Rantar

There is a Whole Foods (organic/natural market) that next to Trader Joes now. Should be easy.

Do the research, this is an easy choice. 3k/year isn't even close to making up the extra time and missed research experience.

I've heard 4-5 quarters is very realistic.

Either way you end up paying big, I honestly think the jump in name is large enough to justify the cost difference - the job opportunities are in my opinion more than worth the gap in cost. In the near future you will pay it off anyway as a computer science graduate, but you could likely regret not just going with the better school. If it was fully funded vs. not funded, the choice would be obvious, but I think the better name is worth it since you have to pay either way (especially since a non-thesis MS shouldn't take too long).

Even if you don't get to network, I think it would be beneficial to take the classes. If you make sure to do well, it will look good on your application next year.

Whoops, you beat me to it. Exactly my point.

They would have admitted you as a PhD if they wanted you at Stanford. Stanford has a bad enough reputation for failing students out of the PhD program - imagine trying to get in. I wouldn't count on the transfer into the PhD program, they don't fund MS students for a reason (because the MS students' money is the funding for everyone else). You should really go with the funded PhD. It is much less likely you will get your PhD at Stanford. Even if you reapply for a PhD after your MS, it will have been much faster to get your PhD at UCSD. Anyways UCSD has a very reputable CSE program and you will be able to go far with it. PS: I know a lot of PhD graduates from UCSD end up being researchers at Qualcomm - they collaborate a lot more with UCSD than almost any other university. You have will more than enough opportunities for research in industry at any top school, so you shouldn't sacrifice your time and money for an unlikely opportunity at Stanford.

Can't go wrong with either - you should really just choose based on personal preference.

I'm still waiting on UCLA, although I've already accepted an offer. It seems like UCLA is taking forever - I honestly don't know whats going on over there to take this long.

I meant that UCSD has a better reputation in CA than USC. I am not surprised that USC has a great alumni network though.

As far as alumni goes, the advantage should go to UCSD In addition, graduating from the UC system is a plus because it will have a strong reputation perpetuated by UCLA and Berkeley alumni too (who would be more likely to hire a UCSD graduate than USC).

1) Most people don't have an option but to pay for their MS. It might be worth considering the university that has the best reputation AND cost among yours. I've heard graduate school is actually somewhat easier than undergrad because the professors understand most MS students work at the same time - B's are the new C's in grad school, they have no intention of failing you out of the program. And if you come from a small unranked school, the upgrade in resume prestige is likely well worth it for future job opportunities. 2) You should go with a good school for your MS if you are really set on a PhD. Letters should be no problem if you plan it well (talk to professors when you can and DO WELL IN CLASSES). I'm not sure of your financial situation, but you should get your MS if you think it will help you get into a nice PhD program - isn't that the point of money anyway? do what makes you happy with your money (thankfully you're in engineering so I think you'll manage well). 3) Maybe this means you would end up getting your MS there if you don't end up getting PhD funding? Sounds like that would be the worst case to me. This brings you back to 1). You seem very lucky in that you came out with a debt-free BS; consider yourself lucky. You are probably more able to afford graduate school than most Americans. In terms of money for your MS, you would likely get a great paying internship during the summer if you do an MS at a good school.

You have a lot of schools that don't belong, and are missing many top EE schools; you are missing UCSD. There are many factors for EE. MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Berkeley aren't """the best""" for every EE field. There are way too many assumptions/ambiguities in your ratings it seems. It's hard to imagine you could accurately rate these while only attending 1 or 2 of them. Where Berkeley students want to go doesn't decide which programs are best (you seem to have a strong Berkeley bias because I guess you went there?) This is ass backwards and is NOT a problem. Selectivity has nothing to do with best EE program. Thinking this will lead you to conclude quality improperly. If pride is that important to you, then by all means go to the selective school with a poorer quality EE program. MIT isn't good because it's selective, and isn't neccessarily selective because it's good. Rankings in general are just stupidly innacurrate/misrepresentative, but I find USNews to be more accurate. The best thing you could do to increase accuracy is drop the "selective means good" attitude and categorize EE into circuits/devices/signal processing/comm theory/photonics/etc. USNews does this for CS, but apparently it isn't worth the time for EE. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2013/national_university_rank.php At least this ranking website shows their criteria. According to them, Berkeley awards the most science PhD's, but that certainly doesn't make Berkeley a bad graduate school.

Awesome!!! Good luck, its great to hear that USC is the best fit for you. I hope you do some awesome things in the future.

Keep in mind that UCSD was only found in 1960, so ratings by sheer publication number can be misleading unless you restrict it to recent times.