<p>My two cents...caliber of education may be higher at NU, and perception by employers may give you an edge when it comes time to secure employment. Then the price diferential becomes mute.</p>
<p>It really depends. </p>
<p>You're very unlikely to get that many more jobs out of NU than UCLA, and let's face it: most entry level is entry level.</p>
<p>^^ not really.</p>
<p>Outside of a very few jobs, most people out of undergrad are going to either go entry level or to grad school.</p>
<p>Most entry level is entry level.</p>
<p>yeah but entry level at mckinsey or goldman sachs is not the same as entry level at a privately-owned westwood firm.</p>
<p>it is much easier to get the better jobs from northwestern, where those companies actively recruit on campus, email students asking them to interview, etc.</p>
<p>not that people from ucla don't get those jobs, but they face more of a challenge in doing so.</p>
<p>elsijfdl,</p>
<p>McKinsey and Goldman Sachs come to UCLA as well. I distinctly remember both of them being at a job fair I went to back in 2005.</p>
<p>And it's not like UCLA grads are only going to get jobs at Westwood firms. Last I checked, UCLA grads were also being employed at top firms. Don't set up straw men arguments like they're real...</p>
<p>UCLA is not considered a core school by even one of the top five consulting firms. </p>
<p>northwestern is a core school at 4/5 of them:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last I checked, UCLA grads were also being employed at top firms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uh..</p>
<p>"not that people from ucla don't get those jobs, but they face more of a challenge in doing so."</p>
<p>also, last i checked people from north dakota state were being employed at top firms, that doesn't mean anything.</p>
<p>elsijfdl,</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>but back to the initial question, i would say that while there is not no difference between the job prospects coming from each school, they may not (depending on your individual financial situation, and that is something you have to decide for yourself) be large enough to warrant a steep difference in price.</p>
<p>overall, i think recruiting differences may be exaggerated anyway, and i would be willing to bet they are highly regional. northwestern will serve you well in chicago job-hunting, but ucla might serve you better in california.</p>
<p>I agree with that wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>Agreeing is so much nicer, eh? :)</p>
<p>Just got my unofficial financial aid award letter from NU. Apparently I am getting a grant from the university for about $25,400/yr, about 11k-12k in loans, and an expected family contribution of about $13,000. I am currently working with the scholarship foundation that has been supporting me to cover the family contribution portion. If all goes as planned, NU will only cost a few thousand dollars more a year than UCLA. That is a good thing...a very good thing :)</p>
<p>In that case, I think that NU sounds like a great opportunity! Congratulations.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot. Does anyone know how much NU typically gives out in grants to transfer students? I guess what I'm asking is how does what they offered me compare with what they have historically offered transfer students. I remember reading (on NU's website mind you) that transfers shouldn't expect to receive much, if any aid during their first year at the university. That having been said, I am very happy with what they offered me. My family's need is pretty substantial, but I'm sure there are numerous students in my situation (not destitute, but by no means rich). Anyway, interesting topic in my opinion.</p>