<p>It talks about how UCI is expanding and trying to improve its status to become a flagship UC like UCLA and Cal.</p>
<p>I've also noticed that recently UCLA seems to have climbed in status relative to Cal. Many considers them to be in the same tier, with similar academics, and now many are choosing UCLA instead of Cal (albeit mostly for environment). UCLA's students even seem to be on-par with those at Cal:</p>
<p>I'm wondering, what is Berkeley doing to improve its school? I'm really not trying to bash the school. It just seems like the rest of the UCs are really working to improve the schools...is Berkeley making the same effort? or is it simply satisfied with currently being the top UC and arguably the top public university?</p>
<p>One thing I can think of is that it has recently renovated its housing and incoming freshmen are now guaranteed two years of housing, which I think is awesome. Are there other instances of this?</p>
<p>Also, do you think UCLA, or other UCs, will surpass Cal in the near, or not-so-near future?</p>
<p>What does surpass mean? There is not "best" UC. This isn't math question that we're all waiting to figure out. If UCI is best for you, then UCI is the "best" UC. If you're talking about prestige, then no, I don't think anyone will pass Berkeley in the near future, no matter what they do. Berkeley is the oldest, most historic school in the system. It's Cal, as in The University of California, whereas UCLA is not, and will never be The University of California. That has nothing to do with quality, but rather perception.</p>
<p>I really think that the reason why UCLA -seems- to have climbed so much relative to Cal is because of a small shift in our culture's attitude toward the colleges. California opened the millenium in a terrible financial position and came out with all the budget cuts and tuition increases etc. while college demand continued to increase. So people notice how bad California's financial situation is and how California's education seems to be going downhill. Then they look at Berkeley and its environment. Bums, people at the bottom of the system, crowded urban center, strong counter-culture...It all seems so representative of the perceived instability of California. Now they look at UCLA. Rich area, clean environment, no bums; no instability. It looks secure and far away from California's problems. Add the .com crash and all the new techs are falling up north while companies sit high in glitzy, business-loving L.A. So then UCLA looks great in this context and people start thinking, "Well, Berkeley doesn't seem -that- much better than UCLA."</p>
<p>I wasn't old enough to pay attention to this stuff in the 90's, but I'm willing to bet that people were loving Berkeley during the .com boom.</p>
<p>It seems that UCSD, UCI, UCD, UCSB are making changes and improvements to increase academics and attract higher level students. I believe in the next 20some years these campus' will academically be on the same level as UCLA and Cal are now. By doing this it just makes the UC system that much stronger. I totally agree with GentlemanandScholar that Cal will always be Cal and the perception will remain the same, no matter what other campus' do.<br>
In my opinion the things DRab mentions are improving the "image" Cal has about bad food and housing and the "sink or swim" attitude towards freshmen along with competing with other schools for the same applicants each year.</p>
<p>People have said that norcal and socal seem like two different states. Well Cal is the most prestigious UC in norcal, and UCLA is the most prestigious UC in socal. There's no debate about that. </p>
<p>Some people think Cal's academics are better, others think it's equal. However, even most people who think Cal is better academically think the difference is slight.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the location and atmosphere of the two schools are very different. Berkeley and Westwood are very different. SF and LA are different. Norcal and socal are like two separate states. The weather is different (not so much compared to the East coast of course). The political views are different. The people are different. In the end, the academics are similar (or close) but the schools feel very different. That's why most people end up choosing Cal or UCLA based on "fit."</p>
<p>Well I can't speak for most people, but around everyone I've talked to in southern California think UCLA and Berkeley are pretty equal in prestige. When I said "UCLA is the most prestigious UC in socal" I meant UCLA is the most prestigious in socal area compared to UCSD, UCI, UCR, UCSB, etc. Therefore some people who want to go to school in socal will go to UCLA because it's the overall best UC in socal.</p>
<p>Most of the forumers (including myself to an extent) here on CC.com are too young to remember UCLA a decade or so ago. Sure it was a strong school, and it was a good program, but its reputation has changed quite a bit in the past two or three decades. It went from being a good regional school to being world-reknowned. </p>
<p>That's the difference. It has nothing to do with Cal decreasing in quality. It has nothing to do with "bums" in Berkeley (you guys think the areas around Columbia and Penn are beautiful?) It has nothing to do with the .com boom.</p>
<p>It's because UCLA has finally come of age. UCSD is on the same path. People oftentimes forget the huge age differences between Cal and UCLA and UCSD. An over half-century long headstart will do that, guys. You think that it's any coincidence that UCLA, the second oldest campus (Davis was developed earlier, but wasn't a UC until AFTER UCLA) being the second-strongest/co-strongest program in the UC is a coincidence? That the most prestigious privates are oftentimes also the oldest?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wasn't old enough to pay attention to this stuff in the 90's, but I'm willing to bet that people were loving Berkeley during the .com boom.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>People have been loving Berkeley since the turn of the century. They still love Berkeley now. Cal is still a dream school for thousands of Californians every year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the forumers (including myself to an extent) here on CC.com are too young to remember UCLA a decade or so ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In 1991, Cal was tied with UPenn as #13, and UCLA was #17 in US News. Except for UCLA and Cal, no other UCs have reached the top 25 mark so far.</p>
<p>UCI, UCSD, UCD, UCLA, UCSB can try to play catch-up all they want. They will never be Cal. They will never have the diversit Berkekely has. They will never match it in its liberal-mindedness. They will never be allowed to own and operate their own cannon. They will never discover 16 elements for the periodic table. They will never contribute to the Manhattan project that turned out the first nuclear bombs. They will never have Laurance Lab. They will never have two elements named after it. They will never become the research GIANT that Berkeley is. They will never have the international perstige that Berkeley has.</p>
<p>You ask why?</p>
<p>Because Berkeley is the first, and that will never change. It is THE flagschool of the UC system. UCLA might think they're the 2nd flagschool, but truth be told, you got to China, you got to Italy, you go to India. You say Berkeley. People will know. You say UCLA. People will know. But not for the university; they will know what you're talking about because of City of Los Angeles, and the international prestige that berkeley built for the UC system. </p>
<p>UCLA attracts smart students because of it's environment. Berkeley uses it's prestige, and because of this fact that can never change, the vast majority of the Best minds will end up at berkeley, not LA, because although all of those students are good, only the Best understand that the education and the prestige is more valuable than 4 years of sunny weather.</p>
<p>I definitely think age plays a huge role UCLAri, but it's not solely it. UCR is older than UCI, for instance, and some people think that UCI is far superior than UCR. There're more factors at play than just age, but it is a big one.</p>
<p>Sorry about that dyip10, your statements make sense now. And perhaps the alternative is true, maybe UCLA does have a bigger name in So Cal than Berkeley, but I don't think it does. <em>shrug</em> Perhaps.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They will never discover 16 elements for the periodic table. They will never contribute to the Manhattan project that turned out the first nuclear bombs. They will never have Laurance Lab. They will never have two elements named after it. They will never become the research GIANT that Berkeley is. They will never have the international perstige that Berkeley has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps. But then again, Stanford was a backwater at the turn of the century, and now is arguably the best university overall in California. So don't get cocky, Bears. </p>
<p>
[quote]
only the Best understand that the education and the prestige is more valuable than 4 years of sunny weather.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I call TOTAL BS on this. I chose UCLA because it offered me better funding, proximity to those I loved, and a lifestyle I enjoyed. But I KNOW I would've done well at Cal, had I gone there. Get off your high horse.</p>