<p>The insanely huge number of applicants is getting ridiculous.... too many kids mean too many applicants for limited spots in college.... birth control may be necessary.... </p>
<p>I think the acceptance rate for Fall 2011 will dip below 20% for the first time .... </p>
<p>Also, UC-Berkeley is now the third most sought-after UC campus... UC-San Diego is now 2nd behind UCLA.... </p>
<p>Does anyone think that the number of competitive applicants is getting much larger or that more people are just interested in applying to UCLA?</p>
<p>I’m curious to see how the UC numbers compare to other systems across the nation or just private schools in California. </p>
<p>Alas, I am too lazy to look this up for myself :(</p>
<p>I don’t think the admissions rate will dip too much. Considering all the new dorms we’re building, I’m guessing we plan to accommodate them. -.-</p>
<p>(Also, no we don’t need birth control. Merced is still far from a mature university. The CSU system is also quite large and could back up Californians.)</p>
<p>I can’t wait for bayboi’s reaction to cal being number 3 in # of admits</p>
<p>Let’s not gloat. </p>
<p>Who knows? Maybe UCSD will surpass UCLA in the number of admits in 2 years. Its still a young university with a lot of room to grow.</p>
<p>UCSD is much better than UCLA…their neurosci, polisci. biological sciences, chemistry, and a plethora of other programs are RANKED MUCH higher than UCLA:</p>
<p>UCLA has a higher ranked law school, though, and that’s what really matters. UCLA breeds more members of congress than both Berkeley and UCSD.
[Introduction:</a> The Top 10 Colleges for Members of Congress - US News & World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-top-10-colleges-for-members-of-congress]Introduction:”>http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-top-10-colleges-for-members-of-congress)</p>
<p>Programs such as “political science”, “neuroscience”, “biological sciences”, and “chemistry” are really just means by which UCSD beats around the bush in more competitive arenas where it would otherwise fluster. “Political science” is UCSD’s excuse for a law school and the science majors are its excuse for a med school. I would not deem UCSD actually superior than UCLA in any of those areas for undergrad. </p>
<p>UCSD is also significantly weaker than UCLA for those who want a career in business.</p>
<p>Because every undergrad is either a law student, med student or business major :rolleyes:</p>
<p>UCSD is very good at its strengths, as is UCLA. It just happens that UCLA has a lot more strengths.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that of the 4 mentioned, 2 aren’t ranked much (or at all) higher than UCLA, and 1 of the other 2 is a subset of the other.</p>
<p>UC-Berkeley is still much better than UCSD… so is UCLA… </p>
<p>UCSD may get more applications than UC-Berkeley, but Cal still is more prestigios than UCSD…</p>
<p>The quantity of applicants doesn’t speak to the quality of those applicants.</p>
<p>CSULB and SDSU get boatloads more applications than some UCs, but their average stats are still lower.</p>
<p>UCLA and UCSD are popular because of their beautiful campuses, nice locations, and sunny Southern California weather. Yet, popularity measured by number of applicants can not determine the quality of the education. It may be true that certain programs, such as biology at UCSD, are stronger than those at Berkeley. But Berkeley’s excellence across the board and long-standing reputation of academic greatness won’t ever be surpassed by the other UCs.</p>
<p>
Well that’s a rather bold statement to make. </p>
<p>(Not that I think UCLA would surpass Berkeley but I definitely see the potential in UCSD eventually. Probably when we’re 60 or something everything will change, akin to how USC used to be an awful university just 20 so years ago.)</p>
<p>You have to take into account how many students are applying to UCLA as a “reach” school and how many as a “back-up.” Both categories probably compose a large proportion of 81,235. Nevertheless, there are still an amazing amount of applicants that are just right for UCLA. Overall, the amount of students of the class of '11 who applied to the rather more prestigious schools is unprecedented. The quality of all these students, however, is questionable.</p>
<p>each of the three main UCs: UCB, UCLA, and UCSD, were all started roughly 40-50 years apart at (rougly) 1870, 1920, and 1960 (respectively) UCLA has caught up significantly to berkeley in rakings (however berkeley still has way more top PHD programs), but UCSD is up and coming as well (has more nobel laureates than UCLA iirc)</p>
<p>it’ll be interesting how the schools are affected by the budget cuts. I’ve only been seeing how UCLA is being affected, but i wonder how hard UCSD is going to be affected (especially since its endowment is significantly lower) and how this, in turn, will impact the universities future progress.</p>
<p>i don’t know how fair it is to say that the only reason people apply to the socal UC schools is purely for this ‘fun-in-the-sun’ type of mentality. it seems rather unlikely that someone would be questioned for going to UCLA over UCB in any instance, other than the few majors where berkeley excels significantly over UCLA (e.g. economics, CS, engineering, etc.)</p>
<p>I never pulled UCLA’s NCAA numbers, which would be wholly unrelated to UCLA’s academic quality. That is both a strawman and an ad hominem.</p>
<p>The congress numbers are directly related to the discussion of the success of political science majors. If you’d like to debate their background, feel free to provide citations instead of making big empty statements. UCLA students are not particularly known for their income.</p>
<p>That you’d bother writing in bold caps and dramatizing a very valid point points to the fact that you should be the one to grow up and that you’re in fact a ■■■■■. -.-</p>
<p>
Law professors frequently overlap with political science professors and vice versa. Likewise, med school professors frequently overlap with ordinary biology professors and vice versa. Finally, bus econ majors do take management courses and that goes back to the business school.</p>
<p>UCLA has begun the practice of admitting several thousand students more than it can handle. In other words there are no physical seats for between 3 and 5 thousand students!
The administration claims that they are not doing this but it is a fact. I have seen many students who cannot find classes for the fall even though they have been admitted. This means that the usual four year degree will take about 6 years at best. UCLA has become a profit driven institution that has lowered its priorities on education. I have been at UCLA for fifteen years and I finally quit my job over this foolishness. Send your kids elsewhere!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Every undergrad majors in poli sci, biology or econ.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ********</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably because freshman enrollment hasn’t started yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ********</p>
<p>lol @ fearmongerer</p>
<p>Yes, we all believe that you quit your job at UCLA over this foolishness. i doubt that you ever worked there, and if you did, you were probably fired due to budget cuts and now you’re posting this petty rant.</p>
<p>I was reading in the daily bruin not too long ago that UCLA is opening a ton more classes and trying to hire more professors for these new students. They’re trying to get people out as quickly as possible overall so that they can admit more students, and get more money. </p>
<p>you’ll probably see more people complaining about finishing at UCLA too fast, i imagine, than finishing too slowly.</p>