<p>-UCLA is as selective as Cal to get in now</p>
<p>Sort of. It depends. In some areas, it's far more so, such as musical theatre, in some, less so, such as engineering. They use different methods. I'd still say Cal is harder on the average, but it's close. </p>
<p>I think other UCs are generally doing something smart- trying to get the best students to come through money and special programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
O definitely, that's probably why more people are applying to UCLA and the student bodies are pretty similar now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to my uncle, who is a UCLA and Hastings (during it's so-called renaissance) grad, UCLA used to be held in a significantly inferior light in the 70s and 80s. By the 90s, however, UCLA managed to ride the Wooden fame and increased funding all the way to prestige central (ugh, what a bad metaphor.) To this day, he said he can't look at UCLA in the same light as Cal. In fact, he and my aunt tried quite passionately to get me to attend Cal, despite my personal...</p>
<p>Holycraphugespideronmykeyboard...</p>
<p>Okay, back. Damn I hate Japan. Anyway, my uncle said that it's strange to him how UCLA and Cal are basically see as "equals" at the undergrad level, when just a decade or two ago it was quite different.</p>
<p>Application numbers for UCLA is going to be crazy next year prob because UCLA basketball reached the national championships. EVERYONE from my school is applying to UCLA where most kids that will apply to Cal are academically strong. I don't know why many more people apply to UCLA than Cal from my school. Cal, by car is about 15 minutes away.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Application numbers for UCLA is going to be crazy next year prob because UCLA basketball reached the national championships. EVERYONE from my school is applying to UCLA where most kids that will apply to Cal are academically strong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes...and no. I don't expect UCLA average applicant GPA and SAT scores to drop, if at all. We'll probably see similar scores from last year, just higher numbers.</p>
<p>Self-selection is an amazing thing.</p>
<p>Self selection? Indeed. If all the kids whow applied to UCLA applied to Cal and Cal to UCLA, we'd see some interesting numbers, I imagine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Berkeley has a history of being a very strong university but that doesn't speak about the quality of the university NOW.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can't the same be said for any place? What do you mean, exactly?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I mean, Berkeley has historically been the top UC. Take UCLAri's story for example. UCLA used to be held in a significantly inferior light compared to Berkeley. I'm worried that because Berkeley has historically been the top UC that it's not doing much to try to improve, while the other UCs obviously are trying to catch up to Berkeley, which is why now many people say UCLA and Berkeley are about the same. I'd like to see Berkeley still be noticebly better than UCLA and do justice to its prestige, its historical accomplishments, and its status as the oldest and flagship campus of the UC system. Of course someone brought up a good point by stating the law of diminishing returns, but I still think there's room for Berkeley to improve.</p>
<p>In the last decade, UCLA's admit rate has almost cut in half. There are now 9 UCs. There used to be only one. So I imagine when there were 5 UCs, Berkeley contained most of California's top students. Now the population has grown and new UCs have been developed. Therefore, the top students are spread out between UCLA and Cal and other UCs. 99% of UCLA and Cal students are in the top 10% of their graduating class. In my high school, about 4% of the students go to UCLA or Cal. A long time ago, Berkeley was as easy or easier to get in as UCI today.</p>
<p>Excellent point. Don't leave out the population explosion, either.</p>
<p>in 15 years all the UC's besides UCLA and Berkeley will be where UCSD is at now. UC Merced will Climb the fastest and maybe contend with the 4th or 5th spot for sure. I also agree that sports will make a UC a flagship. look at the two top UC's right now....</p>
<p>That's a very gracious assumption, sort of a state-wide Flynn effect of sorts. I personally don't believe it, nor do I believe UCLA will ever surpass Cal in prestige. </p>
<p>Generations of incoming students don't evolve that rapidly unless the foundation of our education system is somehow changed. </p>
<p>Next...can you ever imagine Yale or Princeton surpassing Harvard? I doubt it. People enjoy homeostasis in their lives. The only reason USNews changes their rankings so frequently is to attract subscribers to their database. UCLA is not surpassing UCB in the next few decades unless something momentous happens. Even then, it'll take the world another few decades to recognize it.</p>
<p>I don't think that the top students that decide on UCLA over UCB are choosing UCLA based on "sunny weather" as their number one priority as some UCB students would like to believe. The $5,500 Regents scholarship at UCLA, for example, is much more appealing than the paltry $1,000 Regents at UCB. My S was offered approx. $10,000 in scholarships at UCLA as Regents scholar + financial aid, while UCB only offered him $1,000 as Regents scholar + $26 free money in financial aid (the rest was loans and work/study). Although we would all like to believe that a "dream school" is worth any amount of debt and work/study, the reality of finances kicks in very quickly.</p>
<p>Here is a 2003 article on UCLA winning over UCB candidates with their Regents Scholarship, so apparently UCB has been feeling the pull for some years now.</p>
<p>There will always be students that prefer UCB over any other UC, no matter what, but if more and more top students are being wooed over to UCLA... who knows?</p>
<p>"I personally don't believe it, nor do I believe UCLA will ever surpass Cal in prestige...Generations of incoming students don't evolve that rapidly unless the foundation of our education system is somehow changed...Next...can you ever imagine Yale or Princeton surpassing Harvard? I doubt it. People enjoy homeostasis in their lives. The only reason USNews changes their rankings so frequently is to attract subscribers to their database. UCLA is not surpassing UCB in the next few decades unless something momentous happens. Even then, it'll take the world another few decades to recognize it."</p>
<p>That's what I'm trying to say, but he/she just said it 100 times better.</p>
<p>I'm talking reputation here, so keep that in mind. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of academic quality, I don't believe that people think UCLA is better than Cal. Berkeley is the 1st UC and everyone knows that, but a lot of people in socal view them pretty similar in terms of prestige...Different factors contribute to this prestige
[/quote]
[quote]
I think UCLA's getting more apps is in part because of academic improvements, but primarily from other factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In terms of academic quality, these are the points I'm getting at. The majority still believe that Berkeley has an advantage over UCLA academically, but they are choosing UCLA nonetheless. To say that people are now choosing UCLA more often because UCLA has such improved academics is the wrong conclusion given the above statements. The number one reason why I've seen people go UCLA over Berkeley is because of the atmosphere. I'm not saying that UCLA has bad academics. I'm saying that UCLA probably has always been a great, underrated school, and in terms of academic quality UCLA probably hasn't changed drastically in the last decade. The drastic change has come from people's perceptions of UCLA, not UCLA itself. Notice I said drastic change, not all change in general. And with the improved perceptions of UCLA you get the -more qualified- students applying there and UCLA's reputation continues to improve.</p>
<p>The same goes for Cal. Besides the increase in college students, Cal probably isn't that much different in terms of academic quality than it was in the 90's. What's changing is people's view of Cal in light of the lack of money and in light of UCLA's change in reputation.</p>
<p>Yes so why has Berkeley's perception been declining relative to UCLA? I don't think you can say it's entirely non-academic related.</p>
<p>Yes people choose UCLA over Cal because of atmosphere...but if Cal really were a much better school then people shouldn't care about atmosphere. I don't see people choosing UCLA over Harvard because of better atmosphere.</p>
<p>Matter of the fact is UCLA used to be seen as inferior to Cal academically, and now people seem to think that they are on-par academically. This could only suggest that UCLA's academics has been improving, while Cal's hasn't improved much. I don't think people suddenly saw the light decided that UCLA is actually a good school academically. UCLA must have improved its school...I don't see why Cal can't do the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally don't believe it, nor do I believe UCLA will ever surpass Cal in prestige...Generations of incoming students don't evolve that rapidly unless the foundation of our education system is somehow changed...Next...can you ever imagine Yale or Princeton surpassing Harvard? I doubt it. People enjoy homeostasis in their lives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Princeton has already surpassed Harvard at the undergraduate level, and Yale's admit rate was 8.6% vs. 9ish% for Harvard. I don't think the three (undergrad-wise) were ever that far apart. But Berkeley used to be heads and shoulders above UCLA, UCSD, etc., and now it seems like they are catching up while Berkeley's academics remain rather...stagnant.</p>
<p>I mean, if homeostasis is so prevalent then why has UCLA gained so much academic prestige in the past few years/decades? Or UCSD? It was less than 100 years ago when Stanford was struggling for funds and now its undergradsurpasses that of Berkeley's?</p>
<p>
[quote]
yes so why has Berkeley's perception been declining relative to UCLA? I don't think you can say it's entirely non-academic related.
[/quote]
1 It hasn't. Many here have argued that UCLA has risen and Cal has remained the same. If this argument is correct, then your statement is wrong. Also, whos said that Berkeley is declining relative to UCLA? What if one is stagnant, or both are? There are fluctuations, sure. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes people choose UCLA over Cal because of atmosphere...but if Cal really were a much better school then people shouldn't care about atmosphere. I don't see people choosing UCLA over Harvard because of better atmosphere.
[/quote]
Some do. It also has to do with the difference. Say UCLA has gotten better, and Berkeley has remained pretty much the same- they would be more close together, so the difference wouldnt be as big a factor</p>
<p>
[quote]
Matter of the fact is UCLA used to be seen as inferior to Cal academically, and now people seem to think that they are on-par academically. This could only suggest that UCLA's academics has been improving, while Cal's hasn't improved much. I don't think people suddenly saw the light decided that UCLA is actually a good school academically. UCLA must have improved its school...I don't see why Cal can't do the same.
[/quote]
Some people think that Berkeley is still far ahead of UCLA, especially in certain areas, and at least a little better on the whole. Certainly some UCLA programs are far better as well, such as musical theater, and film. But who is included in your people?
[quote]
Princeton has already surpassed Harvard at the undergraduate level, and Yale's admit rate was 8.6% vs. 9ish% for Harvard. I don't think the three (undergrad-wise) were ever that far apart. But Berkeley used to be heads and shoulders above UCLA, UCSD, etc., and now it seems like they are catching up while Berkeley's academics remain rather...stagnant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Than why do people overwhelmingly choose Harvard over Princeton if admitted into both? I think Harvard gets 8/10 people in that situation. Simple admit rate isnt too helpful either. And do cross admits determine quality? Youre mixing a lot of things together here.</p>
<p>Rather stagnant, perhaps, and I think improvements can be made, but say its at its best- you cant get better than best. You keep implying that Berkeley being stagnant is bad or something, whereas a school that is already amazing remains stagnant, its still amazing. But Berkeley isnt stagnant; its just more developed, and might be stangnant relative to newer schools. Its all relative. Berkeley can improve and should improve, has been improving and will improve more, dont get me wrong, but dont forget at this point its still pretty freaking amazing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, if homeostasis is so prevalent then why has UCLA gained so much academic prestige in the past few years/decades? Or UCSD? It was less than 100 years ago when Stanford was struggling for funds and now its undergradsurpasses that of Berkeley's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you saying here? Its somewhat unintelligible.</p>
<p>What vicissitudes doesn't seem to get is that this discussion is about perception and prestige, not quality. Like I've said before, I don't think there are things that are set in stone that make one school better than another. People have different values when it comes to what's important to them. So saying Cal is getting worse or UCLA is getting better, what are you talking about? Please explain what you view as the criteria to judge the quality of schools, becuase you seem to think there are some universal, measurable qualities that make a school good or bad, and if that were the case we wouldn't need USNews or any other rankings, because we'd just add up the numbers ourselves and find out once and for all what the "best" school is. Maybe you think admit rate is the best, or SATs, but maybe your best buddy thinks quality of professors is the best, or how good the food is on campus. The point is that we all measure quality in different terms and if you're going to make big, sweeping claims about the quality of the school itself, you should be very specific about what areas you're talking about.</p>
<p>The problem with discussing research universities is the fact that everyone has a different reason for being at one. Someone in the film school at UCLA is probably not too concerned with its strong chem or bio programs at the PhD level.</p>
<p>And while I argue that strong PhD programs affect the quality of an undergrad major (since they pull stronger grad students, which means better TAs), there are a significantly higher number of people who argue otherwise.</p>
<p>As a research institution, Cal is still doing great. It's still a powerhouse. There are maybe one or two schools in the nation that can boast Cal's graduate program quality. But let's face it guys: Public universities like Cal, Michigan, and UCLA will probably NEVER have a strong undergraduate focus. Why should they? That's not where the prestige is.</p>
<p>That last post made me late for something and now my gf is mad that I'm on here so much. I must withdraw from here now. Poop :p</p>
<p>is this thread some sort of ego booster for the OP? Is he/she afraid that the other UCs are catching up to berkeley? If so, then I think this is pointless.</p>