<p>"Edit: Oh, btw, lets look at endowment. Cal poly?? $123,744,477. Berkeley?? $2 Billion. ooo UCLA? $1.7 Billion. Endowment reflects how well alumni does as well. I guess you guys could argue that since Cal Poly doesn't offer Ph.D's, it doesn't get as many successful alumni. okay. true. but that still doesn't change the fact that UC's have a lot more money to direct into their facilities, and especially with majors like engineering, there are a lot of expensive equipment. As for Cal Poly, where are they going to get the lastest in technology? Students' tuitions? The Government? LoL don't make me laugh."</p>
<p>Endowment is very very very misleading. Not only does Berkeley fund much much more majors than Cal Poly (let us remember Cal Poly focuses on Business, Agriculture, Architecture, and Engineering), have graduate degrees, but also funds massive research. Cal Poly is not a PHD or Research school. It would never recieve the endowment of Berkeley because 1) it does not even have the amount of students berkeley has, thus it does not need as much professors to pay for (though the ratio of prof. to students is still better than berkeley's), 2) it will not recieve government fund compared to Berkeley because it does not do the high amount of costly research in all fields, especially medical research, 3) it does not offer other big major fields, such as medical degrees, which decreases the number of students the campus holds and attracts, which also effect how much the government needs to fund the university, 4) it does not give out PHD's which itself would account for a large endowment from government fund, and tuition.</p>
<p>Yes in general CSU is supposed to be lower than UC, but that was when the system was created. The system now, is far from what it used to be.</p>
<p>However, you have not visited the CP Engineering labs, or architecture labs. I've seen the UCSB engineering labs as well as CP's and I can say CP offers much more equipment for undergrads. Sure PHD level education in UCSB use the high tech equipment, but not undergrads like CP does. CP has ALOT, and I do mean ALOT of high tech equipment. It is the reason why CP has more labs and more units required to graduate compared to UCLA. Okay so UCSB is not berkeley or UCLA, but they do recieve a large endowment that is comparable to UCLA and Berkeley. Simply, that endowment must go to the flowers, athsetics of the campus, PHDs, and research, because I do not see it in the undergraduate education. Well I heard UCLA has the best food available, endowment must go there, oh and the crowded dorms, endowment must be going in building a large new dormatory or suit, that costs alot especially here in LA. UC has alot to spend for endowment, that by the time that goes to specific departments, that amount I am sure of, is less than the individual departments CP recieve.</p>
<p>By the way 1 engineering building is just being built/renovated (not sure), another huge engineering building is in the process of being created, a new building for the architecture department is being created. CP is doing all this, while the campus itself all ready has high tech and more than sufficient space. The campus itself is not overloaded with 18,000 students. These new facilities are built to help with the master plan of increasing student load to 20,000 students. But, that increase is to be allowed in a span of 10 years. Definately, CP wants to keep a great prof to student ratio and attention to each individual students, unlike Berkeley.</p>
<p>"It's not even near Berkeley's league. Four, six, 10 years from now, you're looking for a job and you tell your boss who's interviewing you, "Hey, I''m a UC Berkeley alumni." He'll probably say, "Wow! Really!? That's awesome! me too! When can you start?" On the other hand, if you say, "Hey, I graduated from Cal Poly," he'll probably say "oh, that's not bad. We'll let you know in a few days.""</p>
<p>Cal Poly will never have the recognition of league of berkeley. However, one needs to analyze carefully why that is. Again, we do not do research and we do not give out PHD's. Berkeley recieves its name from its research and PHDs, however, its undergrad does not have that reputation. Twilight, have you gone to the open house of Cal Poly? I have visited UCLA, and have quite a few freshman friends there as well as family who have graduated there who believe the cal poly program for engineering is much better. (most of my family or engineering or medical majors). Being in southern california, in LA, where I have numerous numerous sources who got to UCLA, I can say that the amount of attention, to your education you recieve in such a big PHS/Research University such as berkeley and UCLA is substantially poor compared to the attention and small class size recieved at Cal Poly.</p>
<p>I believe, UCLA and Berkeley, have the same reputation for their type of undergraduate education. If this be the case, than Berkeley, has a degraded undergraduate education compared to cal poly. This is a very bold statement, but not as bold as your statement. There is clear understanding of this between engineering students at Berkeley, UCLA, and CP, students whove seen each other's program that is. There may be diffrences in opinion in which is the best, but all would agree that CP, Berkeley, and UCLA are pretty even in undergraduate education. CP has a limited number of majors, but the campus is devoted itself to these few majors. The only ones valid to make and arguable point are students, alumni, and prof. of these universities who know about each others program. I speak from the viewpoint of UCLA and CP students that I have spoken to in each university's college of engineering. Who have you spoken to in both campuses? Have you visited both campuses? Have you seen both programs? I have for CP and UCLA.</p>
<p>"My Point:I'm not saying Cal Poly is a bad school. It owns the pants off of at least half the other schools in America. But that article, "Cal Poly is Top Choice for Top Students," is purposely misleading. I gotta admit I doubt the veracity of the statistics at first, but even if they are true, you gotta consider that they are biased, misleading, and do not nearly reflect the statistics as a whole. Comparing Cal Poly to Irvine and Santa Barbara, sure that's reasonably comparable, depending on your career and educational goals."</p>
<p>Simply put, that statistic is what it is. The statistic of admitted students to Cal Poly who applied to Cal Poly and were admitted and also another UC campus and were admitted there as well for the year 2001. As reputation for CP increases, the percentage as well is likely to increase. I do not see how the statistic is misleading? Possible factors I am trying to see from your point of view rather than being full out biased as you are is that it does not report the amount of admitted CP students who were admitted to more than one UC Campus. Therefore we can hypothesize that if 100% of the 40% who chose Cal Poly over UCLA or 122 students, could have also applied to other UC campus', increasing the percentage of other UC Campus' who rejected that UC for CP. However, thats assuming 100% of each student from each UC campus was indeed accepted at each UC or applied to that UC.</p>
<p>However, the statistic is what it is. With the high amount of percentage of CP admits choosing CP over the UC campuses, but such a small number compared to UC admits overall, it does hint that students familiar with the CP way of education, putting name aside, believe that CP offers a much better education for price and location.</p>
<p>"But Comparing Cal Poly to Berkeley, LA, and SD, especially for engineering, is wayyy wayyy wayy b/s. That's so ridiculous that whoever says that will instantly lose credibility. Some of you guys argue that companies prefer hiring Cal Poly engineering grads over UCLA grads. Okay, true, Maybe sometimes."</p>
<p>I'm sorry but thats just b/s. Do me a favor, call Intel, Northrup Grumman, NASA, CISCO, Microsoft, any major airline company, or any major engineering company. Ask them who would they pick, a Cal Poly undergraduate or Berkeley undergraduate, who both have the same work experience, talent, etc... Chances are, if it came down to a temporary internship to see which students is more competant, they would pick the CP undergraduate because of his practical knowledge rather than theoretical knowledge.</p>
<p>In engineering and architecture, the undergraduate education is better than berkeley hands down. The professors admit it, I believe professors who are very well educated, themselves have much much much more credibility than you, a high school senior about to graduate. Though I myself am in your position, atleast my views and statement are not stated without clarification or word from Prof, students, and those in the work industry. </p>
<p>Twilightzer, talk to some CP alumni, professors, or something. It's the only way to know how education is at CP. I'm in Electrical Engineering.
Michael M. Cirovic Is the Chair of that department in CP.<br>
His number is (805)756-2781. I'm not sure of his open hours to students, but each prof in CP has open hours, they are very accessible. Talk to him, ask him questions, be straightforward. I do not believe the chairs of departments are this devoted to students (to be able to speak to them, let alone admitted or people like you) at Berkeley as they are in CP.</p>
<p>Go by fact and experience of others, not by fallacy of name.
I'd rather focus on the quality of education I recieve, rather than
how fancy my diploma looks. After all, a name of the university carries
you in the begining, but what you know and learn carries you through life.
I believe CP has a name, but for sure CP does a better job at teaching.</p>