<p>I already posted this under a different title, but I think that this is a common issue that could use further discussion. Here is my personal situation:
So I'm looking at UCLA, Emory, Scripps and Tulane. I'm not sure what I want to do but probably want to go to business school eventually for an MBA.
My biggest issue in deciding in the finances. My parents are giving me a lump sum which will essentially cover most of private school tuition for 4 years (they'd have me take out "symbolic debt" of like 5-10k). However, if I went to UCLA/ or Tulane (where I got a large scholarship) I could pay for school (no debt) and use the leftover money for grad school. All of these schools are relatively similar in reputation, so if I chose a more expensive school it will be purely for my perceived comfort level (small class sizes, social atmosphere).
I am 18 years old. I have worked but I still don't feel I have a complete understanding of the value of the dollar. I don't know how to make a decision that could financially affect me in 10 years at the age of 18. Furthermore, with my limited life experience, I'm not sure how to compare my comfort at a smaller school vs. $ for grad school.</p>
<p>Other schools I'm considering though not as much are : UCSB, Wake Forest, UVA (OOS), and Davidson. all at full tuition except for UCSB.</p>
<p>Should I go to a cheaper school to save for grad school, or spend it on a more comfortable environment (ie. smaller class sizes)?</p>
<p>Is debt/paying for grad school solo worth a better undergrad experience?
How much does prestige matter in terms of undergrad? (with regards to cost)?</p>
<p>I don’t agree that the 4 schools are similar in reputation. And it’s difficult to compare Scripps to the other 3. Is there a reason why it’s on your list?</p>
<p>By “grad school”, do you mean PhD program (which should be funded if it is worth attending), or professional school like MD or JD (which are expensive)?</p>
<p>What academic interests do you have, and how do the schools compare in their offerings for those interests?</p>
<p>What non-financial reasons would you have for choosing one school over another, particularly the expensive schools (Emory, Scripps) versus the cheap schools (UCLA, Tulane)?</p>
<p>If class sizes are a concern, go to each school’s on-line class schedule to see what the actual class sizes are for courses in subjects that you may be interested in, rather than assuming anything about the class sizes.</p>
<p>Reputation wise I feel like they are all somewhat similar (as in I feel like I would get a good education at them all).
What is your opinion, fogcity, on the reputations of the schools?</p>
<p>I want to get an MBA–which will be expensive. </p>
<p>Emory: I’m attracted to the South and kind of want to get out of CA. Obviously they have a great reputation. I liked the vibe on campus, spent some time in a library and it was really nice.
Scripps: I ED’d to CMC but didn’t get in. I really like Claremont Consortium but sometimes I feel like it may be a bit too comfortable (ie. I may be afraid of going to a bigger school but miss out by choosing Scripps because it feels “safe”. So Scripps would basically be my way of trying to replicate CMC. </p>
<p>UCLA: Good reputation. Super diverse (not so much geographically, but anyways). Lots of opportunities. Food looks good. Parents are happy it is in CA. Worried about class size and general largeness
Tulane: Good reputation. In NOLA which is interesting. Smaller class sizes than UCLA. </p>
<p>I have looked at UCLA’s class sizes specifically and they are pretty big. The lectures are large but the discussion sections are about 25-30 kids. I’ve taken 8 AP’s so I’ll get out of a lot of requirements, but I’ll still be in some big classes. I go to a school with really small class sizes, and I like the discussion aspect that it allows. The idea of large classes turns me off because it seems impersonal. What’s the difference between being in a 300 person lecture and watching a lecture online?</p>
<p>Introductory economics: 190 students (65 for 8am lectures)
Introductory psychology: 120 students
General chemistry: 85 to 190 students
Introduction to cell and molecular biology: 120 students</p>
<p>But it does seem like you like Tulane, and it is one of the cheap schools. What prevents you from choosing it?</p>
<p>I don’t know. I feel like UCLA is more prestigious and has more opportunity. I’m visiting UCLA this week. Tulane didn’t wow me when I visited. I mean it was nice and I think I would be happy there, but I didn’t love it as much as some of the more expensive schools. </p>
<p>Wow. I guess I hadn’t realized that they had big classes too. One of the focuses of their presentation when I visited was the small class sizes. </p>
<p>Curious to know why Davidson isn’t on your short list. In the small LAC category I would consider it a better choice than Scripps, despite the Claremont consortium. Between Emory and UCLA, it’s a tossup. I’ve known people with undergraduate degrees from both who have been hugely successful in business.</p>
<p>I’m less twitchy about incurring graduate school debt than undergraduate debt, especially if for a professional degree like an MBA. With an MBA and some well connected internships under your belt you should be able to land a decent job and pay off the debt in a reasonable time (assuming that you are motivated to do so). Many people do.</p>
<p>Davidson is actually the only school I haven’t seen. It’s a great school but I feel that it is just too small and isolated for me. If I go to a private school I will leave with 10k ish in debt versus having 60k for grad school. I feel I am too young to make such a long term choice.</p>
<p>I think so, although I think it depends on what you mean by “better.” I think that any of these places can provide you with a great, enjoyable undergraduate experience. Also, it’s weird to me that everyone here plans so far ahead because you may not go to graduate school at all. Most people do not. Personally, if I had to choose I would go to Tulane. Tulane is a great school, and you could have a great experience there without taking on any unnecessary debt.</p>
<p>UCLA is more prestigious, but that’s not necessarily a good reason to go there. Given that you seem to want small classes and a more intimate environment, I find it strange that you’d want to attend UCLA over Tulane (and yes, some of Tulane’s classes might be bigger than some of UCLA’s classes…just like some of the classes at my LAC may have been bigger than a few of UCLA’s smaller seminars. It still stands to reason that the average class size at Tulane is likely quite a bit smaller than the average class size at UCLA).</p>
<p>You’re not too young to make a choice. You understand basic math, yes? Use the financial aid calculators at FinAid.org, especially the loan calculator to see how much you’d be expected to pay per month for the amount of debt you plan to borrow. Compare to it to how much you would have to borrow for an MBA if your parents helped you and didn’t help you, but keep in mind that your salary with the MBA will be higher - much higher if you go to an elite business school. Also keep in mind that you may change your mind and that most people actually do not go to graduate school. You can be gainfully employed in something you really like without a graduate degree.</p>
<p>None of these schools are generally super-elite, or are in the top list of schools that send grads to top MBA programs the most, such as Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Haas, and such. And, since you didn’t like Tulane’s environment, I’d recommend UCLA, which is the other “cheap school”, and try to major in either economics (their business economics is very well-regarded), CS, maths, stats or engineering. That is, if you want to get onto a top MBA program later on. </p>