Costs vs. Public: Is it worth it?

[warblersrule]

<p>

I got into UChicago and UCLA and the former costs almost twice as much as the latter (I have no financial aide). While Chicago is considered better than LA on many factors, is it really worth an additional 20k-30k? Assuming subjective variables are ignored.</p>

<p>…My family would need a major loan for me to even go to LA, so the no aide at all is peculiar.

As a smaller and wealthier university, Chicago will offer things UCLA won’t - more attention to undergrads, better advising, more funding for student research, etc. On the other hand, tuition and room/board at UCLA totals $27K per year; the same at Chicago totals $57K. The UC system admittedly keeps jacking up tuition, but $120K over four years is a LOT of money. I really don’t think Chicago is worth it – there is a lot that could be done with that money (1.5-2 years of law school, 2+ years of med school, etc.).</p>

<p>Since you would be taking out loans even for UCLA, the loan debt from Chicago would be absolutely crippling.</p>

<p>Direct Stafford loans are capped at $27K for four years, of which only $19K can be subsidized. Although Perkins loans (subsidized) would provide an additional $22K, that still doesn’t even come close to covering the $120K difference.</p>

<p>Have you spoken with the financial aid office at Chicago? Their financial aid has a track record of being hit-or-miss, to be sure, but I find it very odd that a student needing financial aid at UCLA would not receive any at Chicago.</p>