Say, my son got into both of UCLA and U of Michigan, in STEM area.
Would there be any obvious reason to choose one over the other (besides the obvious difference in cost). Any ideas?
Thanks in advance.
I think the cost reason is sufficient. There is no way UCLA is worth the cost differential. I consider them to be peers.
^^^ I am California resident and absolutely agree. Not worth the OOS price. Both excellent schools though. Congratulations.
+3
OOS at UCLA versus instate at Michigan? No contest. I think a California resident would have a harder choice, because I would rank Michigan a notch above UCLA.
LOL - I would ride that Michigan train all the way to the bank! Congrats!
If you want to help fund our school’s budget deficit, come to UCLA!
Students and parents were asked to name their ‘dream school’ — and the same college topped both lists
- Cornell University
- University of Southern California
- University of California, Berkeley
- University of Pennsylvania **10. University of Michigan**
- Brown University **08. University of California, Los Angeles**
- New York University
- Columbia University
- Yale University
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Princeton University
- Harvard University
- Stanford University
Both schools are well liked by students and parents! Michigan gets my vote, because it’s a great institution at half the cost of UCLA.
The cost! They are both terrific, well respected schools. Go with U of M because of cost.
So…can you pay the full cost of attendance at UCLA?
Michigan is an awesome school…I can’t imagine that there is some compelling reason why one would choose UCLA over Michigan.
For an undergrad both are highly regarded in STEM fields, as well as overall. Both will get students from all over despite a likely higher percentage from instate. Both have strong academic reputations so getting into a grad school would work equally well (remember it is the student that makes the difference).
Cost trumps almost everything. If family finances are such that you will notice no difference then he has the luxury of looking at the differences. Does he want the LA weather, the coast, getting away, being with a different crowd…? He does it for all of the nonacademic things.
btw, my son told his aunt he would choose UW (WI one) over Stanford back when he was a HS senior. Plus he would not even look at some of those top ten schools when he had the chance. I just don’t get the Stanford campus- looked boring the time we wandered it. I had the world come to me when I couldn’t afford to go OOS.
Which STEM majors?
If the student is admitted into the engineering division at both schools, then s/he will be in a specific major at UCLA but in undeclared engineering at Michigan. Unlike many other schools where engineering students enter undeclared, declaring an engineering major is non-competitive at Michigan (requires 2.0 GPA and C grades). Changing to a different engineering major at UCLA may be difficult.
I.e. Michigan is probably favorable in this respect of choosing/changing major. Since it appears to be the less expensive choice (unless the student has a Stamps or some such at UCLA), that makes the choice obvious in its favor.
Difference? Yes. -------> SNOW!!
. . . weather is actually a pretty big deal when comparing these two schools . . .
with the exception of perhaps its movie/theater program, no way UCLA is worth the OOS tuition over UM.
UCLA operates on a shorter 10 week quarter system, which if maintaining a very high GPA is important to S’s future, can be GPA killing to one who is not prepared every day, every quarter.
UCLA is closer to Disneyland and beaches. Three of my siblings graduated from UCLA (computer science, history, and art). My daughter attended UMich (MBA). UMich is a great university, and you’re not going improve your education or career prospects as an engineer or almost any other technical field by attending UCLA vs. UM as an undergrad.
vastly different experiences, which will alter the trajectory of your kid’s life. chance for child to start completely fresh. also UCLA has 10/10 weather, Michigan has 2/10 weather. what else are you going to spend the money on? a remodeled kitchen, newer cars…leave it to the kid when you die? i’d rather have the college experience I dream of at 18 than an extra $100k at 60 when my parents pass.
If the parents can’t turn that saved $100K into several times that amount through a reasonable investment program, they might as well spend it now. But that’s beside the point. I grew up in Los Angeles. I never went to college for the weather (in OR and WI). I went for the program. My kids went to college in IL (U of Chicago), RI (RISD), and MI (UMich), and each of those decisions has been important to their careers. The weather was irrelevant.
most parents aren’t going to save that $100k or whatever the diff is. they’re going to blow it on cars, kitchen, furniture, vacations. my husband and I have saved tooth and nail to provide our kids with the option of pursuing their dream colleges. I’m no fan of kids staying close to home for college, even if the local colleges are amazing. I had to do that and I’m still upset. I want my kids to have the chance to really broaden their horizons, start fresh, clean slate, become who they want to be.
We must not be most parents then, as each year we sell off stocks from our investment portfolio to cover our D’s school expenses for the year. We wouldn’t otherwise be touching those investments until retirement. Over a 40 year period (i.e. a kid going from age 20 to 60) at 8% interest, 100k would turn into 2.1M (although to be realistic you’d have to adjust that for inflation).
Anyway to the OP, sounds like both are fantastic schools. Unless the kid is dead set on one or the other, I’d just go with the cheapest if there’s a significant price difference.
Weather, local internship opportunities, where does your son want to live after college, does he want to leave his home state looking for a change? These are additional questions i would ask?