<p>Well, if you search for threads involving private schools versus public schools, you can find out the general advantages and disadvantages of going to both. </p>
<p>Not necessarily in terms of jobs - possibly in terms of networking. For example, it's going to take more effort and gunning to get in connection with alums from UCLA and other large state universities than from places like Cornell or in the more extreme example, Harvard where there are distinct alumni networks (UCLA has one but not nearly as strong in terms of active communication). UCLA's Career Center is trying to serve 25,000 undergraduates and of course, graduate students. It takes planning, advance scheduling of appointments, etc. and a great amount of diligence and persistence to follow-through. Such is the nature of state universities. At private institutions, that tend to be smaller, there is more individual attention and the offices and resources are not as strained. As an international student or an out-of-student, you're wasting your money for something you'd have to bust your tail for that, with similar efforts at a private institution of similar or better quality, you would go beyond. You get what you pay for - as an in-state student, that is. </p>
<p>That and there is more geographical diversity with the top private schools. My friends at UWashington know out-of-state students and it's like "Why are you here?" It's not so much the case at UW but OOS students usually get surprised looks. </p>
<p>I'm not bashing top public universities - they're fantastic... moreso for in-state students than OOS students (such as yourself). It's a different ballgame if you're a recruited athlete where costs are dampened by scholarships and heck, your motivations for wanting to play sports at a division I school. </p>
<p>Things at large universities involve gunning and it's just a whole lot easier at the smaller places. Classes (introductory classes not included) will provide more access and the general liberal arts focuses (rather than the scattered GE requirements) will provide a more consolidated approach.</p>
<p>Before this is mentioned - I know places like USC have introductory classes. People reference this all the time. Look at general classes in departments such as History, Sociology, and especially Political Science sans the seminar classes (however many there are relative to the classes available as whole sans graduate school courses). They're heavily congested! For history, you're going to graduate with all lecture courses! Same thing with Sociology especially if you make an effort to avoid people like Maurice Zeitlin. </p>
<p>Hell, there are majors that aren't limited or "impacted." Look at Stanford. You could switch from English to Engineering in a heartbeat. Not at UCLA or Berkeley. Some majors (e.g. Communications, Business-Economics, etc.) are more popular than others. Face it, people are not trying to major in World Arts and Cultures, Scandinavian Studies (heck, 2 people graduated within the last 5 years or so), or LGBT or Native American Studies. You're not going to have the same accessibility at these large schools. You be a gunner - but why should you need to be and what's the point? Prove self-worth and persistence? There are better options to invest your energy than that! </p>
<p>Does it prepare you for the real world? Run and gun attitude? Yes sure it does... if you can make it through and not fall through the cracks. Why bother if you can invest your energy wisely? </p>
<p>There are some things that I don't like about UCLA that consistently bother me. And most likely others as well. (Especially enrollment issues and getting the classes you want - this is a huge issue at the school.) Overall, I love it though and there are more positives than negatives. </p>
<p>Choose what works for you - to each his own. Sometimes I regret it and wish I had chosen a medium-sized school. You gotta have a gunning attitude - sure, in the real world too but should it be this difficult here? I don't know...</p>