I'm seeing some responses here that rely on the myth that starting salary rankings and long-term net worth rankings of the top 20 b-schools are based on people being compensated differently for the same jobs, purely based on the brand of their MBA. This is incorrect. A JPMorgan investment banker from Ross will have the same starting salary as a JPMorgan investment banker from Wharton. Kellogg has a higher starting salary average than Anderson because they send MORE people into consulting and finance, where the starting salaries are across the board higher. This is a function of the industry breakdown of the schools' graduates, not a reflection of the market's perception of school brand.
Further, after people are hired, raises and promotions are PURELY a factor of their job performance. Most peers and managers won't care in the slightest which school you went to; it will be the merits of your performance every time. So the real question is (and ONLY is): which school will give me the better opportunity to get that first great job that I want upon graduation?
That's where employment statistics play a MUCH more crucial role than US News or Bweek rankings can ever play. Because if you happen to know what you want to do - both industry and function - then you can be scientific about your chances. You can scour LinkedIn. Compare placement reports. Model it out. The work is worth it. And if you do that for Anderson and Kellogg, you happen to find that Anderson fares very well for what the OP has already decided he wants. Kellogg places a little better for tech in Seattle, but not by much. Anderson places better in Silicon Valley/San Francisco; and Anderson dominates totally in SoCal/LA. This is a function of the school's curriculum emphasis, strong regional network, and geographic advantage that allows students to frequently be in the faces of potential recruiters. All this matters.
Of course, my points are only salient if you know what you want to do. If you're someone who really doesn't know, and want to keep all options on the table, then the advice to go after the largest possible brand holds a lot more water. And naturally, if you want to be a banker on the East Coast or go into pedigree-hungry MBB consulting, then Anderson loses. And if you want to be in the Midwest, then Anderson gets decimated. But that's not the OP's situation.
Personally, I'm currently deciding between Kellogg (with no money) and Anderson (with a full tuition fellowship). I, similarly to the OP, am aiming for a product management career in a technology or entertainment company on the West Coast. All things considered, then: turning down the #4 school in the country for the #14 school (and pocketing the cash) makes a lot of sense for me.
Moral? Context is everything.