are UC colleges worth applying to if you dont live in cali??

College Search & Selection
121

<p>

</p>

<p>It took me a while to “get” the LSJU acronym. Perhaps I was still smiling at the intended (or non intended) alternative spelling of the word camaraderie. </p>

<p>Nice way to stand up, comrade Drax12! ;)</p>

122

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, it was my mistake then. I stand corrected. I was just simply typing without even proofreading my message before posting it.</p>

123

<p>btw: since LSJrU is on a farm, is it an ag school competing with the like of UC Davis, Wisconsin and Cornell’s contract college? :D</p>

124

<p>^^–^^
Perhaps, the people in Palo Alto might prefer spelling œnology in its refined European form than the more pedestrian Davis form of enology. )</p>

<p>Ah, those farmers!</p>

125

<p>Now I know, xiggi, how your reaached the ripe old age of 9,275, lol… </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll have you know that ‘comraderie’ is French for ‘comrade,’ good of you to notice. ; )</p>

<p>Comrade and comaraderie probably have the same base root, if you probably didn’t notice.</p>

<p>Btw, I also later referred to it as LJSU, if you care to correct.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow, at this rate, you’ll hit the age of 10,000 by Sunday. So this is what a lifer here does. </p>

<p>See, I melded two posts into one. Take a clue xiggi… ; )</p>

126

<p>drax12,</p>

<p>I admit you are funny in a quirky sense. I don’t have much time to waste, therefore I won’t even try to dig data, or find anything from the nonsense you have been producing. My general feeling is you always speculated USC in a malicious intent for anything USC has done, but paint UCLA with a rosy color for the same thing. I used “self-fabricated lies” to distinguish the lies that you passed around but were fabricated by others, such as RML. Of course, RML practices more restraints and sounds more reasonable than you. </p>

<p>I can tell you where you are funny in this post though … </p>

<p>First, UCLA doesn’t have a Nobelist brain drain, because it never had a pool of those:) Go check how many Nobel laureates are on your faculty. Funny story - one guy was suddenly re-hired by UCLA, after years of retirement life in Idaho, quickly after he was awarded in Chemistry. </p>

<p>Second, you told me “Wrt Nobelists, you have to be in the picture to be able to converse with others about the subject. What has USC ever done in this regard?” Now, you may have realized how moronic you have said that. But, just to play the silly game proving me in the picture to converse with a person like you about the subject, I have listened to the talks given by Nobel laureates about 10 times on different subjects, and shook hand and talked face-to-face with 3 of them. </p>

<p>P.S. this funny thread proved one thing - only UC extremists think UC is worthy of applying to if you dont live in cali. Hmmm… But I do think Berkeley is worthy of considering, and Cal, UCLA, UCSD are damn good graduate schools for many subjects.</p>

127

<p>^All the UCs are worth considering for grad school. At the grad level, the student-faculty plummets and “public” schools become more like “private” schools. Of course, I’m not saying apply to a UC school if it ranks lowly in your field but I’m just saying that they should be considered on a level playing field with other similarly ranked peers.</p>

<p>The same is true for all other public institutions. I would not recommend applying to any public university as an OOS undergraduate student (aside from those that promise big scholarships such as Alabama) but there is nothing wrong with applying as an OOS graduate student.</p>

128

<p>New NRC ranking shows the west coast schools become stronger and stronger in research, compared with schools elsewhere. Actually, most of researches are done in UCs. </p>

<p>For PhD programs, there is no OOS student, because almost everyone is paid through some form of fund.</p>

129

<p>Btw, you and I crossed paths before on this message board. I was working late one Friday night and saw a post on good premed schools. The subject came up, UCLA v USC, and I gave clear examples on why UCLA was better, mainly much larger placement. You linked the UCLA placement center site which showed only 155 or so who applied and thought it showed total apps from the school, when I showed 737 applied from 2009 (some from previous grad classes - USC 200+ per aamc.org site). Fine print of course said, “of those who released info to UCLA.” But then you did a funny thing after I refuted these being final numbers with my post, you deleted yours. This is why I pretty much quote all I respond to. Not a big deal, but it’s probably not good board etiquette to leave someone’s post looking like he/she responded to nothing. ; )</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This again is a little too general for my tastes. I don’t ‘speculate USC in a malicious intent for anything’ if I comprehend your meaning. It’s a few selective things, pretty much solely wrt admissions. </p>

<p>Here’s an example from a post I made just prior:</p>

<p>USC reports 3.7 gpa, 86% of frosh who graduated in top 10% of their hs class. These two figures clash as far as I’m concerned. USC also reports 10% ‘valedictorians.’ This term, squoted, generally has been expanded by some high schools to include > 1 person, many times up to 15 or so because hss want to empower students to feel good/better about themselves.</p>

<p>Per my previous post example in another thread, with corrections, this reflects the following for USC:</p>

<p>10% with say average uw gpa 3.98, 100% t-10%
90% with average gpa based on the assumed gpa of valedictorians, 3.67, t-10%…84% (corrected from by previous post or 76/90).</p>

<p>My point is… a 3.67 mean gpa for the 90% remaining would not -> 84% of these students in t-10%, especially since USC enrolls ~ 40% from private secondaries, with these schools doling out higher uw grades (but lower w grades). A 3.67 student from a private hs would be lucky to be 75th percentile. From a public, maybe, maybe 85th percentile at best for both.</p>

<p>And by seeing the rankings of students at specific private hss, I can tell you the trend for grad rank at USC wouldn’t be close to 86% t-10% in the ones taht choose USC.</p>

<p>Some factors that might mitigate the differences:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>USC using rounding of the 3.7 gpa. Could it actually be 3.74? I don’ think this would be material, however.</p></li>
<li><p>Could those supposedly not in t-10%, ~ 16% be really bottom hs dwellers? I don’t think USC counts athletes in these computations - I actually have proof… besides most distribution from low to high grades would be pretty smooth, not 84% t-10% with average rank of 94th percentile and 16% at 10th . Besides, if this were true, the 16% wouldn’t adversely affect the mean gpa of all frosh.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Btw, UCLA doesn’t have 90+% t-10%, something I’ve been adamant about stating. It’s probably more like 80+%. No school legitimately has 90% t-10%, save for maybe some place like Cal Tech. </p>

<p>I would say that UCLA is pretty honest about everything else, though, from what I see and in fact at times understates things (capped gpa, best scores per sitting, etc) as to not dissuade under-represented students from applying. UCLA feels if it can get students to apply from disadvantaged backgrounds, without the deterrent of these students seeing too high grades/scores of those admitted, even minimally q’ed according to UC’s index, then it will take a chance on some under the guise of holistics… but still generally t-10%. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m genuinely sorry for the somewhat oblique English reference, and I am hardly an expert. It’s just something that has been bothering me: The use of the term ‘fabricated lies’ by celebs, and other seemingly uneducated people like Charlie Sheen (‘uneducated’ doesn’t apply to you when I called you out btw). A friend questioned whether it was redundant. I replied that I thought so and was thinking similarly. I can go on and on about this, but I’ll put on some restraints. I’m not real good about fast hit-and-run posts, so bear with me if you wouldn’t mind.</p>

<p>And no, I don’t take things from other people nothing ‘self-fabricated.’ I have a decent, not really good sense of statistics, more qualitatively oriented rather than quantitative, but I can see when reportings don’t jibe as in the example above. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good point… I certainly did word things strangely. </p>

<p>One, I meant taht other UC’s have Nobelists: Cal, UCSB, but UCLA has essentially none because of real estate that surrounds the school. So there’s a preventative cap, rather than a sieve or ‘brain drain’ at UCLA, esp regarding the u system as a whole. </p>

<p>Two, by ‘brain drain,’ I didn’t mean that there were Nobelists who’ve left the university but referred to more of the potential ones - younger stars, as it were - who’d have the potential to win one, but found the real estate prohibitive to, say, a growing family and consequently left. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You used essentially the term, the informal, ‘your’ yourself: ‘…how many Nobel laureates are on your faculty…’ </p>

<p>This is precisely what I meant myself, ‘you,’ meaning USC - granted in an extremely informal, less-approved English sense. The informal banter you=USC is confirmed when I later stated, ‘What has USC ever done in this regard?’ Nice anecdotes nonetheless.</p>

<p>And I do like how you passed over the six Nobelists won by UCLA undergrad educated alumni. I’ll ask it again, therefore: What has USC ever done in regards to Nobelists on its the faculty or wrt alumni winners?</p>

<p>Don’t feel compelled to answer. I was just rephrasing the question.</p>

<p>

[quote]
P.S. this funny thread proved one thing - only UC extremists think UC is worthy of applying to if you dont live in cali. Hmmm… But I do think Berkeley is worthy of considering, and Cal, UCLA, UCSD are damn good graduate schools for many subjects.

[quote]
</p>

<p><em>micro shrug</em>… We’re all entitled to our opinions.</p>

<p>And I’lll definitely work on the length of my posts, perhaps bullets and outline form would help.</p>

130

<p>

Actually, I’m somewhat bemused by all the posts bashing Berkeley’s undergrad – quite frankly, it has been much harder hit at the graduate level. Graduate students are by nature far more expensive, as they require both tuition coverage and a living stipend. My equivalent department at Berkeley said that being the top student in the applicant pool usually (but not always!) resulted in a five year funding package…as for the other admits, things get “rather dicey.” :eek: </p>

<p>Funding in the sciences is still relatively unchanged, I think, due to outside funding sources. The social sciences are doing moderately well too. The humanities…eh, not so much. It’s still worth an application, of course, but students should be aware that the competition for a funded spot in some departments is 50:1 or even as high as 100:1. Scary!</p>

131

<p>I don’t know about Berkeley being = to Stanford overseas. People I have met in China think Stanford is similar to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Berkeley is a bit lower in prestige, but it is still a well-respected school.</p>

132

<p>UCLA and Cal are [recruiting</a>](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-recruit-20101115,0,4096476.story]recruiting”>UC campuses move to recruit more out-of-state students)in various US and foreign cities;, the other UCs are recruiting online.</p>

133

<p>I am not bothered when people say Berkeley is not yet at HYPSM level because I too believe that it is true. However, I have problems with the claim that USC and Berkeley are peer schools. I don’t think the majority of Berkeley applicants also apply to USC. I think that for most bright students, USC is just a dumping ground for Berkeley rejects. Berkeley applicants mostly apply to elite privates and other UCs. When i say elite privates, I’m talking about HYPSMC, the lower-ranked Ivies, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke, WashingtonU@StL, JHU, the top Claremont Colleges and the like.</p>

134

<p>From the this article: <a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-recruit-20101115,0,4096476.story[/url]”>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-recruit-20101115,0,4096476.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>These are all Asian countries! I think UCLA should recruit more from Europe as UCLA is already famous in Asia and does not need vigorous marketing campaigns there to win some bright students from those countries anymore.</p>

<p>

Berkeley is very well-respected in Europe especially in England, so I’m thinking some significant increase of English students at Berkeley for the coming years. </p>

<p>I’d also like Berkeley to send representatives to Norway, Germany and France. Berkeley has a really great name in those countries and has very strong alumni network, but many students there don’t have access to Berkeley in terms of application process unlike the Ivies where they participate in annual recruitment events. Berkeley is also very well-respected in the Middle East and South America. So, those are their main concentration on where to recruit top students.</p>

135

<p>BTW…if you go to a UC from out of state…don’t call California…“Cali” (gag)</p>

136

<p>

RML, let me give you some perspective as an L.A. native and someone who went to Berkeley and have several relatives and friends who went to USC.</p>

<p>Berkeley and USC are peer schools in the sense that average undergrad academic achievement stats are now nearly identical. Both USC and Berkeley are California research universities and accept large transfer student populations. USC has played Berkeley on the gridiron more than any other school… :slight_smile: Both attract sizeable international student bodies. It’s a great Norcal/Socal public/private rivalry. </p>

<p>Sure, Berkeley has the more renowned faculty and more prestigious graduate programs…in this sense I would say USC has a lot of catching up to do and would not be “peers”. However, USC has momentum of tremendous improvement and school pride that is tough to compare…this Bear would love for Berkeley to have USC’s pride, I just don’t think collectively it’s on the same level. </p>

<p>Berkeley and USC are different environments and I think appeal to kids from different locales (both smart and capable, however). I imagine lots of California kids apply to Berkeley and USC hoping to get into one since college admissions is so competitive these days. I don’t think USC is a “dumping ground for Berkeley rejects”. That may have been the case 15-20 years ago but no longer. Lots of kids like and prefer the “Trojan spirit”…and the academic stats speak for themselves.</p>

137

<p>^ I understand what you’re saying, but I politely disagree. This is one of those classic stories where SATs don’t tell the right picture of school standards and academic prestige. </p>

<p>First of all, the admissions of both schools are very different. That I guess you missed to integrate in your assessment. </p>

<p>While USC is a SAT whore school, Berkeley is NOT. In fact, like UCLA, it does not superscore SATs. Here’s a proof that Berkeley does not weigh SATs as much as USC does.</p>

<p>UC Berkeley
Application Essay: Very Important
SAT/ACT Scores: Important
High School GPA: Very Important
[University</a> of California-Berkeley: Undergraduate Profile ? BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>

<p>USC
Application Essay: Very Important
SAT/ACT Scores: Very Important
Recommendations: Very Important
High School GPA: Very Important
[University</a> of Southern California: Undergraduate Profile ? BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>

<p>And, even then Berkeley has higher SATs than USC’s. </p>

<p>Second, the GPA of Berkeley admits is much higher than the GPA of USC admits – 3.97 for Berkeley as opposed to only 3.7 for USC. That’s a considerable gap given the sheer number of students involved. And, like I have been saying, 99% of Berkeley admits belong to the top 10% of their HS class. In contrast, only 86% of USC admits are from the top 10% of their HS class. </p>

<p>And, finally, I don’t think Berkeley shares that many applicant pool with USC. And, for those who apply to both, I have many reasons to believe that they treat USC as a “fall back” rather than the other way around. Check out <a href="http://www..com/university_of_california,_berkeley/reviews/%5B/url%5D">http://www..com/university_of_california,_berkeley/reviews/</a> and find out for yourself that the vast majority of Berkeley applicants aren’t USC applicants, but rather, also HYPSM, other UCs and other elite privates in the NE or South or Midwest such as Duke, WashingtonU@StL and the like applicants. In fact, of those who provided information only 2 of them have also applied to USC. If this is a statistical sample, this means USC isn’t “hot” for Berkeley students. And, frankly, I haven’t really heard someone from Berkeley rave about USC and complain about Berkeley, but perhaps that’s due to the fact that Berkeley students/alumni look up to HYPSMC rather USC. Perhaps USC students/alumni look up to Berkeley. I don’t know. But I haven’t heard a Berkeley student/alumni honestly treat USC as an equal school. For example: [url=&lt;a href=“theU.com - Berkeley: "Academics" - YouTube”&gt;theU.com - Berkeley: "Academics" - YouTube]YouTube</a> - theU.com - Berkeley: “Academics”<a href=“watch%20starting%201:18”>/url</a></p>

<p>Again, many, many Berkeley students/alumni rave about going to and/or competing against HYPSM and don’t even think of USC when they’re asked to name a top school. Berkeley students compete with the best schools, and sadly, USC isn’t one of those schools that Berkeley students/grads try to pit themselves against.</p>

138

<p>

</p>

<p>This is true. I personally know 3 students from our local hs who were admitted to both Cal and USC and chose USC.</p>

139

<p>RML, i would doublecheck those BW links you just posted. </p>

<p>the data presented on those pages contradicts what you’re saying about Berkeley and USC GPAs. </p>

<p>Berkeley
HS GPA of 3.75 or higher:
83 %
HS GPA of 3.5 to 3.74:
16 %</p>

<p>USC
HS GPA of 3.75 or higher:
92 %
HS GPA of 3.5 to 3.74:
7 %</p>

<p>???</p>

<p>(the 3.7 unweighted GPA is the incoming student profile, admitted is 3.8)</p>

<p>also, you are honestly quite delusional if you think that USC applicants don’t apply to other elite privates.</p>

140

<p>RML #134:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d agree 100%. I’m not sure what increase UCLA could receive by recruiting in the Asian cities mentioned. I’m not a real fan of UCLA’s administration; their (its) plans and strategies are often quite puzzling.</p>

<p>Actually, I’d like to see UCLA recruit in Rome, Sao Paulo, Madrid, the Norwegian cities you mentioned, etc, and recruit mainly coeds, lol. </p>

<p>I think both UCLA and Cal have to work on oos students from the other 49 states. UCLA’s popular in Hawaii, NY, Mass and some of the western states. Atlanta is a good strategy as is Chicago. Actually national city outside of Honolulu would be good strategy because UCLA is more internationally renowned than nationally. Same for Cal, generally. </p>

<p>Josewasabi, #139:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s no way in the world that USC has more upper-echelon gpas than Cal.</p>

<p>Regarding USC’s numbers, there’s no way the mean gpa of 3.7 for its frosh and the statistics you presented jibe in anyway.</p>

<p>If we assumed the following:</p>

<p>92% average gpa 3.85
7% average gpa 3.62
1% average gpa 3.30</p>

<p>The mean would be 3.83, not anywhere near 3.65-3.74 (per USC’s rounding to 3.7). A tenth gpa difference is huge because the difference between very average grades and perfect ones is only 2.0 difference.</p>

<p>Also, if one looks at the high schools who give class rank and colleges where each student was accepted and who later chose USC, it’s hard to verify some of the mean statistics for frosh that USC reports. There are undoubtedly some that choose USC over Cal, UCLA, etc. But USC also admits a lot of students whose ‘best choice’ is USC, with choices of, say, SCU, Loyola, Cal Poly, USD, and USC. These are typically (by far) not real high ranking students.</p>