Hi everyone! I am an admitted student to both UCLA and Cal Poly SLO’s mechanical engineering programs, and I am having trouble making a decision. I know UCLA is more theoretical while Cal Poly is more hands-on, but I’d love to hear suggestions from current and former engineering students or anyone who has insight at both schools. Thanks in advance for any advice, stories, or suggestions!
You say that UCLA is more theoretical and CP is more hands on. That gets tossed around a lot. What specifically does it mean to you?
Well, after examining both school’s curriculums, Cal Poly has a mix of lab and lecture work, while UCLA seems to be almost all lectures. I’m sure I could make it through UCLA’s lecture-heavy curriculum, but I was curious which is better for jobs. I feel like having the hands-on work at Cal Poly is very valuable, but do employers look theoretical thinkers? I just overall wanted to hear people’s stories and advice on both programs.
The assumption that people make is that it’s an either/or proposition. Cal Poly has a lab with almost every class. Hence, learn by doing. That doesn’t mean they aren’t theoretical. Many schools run a separate, “good enough” engineering math series. Cal Poly does not. Engineers all take the same math as math majors. Both Cal Poly and UCLA have Linear Algebra in their curricula. It’s not required by ABET and many ME programs don’t have it in their curricula, but it’s helpful. The main distinction I see is that Cal Poly’s curriculum is longer. So at Poly it’s not labs instead of theory. It’s labs in addition to theory. A few schools, mainly MIT and Caltech, (possibly RPI) delve deeper into theory, but they’ll go deeper than UCLA too.
Based on my son’s experience, I can’t see any disadvantage to Cal Poly. Lots of companies recruit there and their job placement is very high. If you go onto LinkedIn, look up Cal Poly and search companies where alumni work, you’ll find Poly engineers nearly anywhere you look. As a rising senior, I think he’s very happy that he chose Cal Poly.
Certainly UCLA engineers will be recruited and have high job placement too. I don’t know if it’s myth or legend, or true, but the common dogma is that Poly engineers are job ready the moment they walk out the door.
That’s one, arguably biased opinion. Hopefully others will chime in.
Thanks a lot! That’s exactly what I am looking for! Unless there is a strong uprising from UCLA engineers, I think Cal Poly is the way to go. Thanks again
Hey @eyemgh , I am going to respond specifically to this specific statement you made:
“common dogma is that Poly engineers are job ready the moment they walk out the door.”
No fresh engineering graduate is ever job ready, as in being a ready engineer in day one, and I don’t think you meant it that way. It takes years of on the job experience to turn into a true engineer. I would certainly agree their CalPoly education makes them more grounded, which makes them easier to turn into true engineers vs. the UC types which seem to be more like aloof scientists which take longer to turn into pragmatic engineers 
The difference is not that big though and often comes down more to personality rather than the school they come from.
@iulianc in regard to your comment:
"…vs. the UC types which seem to be more like aloof scientists which take longer to turn into pragmatic engineers "
Though I agree that for every engineering job we need a different type of engineer and, in that regard, for some jobs gratuates from a CalPolly can certainly do as good a job as others (if not even better), but for certain other types of jobs, advance degrees from a UC type school (and a UC type preparation starting from UG) could be appreciated as well! So I think your characterization in the above is rather unfair!
Disclaimer: Ph.D holder in ME from USC (which I believe is comparable to a UC type education)
Apologies if I offended anyone, not my intent. Did not mean to dismiss the value of scientists, just sharing some of the perception in the industry and please take it as a half joking, teasing type of comment.
True story. At the company I work for (top 5 tech company anyone would recognize) I have a good friend who finished his PhD degree in computer graphics while working. The next annual review period, his manager (a CalPoly graduate incidentally ), wrote in his annual review the following comment: “he did a very good job this year, despite being a PhD”
Full disclosure, I hold two masters degrees (electrical engineering and business - corporate finance) and have abandoned my PhD studies to join the industry many years ago.
@iulianc, I think that depends on the specific job they are stepping into and what’s being asked of them.
As for the advanced degree being sometimes preferable as @uclaparent9 suggested, there’s no doubt that’s true, and no barrier from a Cal Poly undergrad perusing that route. Every year CP grads enter some of the most prestigious graduate programs in the nation, including Berkeley, Stanford and yes, UCLA.
I agree, and some will be more comfortable taking that path. Did not mean to come across as judgmental, there’s nothing wrong with scientists.
@iulianc, I think your point though was fair, if maybe misstated. Engineering, in practice, involves synthesizing knowledge into practical problem solving. Making that leap, putting theory into action, effectively, is where the “doing” aspect of the Cal Poly curriculum seems to give them a boost.
@UCLAorCalPoly I would agree that Cal Poly’s basic curriculum is more hands on. However, there are 3 course at UCLA, Engineering 96a, 96b, and 96c (2 units each), that are optional and can give you more hands on experience to supplement the core curriculum. From what I heard at the Discover UCLA Engineering event and talking to an ME at Bruin Day, I get the feeling it’s also expected that you’ll take part in one or more of the clubs (ASME, UCLA Racing, etc) to get more hands on experience. Cal Poly requires about 10 more units for the ME degree, so supplement the UCLA basic curriculum with some optional hands on classes such as the 96 series and you can get the best of both worlds. Good luck with your decision, you have good choices either way.
@youcee, I get that adding extra classes to the UCLA curriculum and participating in clubs can help apply engineering principles, but I’m curious why you’d say that results in the “best of both worlds”? Classes are much larger at UCLA and that most of the labs and discussions will be taught by TAs. The only advantage I really see is that there will be more access to research at UCLA (well, athletics are WAY better at UCLA). Am I missing something?
@eyemgh I just meant you get both the theory and the hands on when I wrote “best of both worlds”. I know you feel differently, but I don’t see TAs leading discussions as a bad thing - it can be a different voice trying to explain what the students didn’t understand when the professor said it. Just seems normal to me. I was a little surprised to find out that the ME cohort at UCLA for the freshman class will be about 85 students, which is close to smaller programs such as UCSB. On average, UCLA does a good job of graduating students on time. But mainly, I was just trying to point out that a student can get a more hands on experience at UCLA by taking a few recommended, but not required courses.
I think a student can get a great education at either place. For some, the feel of the campus, the other students they’ll be surrounded by, and location can be the determining factors in a choice like this.
The presumption that I don’t agree with is that students don’t get theory at Cal Poly (which you didn’t directly say). Many imply it’s either theoretical or hands on. It’s not. Cal Poly isn’t as theoretical as MIT or Caltech, but no other schools are either. I do agree, not all professors are good teachers and not all TAs are bad teachers. I don’t see any advantage though to giant lectures.
There was no presumption on my part about Cal Poly ME students not getting theory. I wouldn’t have had my kid apply there if I thought that to be the case. But it did seem like the OP thought there was close to no hands on at UCLA and I was pointing out some options to provide that experience.
One a day to day basis I think what is more important is that at UCLA you will be taught well known experts in the field, but in lecture halls often filled with hundreds of students. Your main interactions as a student will be with teaching assistants of varying quality and English language skills. Promotion/tenure decisions at UCLA are based on research productivity- not teaching. This is not to deny the fact that great professors exist there, but all the incentives push professors to putting most of their time into grant writing, research, and interactions with their lab slaves (also known as grad students).
It matters quite a bit that Cal Poly is an undergraduate oriented institution. As a first year engineering student my son knows all his professors well and they seem genuinely interested in his success. All his classes have been taught by professors with most of them in classrooms or labs with fewer than 30 students. I can guarantee that you will not have that kind of experience at UCLA your first two years. And after speaking to a recent UCLA EE grad a few weeks ago I am not sure you even get it in your Jr/Sr years.
I will admit that in high school my son had a habit of going online and watching lectures from famous physics profs at Cal and MIT and was mesmerized. For some being taught, albeit with 800 other students in an auditorium, by a Nobel laureate is worth all the downsides of large research university. As someone who graduated from Cal I do not think it is, but I am sure lots of people would disagree with me. Good luck and congrats on two amazing acceptances!
Got ya! And I 100% agree. Every engineering school, by virtue of their capstone project, will have some “hands on.” Most schools have clubs if a student is motivated to dedicate the time to an EC. Every engineer from every program will have some practical experience.
There are different ways to get more hands on than the typical ABET program. WPI and Olin teach a project based curriculum where instead of just a capstone, there will be multiple large projects with course work taught through the lens of the project.
Cal Poly’s unique approach, which is commonly misconstrued to be project based like WPI and Olin, which it isn’t, is that nearly every class has a lab. That’s where the doing comes in. I haven’t looked at club opportunities at UCLA, but I suspect they’re similar to Cal Poly. They probably have the three SAE teams, CubeSat, etc. It’s unlikely that they have a vibrations lab, or a rotational dynamics lab, or the fluids wind tunnels that Cal Poly has. Most schools don’t. CP has more than 80 labs in the CENG alone. I believe that’s what gives them an edge.
Suffice it to say, a student could be far worse off than choosing between Cal Poly and UCLA.
We were fortunate enough to get a private tour of the engineering labs at Cal Poly while my son was a junior in high school. The existence of those labs was a huge factor in his determination to do what he could to get admitted and he has not been disappointed as a freshman in ME now. Another factor was how friendly and informative the folks were who we saw in those labs when we went through. They dropped what they were doing, showed us around, answered questions, and were genuinely happy to talk with us. None of the other schools my son applied to had lab opportunities even close to Cal Poly’s.