<p>"...you can attend another UC and get the same education."</p>
<p>you sure about that one?</p>
<p>Uhhh yea. Unless I'm forgetting about those hidden sections in the textbooks only available to UCLA and UCB. Your education is a lot more what you make of it.</p>
<p>if you got the 'same' education at every college, there wouldn't be such competition for the elites.</p>
<p>also, i think it's hasty, even foolish to assume that the way in which a concept is articulated to you doesn't have an effect on your understanding. i'd take a nobel laureate or a well published scholar at the top of his academic discipline (or even the GSIs that get into PHd programs at top schools) rather than settle for mediocrity elsewhere IF i can help it. i'd assume that this isn't an exclusive sentiment.</p>
<p>have you ever taken a class at a UC? you'll find that alot of the time the professors are so smart that they can't communicate their ideas with normal people. Just because someone has a nobel prize definately does not make them a good teacher. Just because my professor at UCSB had a phd from MIT didn't make him a better teacher than my community college professor with a masters from a cal state. Being a genius does not imply good teaching skills. When you transfer, you'll realize that it doesn't matter what fancy school the professor came from or what awards he/she has recieved. What matters is how well the professor can teach you.</p>
<p>ok.. when you find some way to calculate the probability of maximizing your exposure to those great teachers, let us know. until then, i think it's reasonable to assume that it's a crap shoot either way. you may as well go for the school with the most established professors, hoping that statistically, there are as many 'great teachers' as there are elsewhere... the only difference being that when you run into one such 'great teacher', he/she can both teach AND is at the top of his field. </p>
<p>i didn't mean to insinuate that nobel laureate = great ability to teach. also, when i say 'mediocrity', i don't mean to say that the entire faculty is going to be mediocre. there are always those greats that make or break a subject, even at CC, as i'm sure we can all attest.</p>
<p>Why are we even talking about professors teaching/ We all know very well that it is the TAs that actually teach you stuff.</p>
<p>Half the time most of the professors can not even speak proper english</p>
<p>As a current psych applicant for UCLA also with Tap... I have gone over and over past success and failure stories from my college. The lowest I have seen accepted for Psych at UCLA with TAP was a 3.4.... unless you have amazing circumstances it might be best to try one of the other UCs...UCI has a fantastic psych program, the dean of their psych department is Elizabeth Loftus (of cognitive psych fame) so they have some great minds down there and it is definitely a good back up to shoot for after UCLA</p>
<p>
[quote]
The lowest I have seen accepted for Psych at UCLA with TAP was a 3.4....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I saw a 3.1 last year. She's there now.</p>
<p>very, very slim. sorry.</p>