<p>I'm honestly stressing like crazy over this. I'm a Virginia resident and I've been accepted to William and Mary and UCLA. I'm having an extremely hard time deciding between the two. Let me give you a little background on my career plans if I went to each school:</p>
<p>W&M: I would most likely (99%) major in mathematics and try to complete to Combined Engineering program, which is to complete a William and Mary Major in 3 years and to then attend Columbia University for two years to complete an Engineering Degree. However, I would have to pay 2 years of tuition and other fees for Columbia. So there really isn't that much savings, but I would have two bachelors degrees. This is assuming that I manage to meet all the requirements to be qualified for the program.</p>
<p>UCLA: I've been accepted to mathematics and I intend to stick with it. The biggest concern, of course, is the cost. My parents can afford it without sacrificing well being, but the problem for us is whether or not it's worth the extra cost. </p>
<p>So my questions are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>Is W&M definitely the better choice if I went along with the plans I laid out even though I'd have to pay Columbia tuition for two years?</li>
<li>How does in state tuition work for UCLA if my parents decided to move there immediately?</li>
<li>How does double majoring work at UCLA? Would that make it worth it to attend?</li>
</ol>
<p>I assume your in state for W&M? Is so, that’s where I’d go. It’s an excellent public university. Are your parents really willing to move just so you can get in state tuition? That’s a personal choice, but not one I’d make in your position. But if you’re intent on coming here, you could always attend a CC and transfer to UCLA if you have trouble getting in state residency. You’d save a ton of money on tuition of you did that,and your degree at the end of the day would still just say UCLA.</p>
<p>The thing is that I do have a preference and that is UCLA since I love the campus, weather, and large school feel. However, I’m just deciding whether or not it’s worth it. But my parents would move to California because they’ve been planning to move there sometime soon but me attending UCLA would accelerate the process. But which is better: double majoring at UCLA or combined engineering with Columbia at W&M?</p>
<p>Congrats on your acceptances. To answer your question of what option is “better,” it all depends on what you mean by “better.” Are you talking about employment or graduate school prospects, quality of life, emotional growth, or intellectual satisfaction? Or all of them? In terms of future employment or graduate school, UCLA vs. W&M/Columbia would seem to be equally rosy, so long as you do well in school. UCLA has a great brand name and a huge alumni network. So does Columbia. Both are located in major international cities (I prefer NYC, but it’s a matter of taste). W&M has small classes, personal attention, and takes its mission of a liberal arts education very seriously. With W&M/Columbia, you have the opportunity to create networks at two institutions and geographical regions. That’s quite valuable, in my opinion. Either way, you can’t lose.</p>
<p>Have you fully researched the residency requirements for California universities? I believe you (or your parents) must have already lived in the state for at least one year to be eligible for in-state tuition. So you may be on the hook for at least one year of out-of-state tuition even if your parents move right now. (And at $50,000, that would cover two years of in-state tuition at W&M.)</p>
<p>If it’s a financial matter, I think staying in-state for W&M/Columbia is a no brainer. If it’s some other, more difficult to quantify matter of your own happiness, then the old cliche of following your heart applies.</p>
<p>Those are all great points, especially about connections at two different universities and geographic regions. My problem is whether or not it’s worth it to go to UCLA. My parents can afford it without sacrificing way of life, but we are not rich by any means. </p>
<p>But I guess I should follow up with the questions: Which places better for Grad School and which school do employers respect more, assuming I do well at both schools?</p>
<p>As far as grad school goes, it probably matters very little where you go; my sense is that law and medical schools are almost entirely numbers driven, anyway. I can’t think of many PhD programs that would give greater preference to graduates of UCLA or W&M/Columbia, all other things being equal.</p>
<p>W&M’s prestige among employers tends to be concentrated on the east coast, though it seems to enjoy a certain amount of recognition everywhere based on its name and history alone; it just <em>sounds</em> like an old, good school. While their student stereotypes couldn’t be more different (Columbia is perhaps more intellectual, but that’s probably my NYC bias talking), both UCLA and Columbia are global brand names with networks of alumni all over the world. I honestly don’t see much difference between the two in terms of what you’re asking. </p>
<p>Basically, I think you’ll be well-served no matter what.</p>
<p>There’s one more factor to consider here. I’m sure you’re an amazing student, but say you end up not qualifying for the combined program with Columbia, or it somehow doesn’t work out, would you still happily go to W&M? Because that’s still at least 3 years of college, so you better love it regardless of if you can go to Columbia through it or not.</p>
<p>1) @ W&M you will be taking a broader range of (non-math) classes. Do you like that idea?</p>
<p>2) you want a big, urban school. W&M is pretty much the opposite of that (Columbia isn’t, of course, but you would have several years in Williamsburg first). </p>
<p>Whichever you choose, be clear about why. And if it turns out not to be a good fit, don’t blame the school, just transfer.</p>
<p>If you’ll eventually be settling down in California, take the UCLA offer. It carries a tremendous prestige in the West Coast. And, UCLA is really good for engineering too.</p>