<p>I’m trying to decide between UCLA and CAL. If i got to UCLA I will most likely pursue a major in Business Econ. If I go to CAL and don’t get into the Haas school of business undergraduate program I will get an econ degree from major. Which will look better as far as employment in the future an Econ degree from CAL or a Bus/econ from UCLA? If i minor in Business isn’t that just as good as UCLA’s Business Econ degree?</p>
<p>A Berkeley econ degree means that you will be considered to be on equal footing with econ degrees from any top private school. If not on top of that, with the reputation of going to a more pleasant school with a superior work ethic.</p>
<p>Berkeley doesnt even have a business minor!!</p>
<p>Thanks..Anyone else have any advice or suggestions?</p>
<p>You can't go wrong with either one, they're both "top-10" departmetns. Your ability to get into good grad schools is largely dependent on your performance as a student, not your school.</p>
<p>I'd go with Cal first, however. Just because I personally want a change. Hah.</p>
<p>thanks for the advice...anymore ppl with advice?</p>
<p>On the graduate level, Cal has one of the best Econ departments in the world. On the undergrad level, i would think Cal and UCLA are very much similar. If you want to find jobs in the bay area, come to Berkeley. If you like LA, head to UCLA. Same stuff.</p>
<p>I am from Southern California, and in the future I want to find a job in Los Angeles. Therefore, would it be harder for me to find a job in LA if i went to Berkeley rather than attending UCLA?</p>
<p>Berkeley econ would be more easier to find a job in LA than a UCLA biz econ degree. But a Berkeley legal studies degree vs. a UCLA biz econ degree in Los Angeles would be more dependent on GPA and work experience. If both are equal, UCLA biz econ might actually slightly win out in LA for that situation if interviews were equal and if the field is finance. But the same is not true for Berkeley econ or Haas majors or in the Bay Area. </p>
<p>But everything I said is more dependent on work experience, GPA, interviewing skills and for finance and management consulting, SAT scores. I have seen many Berkeley econ degrees get jobs over Harvard econ degrees in New York, and with either schools UCLA or Cal, your potential is limitless.</p>
<p>Therefore without considering interships, gpa, etc. just the degree alone a Berkeley Econ degree is seen as more valuable, in a sense, than a Business Econ degree from UCLA?</p>
<p>^Yes. But in LA, the difference is much narrower than anywhere else. In LA a Biz econ degree from UCLA would be worth more than a Cornell or Brown Econ degree, IMO.</p>
<p>"Berkeley doesnt even have a business minor!!"</p>
<p>And neither does UCLA.</p>
<p>A UCLA BizEcon degree will be more valuable if you want to work in LA. A Berkeley econ degree will be more valuable anywhere else, except in certain circles where the biz focus is admired - for instance, accounting.</p>
<p>I tend to disagree that the Berkeley degree is significantly more valuable. I think that what will make or break either one is internship experience. In fact, I'd say that both are equal, but the internship experience is what will set apart either one. That said, perhaps it's good to see what opportunities there are in both departments for indentured servitude...I mean internships.</p>
<p>Whoops UCLAri,</p>
<p>I didn't notice that their focus was employment as opposed to grad school. In that case, yes, it's arguable which is better.</p>
<p>And also yes, internships will play the heaviest role in post-graduation employment. As for which area/school will afford you more opportunities... can anyone field that?</p>
<p>I'll attempt to field it:</p>
<p>It will depend on the industry in part. LA is of course great for entertainment, accounting that serves entertainment, science and biotech (AMGEN, for example), finance, and of course electronic games (although they oftentimes have very few managerial staff members.)</p>
<p>SF is great for tech based economy and knowledge based economy. It's also a pretty big player in finance as well. </p>
<p>In terms of pure localized figures, LA is a bigger city and is a bigger business center. However, I'd argue that SF has a better standard of living (I could be wrong.)</p>
<p>Either way, I think that you can just intern in any city you like. I have a friend at Wellesly that interned in LA every summer, so that ought to tell you how much location matters...</p>
<p>Yeah I am currently attempting to find an internship for this summer. However, consdiering that i have not even started attending a university this will be very difficult. My plan as of now is probably to attend Berkeley, apply to the Haas Undergraduate Program, if that doesn't work out then get an Econ degree from Berkeley. Hopefully, that will help me find a nice job in Los Angeles, since I highly doubt I will live in the bay area after I graduate. </p>
<p>Another off topic question, if I get into the Haas Undergraduate program will that make me look better than other applicants when applying to graduate school? Does anyone know where I can find stats showing that there is a correlation of those who attend the Haas school of business for undergrad and get into the school for graduate?</p>
<p>It might help serve as a bit of a hook (a bit), but if you plan on getting your MBA or another master's, it's your work experience that will really get you in.</p>
<p>Indeed, followed by GMAT score and undergrad. GPA.</p>
<p>The thing that most people don't get while they're undergrads is that the qualitative difference between say number 3 and number 7 is so statistically insignificant that most places can't even bother themselves with it.</p>
<p>Look at it this way- An Anderson student I met in Chinese class explained it like this: "Unless you're at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or maybe Stanford on a good day, top 25 is top 25. There is very little difference between 15 and 20 or even 25, because at that point the gap is so narrow to begin with." For the record, he graduated from Penn.</p>
<p>However, what makes a huge difference is your initiative at your undergrad institution and how much you do there. A mediocre Berkeley student won't compare to an exceptional UCLA student, no matter how much she tries to flaunt the name.</p>
<p>Yeah that makes perfect sense. Therefore wouldn't it make sense to attend the university where I could achieve a higher GPA. I've been hearing alot about grade inflation at private institutions. Will admissioners take that into account for grad school? However, in my situation I doubt the competitive level is going to be different at UCLA than it is at Berkeley? Am I right?</p>