MPH UCLA vs. Johns Hopkins, a financial decision...

[Aspiring.MPH]

Hello everybody,

I am mulling greatly over this decision: UCLA Community Health Science Program or the one year MPH program at Johns Hopkins.

My dilemma is basically the cost of the program. I want to go to the best program I got into which is Johns Hopkins, BUT I have received absolutely no scholarships. I'd be graduating with upwards of 70K in loans, both direct and Grad Plus loans. Add to that my 26K in undergrad loans, I'm looking at give or take 100K in loans to repay after graduation if I go with Hopkins!

I am from LA, so I could live at home while going to UCLA, and they have 98% tuition remission with 10 hours of teaching assitantship (doesn't include the near 8,000 in cost for the professional degree), I'd be graduating with significantly less loans, but from a program that could potentially limit my career aspirations.

I wouldn't be so afraid to take the plunge and do Johns Hopkins if the salaries for Public Health careers were on par with doctors and lawyers. But, that isn't the case! I imagine entry level positions in public health don't really exceed 60,000 a year. My question is... is it worth it? Is the education, and connections of Johns Hopkins worth the burden of a life time of loans??? I feel like it is such a risk and could negatively affect my lifestyle if I am making such high monthly loan payments. Limits on saving, spending, traveling, the list goes on...

I like the UCLA program too, but it doesn't have the prestige and network of Johns Hopkins. Either way I am sacrificing something.... What are your guys thoughts?

Thank you and any feedback would greatly be appreciated!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sloth17]

If I were in your position, I would choose UCLA. Not only is it a very good program, but you will be saving a lot of money. A difference of $70k is huge, and it will take a long time to pay off those loans, especially when you take into account the average salary of community health sciences employees. There's no doubt that Hopkins will give you access to top-notch resources, but it's still tough to justify the significant difference in cost. UCLA has a great reputation anyways, so I don't think it will limit your career prospects.

Ultimately, it's up to you. If you would be unhappy at UCLA due to the regret of declining Hopkins' offer or it not being the best fit, then I'm not sure if it's worth it. If you would truly be happy attending Hopkins despite the debt, then you should go for it. It also depends on what you have planned for your career, and which school would better help you achieve that goal.

 

[Aspiring.MPH]

Thanks for your response! My career aspiration is to work internationally in Latin America with either an NGO, the WHO or USAID in the area of program improvement working alongside national counterparts. My interests are in Infectious Diseases and Sexual/Reproductive health. I think Johns Hopkins is stronger in the international community and has an excellent infectious disease program. But if I can reach my career goal regardless, then I would have no qualms with going to UCLA... What do you think? And do you think Johns Hopkins leads to higher earning potential?

 

[wwmmkk]

I think that your ability to meet your career goal will depend more on the effort you make to gain experience and make connections and less on whether you're at UCLA or JHU. I can't say either way on the earning potential, but I can't imagine it'd be too different? I'd go with UCLA for sure if this were me.

 

[sloth17]

Thanks for your response! My career aspiration is to work internationally in Latin America with either an NGO, the WHO or USAID in the area of program improvement working alongside national counterparts. My interests are in Infectious Diseases and Sexual/Reproductive health. I think Johns Hopkins is stronger in the international community and has an excellent infectious disease program. But if I can reach my career goal regardless, then I would have no qualms with going to UCLA... What do you think? And do you think Johns Hopkins leads to higher earning potential?

I hear Hopkins is the unquestioned leader in international/NGO work, so you're right in your assessment that it is stronger. That being said, I think UCLA is pretty good in that area, so you can still achieve your goals there if you want. I do think that going to Hopkins leads to higher earning potential, though I'm not sure by how much. By this, I don't mean that you will land a higher paying job simply due to having a degree from Hopkins. Rather, you are likely to see more top recruiters at Hopkins, which are associated with higher paying jobs.