Help... Tuck (no $) vs. UCLA Anderson ($$$)

Hi everyone,
I'd really love to hear others' perspectives on what I view to be a difficult situation. Here are the facts:

- I'm R3 applicant to all schools
- I've had my heart set on Tuck and it's been my top choice all along
- My background is Investment Management and Corporate Finance
- Goal is to go into Marketing/Brand Management, ideally on the West coast (but I don't want to be limited to the West coast)
- I was accepted to Tuck and committed/paid deposit within a few days, but was not offered any scholarships
- Last week I was accepted to UCLA and offered a 70% tuition fellowship

Tuck is without a doubt a better cultural fit for me. I liked the people more, loved the area, and I appreciate the smaller-sized program. I feel that I would have an overall better experience there. However, UCLA is on the west coast where I want to end up and known for a strong marketing program... and of course the $$$. I still have a hard time picturing myself there. Looks like both schools place about the same % of students into marketing and I fully expect to have to do my own recruiting legwork regardless (ie not rely completely on on-campus recruiting).

So, what would you do? Is the higher ranked program and better experience worth the premium in cost?

Thanks so much for your input!