<p>right!..Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia</p>
<p>but you guys don’t try to argue that Auburn equals Duke academically, or do you?</p>
<p>Nemom said " You can also fly into the Ontario airport which is five minutes from the consortium". Just to clarify my experience is that Ontario more like 20 to 30 minutes from the consortium. It is still the best airport to fly into to go to the Claremonts and a much easier airport to maneuver around that LAX.</p>
<p>LOL - 181818 is right. It was about five minutes to our hotel and another 15 to the consortium. But it really is very convenient and generally low-stress.
You can save some time by skipping some info sessions and/or tours. We sometimes did just a tour or just an info session.</p>
<p>I agree with UCSD<em>UCLA</em>DAD - there are posters who have strong opinions about a particular school without any direct experience with the school. It never ceases to amaze me how some of the posters act like they are experts about certain schools and then you find out they have never even visited these schools. I would remind the OP to take with a grain of salt much of what you read here and do your own research. It is annoying how much inaccurate stuff is disseminated on this site. Sometimes I wish there was a rule that before a poster could offer an opinion about a school, they must first state the source of the information and if it is based on first-hand experience or hearsay. That way we will know if the poster has any credibility.</p>
<p>^^want rules:) ya that sounds like a government school grad!</p>
<p>USCD and UCLA and Cal are quickly becoming second rate and expensive institutions and are already way, way over crowded. I’d hate to see a parent send their kid across country to a school that is leveraging the reputation of a scientist that died 40 years ago, Ernst! He was great and his legacy left some good grad schools, but under grad, please. 600 students in a bio class, ya that’s gotta be a good education.</p>
<p>pacheight’s posts get more and more ridiculous in the rants against the UCs and for USC and big sports colleges but most posters on CC are more objective and realistic in their views on all of these colleges. Most of pacheight’s numbers and conclusions about these colleges are simply wrong but people can generally determine the numbers for themselves objectively. The posts are very transparent in the biases so most people can see them for what they are.</p>
<p>^^will state some facts. UG population at Cal is 24,000 kids. At Stanford 6,000. </p>
<p>UCLA 25,000 UG’s at USC 17,000.</p>
<p>the single biggest determiner of quality education is class size.</p>
<p>now throw in generous financial aid and grants and both Stanford and USC are cheaper. wow, another fact.</p>
<p>how about prof to prof, Cal vs Stanford?</p>
<p>look, I know you want to hold on to the idea that UC’s and specifically Cal or UCLA are great because you went there, probably your parents went there and maybe your kids go there, but it’s really an out of control attitude in California. Cal and UCLA for the facts stated above just are not that good.</p>
<p>how about SAT scores, another fact!</p>
<p>Stanford is 1
USC is 2
Cal is 3 (just below USC)
and UCLA and UCSD are way lower</p>
<p>class size - fact, academic ability of students based on SAT-fact, cost-fact…physical plant, Stanford vs Cal??? which would you choose?</p>
<p>the sad rant is all these people in California that promote Cal and UCLA. I had the sad experience of talking with two graduates from Cal two weeks ago, both out of state and both paid 200k each to attend. And both said they wished they had gone somewhere else and the only reason they didn’t transfer was their loyalty to their sports teams. They were recruited athletes but no athletic scholarship. One from Colorado the other from Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>their reasons: 1) way to crowded and 2) no sense of community like they hear from their friends at Penn, Harvard, USC, and CMU…their words, not mine.</p>
<p>Cal use to have everything these kids hoped for, but that was 20+ years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought that pacheight was a Cal grad.</p>
<p>Apparently USC’s numbers are changing quickly since 2 days ago on this thread pacheight posted -
but now is posting -
and directly from USC’s website -
- Just an example about the inaccuracy in numbers being posted by pacheight and if the numbers were that important then why would anyone go to USC which has so many students? (answer - because it doesn’t give the full picture and clearly many students attending these colleges with large UG numbers could have gone to a number of other good colleges with small UG numbers but chose their respective colleges for a variety of reasons). </p>
<p>But believe it or not some people actually turn down USC for UCLA (my kid for example) but in reality both are good colleges and most students would do fine at either one. </p>
<p>And fwiw - USNWR grad school rankings in my kid’s major (Computer Science) put all 3 of the UCs mentioned (UCB, UCLA, UCSD) ahead of USC but I’m not knocking USC because of this and yes, I realize there’s contention in the USNWR numbers.</p>
<p>Naviance statistics for the last 5 years (2007 - 2011) in my kids’ school:</p>
<pre><code> APPLY ADMIT ENROLL
</code></pre>
<p>UCLA 637 199 (31%) 69 (35%)</p>
<p>USC 174 76 (44%) 18 (24%)</p>
<p>Both my kids applied and were admitted to UCLA. They did not care about USC.</p>
<p>*I bet in the south east “private school” is not a dirty word like it is out here on the left coast. *</p>
<p>where in Calif (or the left coast) is “private school” a dirty word? With the cost of the UCs around $30k per year in COA, many families have found privates to be similar in cost after FA or merit.</p>
<p>That was my experience with both students. One went to a private U in CA, one to a private U in Boston. With merit it was similar in cost to a UC. Since the OP’s student is OOS, I was suggesting that they think hard about the UCs, especially since it sounds like money for the college visits was a concern. CA is broke folks!</p>
<p>most of the kids who go to UCLA and Cal go because their parents and parents friends are reinforcing them that it’s a really good school. People who are basing their opinion on 30 year old experiences. This belief comes from a mood, a hangover, from the past, when the education was much higher. The largest classes you’ll find at places like USC, Stanford, Santa Clara, etc are around 300. At Cal and UCLA there are many classes with over 600 kids so kids are choosing to do the class online! Online, come on!</p>
<p>In Wheeler Hall they haven’t cleaned the windows in two years because there’s no money. Cal and UCLA are financially broke, this is a very, very real problem. The serious financial shortcoming and the extreme overcrowding has crushed the quality of education at these schools.</p>
<p>I come from huge Cal family but that doesn’t mean I’m going to bury my head in the sand regarding what is going on today at UCLA and Cal. At Cal thirty years ago they didn’t teach you to bury your head in the sand.</p>
<p>Today kids get to these schools not knowing any comparison and somewhat confusingly go through 4 years of crowded lower quality experiences thinking that’s the best. When they do visit Stanford, USC, Harvard, Penn, etc, etc, they are surprised at the quality and experience.</p>
<p>The largest classes you’ll find at places like USC, Stanford, Santa Clara, etc are around 300.</p>
<p>Off topic but I wonder how many people realize that those privates (and others) have some classes that are that size? When people post about their preference for privates over publics, they often cite “small class sizes” as their reason - because of the “personal attention” their child will receive in such classes. I imagine that there are people who would be surprised/shocked to learn that privates have classes larger than - say 40 kids. </p>
<p>That said, I know it makes economical sense to have some large lecture classes - so I’m not criticizing the situation. I just wonder how many people just automatically reject publics for this reason, only to later learn that Susie or Johnny’s Bio class has 300 kids in lecture?</p>
<p>As a data point- my UCLA kid didn’t have any classes with 600 kids in it. There may be some but my kid wasn’t in any (note - she didn’t take bio since she had AP credit for it and didn’t need it for her major). Some of the first couple of quarter physics and math courses had 200-400 students in it. Her first couple of CS courses may have had around 120 in them. By the second year onwards most of her classes had 20-40 students in them. The class sizes can vary depending on the major so I’m just stating her experience as a CS student in the School of Engineering - I’m not saying it holds for all majors.</p>
<p>I didn’t bias my kid one way or the other in her choices. For a lot of students one visit to UCLA and USC and the areas they’re in can be enough to sway them one way or the other. The other factor was rankings in which UCLA was ranked higher in her major than USC - but USC would have been a fine choice as well so I’m not knocking it. fwiw she decided on UCLA over UCB as well.</p>
<p>Readers of the thread should beware of gross and biased generalizations.</p>
<p>at larger privates such as USC you’ll have some larger classes in the 200 to 300 range. But just a few. Most will be 40 or less. At UCLA, Cal many will be 300+ and most will be 50+</p>
<p>25,000 students is a lot of UG’s, It’s like their hosting a rock concert crowd everyday south of Sunset Blvd.</p>
<p>And then the real dirty secret at UC’s in the TA is teaching the class to the 500 kids in the packed auditorium. The same government and attitude that runs the Department of Motor Vehicles runs UCLA and Cal…get ready to stand in line</p>
<p>“it’s like they are hosting a rock concert crowd everyday”.</p>
<p>Funnily enough, I think that’s precisely the appeal that Berkeley has for my daughter.</p>
<p>^^your daughter likes crowds! She’ll be happy at Cal. I hope it works out for her, it used to be a great place. And when it’s fully privatized in another 10 years or so it may be great again! But until they can attract higher SAT kids, alumni donations, and stop their profs from existing to Stanford, etc for more money…it’ll be awhile.</p>
<p>someone above said it correctly, CA is broke. And Cal and UCLA are CA.</p>