I have been accepted to all three schools. I am a non-traditional student but, I’m not sure that aspect makes a huge difference to me. I’m looking at prestige and value or ROI vs cost. I realize I’m leaving out quality of education but for the sake of the post, I have to assume that the education is going to be “OK” with all three. Being a non-traditional student, I don’t have 40 years left to work to pay back a massive debt; I have 20 years. I am going to end up needing a masters and the field I’m pursuing is industrial/organizational psychology. Berkeley and UCLA have pretty much offered me a full ride. Columbia, even with their “scholarship”, I’d still be 50K in debt before even starting grad school. I realize that the decision may already be obvious but I loathe the idea of passing up on an ivy league opportunity. I live in CA already so the move would be easier to either of the UC’s than Columbia. I do appreciate any opinion you may have. Thanks
Hey @esaint99 I got into Columbia GS this year too. Are you any closer too making your decision?
Just curious, how did you get a full ride? I assume you’re a transfer student, from a CC? Can you explain this a little? I’m transferring to UCLA next Fall as a transfer student, and I was under the assumption getting full rides was pretty much unheard of for transfer students.
The full ride is not merit. It is need based.
How do you know? Just curious. Not trying to derail thread, I’m genuinely trying to understand since I’m going to be in the same boat.
Because that’s the only way that you can have a full ride @UCLA/Berkeley. My daughter was accepted as a Regents scholar at UCLA. That’s the highest merit scholarship that UCLA can give. She could have been a full ride if she has financial need but since we are not qualified for any aid (EFC is above COA), thet only offer an honorarium monetary award (@2K/year). Even the so called Achievement Scholarship Award is need based.
Good to know, thanks! 
Do not go into debt. Columbia is a wonderful institution, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not worth$50K in debt undergrad. From an admissions standpoint to grad school, all of those schools are equal in merit. All have name value. Really, all that counts in terms of grad school admissions from these three schools is what YOU bring to the application. All are prestigious and all are rigorous. The main difference for you would be the individual attention and the competitiveness. People hiring in industry used to perceive West Coast degrees as regional, but not any more. Depending on what you will be studying, you might do better at Columbia rather than the other two if you’re thinking of a premed program or an engineering major. The reason for this is that (Berkeley esp.) the state schools have more students who compete among themselves in the core classes and you’re not seen as an individual. Columbia does have competitive students. Don’t get me wrong, but you are not a number in a pool of students there. You are more likely to be seen as an individual. Plus, you could choose to take your core science and math classes at Barnard for individualized attention. Berkeley does offer a program that supports its engineering and/or premed students. If you go that route, seek out that supportive program. Another difference is the core curriculum. Columbia’s is famous. Many people are drawn to Columbia for it’s core. You may not want to spend that much time doing required spread of classes. Finally the state schools may close you out of classes that you need more so than at Columbia. There are simply more students than there are seats in the core classes. YOu may end up in school an extra year to meet requirements, unless you plan extremely carefully. Best of luck.