UCLA vs Stanford

[toughdecisionsAHH]

So I prefer UCLA's environment, but Stanford obviously has the better academics/prestige.

I applied to the M.S. Civil Engineering program for both and am deciding between those two.

UCLA tuition: 10k/yr

Stanford tuition: 40k/yr

I also did some additional research and found that the time it would take me to graduate for both programs are:

UCLA time to graduate: 1yr+2 quarters

Stanford time to graduate: 2yrs+2quarters

The only reason that I would take so long to graduate is because I am only currently a mechanical engineering undergraduate. both schools require that their students satisfy a certain amount of basic Civil Engineering courses before they can begin their graduate work. Unfortunately, Stanford has a couple more of these requirements than UCLA does. (don't worry, these numbers are including the courses which I believe I should be able to pass out of based off some of my coursework from my mechanical engineering B.S. coursework)

What do you guys think?

[liszt85]

So stanford would cost you around $60K more than UCLA? Depends on if you're in a position to afford it, or if you're willing to take out loans. I'd have gone to UCLA though. Reasons: lesser coursework, probably only what's required, might not have the hassle of having to pass out of courses due to redundancy (with my BS coursework), and takes one year lesser than Stanford. Also environment preferred. Much lesser debt, if any.

That said, if you think you can get a high paying job (much higher than what a degree from UCLA will get you) and if you can pay off that debt soon enough, and if you think the quality of academics there is really much higher than UCLA, I'd vote for Stanford.

[TulipOHare]

Go to Stanford and you're looking at loan payments of about $1000/mo for 10 years (or $700/mo for 20-30 years). Will you be able to afford that after graduation?

[toughdecisionsAHH]

fortunately my family is well off. my mom said she is fine with paying however much it costs for stanford.

but dont you guys think it's not worth it? is a stanford education really going to help that much?

[lightyears]

I'm a mechanical engineer who will be going to Stanford for civil engineering next fall. Did you go to the recruiting weekend? I was really impressed with the place. I just don't understand why they don't have more funding opportunities...

[moommoombaba]

fortunately my family is well off. my mom said she is fine with paying however much it costs for stanford.

but dont you guys think it's not worth it? is a stanford education really going to help that much?

If your family can afford it, by all means go to stanford.

while UCLA certainly is not a bad engineering school, I think its civil program is not as good as stanford or berkeley.

When the money is out of the question, it becomes a no brainer to me to pick stanford.

btw you should factor in the cost of living tho if you are looking at money.

[toughdecisionsAHH]

I'm a mechanical engineer who will be going to Stanford for civil engineering next fall. Did you go to the recruiting weekend? I was really impressed with the place. I just don't understand why they don't have more funding opportunities...

Heh, I'm the same - currently a ME, going into CE, potentially at Stanford. No I didn't go to recruiting weekend, I only found out about my acceptance yesterday (I applied for no funding and so I was able to submit my app as late as March 17th lol).

I'm going to be visiting Stanford this weekend, do you have any recommendations of what I should check out? I would really appreciate it.

If your family can afford it, by all means go to stanford.

while UCLA certainly is not a bad engineering school, I think its civil program is not as good as stanford or berkeley.

When the money is out of the question, it becomes a no brainer to me to pick stanford.

Oh actually what I meant by whether going to Stanford is "worth it" is based on this: For UCLA, it would only take me 1yr+2quarters to graduate. For Stanford, it would take me 2yrs+2quarters to graduate (due to some classes only being offered certain quarters, and because I'm only currently a Mechanical Engineer and thus do not have certain prereqs satisfied). UCLA tuition is 10K/yr, while Stanford is 40K/yr. This translates to total cost of tuition (after graduating) from UCLA being approx 16.7K. Stanford would be 106.7K.

Also, at the same time, I know that at the company I interned last summer (which is a upper tier Fortune 500 company), offers 60K starting salaries for civil engineers, and only a 5K boost if you have a M.S. (thus, 65K starting salary).

So I guess my concern is, would that 106.7K price tag from Stanford justify such a mere salary boost? I'm sure other companies might provide better boosts, or even better base salaries to begin with. But what do you guys think? "Is it worth it?" Is there something I'm unaware about --- that maybe Stanford grads simply receive much better salary opportunities in their career prospects?

P.S.

To: "lightyears, you're also currently a ME undergrad I'm guessing? I was wondering, have you looked at the prereqs that I'm guessing you haven't fulfilled yet before you can begin Stanford's structural engineering program? These are basic classes such as Design of Steel Structures, Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, etc etc......I obviously haven't fulfilled those yet, as a ME undergrad, and thus these classes, along with some other prereqs, are really going to delay my time-to-graduate. I was wondering if you have the same problem?

[moommoombaba]

Oh actually what I meant by whether going to Stanford is "worth it" is based on this: For UCLA, it would only take me 1yr+2quarters to graduate. For Stanford, it would take me 2yrs+2quarters to graduate (due to some classes only being offered certain quarters, and because I'm only currently a Mechanical Engineer and thus do not have certain prereqs satisfied). UCLA tuition is 10K/yr, while Stanford is 40K/yr. This translates to total cost of tuition (after graduating) from UCLA being approx 16.7K. Stanford would be 106.7K.

Also, at the same time, I know that at the company I interned last summer (which is a upper tier Fortune 500 company), offers 60K starting salaries for civil engineers, and only a 5K boost if you have a M.S. (thus, 65K starting salary).

So I guess my concern is, would that 106.7K price tag from Stanford justify such a mere salary boost? I'm sure other companies might provide better boosts, or even better base salaries to begin with. But what do you guys think? "Is it worth it?" Is there something I'm unaware about --- that maybe Stanford grads simply receive much better salary opportunities in their career prospects?

isn't stanford cost of living higher than LA? so you would be looking at a bigger difference.

civil engineering is a very experience-based profession. unless you have a phd, starting salaries won't be that much of a difference between BS and MS. 5k boost is not bad, wait 2 years and get a PE then you get another big boost. Moreover, Prestige school brand helps you little in civil engineering, for example, my frd with a MS CIVIL from Berkeley only has 55k starting. so your 65k starting is not bad. so that comes to the question ' is it worth it?'

even though you are spending 1 more year in Stanford, but since you haven't taken any civil prereq so i wouldn't say its a waste of time. it would better prepare you for your future career. is the 100k difference worth it? to me probably not. but to you, if you family can pay for it, you should just take the opportunity to go to Stanford, not that many people can go to Stanford AND don't have to worry about money. I would go there if my family can easily hand me 62k yearly expense without asking any question. however if you are going to repay your family eventually then i would say it is not so much of an investment...

[ejuliast]

Just my two cents on the cost of living specifically: I've been looking at both of these schools as well and I've found the area around Stanford to be more expensive than LA. Also tougher to find housing.

In my case, my decision isn't financially biased beyond the cost of living, as the funding packages are similar, but I did notice that rents are HIGH in Palo Alto. The only other thing I would add is that you need to live fairly close to UCLA (= expensive) given the traffic, whereas you can live a bit further out from Stanford and not be totally screwed.

In your case, I'd probably go with UCLA - an extra year is not just an extra year of tuition but also an extra year without earnings.

[lightyears]

Heh, I'm the same - currently a ME, going into CE, potentially at Stanford. No I didn't go to recruiting weekend, I only found out about my acceptance yesterday (I applied for no funding and so I was able to submit my app as late as March 17th lol).

I'm going to be visiting Stanford this weekend, do you have any recommendations of what I should check out? I would really appreciate it.

P.S.

To: "lightyears, you're also currently a ME undergrad I'm guessing? I was wondering, have you looked at the prereqs that I'm guessing you haven't fulfilled yet before you can begin Stanford's structural engineering program? These are basic classes such as Design of Steel Structures, Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, etc etc......I obviously haven't fulfilled those yet, as a ME undergrad, and thus these classes, along with some other prereqs, are really going to delay my time-to-graduate. I was wondering if you have the same problem?

Are you going to be meeting with any professors at Stanford this weekend? I guess I don't really have any suggestions on what you should check out. The Civil and Environmental building (Y2E2) is probably where you're going, right? Other than that, I just walked around the campus for a couple hours.

Where did you find the list of prereqs? I'm going into the A/E program and when I was at the recruiting weekend, it sounded like I'd be fine with the courses I took as a ME undergrad. Now that I think about it, out of all the students in A/E at the recruiting weekend, I don't think a single person had a civil or environmental undergrad degree.

Isn't the structures MS program only 45-units? Even if you add prereqs, there's no way it should take you 2 years and 2 quarters.

[nemolover]

i'm currently a senior at Stanford studying Atmosphere/Energy in the CEE dept and starting a masters in Civil Engineering (and i've never taken a structures class). let me clear up a few things:

- the MS is 45 units, which can be completed in one year. i'm not sure where this 2 yr 2 quarters for CE comes from. you should double check that. and there are no pre-reqs for the A/E program.

- there is on-campus housing for graduate students that is cheaper than living off-campus in Palo Alto. i think Rains and Lyman are the cheapest options. check out housing: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/rde/shs/gr ... latest.htm

[toughdecisionsAHH]

The reason why I am estimating 2yrs+2 quarters is because I am currently only a Mechanical Engineering undergrad. For the structures program, there are a few "core requirements" that I found from Stanford's website in the structural engineering section. These courses are basic courses such as advanced statics, design of steel/concrete structures, etc etc. Sadly, since I am only a mechE undergrad right now, I havent taken any of these classes.

Thus, I have to take these classes before I can even start the actual 45-unit coursework.

Additionally, I've looked at the schedule of classes for CEE courses, and as you guys know, some courses are only offered in the Autumn, Winter, or Spring quarters exclusively. Because I have to take some "core requirement" undergrad classes before I begin my grad classes, and because some courses are only offered in certain quarters, my estimated time-to-graduation suffers from a nasty chain reaction which leads to 2yrs+2quarters.... =( =( =(

I am PRAYING that my adviser will allow me to take some courses as co-requisites rather than pre-requisites.....this would help me alot and hopefully I wont take 2 years.