Cal vs. Chicago vs. Michigan vs. UCLA

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I have gotten into UCLA and Michigan, and am waiting on decisions from Cal and Chicago. Since all of these colleges are good in academics, I know that even if I do not get into Cal or Chicago, choosing between UCLA and Michigan will be difficult. </p>

<p>These are the key factors in my decision: academic reputation (both overall and in my major of Economics), cost (I live in California), weather, the social scene (not too much of a party scene, but not a dead social scene, either), and distance from home (not too close, not too far).</p>

<p>Here are my initial impressions of every school:</p>

<p>Cal: Great academic reputation both overall and in Economics (I'd place it behind Chicago), excellent weather, close to home (about 40 miles), and a social scene that is a little lacking. Cal also has the best peer ratings and is cheap since I'm in-state. I find the size of Cal's campus to be a little small for such a big school, though. I'm not aware of any honors program at Cal.</p>

<p>Chicago: Best economics program of the four schools and probably the best overall as well, though I've seen its peer rating below Cal. Weather isn't that great, and it's quite a distance from home. I've heard that the social scene is a bit lacking and I've seen Hyde Park...it scares me a bit, so I'm a little worried about crime. School is a little small to my liking, but I'm keeping Chicago an option since its economics program is just that good. I'm not aware of any honors program at Chicago.</p>

<p>Michigan: I've seen it tied with UCLA a lot, but I believe it's slightly better than UCLA. In Economics, it's probably the worst of the 4 (NRC rankings), but 14th is nothing to scoff at. I've heard good things about the campus and Ann Arbor in general, though the weather will be bad for a Californian like me. The social scene also sounds decent to me. It'll, however, be quite a distance from California and I have to pay OOS tuition. I also have an opportunity to apply for Honors right now, which I have.</p>

<p>UCLA: Probably beaten by the other 3 schools for overall quality and peer ratings (though not by much), but UCLA seems to be better than Michigan in Economics. I hear the on-campus environment is great and there's quite a social scene, even though the area around the campus isn't as great. Best weather of the four schools, the cheapest of the 4, and also probably the best distance from home. I can also transfer into honors after I get in if my GPA is high.</p>

<p>I don't know what to make of Honors programs. Are they that significant in college? I'm curious about that as well.</p>

<p>Feedback will be greatly appreciated.</p>

2

<p>go to ucla. good economis and nice atmosphere</p>

3

<p>My neighbor is a professor of econ at U of M, their program is arguably the best in the US.</p>

4

<p>id go to UCLA or Berkeley unless cost isnt a concern.</p>

5

<p>Academically, all 4 universities are excellent. I would go to the school you think will be your best fit, socially and academically.</p>

6

<p>you can't go wrong with any of these. I think Alexandre's assessment is correct here: go where you're going to fit the best.</p>

7

<p>all are oustanding institutions -- and there is no bad choice among the four. However, it doesn't make sense to me to pay OOS tuition at UMich, altho I love Ann Arbor....paying a lot extra to go to another big school is no worth the price of admission as opposed to staying instate.</p>

<p>UoC is nearly twice the price of the UCs, and, for the smaller, more intimate atmosphere, may be worth it if you have the $$$.</p>

8

<p>Bluebayou, although Chicago is smaller, it is not that much more intimate. Chicago has 15,000 students, of which 10,000 are graduate students. The majority of the schools resources are devoted to graduate students, just like most top research universities. That said, yes, Chicago does feel more intimate than Michigan, but we aren't talking about LAC vs huge state U differences. Chicago is a large research university and Michigan is a very largee research university. Also, one must remember that Michigan has far more resources availlable to it than Cal or UCLA. In fact, Michigan's endowment of $5 billion is greater than the combined endowment of UCLA and Cal (combined endowment of those two schools is under $4 billion). Thanks to its large endowment, Michigan can afford a larger faculty and a more "intimate" feel, which doesn't say much because major research universities can never really provide a truly intimate environment.</p>

<p>Michigan is a significantly different environment to UCLA and Cal. I agree that paying $37,000 to attend Michigan or $45,000 to attend Chicago when Cal and UCLA will cost around $20,000 doesn't make much sense, but there is something to be said about overall experience. If money isn't an issue, I don't think it would be a bad choice. However, I agree that if money is an issue, spending an extra $75,000 to attend Michigan or an extra $100,000 to attend Chicago doesn't make much financial sense.</p>

9

<p>You have a very good overall assessment of the aspects of each school, but know that honors at Michigan is quite prestigious and has the academic feel of a private university. You know what each school offers, now just figure out what is most important to you in an UNDERGRADUATE experience. I chose Michigan Honors OOS over UCLA, Cal, and Chicago (as an econ major) because for my undergraduate studies, social scene and overall experience were more important to me than a difference of top 5 or top 15 econ programs.</p>

10

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>sorry, didn't mean to hit a sore spot...since you are a MOD, you can have me banned for life...</p>

<p>But, you miss the Undergrad point -- go back and do your analysis comparing UNDERGRAD Chicago and Ann Arbor, PLEASE.</p>

11

<p>I never ban anybody and you didn't hit a sore spot. I may disagree with people some of the time, but I respect and welcome all opinions. </p>

<p>With regards to Chicago undergrad vs Michigan undergrads, I stand by my initial statement. I know both schools well enough to tell you that neither is known for providing undergrads with an intimate, close-knit environment. I agree that Chicago is smaller and a little more personal, but we aren't talking LAC-style atmosphere. And Michigan, although large, has enough resources at its disposal to make it feel much smaller than it really is. Both universities have very strong graduate/research cultures, so you can bet their faculties will spend most of their time and effort away from instructing and developing undergrads.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
These are the key factors in my decision: academic reputation (both overall and in my major of Economics), cost (I live in California), weather, the social scene (not too much of a party scene, but not a dead social scene, either), and distance from home (not too close, not too far).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all congrats on your acceptances and good luck with your remaining ones.</p>

<p>Should you be lucky enough to get into all four, let's break down what you consider important:</p>

<p>Academic Reputation: Cal / Chicago
Cost: Cal / UCLA
Weather: UCLA / Cal
Social Scene: (anyone but Chicago)
Distance from home: UCLA / Cal</p>

<p>Seems like Cal is the choice for you. </p>

<p>Followed by UCLA, Chicago and then Michigan which doesn't seem to rank very high in what you consider important.</p>

<p>If you are really, really serious about economics, then Chicago is kind of a no-brainer - but if you it's only one of a number of other things you consider important (cost, lifestyle, location, weather, social scene, etc.) then Cal is the way to go.</p>

13

<p>In-state, I would choose UCLA over Michigan in a heartbeat.</p>

14

<p>Actually, none of the four are real intimate, LAC-style, warm-fuzzy colleges. But, Chicago has ~4,000 undergrads, in contrast to the other schools, which have thousands more....UMich = 20+k undergraduates. Also, Chicago generally has smaller classes -- only 6% over 50 students.</p>

15

<p>If you're in state, why wouldn't you choose UCB/UCLA over an out-of-state public? :rolleyes:</p>

16

<p>Completely agree with flopsy, there's no point of paying an extra 20 to 25 grand when you already have excellent schools in your state.</p>

17

<p>Flopsy, not all publics are the same. Michigan and Cal are completely different. I really don't understand why people insist on saying that it is ok to spend $45,000/year to attend Cornell, Chicago or Penn, but it is not ok to spend $38,000/year to attend Michigan just because Michigan is a public and the others aren't. That makes no sense to me. If money is an issue, obviously, the OP should go for Cal or UCLA. However, if the OP's family can afford the out-of-state option, and the OP really wants to experience, there is nothing wrong with chosing an out-of-state public university, assuming it is good enough.</p>

<p>Personally, I agree with you and calloftheblade. In my opinion, residents of California, Michigan and Virginia are blessed with excellent and very affordable in-state options, and unless the alternative is Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford or Yale, I personally don't think it is worth paying the extra $100,000 over 4 years to attend what is essentially a peer institution.</p>

18

<p>I couldn't agree more with Alexandre on this point. You CC'ers just don't get that an OOS public can be just as good, (and in my experiences, much better) than an elite private school.</p>

19

<p>I've been reading these opinions, but I haven't responded yet because I'm curious for even more feedback first. More points of view help.</p>

<p>Money is a moderate concern. My family isn't rich or poor, but I personally would prefer spending less money. That's just one of many factors, though.</p>

20

<p>I totally disagree with Alexandre. Having UCLA and Cal as options and paying for Michigan is ridiculous to me.</p>