<p>username-deleted:</p>
<p>The fact that the State of California, or UCLA’s endowment, pays for all but $9,000 of the cost of education is irrelevant. Why should it matter who pays?</p>
<p>Are you implying that a student gets $9,000 (reg fees) worth of education vs. $36,000 at a full tuition private? And that out of state students paying $29,000 (reg fees + $20k OOS tuition) are getting $9,000 worth of education for $29,000?</p>
<p>I think the OOS student gets what he/she pays for. The in-State students are subsidized by California taxes or by endownment, but still get a $29,000 education.</p>
<p>Yea, and besides California has the highest state tax, so consider OOS and in-state tuition even. :D</p>
<p>DunninLa, you make good points. Let me clarify what I said earlier. Root cause is the that UCLA is funded by tax dollars and subsidizing instate tuition. UC staff and faculty, therefore, feel accountable to govt (which is saying, to nobody), and not to the students, be it in-state or out of state. This is unlike private universities which must keep their client base/tuition base happy by serving them well. Thus quality of advising, scheduling, undergrad education (versus grad research) all suffers. </p>
<p>I love ucla. As an instate, I will not consider usc even for a second. UCLA education is a great value. </p>
<p>But as an out of state, I will go to usc or cmu. It is not worth subsidizing instate students, and getting treated by faculty and staff like they are doing you a favor, and suffer through sink or swim treatment of a large public university. </p>
<p>So that is direct answer to OP’s question: is UCLA worth it for oos student. It is not worth it if you could choose from comparably ranked private univerisity. Otherwise, yes.</p>
<p>I do agree that a private school would be better if its the same amount of money</p>