UCLA (100% $) vs. Columbia (50% $) for consulting on west coast

Edit: I'm receiving 50% in aid for Columbia.

Though a significant upfront investment, in the long run the cost is fairly immaterial. What more concerns me is leaving SoCal for 2 years only to come back to it later. It does not seem to make a lot of sense; at the same time it is going to be somewhat boring to hang around LA. If I were in your shoes, I would be on the fence too.

I think it comes down to personality - if you are adventurous (a gambling person) - then Columbia has your name on it. It has more excitement, greater risk, and a greater return potential. You have a chance to start from scratch and redefine yourself.
If you want to play safe - then UCLA is a perfect choice - it is free tuition, you stay in town and leverage your friends/family/professional network and keep the costs down. This is esp helpful if you have a relationship you don't want to end.

Both schools have enough fire power to get you to where you want to be. You won't be guaranteed the best spots as you will be competing with a lot of other grads for the prestigious MBB slots but you will get something.

P.S. I was poor at my time of matriculation so I would have picked UCLA as the only realistic option. Borrowing 100K or 50K more was unfathomable for me. Had I had the money, I would have gone to CBS - I wanted adventure.

Two things to consider.

Living in NYC is very expensive. Also if you are dead set on working in So-Cal you will be flying back a lot and spending even more time/money/effort. So the difference in cost is more than just tuition/scholarship differences.

If you're sure you want to stay in So-Cal I'd say go to UCLA, you may be limiting your "ceiling" though by only considering So-Cal jobs though (and there's nothing wrong with that).

Those are great points. I'm literally at a coin flip at this point. I'll be visiting both schools' admit weekends, so I'm hoping it will come down to fit and where I see myself more.

The primary concern for CBS is the ability to get back out west. Obviously there are better opportunities to recruit for MBB at Columbia, but I also want to ensure I can get back to LA. Whereas for Anderson, my geographical preference is assured, but MBB is a bit more of a reach. Therein lies the rub...

I have to say a coin-flip is a lot better situation to be in than to really want to go to one school when all indicators are pointing towards the other.
The admit weekend should definitely help!

FWIW, there's no difficulty in recruiting MBB for LA from CBS. I had a handful of friends go that route (though SF tends to be the stronger pull these days). I had a somewhat similar decision and looking back at it the conversation seems somewhat silly. There is certainly strength in regional program (for me, it was energy and UT), but there is a somewhat tangible difference in drive and experience between programs, and specifically the student body and faculty. That certainly was an asset I undervalued when I applied (not to mention, I love my former classmates!).

However, I always felt people that say "cost difference is immaterial" can't have gone to business school (I'd love to park $60K at 5% for the next ten years instead of pay out now), and I'd guess UCLA is king in its own backyard like UT or Duke.

As someone located in LA now who knows a handful of people who went to Anderson, MBB from UCLA is definitely possible but the difference is that there are just fewer interview spots than what you'll face at Columbia. You can still get there but it'll take more work. If Columbia is offering you 50% aid, that's already a significant amount, I would just take it and go, as you'll also get the added benefit of the step in prestige.

That said, I think they're pretty different culturally so you should visit both for admit weekends and see where you'll end up happier.