<p>I have to say, you won me over. UCLA is the best school in the word. I know when I go to class I wonder, "jeez, how much did my department spend on research this year, cause my nobel prize winning teacher will turn stupid if his bosses don't outspend UCLA."</p>
<p>Well, actually spending isn't necessarily the determining factor of excellence, but results. And since, according to Coto, UCLA is increasing its spending on research, yet fails to make the top 20 international list for top universities (based on research), then that's just sad. Here's the list again for further emphasis.</p>
<p>So if it truly is spending more, yet has no results...then, what is there to brag about? It's just emphasized failure. </p>
<p>(The metaphor is: If I didn't study for the SAT and did mediocrely, say 2200 on the new scale, then it's okay. But if I then subsequently studied for it, and still did poorly, then I truly am a retard. Well, okay maybe 2200 is good, but say 2100 is mediocre.)</p>
<p>This is from Berkeley </p>
<p>Research Programs - Total Research and Development Expenditures - Peer Comparison 2003-2004</p>
<p>The Federal expenditures do not include R&D for medical schools</p>
<p>again</p>
<p>The Federal expenditures do not include R&D for medical schools</p>
<p>UCLA 849,357K
Michigan 780,054K
Stanford 603,227K
Berkeley 507,186K
MIT 485,764K
Harvard 408,707K
Yale 387,644K</p>
<p>CotoDeCasa...I've already mentioned results. UCLA doesn't put nearly as much circulated and cited research as Berkeley does. That's the facts. </p>
<p>You're just further proving failure by emphasizing high expenditures on research yet lack of results.</p>
<p>Berkelium. Californium. Where is the UCLAium?</p>
<p>Anyway, I don't want to completely diss on UCLA, because it is a good university, but its research output is quite small compared to Berkeley's. I'd say we have our graduate programs to thank for that.</p>
<p>t3hcan0n,</p>
<p>If you're choosing between UCLA and Berkeley for BioE, I'd say Berkeley hands down, unless you really like living in LA or for other non-academic reasons. I was kinda on the same boat last year, but think about it, UCLA BioE is only like what, 2 years old or something? Yeah, Berkeley's program is pretty young too, but at least its grad school is decent. (yeah btw I don't wanna argue about how grad/undergrad qualities are unrelated, how's the age of the program doesn't matter and what not, but anyway i'd have lots of doubt going to a 2-year-old BioE program at a school that's not really known for its strength in engineering )</p>
<p>I am BioE/premed/Regents too, so we are pretty much on the same boat. Well, if you're a Regent candidate, I think you are likely to have enough brain juice to pull off a 3.7+ gpa, given that you have a good work ethic. Really, it's not THAT hard to get 3.5+. Lots of people get 3.7+, so don't worry. And actually, I think you should aim a little higher if you wanna go to med school.</p>
<p>on a side note....</p>
<p>IMHO, I'd have to say that Berkeley's BioE program at this moment is not that good. Many juniors/seniors think this department is kind of messy in terms of its curriculum. There are just so many (imo, waaay too many) classes that you can choose from to satisfy your "core" requirement. As a consequence this major is kinda........ "random". But again, if you choose carefully there're also some good classes out there where you can learn some Real BioE stuff. Well, I'll shut up here, since you're a premed and use BioE as a backup major I don't think you'll need to worry much about that.</p>
<p>BioE UCSD is better.</p>
<p>Right, but who in their right mind would choose UCSD over UCLA or Berkeley? Give me a break.</p>
<p>For those who really wants to study BioE? I'm sure quite a number of them will choose UCSD. But I don't hah :)</p>
<p>Maybe for grad school.</p>
<p>But we're not talking about grad school.</p>
<p>But thats why I'm agreeing with you.</p>
<p>Moo ha-ha; goodies.</p>
<p>But I don't see why Coto is even posting at UC forums, especially since he attends neither UCLA nor Berkeley.</p>
<p>and money talks</p>
<p>UCLA Raises More Than $3 Billion to Help Ensure Its Long-term Future Among Worlds Leading Research Universities </p>
<p>Campaign UCLA secured funding used to support cutting-edge research, provide student scholarships and fellowships, attract and retain top scholars in a wide range of academic disciplines, and enhance classroom, laboratory, health care and other facilities. The campaign benefited all sectors of UCLA </p>
<p>No other single fund-raising campaign by a college or university has generated as much support. Other top research universities in recent years have launched fund-raising campaigns with similar monetary goals, but UCLA was the first to reach the $3 billion milestone.</p>
<p>-Endow 124 new professorships, which have attracted and retained top scholars and researchers in a wide range of academic disciplines, from literature to pediatric neurosurgery and from international finance to nanosystems.</p>
<p>"The role of private giving and the engagement of faculty in philanthropic efforts are increasingly important as the funding gap between public and private universities widens," said mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Adrienne Lavine, head of the UCLA Academic Senate. "Campaign UCLA benefited every segment of the institution, including faculty, and helped to secure UCLA's long-term future among the world's leading research universities."</p>
<p>"The success of Campaign UCLA is a great testament to our extraordinary faculty and students," Carnesale said. "Private giving is critical if we are to continue to attract the best and the brightest."</p>
<p>1920-1960</p>
<p>Berkeley(even better than Harvard) >>Stanford >>>>>>UCLA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>USC</p>
<p>1960-79</p>
<p>Berkeley=Stanford>>>>>UCLA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>USC</p>
<p>1980-1992</p>
<p>Stanford>Berkeley>>>>>>UCLA(Young)>>>>>>>>>>>>USC</p>
<p>1993-1997</p>
<p>Stanford>>>>Berkeley>>>>>UCLA(Young was bad)>>>>USC(New President)</p>
<p>1998-2000</p>
<p>Stanford >>>>>Berkeley(Berdahl was bad)>>UCLA(New Chancellor)>>USC( buy Students & Profs)</p>
<p>2000-2004</p>
<p>Stanford>>>Berkeley>UCLA>UCSD(Dynes was super)>USC(fund raising)</p>
<p>2005-2010</p>
<p>Stanford(too arrogant)>UCLA>Berkeley>UCSD>USC</p>
<p>Nice bit of history.</p>
<p>Dude, that UCLA is such prpoganda bs. Can we just claim that something is a campaign after the fact? In that case, I think Harvard has had a succesful 24 billion dollar campaign, Yale/Princeton/Stanford all about 12 billion. </p>
<p>Also, your history thing is ridiculous.</p>
<p>This is about UCB
by the way Mr. Tien was a nice man.</p>
<p>BERKELEY Former University of California at Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien will soon be honored by the university, which will name a new building after him.</p>
<p>University officials have announced that a yet-to-be-built East Asian library and study room will be named after the 65-year-old Tien, who served as chancellor from 1990 to 1997.</p>
<p>Those were tough financial times for the university, but Tien envisioned an ambitious 7-year fundraising campaign that ended in December and resulted in $1.44 billion .</p>
<p>And this is from Duke</p>
<p>As of that week, the Campaign for Duke had raised $2,006,684,498?surpassing the $2 billion goal nearly a full year before the campaign?s scheduled completion. Thanks to tremendous support from its friends and alumni, Duke is one of only five American universities ever to have raised $2 billion in a single fundraising campaign. Only Harvard, Columbia, the University of California at Los Angeles and the University of Southern California had achieved such an ambitious goal, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.</p>
<p>When was the time when Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara was really good???</p>