<p>I live in NY so all OOS tuition rates apply.
I've visited UCB campus and it was okay. Nice campus although didn't give me such a GREAT vibe. Haven't visited UMich at all and won't be able to before I have to commit to a college.</p>
<p>Schools I'm in:
UCB - College of Letters & Science
UMich - Literature, Science and Arts</p>
<p><em>"Capped" major at Berkeley, but also better than UMich's programs for these majors.
*</em>Easier to transfer into engineering school at UMich, but again, I've heard Berkeley's is better</p>
<p>Also, I'm in the honors program at UMich, if that changes anything.</p>
<p>Pros/cons of each college? Suggestions about which one I should go?
Thanks!</p>
<p>Is cost of attendance a concern? Michigan and Cal will cost you $140k more than Stony Brook. If your parents are well off, it should not be a problem, but if there is any financial hardship that will result from going OOS, consider Stony Brook seriously as it is a good school.</p>
<p>Between Cal and Michigan, go for fit. Cal may be ranked slightly higher than Michigan in Econ and in some Engineering specialities, but the difference is negligible. If you want to major in CS and work in Silicon Valley when you graduate, Cal is probably the way to go. If you want to return to the Northeast after college, Michigan may be the better option. But first make sure cost of attendance will not be a problem.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply, @Alexandre. I’d pretty much only go to Stony Brook if I was for sure majoring in computer science. Otherwise, money isn’t much of a concern.</p>
<p>I do want to return to the northeast after college; how much of an issue is that if I go to Cal?</p>
<p>Not an issue at all. They both hold the same prestige nationally.
This is an interesting dilemma; the weather in Michigan is absolutely terrible when compared to CAL, so if that would affect happiness greatly, go for CAL. Unfortunately you won’t be able to visit and make that decision for yourself, so I’d do some in depth research before making a decision like that.</p>
<p>Actually, there is a noticeable difference in the intermediate microeconomics courses at Berkeley versus the others. Berkeley offers a more math-intensive version of intermediate microeconomics using multivariable calculus (the less-math-intensive option lists a year of frosh calculus as a prerequisite), while the others’ intermediate microeconomics courses list only a semester of frosh calculus as a prerequisite. So Berkeley may be a better fit for someone going into mathematical economics or intending to do a PhD program in economics (of course, in this case, the student would also want to take various advanced math and statistics courses).</p>
<p>However, it does not take in-depth knowledge of microeconomics to consider the $120,000 to $140,000 price difference between the schools.</p>
<p>ucb, I majored in Econ at Michigan. While it is true that 300 and 400 level courses tend to be less quantitative than their counterparts at Cal, Chicago or MIT, Michigan opens its 500 and 600 (MS Econ level courses) classes to undergrads who wish to take them. Those tend to be more quantitative for students seeking graduate level material in preparation for graduate school.</p>
<p>solkiz, if you wish to work in the NE after graduating from college, I think Michigan may be a slightly better option than Cal. Both universities have strong national reputations, but Michigan has a geographic advantage, and a larger number of alums living in the Northeast.</p>
<p>Cal has a stronger faculty and stronger student body overall. It’s one of the premiere world-renowned institutions of higher education. Michigan is not really on Cal’s level and has a 40% acceptance rate. Since costs are same, choose Cal.</p>
<p>^^^^They have to take a low percentage since there are so many transfers from junior colleges each year. Let’s face the facts that California has close to 40,000,000 residents and has a UC application that makes it easy to apply to multiple schools within the system. Once again, there is no question that Berkeley is the premier public university from an academic standpoint in this country. Very few private schools can even match it in that respect. However, Michigan is no slouch either and can offer a comparable education in a different environment. It’s up to the OP to decide what school is a better fit. Academically, both are excellent and will provide more than enough opportunities to succeed.</p>
<p>Beyphy, UCLA took 17% of CA students and a much higher percentage of OOS and International students. UCLA is obviously desperate for more money. Cal’s admissions rate is more balanced and Cal is more committed to in-state students.</p>
<p>I visited UMich campus over spring break this year, and I fell in love. I am a Junior but UMich tops my list just because of that intangible vibe. Obviously different people get different vibes, but UMich rocked for me. I won’t be able to visit ucb before I apply, but I can’t imagine blindly commiting before visiting. I think that when 2 equally matched (for the most part) schools are tied, you have to go with the one you feel most comfortable spending 4 years of your life at. </p>
<p>Yes, Cal’s acceptance rate for in-state students is about 5% higher. However, in terms of raw numbers, the difference between the two amounts to less than 100 students. If UCLA had Cal’s acceptance rate for in-state students, it would be admitting over 2500 more students. The campus would be extremely over enrolled.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you assume that Cal is “more committed to in-state students” when UCLA has 2k more undergraduate students than Cal does (a majority of whom are likely in-state residents.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA likely accepts less in-state students because it’s yield has continued to be higher than the administration anticipates it will be. For example:</p>