Definitely go to Oxford over UCSD. There’s a world of difference in difficulty to get into, and like the other person says, SD isn’t the biggest tech scene unless biotech is your focus. UC schools are also huge and impersonal, part of what lets them offer decently cheap tuition to in-state students; but if you’re not in-state, I don’t think you’re getting the best value for your money. My answer might change if the alternative were Berkeley.
Like where?! The rest of the Bay Area (except maybe Oakland and Berkeley) strikes me as a cookie-cutter, suburban hell-scape. I've visited Palo Alto, San Matteo, Pleasanton, Fremont, and San Jose in the course of my time in the East Bay, and I couldn't help but ask myself why the heck anyone would live there. I don't see anything unique in those places--why not live in a suburb anywhere else, at 1/8th of the cost?
I would say just about anywhere in the Bay Area would be nicer than SF. Cupertino, Campbell, southern San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Cruz (not quite Silicon Valley but sort of), Alameda, Gilroy, etc. I'd say the only place I'd avoid more than SF is Oakland.
I mean... I'm not about to go giving away info on all the nice spots... But there are some places out there with good schools, a reasonable balance of transit/development and open space, and affordable (by bay area standards) housing.
No, but it was will marginally bid up the price of housing, which is my number one expense right now and my expected number one expense for the foreseeable future.
Maybe this whole thread is a mislead and someone has their eyes on the peninsula ;)
I've lived in Palo Alto, and there are nicer bits and others less so, but overall it's just the suburbs. All suburbs feel the same to me: empty and lifeless.
I moved to the Tenderloin in SF and I was much happier, it was very lively indeed.
