As the title says, I have been accepted to Rochester with full funding and to UCLA without funding. My research interests are macroeconomics.
I am really interested into going to UCLA but the lack of funding (I even have to pay full tuition) for the first year disturbs me. I have the following questions:
-How hard is it to get funding for the second year of study at UCLA? The email I got states that historically, all students who have "Satisfactory Academic Progress" usually get funding. “Satisfactory Academic Progress” includes a minimum 3.50 GPA and successful completion of all first-year core courses, plus Ph.D. level passes in written qualifying examinations in Microeconomic Theory, Macroeconomic Theory, and Quantitative Methods by June of 2016. Is this something that a lot of people (at least more than a half of the class) can achieve or just the top students?
-If I do get funding for the second year, is it full funding or do I still have to pay some money myself?
-What is the attrition rate at UCLA?
-If I go to UCLA without funding the first year, I will have to get in a lot of debt. I definitely cannot afford more years without funding. On the other hand, Rochester offers me full funding for 5 years, subject to satisfactory progress. My question is: is the difference between Rochester and UCLA in macroeconomic fields (and maybe other fields in general) big enough that it could be worth taking the risk of assisting to a school without funding and without knowing if I will get funding on the second year onward?
Help me!! :(