<p>Cal's Econ is thought to be stronger than UCLA's.</p>
<p>In general, yes. But most employers couldn't care less if your undergrad's econ department is better at financial economics than another school. The education you get at the undergrad level is pretty homogeneous.</p>
<p>I picked Marshall/Leventhal over UCLA Biz/Econ and I don't regret it for a second! I LOVE USC.</p>
<p>Leventhal was a UCLA alum until UCLA stopped offering their accounting major... look where he is now :)</p>
<p>If you are the least bit interested in accounting, Leventhal can't be beat. It has been consistently ranked in the top 5 accounting schools... you WILL have firms competing to recruit you PERIOD if you graduate from Leventhal. Some of my friends have received internships after 1 semester at USC.</p>
<p>Investment banks are not for everyone... I went to two goldman sachs events yesterday... its a good firm since there are so many different places for different people to be. But if you just aim to work in the investment bank division, have fun working 18 hour days (i'm not kidding!)</p>
<p>Good luck! Btw My friend also got into Cal Haas and let's just say he doesn't enjoy it ;~)</p>
<p>Moss--- I agree USC is a great school, which I am also considering. A big plus is their extensive Alumni network.</p>
<p>My concern for Cal Econ is that it is overshadowed by Haas. Specifically, most of the people at Berkeley who want to do I-Banking are at Haas. Atleast thats what I would think...I mean it seems the I-banks would focus on the Haas kids for their positions....though I am just guessing</p>
<p>Can anyone give me their opinion whether UCLA BizEcon or UCLA econ is better for I-Banking. I mean either would work as they hire out of all majors, but which is a closer fit??</p>
<p>moss. what do you mean he doesn't enjoy it?</p>
<p>edit: haas is haas.</p>
<p>Well my friend is a very extroverted guy. I guess when he got to Haas, everyone there wasn't all that fun to hang with. But then, it is Haas. </p>
<p>Actually I just think he misses the sunny southern California weather... :)</p>
<p>I don't think it matters as much if your Econ or Biz/Econ at UCLA. If you want to work at an Ibank, GPA is key, EC's are secondary. You better study your complete ass off and stay in the 3.6+ range to be competitive. Also if you do decide to go to UCLA, do the accounting minor as well.</p>
<p>Ibanks look for overachievers, so make sure you get a part-time job, do all the EC's you can possibly do, direct projects, etc. Basically work your complete ass off because thats the type of expectation that Ibanks have for their employees.</p>
<p>Now that the results are officially up to both school, it's time to bring this up.
So far we've only brought up the GOOD things about each school. Sure I've heard plenty of "this school is good at this, this school is good at that", but I rarely hear you guys pointing anything BAD about each school.</p>
<p>If we were to compare only the good things about each school, I think that's just going to worsen the "dilemma" for some of the unsurees here.</p>
<p>So now, let's compile some of the BAD things about each school. Please don't post anything personal against each school (i.e. Bruins just naturally suck cuz they are born that way) and instead let's use legitimate facts and sources. :)</p>
<p>ANYWAY, UCLA is the better school. Not that I don’t like UC Berkeley (okay… I got rejected), but UCLA has a higher number of applicants than Cal (57,000+ vs. 50,000). People want to go to UCLA more than Cal. L.A. is much livelier than Berkeley - more amenities; shops, restaurants and public transportation is within easy access. Berkeley, however, doesn’t have as many advantages. Plus, the area’s kind of kooky. Bums and hobos? Yeah, no thanks. UCLA is in an amazing location, minutes away from Bel-Air, Beverly Hills, AND Brentwood, the “three B’s,” wealthy, prestigious areas. UCLA is world-renowned, by the way. Believe it or not, UCLA is more known than Harvard (I didn’t believe it either, but just throwing out something I heard from a professor). Berkeley, from what I’ve heard from several Cal students, is also uninviting (once again, claims from Cal students themselves). The architecture, though it may appeal to some, doesn’t appeal to most. I find it attractive, but it may not suit everyone’s tastes. Loving the campus is crucial. UCLA’s traditional, Romanesque architecture is much more up to everyone’s level, conservative and traditional, neutral. So there you have it… UCLA > Berkeley. But choose the school that suits you better. UCLA doesn’t appeal to a few, I’m definitely not saying it’s perfect… It’s just close to being perfect! Not to mention the Bruins and the school spirit and vibe there is amazing.</p>
<p>Talking about the “wealthy and prestigious areas” around UCLA as a plus for UCLA over Cal makes you sound like a USC student.</p>
<p>Don’t you people see the hilarity in the very act of continuing the conversation through this medium. It’s so funny and interesting to look at this moment that has performed for us. We don’t recognize the dust of old language that has been untouched for nearly three years, we simply act upon it as a new thing. We ignore the glitch, and pursue the beauty of its freedom. The very act of reading, reacting to, and perpetuation of the moment breathes new life into the otherwise dead train of thought. This was a dialogue three years ago, and is now reborn at random, therefore every single post in the last 24 hours are literally actions that would not have occurred therein.</p>
<p>I enjoy the aroma your posts emit during this soggy wait for acceptance letter entrees, Vintage. Have you tried encouragement? It’s in season, you must! Instead of cluttering your guests plates with insulting, MSG laden, linguistic egotism, satiate more readers by knifing “Don’t you people see.” </p>
<p>On the topic, it is amazing! It’s like…Jesus and Lazarus or something. I love cc, an ongoing lifeline where information struggles to die rather than struggle to live.</p>
<p>lol. I can see now how encouragement is in season, but ironically, your logic necessarily contradicts itself with the act of posting something non-encouraging, and in fact, downright insulting. Not unlike your description of the unseemly aspect of my posts. lol. You claim to advocate encouragement, yet deviate from it with this last post, and you make a public renouncement of my insulting language, using insulting language. lol</p>
<p>this forum becomes A Lot more interesting when I am as drunk as now. Hail king Caesar!</p>
<p>hahaha ahh brazil, I can only imagine what vintij’s posts must sound like when drunk.</p>
<p>True, I did insult your methods, that is ironic and I need to work on using encouragement, too! Then maybe you would have marched past semantics and discussed use of encouragement when presenting new ideas to large groups.Your attack on my logic rather than my point leads me to fear you’re a crafty politician; nonetheless, my point still remains. I have no bones to pick with the general public, you seem to. My simple, and now humbled, criticism was of your common method of attacking your audience before presenting your very witty analysis’. Do you have any reason for being very standoffish? Does it work more often than not to fuel discussion of your often profound perspectives? Does it serve an ulterior motive?</p>