Undergraduate: UCLA vs UCB vs Columbia?

<p>I've been accepted to UCB, UCLA and Columbia University. Having a really difficult time making a decision because:</p>

<p>-While Columbia has the biggest name, I will most likely have to get myself in debt, UCLA on the other hand is offering me a full ride!!</p>

<p>-Of the three schools, Berkeley has the best department for my major, UCLA second, Columbia third..</p>

<p>My questions are:</p>

<p>-Is a Columbia degree worth the debt? Especially considering the fact that I'm going to get myself in debt for grad school?</p>

<p>-Should I pick the school with the best overall ranking, or the best ranking for my major?</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>How much debt / net cost at each school, and what major?</p>

<p>For graduate study or applying to graduate study in an academic major, the quality and reputation of the major typically matters a lot more than that of the overall school. But huge amounts of debt are never a good thing.</p>

<p>If UCLA is offering you a full ride and it is a strong choice for your major, I would definitely lean in that direction. But do you like UCLA? If not, then nevermind.</p>

<p>UCLA full ride. no brainer.</p>

<p>UCB: $9000 a year, UCLA: Nothing, Columbia :$25,000 a year</p>

<p>I really like UCLA, it’s very close and the most convenient.
I respect and appreciate the UCB program, but it’s not really my kind of scene.
I’ve never been to Columbia, have no idea what the atmosphere is. </p>

<p>But would I be a fool for going with UCLA instead of Columbia. I mean, considering it’s an ivy league…?</p>

<p>I should add that if I go to UCLA, I will be in the honors program in addition to doing departmental honors.</p>

<p>Also, a lot of people are warning me that with the current budget crises, going to UCLA might put me at a disadvantage?! I just find it confusing because they are offering to pay for my entire education?!</p>

<p>It’s either UCLA or Columbia. debt free for grad school? I’d pick UCLA without a second thought</p>

<p>Will the UCLA full ride cover any tuition increases, and is it easy to maintain (i.e. don’t need to maintain a super-high GPA to keep)? If so, it is very hard to turn down $100,000 less debt at a school which you say has a better program in your major (which is?).</p>

<p>Go to Columbia. UCLA if you can’t afford a top notched ivy… UCB is overrated for undergrad, grad school is a different story</p>

<p>Go with UCLA since their paying everything.</p>

<p>Definitely UCLA, especially with the full rid and better program. An undergraduate school is not as important as the caliber of grad school you go to. If you got into Columbia once, it proves that you are a fantastic student and can probably get in again for grad school when prestige starts to matter. Besides, UCLA in and of itself is a very prestigious university. Save yourself the 100k for grad school, you got into a fantastic undergrad for a great deal.</p>

<p>UCLA is the clear choice here, since you love the school environment, it’s close to your house (which you don’t mind) and is offering you the degree for FREE! That’s a no-brainer.</p>

<p>BTW, it’s Berkeley, not Columbia that has the biggest name amongst the three mentioned schools. The Berkeley name is valued at 2.3 billion according to this report – <a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/10_March_2011/attachments/Brand%20focus.pdf[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/10_March_2011/attachments/Brand%20focus.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you want to go to grad school, go to UCLA. Only reason for Columbia is that if you want Wall Street right out of college, a good gpa from Columbia will give you a shot(UCLA won’t).</p>

<p>RML - I don’t know what world you live in, but its definitely not mine! As for the schools, I think UCLA is a pretty good option. What do you want to major in, go to grad school for?</p>

<p>everybody please just ignore RML. He obviously doesn’t understand what he writes. According to the formula provided by RML <a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/10_March_2011/attachments/Brand%20focus.pdf[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/10_March_2011/attachments/Brand%20focus.pdf&lt;/a&gt; Columbia’s brand value should be 6.517/ 2 = 3.26 billion. a full 1 billion more than Berkeley. Even with his way of measuring so called “name recognition”, Columbia beats Berkeley by a wide margin.
Please, RML don’t whine more by saying Berkeley is a state school blah blah blah. Rather than doing Berkeley a service, you are actually ruining Berkeley’s reputation on this board.</p>

<p>According to this, UCLA and Berkeley is better than columbia [Times</a> Higher Education World University Rankings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_Education_World_University_Rankings]Times”>Times Higher Education World University Rankings - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>both UCLA and Berkeley are great schools.</p>

<p>Also according to that, University of Massachusetts tied at 19, is better than half of the ivies</p>

<p>If money were no object, then for quality of undergraduate education in the arts & sciences, Columbia has several advantages over the others. Average class sizes are much smaller. It’s a true national university that draws top students from all over the country. The Core curriculum has been refined for decades. It has a ~$7B endowment and no worries about dwindling state education budgets. You’d have access to all the internship, cultural and entertainment opportunities of life in Manhattan (where most attractions are easily accessible by public transportation and foot).</p>

<p>Despite all that, unless money truly is not an issue, it makes sense to go with UCLA. It’s a fine school, you like it, and it’s free. The weather is better. Its huge size means it can offer a greater variety of classes and programs. It has many highly-regarded departments. Once you’re done with entry-level courses, classes will get smaller (especially in less popular departments).</p>

<p>By the way, the THE ranks universities primarily as research factories. About 1/3 or more of the rank is based on journal article productivity and apparent impact. If you want to choose a college based on how many times its professors’ journal articles get cited in other publications, then these rankings may have some bearing.</p>

<p>rofl, RML pwned by hd1990</p>

<p>Berkeley does have more street prestige than Columbia.</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> Number One University in Eyes of Public](<a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public)</p>

<p>Berkeley 4% vs. Columbia 1%</p>

<p>Not that street prestige matters, but it’s not so unbelievable that the country’s most elite public school would beat most Ivies in general prestige. Berkeley also tends to be a tad more prestigious in academia, as evidenced by the slight differences in peer assessment scores from US News. This is probably because Berkeley’s faculty is matched only by Stanford’s and Harvard’s, and most others pale in comparison.</p>

<p>To the OP: I think in this case, the answer is definitely UCLA. The “Ivy prestige” is not a big advantage for you here, esp. considering that cost difference. If this were, say, UCLA for free vs. Harvard at a high cost, it’d be somewhat harder (but even then the logical answer is probably UCLA if Harvard is full cost).</p>

<p>edit:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When you put it like that, it seems unimportant, but in reality the citations are a proxy for the caliber of the professors, which I would argue is important for everyone who’s attending a research university (whether they choose to do research or not; learning from renowned leaders in a field is very beneficial, can give you a leg-up in recommendations to grad schools and employers, etc.).</p>