A decade after starting college

[notaznguy]

<p>I thought it was pretty common sense that if you major in a liberal arts (i.e. Poli Sci, English, History, etc.) you better go to graduate school and get a professional graduate degree (i.e. law school, public policy, urban planning, nursing, Business Administration) otherwise you’ll have a tough time getting a solid, secure job.</p>

<p>The ones who major in a liberal art that aren’t planning to go to graduate school for a professional degree will run into some employment troubles.</p>

<p>If you’re Engineering, Biz Econ or Econ w/ Accounting, undergrad Nursing, and to an extent, even Biochem and Bio majors, you’ll be alright because the first 4 are professional degrees and with Biochem or Bio, you could always work for pharmaceutical companies doing research or entry level work.</p>

<p>P.S. I think for those of you arguing about Michigan, Berkeley, prestige, etc. are losing sight of the main point of the conversation. The OP is giving insight on what his life was like after graduating from UCLA following his BA and 2 years of grad school. It’s clear that experience and your major is more important than simply what school you went to. A Michigan grad with a History degree will be just as hopeless as a UCLA grad with a History degree.</p>

[monydad]

<p>"NYU is not a reputable school in most other regards, however, "</p>

<p>That was once true, long ago, however NYU has done an incredible job of improving its reputation. It is not at the tippy top overall, but it is considered at least reasonably good in most things generally. Certainly not “disreputable”.
Its programs at Tisch School of the Arts are probably more selective and prestigious, in their respective fields, than Stern is in business. And it has strong programs in various liberal arts fields, including art history (I think) and mathematics, as well as more pragmatic areas such as nursing and education. Its professional schools of law, medicine, and dentistry are all top notch.</p>

<p>“Michigan isn’t a bad college (high endowment, comparable strength to UCLA) but it’s still ranked lower than UCLA, UVA, and Berkeley.”</p>

<p>In the most recent Us News, UCLA and UVA are ranked the same, then next down is Tufts , then Michigan. So yeah its lower, by a completely trivial margin.
Moreover, these numbers move around. Rankings from 2007 and prior have been posted, 2007 it was UCLA 26th, Michigan and UVA 24th. In 2005 Michigan and UVA were 22nd, UCLA was 25th. For all intents and purposes, the rankings of these three schools have been interchangable.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>notaznguy,</p>

<p>I have a sort of sarcastic rule: the only time you get to major in history is if you go to HYPMSC. Otherwise, you have to at least minor in something somewhat quantitative.</p>

<p>

with Biochem or Bio, you could always work for pharmaceutical companies doing research or entry level work.

</p>

<p>I have some friends and acquaintances with pharma or biotech. Unless you get your graduate degree, the ceiling is awfully low with the BS alone. It kinda sucks in that regard.</p>

<p>monydad,</p>

<p>I’m not really looking at the rankings per se, anyway. Like I said before, the rankings are pretty meaningless. It’s about perception. Most people don’t slavishly follow USNWR. HR people might glance at it, but I doubt it.</p>

<p>I have found that, even outside of NY, NYU has a certain cachet. Not necessarily as being an academic powerhouse like Berkeley. But smart, savvy, urban, NEW YORK.</p>

<p>It’s not even necessarily fair: after all, I do think that academically UCLA has a lot of significant edges. But that’s just how life is.</p>

[monydad]

<p>"monydad,</p>

<p>I’m not really looking at the rankings per se, anyway."</p>

<p>Well, I was not really addressing those comments to you, anyway.
I was addressing them to beyphy. Beyphy evidently was really looking at rankings per se, or at least made explicit reference to them in post # 17.</p>

[arcadefire1027]

<p>UCLAri: I feel like you’re having a bit of “grass is greener on the other side” syndrome. You called Cal a “gold seal” but UCLA not, which seems silly to me. This is from someone who had the option between both schools, so I’m not just being bitter. I don’t think you realize the opportunities that UCLA opens up that most universities do not.</p>

<p>I transferred from UCR to UCLA, and saw an incredible difference in opportunities. At UCR, no good companies came to campus to recruit. Seriously. And if they did, they weren’t hiring for their best jobs. At UCLA, ALL the best companies are here (I’m a CS major), and there is an infinite amount of research opportunities. The career fairs in my field are the same between UCLA and Berkeley. The same exact opportunities are open.</p>

<p>Now you could say something like “well maybe that’s just field specific”, but that’s definitely not a good argument since Berkeley is a top 5 computer science school. I think it is fanciful to believe that if you had went to Cal, life would have been significantly different.</p>

[notaznguy]

<p>Well I can assure you if a history major intends on going to law school, like myself, a quantitative minor isn’t necessary.</p>

<p>At the same time, even for some professional grad programs like public policy and urban planning, the only math you really need is a basic course in microeconomics and statistics. Most graduate schools even allow you to take it at a community college after your acceptance and before school begins.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>arcadefire1027,</p>

<p>I had the option of both as well. I was accepted to Cal. Hell, I got pretty much the same free ride from both.</p>

<p>I also don’t believe that life would have been significantly different and never said that. What I said was that Cal does offer opportunities and a level of prestige that UCLA does not. I’m offering my perspective as someone whose entire career has been outside of California. Like I’ve said repeatedly, however, after the first job or so, your school just does not matter much. And again, like I said earlier, it simply becomes a footnote on your resume. </p>

<p>As of page 2, I’ve had people:</p>

<ol>
<li> Imply that I’m bitter (I’m not.)</li>
<li> Imply that I’m a failure in my career (I’m not.)</li>
<li> Imply that I’m arguing that UCLA sucks (I’m not.)</li>
</ol>

<p>I’m offering my perspective as someone who has some time out of school, finished grad school, and has spent his career outside of California. This is my perspective after job hunting, talking to people all over the US and world, and in general life.</p>

<p>If you all want to disregard my experience, there is no harm in that (seriously). I’m only telling you guys, as someone who has regularly been a proponent of UCLA and the opportunities it offers, what I’ve seen about a decade since starting college. I’m not coming here and saying that my word is the gospel truth or some kind of canon. However, after a survey of at least a dozen people at my work and friends, they’ve all said the same thing: UCLA does not hold the same level of prestige as Cal does. </p>

<p>If you look at my posts going back to 2005, you’ll find that I argued up and down that people were wrong for believing this. After living outside of LA for most of my post-college life, however, I’ve found that it’s pretty much a trivial fact to most people. I can’t change that. I’m simply reporting this. </p>

<p>As for opportunities being the same between Cal and UCLA, I’m curious about one thing: when I looked at the job fairs between the two, I noticed that a few of the big tech firms didn’t actively recruit at UCLA, or at least weren’t listed. Does this matter? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just would think that would at least sort of add some challenge to the job hunt. Thoughts?</p>

<p>notaznguy,</p>

<p>I always caution new students to be very careful when it comes to majoring in anything with a specific kind of grad school in plan. As we all have read and sort of know, plans change, majors change. Planning your career at 18 is a risky bet. Having quant under your belt is a good hedge. </p>

<p>And yeah, it’s true that all you need is some stats and microecon before those kinds of grad schools, but my experience tells me that:</p>

<ol>
<li> Those who only have that tend to do worse in their programs</li>
<li> The best programs generally want more than just the basics</li>
</ol>

[beyphy]

<p>

However, after a survey of at least a dozen people at my work and friends, they’ve all said the same thing: UCLA does not hold the same level of prestige as Cal does.</p>

<p>If you look at my posts going back to 2005, you’ll find that I argued up and down that people were wrong for believing this. After living outside of LA for most of my post-college life, however, I’ve found that it’s pretty much a trivial fact to most people. I can’t change that. I’m simply reporting this.

</p>

<p>It’s just a public perception, which barely matters. Many non-academics haven’t even heard of berkeley, or any of the other UCs. The peole that are familiar with colleges generally regard the two equally (at least for undergrad). It’s only the people who vaguely know about academics that regard Cal as the best public education system in the world. Usually, the opinions of these people matters very little, but unfortunately, job employers will probably be in this rank. Berkeley is an impressive institution (has a shiitton of nobel laureates) but both universities have created equal amounts of billionairres, for example, and are ranked pretty equally in rankings where they have similar programs. UCLA also does a WAAAAAY better job at fundraising than berkeley does.</p>

<p>again, i know you’re not trying to attack UCLA, but i just wanted to throw my opinion out there.</p>

[sentimentGX4]

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>The reason people are upset isn’t that we can’t accept ‘Berkeley is more prestigious than UCLA’ but because UCLA is nowhere near as poorly regarded as you’re currently making it out and neither are UCLA’s peers anywhere as good as you make them sound. </p>

<p>You may think that many of us UCLA students are poor, lost naive souls with completely no idea of how UCLA is perceived nationally and internationally but you forget one important fact, we are currently on CollegeConfidential and obsessed with prestige and the ilk. </p>

<p>Us CCers have been exposed to a diverse pool of people hailing from many different states and nations and many different universities. I realize this may be easy to forget, but these are all real life people as well! Not just your coworkers! We have plenty of exposure to public perception. An average UCLA student? He may have no idea. But we’re not average UCLA students!</p>

<p>Your opinion is only one of thousands and thousands on CC! You should have been able to infer how prestigious UCLA was from the myriad of comments left on CC from your time here! Maybe you’ve clouded yourself from talking up UCLA all these years? Your midlife realization of UCLA’s prestige is highly unorthodox.</p>

<p>sentimentGX4</p>

<p>P.S. Your Berkeley “gold seal” statement was perhaps the most out of proportion comment you made. No university is a “gold seal” on a resume, not even HYPSM.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>beyphy,</p>

<p>I’ve lived and worked in three countries and several states now. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn’t heard of Berkeley. Even abroad, when I say I went to a UC, the first question is “Berkeley?”</p>

<p>

Usually, the opinions of these people matters very little, but unfortunately, job employers will probably be in this rank.

</p>

<p>I care a lot more about the opinions of HR than I do of anyone on this site. Opinions of employers matter a lot, unfortunately-- at least in the beginning. </p>

<p>

The reason people are upset isn’t that we can’t accept ‘Berkeley is more prestigious than UCLA’ but because UCLA is nowhere near as poorly regarded as you’re currently making it out and neither are UCLA’s peers anywhere as good as you make them sound.

</p>

<p>Just because I don’t think it’s Harvard or even Berkeley doesn’t mean that I think it’s poorly regarded. Where did I say that?</p>

<p>It’s well-regarded, and is at least as well-regarded as other great public universities like U of Washington, UVA, and others. It’s definitely a top public. Just because it’s not Harvard doesn’t mean that it’s crap. </p>

<p>

You may think that many of us UCLA students are poor, lost naive souls with completely no idea of how UCLA is perceived nationally and internationally but you forget one important fact, we are currently on CollegeConfidential and obsessed with prestige and the ilk.

</p>

<p>Yeah, that’s part of the problem…</p>

<p>

An average UCLA student? He may have no idea. But we’re not average UCLA students!

</p>

<p>Of course not. But I also think that CC skews perceptions. Look at how many Cal vs. UCLA threads there are, and how many of the older folks have said, “UCLA is great, but it doesn’t get the prestige Cal has.” People ignore it, because who the hell wants to feel bad for a great choice?</p>

<p>Trust me: there’s a wisdom amongst the olds that even the most wizened 20-something CCer does not have.</p>

<p>

Your opinion is only one of thousands and thousands on CC! You should have been able to infer how prestigious UCLA was from the myriad of comments left on CC from your time here! Maybe you’ve clouded yourself from talking up UCLA all these years? Your midlife realization of UCLA’s prestige is highly unorthodox.

</p>

<p>Inference from talking to a group of prestige-obsessed teens and young 20-somethings is often quite different from being on the job market.</p>

<p>Hell, even here on CC, look at the “top school” vote threads, and see the gap between Cal and UCLA amongst CCers. Particularly those from outside of CA. It’s not exactly a secret.</p>

<p>

P.S. Your Berkeley “gold seal” statement was perhaps the most out of proportion comment you made. No university is a “gold seal” on a resume, not even HYPSM.

</p>

<p>I disagree. Harvard, Princeton, Yale-- these schools open doors to opportunities that barely exist elsewhere. Hell, just look at the number of Rhodes Scholars coming out of UCLA vs Princeton.</p>

[beyphy]

<p>

beyphy,</p>

<p>I’ve lived and worked in three countries and several states now. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn’t heard of Berkeley. Even abroad, when I say I went to a UC, the first question is “Berkeley?”

</p>

<p>how do you introduce it? do you say ’ i went to UCLA’ or ‘i went to university of california?’ if the latter its no wonder people say berkeley considering that for a long time, berkeley was just called THE university of california. </p>

<p>i’m saying this because i can’t imagine a situation where one says ‘i go to UCLA’ and someone else says ‘Berkeley?’ UCLA is a weird school. i don’t think that it takes the University of California part like the other universities do. when i hear ‘UCLA’ i don’t think ‘university of california los angeles, but UCLA’</p>

<p>I’m sure there’s some word in linguistics to describe it, but idk what it is. It’s similar to how KFC just means KFC now, as opposed to Kentucky Fried Chicken, and ATT means the same thing.</p>

<p>again, we must have different experiences. in my experience, many people haven’t heard about berkeley. Look at this list, over 12k people asked, and berkeley isn’t listed. it could be many simply don’t list berkeley among their top 10 dreams schools, but i think its more likely that people just haven’t heard of it</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.princetonreview.com/uploadedFiles/Test_Preparation/Hopes_and_Worries/HopeAndWorries_Full%20Report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.princetonreview.com/uploadedFiles/Test_Preparation/Hopes_and_Worries/HopeAndWorries_Full%20Report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Public perception, while fairly useless, is still partially important because it plays into the mind of the society, and this can influrnce employers.</p>

<p>it’s also fairly possible that the states and countries you lived in where just a small sample. I’m not trying to be naive here, but this is more about your anecdotal experiences than about how things actually are. </p>

<p>I will not heed your warning, however, and simply walk proudly thinking ‘i go to UCLA, i’m better than you!!!’ i know that there’s much more to it than that. While i would be inclined to agree with you about the BS berkeley prestige, i think it varies by country and state. UCLA is the most applied to UC for a reason.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>beyphy,</p>

<p>I say UCLA, and the question is sometimes, “Oh, like Berkeley?”</p>

<p>If you get a sports fan, then it’s “Oh, like Wooden?”</p>

<p>

again, we must have different experiences. I’ve seen many posts on these boards, and IRL, affirm that most people haven’t heard about berkeley. Public perception, while fairly useless, is still partially important because it plays into the mind of the society, and this can influrnce employers.

</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, where else have you lived in the US and world? I have yet to meet anyone on the East Coast who, at least in a passing conversation, doesn’t at least know of Berkeley. Hell, they at least know of it from history and the hippie movement.</p>

<p>

it’s also fairly possible that the states and countries you lived in where just a small sample. I’m not trying to be naive here, but this is more about your anecdotal experiences than about how things actually are.

</p>

<p>And CC isn’t? Keep in mind, I’m also comparing this to my colleagues in grad school (who were from all over the country), as well as my wife’s classmates (all over the country, again.) </p>

<p>I went back to talk to some friends from: Florida, Chicago, Washington, DC, Virginia, Japan, Korea, and Belgium. They all said the same thing: Berkeley has the edge.</p>

<p>I could increase my n and sample size, but you know what they say: the first time a man calls you a horse, you punch him. The second time, you insult him. The third time, you go out and buy a saddle. </p>

<p>

I will not heed your warning, however, and simply walk proudly thinking ‘i go to UCLA, i’m better than you!!!’ i know that there’s much more to it than that. While i would be inclined to agree with you about the BS berkeley prestige, i think it varies by country and state. UCLA is the most applied to UC for a reason.

</p>

<p>UCLA is most applied to because California is the most populous state, and LA is a great city to study in. That’s really all there is to it. The systemwide UC application makes it easy. </p>

<p>I’ll be more convinced once OOS applicants and international applicants start pouring in, but I doubt the UC will do that.</p>

[beyphy]

<p>

Just out of curiosity, where else have you lived in the US and world? I have yet to meet anyone on the East Coast who, at least in a passing conversation, doesn’t at least know of Berkeley. Hell, they at least know of it from history and the hippie movement.

</p>

<p>well, i’ve lived in LA my whole life while this may scream, of bias, i assure you that isn’t what i’m basing my statement on. I have heard from friends from others countries, on many instances, that UCLA is the top UC in public perception; that they haven’t even heard of berkeley, and so on. And i’ve yet to come into any instance where people have said they’ve heard of UCB, but not UCLA.</p>

<p>I don’t deny that berkeley is a famous university (it has a damn element named after it in the periodic table) what i do think is that public perception is heavily skewed. Even if berkeley did become better than UCLA, it would take DECADES to convince people that this was the case. but at this point, i’m just rambling <em>grumble grumble grumble</em></p>

<p>

UCLA is most applied to because California is the most populous state, and LA is a great city to study in. That’s really all there is to it.

</p>

<p>not sure how much i agree with this. Why wouldn’t berkeley be the most applied to UC if it’s ‘the best’? surely, the bay is comparable to LA. Yet, applications from UCLA still outnumber those of berkeley by 10,000. i think there’s more to this than just the convenience of the UC application.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>beyphy,</p>

<p>Technically, at least two elements are named for Berkeley: Californium and Berkelium.</p>

<p>Anyway, I just asked my colleague who is Korean-born, but has worked most of his adult life in Japan.</p>

<p>Korea: Berkeley
Japan: Berkeley</p>

<p>I also asked my Japanese colleagues. Same thing: Berkeley.</p>

<p>Now, that’s just Northeast Asia. I’ll ask my European colleagues, but I can pretty much guess the answer.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, it’s possible that my colleagues, being in their 30s and beyond, are maybe not thinking the same way as the 20-somethings. </p>

<p>

not sure how much i agree with this. Why wouldn’t berkeley be the most applied to UC if it’s ‘the best’? surely, the bay is comparable to LA. Yet, applications from UCLA still outnumber those of berkeley by 10,000. i think there’s more to this than just the convenience of the UC application.

</p>

<p>There’s also a population factor in play. Southern California is much more populous than Northern California, and the majority of UCLA students are still pretty local.</p>

<p>Besides, numbers of applicants is not a great measure of quality. I mean, not many people apply to Chicago relative to UCLA, but I don’t for a moment believe that UCLA is a better school than Chicago.</p>

[sentimentGX4]

<p>

@UCLAri

[UCLA]'s well-regarded, and is at least as well-regarded as other great public universities like U of Washington, UVA, and others. It’s definitely a top public. Just because it’s not Harvard doesn’t mean that it’s crap.

Then why are you giving us “warnings” and saying schools such as Berkeley, Michigan, and NYU have a “significant edge”? </p>

<p>It’s quite clear that everywhere across the United States that these universities would be considered bottom rung of the top 25. UCLA and Berkeley are evidently in the same tier. At best, Berkeley is in its own “subtier”. There aren’t enough schools to fill the gap in between for Berkeley to have its own tier.</p>

<p>

Even abroad, when I say I went to a UC, the first question is “Berkeley?”

I’m skeptical of this. There have been overwhelming input from foreigners that many are (a) not aware of the UC system, (b) not aware Berkeley is a public university, and (c) not aware that UCLA and Berkeley are in the same public university system.</p>

<p>

Anyway, I just asked my colleague who is Korean-born, but has worked most of his adult life in Japan.</p>

<p>Korea: Berkeley
Japan: Berkeley</p>

<p>I also asked my Japanese colleagues. Same thing: Berkeley.

Who cares if Berkeley is more “prestigious” than UCLA? Any foreign American university holds great “prestige” in some of these nations and there are far too few foreign university applicants to consider.</p>

<p>UCLA and Berkeley would still end up in the same pile even if Berkeley is regarded as better. The employer is debating between “prestigious” and “uber prestigious” and it would be crazy for him to not interview a candidate before hiring so he’ll consider both candidates.</p>

<p>Again, no “significant edge”.</p>

<p>

@bephy

I have heard from friends from others countries, on many instances, that UCLA is the top UC in public perception; that they haven’t even heard of berkeley, and so on. And i’ve yet to come into any instance where people have said they’ve heard of UCB, but not UCLA.

bephy, Berkeley is definitely better known and regarded than UCLA in most cases. As much as I “like” the university, there’s no need to be in denial.</p>

<p>There are only a few instances of when I heard that UCLA is deemed better than Berkeley in Hong Kong (in discussions completely unrelated with either university and neutral affiliations) and I’ve still heard some opposite accounts from other Hong Kong residents that Berkeley is more prestigious as well.</p>

[aaronjv15]

<p>Let’s take a second look at where this argument is coming from:</p>

<p>OP majored in poli sci. I’d venture to say that for ANY non-technical, in demand major, school name does not matter. This goes for poli sci, english, philosophy, etc…unless you’re at Harvard, I’m pretty sure majors that have open ended career paths will not carry clout with the name.</p>

<p>Majors such as engineering, on the other hand, DO carry the weight of a name like UCLA.</p>

<p>Does this make sense to everyone else?</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>sentimentGX,</p>

<p>

It’s quite clear that everywhere across the United States that these universities would be considered bottom rung of the top 25. UCLA and Berkeley are evidently in the same tier. At best, Berkeley is in its own “subtier”. There aren’t enough schools to fill the gap in between for Berkeley to have its own tier.

</p>

<p>I think the big problem here is that we assume that USNWR is an accurate measure of public perception. I’m not convinced that it is. I think that Berkeley and Michigan do “badly” on USNWR, but significantly better “East of the Mississippi,” so to speak.</p>

<p>

I’m skeptical of this. There have been overwhelming input from foreigners that many are (a) not aware of the UC system, (b) not aware Berkeley is a public university, and (c) not aware that UCLA and Berkeley are in the same public university system.

</p>

<p>My experience. You may feel free to disregard this. </p>

<p>

Who cares if Berkeley is more “prestigious” than UCLA? Any foreign American university holds great “prestige” in some of these nations and there are far too few foreign university applicants to consider.</p>

<p>UCLA and Berkeley would still end up in the same pile even if Berkeley is regarded as better. The employer is debating between “prestigious” and “uber prestigious” and it would be crazy for him to not interview a candidate before hiring so he’ll consider both candidates.</p>

<p>Again, no “significant edge”

</p>

<p>It was just more me doing a random survey-- my American friends all said the same thing. </p>

<p>And like I already said: the prestige doesn’t really matter to the individual. I’m just saying that the fact remains that Berkeley IS more prestigious, and DOES have advantages on the resume.</p>

<p>Hell, like I said, just look at the job fairs. Berkeley is pulling a number of top-tier employers UCLA is not. That doesn’t mean the UCLA grad can’t get the job-- just that the UCLA grad will have more of a challenge.</p>

<p>Like I said: the beauty of all of it is that even if Cal has the edge, it doesn’t matter to the individual. I think, myself, that that’s kind of nice.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>aaronjv15,</p>

<p>I wouldn’t go THAT far. There’s a huge difference between having a BA in poli sci from UCLA and a BA in poli sci from Cal State Channel Islands. </p>

<p>I’m not arguing that UCLA is some no-name school. I’m merely putting into an experience-based context. It’s a great school, and I’d still go there. </p>

<p>I just think that it still lacks the punch outside of CA that Berkeley does.</p>

<p>I’m not really understanding why I’m “wrong” to have had this experience? Granted, when I was in my early-20s, I might have argued the same thing as my detractors.</p>

[Genre]

<p>Ari, the UCLA name is on par with Berkeley/Ivies in Japan isn’t it? :D</p>

[sentimentGX4]

<p>

@UCLAri

I think the big problem here is that we assume that USNWR is an accurate measure of public perception. I’m not convinced that it is. I think that Berkeley and Michigan do “badly” on USNWR, but significantly better “East of the Mississippi,” so to speak.

Again, having been on CC, I have grown accustomed to the reputation of many universities and, going down the USNWR list, I sincerely believe Berkeley (but probably not Michigan) does deserve its USNWR rank even in the Eastern United States</p>

<p>While I can’t put a quantitative value on a university’s prestige, I can run down the list and be fairly confident which university is considered better than which. After going through each of the universities on the list (John Hopkins, Northwestern, etc.), Berkeley is pretty much exactly where it started! </p>

<p>The only schools I would remove from USNWR that are above Cal are Emory and WUSTL and these schools would probably go below UCLA as well. Georgetown, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame aren’t exactly more prestigious than Berkeley but their reputations are far better back East and so ranking them above the university isn’t necessarily incorrect.</p>

<p>

And like I already said: the prestige doesn’t really matter to the individual. I’m just saying that the fact remains that Berkeley IS more prestigious, and DOES have advantages on the resume.

I’m saying the advantage is negligent.</p>

<p>Once both the otherwise identical UCLA and the Berkeley applicant are offered the interview from the employer, I consider the university to be irrelevant from that point forward.</p>

<p>“Prestige” does not always translate to advantage. “Law of Diminishing Returns” - ECON 101 (or ECON 1 at UCLA).</p>

<p>

Hell, like I said, just look at the job fairs. Berkeley is pulling a number of top-tier employers UCLA is not. That doesn’t mean the UCLA grad can’t get the job-- just that the UCLA grad will have more of a challenge.

What “big name” employers do you spot that visit Cal but skip over UCLA? </p>

<p>(Also, note that UCLA’s Career Center is crap compared to Berkeley’s, which is rather good, so any findings may not be altogether related with the university’s “prestige”.)</p>