I had a chance to visit USC, UCLA, AFI and Chapman, while I was in LA for my AFI interview. USC does have the best equipment bar none, with an immaculate campus and state-of-the-art computer labs and productikon equipment. However, I have heard that there are a lot of politics when it comes to who gets to direct what, so you're not assured to even get to make your own stories once you get there. You also have to spend an extra year there, trying to figure out what you want to specialize in, whereas you've chosen that by the time you get to AFI and can get to work. What I did like about AFI was the organic, work-intensive approach they took to their program. You spend the entire time there just making stuff and getting better that way. The current students I met there seemed exhausted (in a good way) as they have been working on making films non-stop since August. I found the facilities (at least for editing) to be slightly underwhelming, but adequate enough to get the job done. I think you're working so hard anyway that it doesn't become an issue.
Chapman was also state of the art but everything ran on PCs which disturbed me. Also, the students seemed about 5 years younger in general than AFI students and there wasn't the same vibe there at all as there was at the other schools. UCLA's film buildings seemed like they were built in the 70's and not really updated since. Didn't get much of an impression but it seemed really relaxed, and a little sleepy when I was there. I honestly think you'll be ok if you go to USC/UCLA/AFI-- they are all somewhat comparable and depend more on personal taste and where you are at in your life. Chapman hasn't built that alumni track record yet so for me, I would have to wait and see.
