You are right, I am biased with positive information for the first school and left out information for the second. The second school has weaker match rates (fluctuating between 60s-70s in the past few years, and 90s the past 2 years). This school is less clinically focused, and more research focused. I am interested in a more clinically focused program. The reputation for research is strong, but again, I am more interested in clinical. The weird vibes for the POI are that the entire interview was awkward, he didn't ask a single question about me or my research background, was super casual, and had some negative and condescending things to say about my undergrad GPA (which was not great, but I more than made up for it with research and publications). He didn't seem like someone who would support me and vouch for me when needed. These were just my feelings after the interview. I talked to his current students and they all said how he is laid back, sometimes goes weeks without answering emails, and you really need to stay on top of him.
Why is a funded offer almost always a better choice than partial or unfunded offers? Other than the obvious reason of one costs money and one doesn't, what other factors make it a better option?