Drexel vs George Washington: which is the better value for money for undergraduates?

The biggest practical tradeoff is structured career payoff versus broader DC access. Drexel is unusually career-focused because of its co-op system, which gives many undergraduates substantial paid work experience before graduation, while George Washington’s main value comes from being embedded in Washington, DC, with easy access to internships, policy, nonprofits, research, and federal-adjacent opportunities during the school year.

Drexel tends to look stronger on value for many undergrads because the co-op model is not just a resume line. It can help offset cost through paid work, make students more employable at graduation, and reduce the guesswork around getting experience. That matters a lot in fields like engineering, business, computer science, design, and health-related areas where employers care about applied experience.

GW can absolutely pay off, but the case is less automatic. Its location is a real asset for international affairs, political science, public health, journalism, economics, and students targeting internships during the semester. The challenge is that access to DC is an opportunity, not a guarantee of outcome.

Campus experience also affects value. Drexel has more of a defined professional culture, and many students pick it precisely because they want school to lead directly into work. GW is more decentralized and city-integrated, which some students love, but others feel means they are paying a premium for location as much as for the college itself.

If costs are close, I would give Drexel the edge for undergraduate value in most majors because its experiential model creates a more predictable payoff. I’d lean toward GW only if the student’s goals are tightly connected to what DC uniquely offers and the financial package makes the price reasonable.