to the quality of the program at UCLA Ext, however.

My opinion would be that the UCB Ext program (or UCLA Ext) would be a good program to get your foot in the door at a firm, and as a step towards licensure, but what you do after that will likely bring you to your desired area of practice.

Thank you all so much. I really appreciate the feedback.

These additional posts have really helped me out.

I'm very serious about the Extension programs, because, for one, I can't be bothered to prepare for the GRE. I know that's a lame excuse. But, also, I was told that the Masters programs tend to be more theoretical while the Extension programs are moe technical.

I think for me, it all boils down to whether I want to be in San Fran or L.A.

So can anyone out there give feedback on which of these two cities has better opportunities for LA's??

Thanks again!

Obviously southern California is more populated and continues to grow at a faster pace, but the real growth areas in California are the more inland areas and the central valley, which would tend to be where entry level employment opportunities are greatest. Much more competition in the more desireable and expensive living areas nearer the coasts, and more experienced people will be competing with you for the same jobs.