Academically, Michigan is a little bit stronger overall than UCLA.
Since you are in-state for Michigan, this is a no-brained.
OP didn’t mention if costs are actually an issue for the family so I get what @writermom is saying. If costs don’t matter, the school chosen does offer different experiences or a different life trajectory as she calls it. Not saying one is better than the other but they will be different. So sure, if money is an issue, UM seems the practical choice, but if you take money out of the equation and act like they are the same cost, would the answers be the same?
Perhaps that is what the OP is looking for - comparing schools without the financials factored in? Often times on cc the responses go to the financials for obvious reasons, but there are still plenty of people where that is not the concern or they are willing to do whatever to get their student to the “better” school - however that is measured. Maybe attending the school most different from what the student is use to has a lot of value as it would to writermom.
Any chance you would like to answer any of the questions being posed here?
- Are costs an issue...or can your family pay full OOS costs for UCLA...no problem?
- Has your son actually been accepted at both Michigan and UCLA? Is he even a high school senior?
- Is weather very important to you?
- What makes YOU think there is a qualitative difference between these schools?
Without these answers…I can’t imagine what else can be stated on this thread.
Assuming my parents actually did save the $100K+ cost differential, I’d rather them give it to me at 30 to buy a house or something than spend it on a college that will provide a marginal difference post-college. Heck, I’d rather my parents save it for retirement to make it easy for me to care for them when they’re older, or spend it on remodeling their kitchen if that’ll make the happy, then blowing it on a marginally different college experience. Especially since, with a Michigan degree, I could just move to LA after college if I wanted to.
Michigan IS a chance to start completely fresh. Just because a university is in the same state doesn’t mean a student will have an experience that’s anything like their high school experience. This is particularly true at a place like Michigan, where 41% of the students come from outside of Michigan.
Don’t diss the weather in Michigan (it’s not in the UP after all). No earthquakes. Nicer college town than LA is. Michigan has sand beaches- and swimmable water in the summer, the Pacific is cold year round. Plus- college students can take vacations to theme parks et al (Florida is drivable from the Midwest). Students will be busy on campus and not spending their time being tourists I would hope.
Unless the costs can be borne without any effect on the family (ie you are rich enough and have a huge retirement plan you won’t touch) think hard about the finances. I know there is an urge to leave home, go far away but the southern CA experience can wait. No place is perfect- California included.
I can think of a lot that can be done with $100K as @juillet pointed out that can improve a kid’s life more than UCLA vs. UMich. Grad school, for one.
As I’ve pointed out many times, life doesn’t end after undergrad (and the most fun time in my life was actually in my 20’s after college when I had started working and actually had spending money; that was the time to live in SF/Chicago/NYC/LA; in college, you’d be on campus buried in schoolwork 98% of the time anyway).
And it’s not as if UMich is located in the middle of no-culture barren frozen tundra up in the UP, as others have pointed out. Lots of people like Ann Arbor as a college town and the school spirit in general (yes, UCLA can be good in basketball, but it’s not the same).
I agree with several posts above. For STEM, U.Michigan is superb. I would rank it a small notch ahead of UCLA for STEM subjects. Given the price differential with Michigan being in-state I think that this is a no-brainer.
If price were not an issue at all, I would still say Michigan, but this would be a far closer and harder choice.
I have swim in the water off the coast of socal every summer for the past 48 years. It not being swimmable is news to me!
College is not a vacation destination so weather or architectural design of the buildings should not be a deciding factor, but I know that some disagree. Both schools are very strong. As LA local and since my DD was admitted to UCLA Engineering two years ago and eventually turned it down for a school in a miserable Boston climate I cannot justify paying OOS tuition for any UC. Specially if the alternative is instate for UMich. I can understand spending extra $100k on a better education but not spending it on a peer school in a better climate .
@VickiSoCal I agree with you, clearly Wis75 hasn’t spent much time in L.A.
US News & World Report lists Los Angeles as #5 in best citites in the US for the weather and the only non-California city above them is Honolulu, Hawaii at #4. Maybe Ann Arbor has better weather than Honolulu too. Lol.
Contrast that with a recent article that said Michigan has the second most brutal weather behind only, you guessed it, Wisconsin.
Weather and lifestyle are HUGE! . . . and 4-5 years is a long, long time when you’re 18 . . . so it in no way resembles a vacation.
But the OP lives in Michigan now so there should be no meteorological surprises. Also, the farther one is away from home, the more variables are introduced. Going to Ann Arbor would allow more pop-in visitations and relief of any homesickness that might develop. If the OP goes to UCLA, they are stuck 2000 miles away until at least mid-year.
Try swimming in the Pacific during the winter…without a wet suit. The OP would be in CA mostly during those months. Ann Arbor is a real college town that caters to its students very well.
As someone who has lived in CA and the upper Midwest, I certainly appreciate the difference in weather.
On the other hand, 1-5 years after graduation, when I can live where ever I want (and UMich grads do end up everywhere; in part because MI isn’t such an attractive post-graduation destination), I’d much rather have the $100K.
You are not swimming in a lake in Michigan during the school year either. BRRR.
The savings in tuition can be used for lots of other opportunities…
These are both excellent colleges. I think the family needs to decide if paying an additional $100,000 is in their price point.
Depends on the subject. For example, Math and Physics are stronger at Ann Arbor, while Chem and Comp Sci are higher ranked in Westwood.
UCLA if planning to live in California after college. Having a foothold and lots of friends in SoCal after graduation >
If money is a concern, the instate school would be preferable. If money is not a concern - because you are neither a CA or Mich resident for example, or you have saved enough money - then I would go with UCLA. You are buying not only academic prestige, but weather, lifestyle, the opportunity to network in the area where you plan to spend your career and the rest of your life. We are midwesterners who were in this dilemma last year. My daughter had to choose between UCLA and Notre Dame. Both academically great schools, though they are poles apart in terms of weather and environment. Cost wise, UCLA was less than Notre Dame even when paying full cost for either of them. So in our case, UCLA was a no brainer.
In your case, UMich may make sense. You really have to know yourself, your financial resources, what your plans are for the future, to be able to answer this question.
^ Lots of UMich grads will end up there too.
@bluebayou I’m not all about rankings, but every one I am lookong at has UCLA higher than Michigan for math.
@bluebayou and @VickiSoCal, for the STEM subjects, they’re so close that they really won’t matter at the undergrad level. Individual department tradition will matter more for attitudes to undergrads.