<p>Have a question about the COM major at UCLA. I have read that it is pretty "theoretical", in other words it is more weighted towards the interdisciplinary aspects of communication analysis, rather than the generation of mass communication via various media and/or the PR aspects of it. Perusing their web site seems to confirm that impression, but I would like to know what current COM majors think.</p>
<p>Is it purely theoretical, or are there more "vocational" aspects of the program, in terms of teaching techniques of mass communication and other aspects of the creation of communications? How much freedom is there to tailor your own program to emphasize one or the other?</p>
<p>I believe that COM is one of the impacted majors. How difficult is it to get accepted there?</p>
<p>Olly-olly oxen free!</p>
<p>Where is <strong>allie</strong>?</p>
<p>do a search for "comm" or "comm studies" on the board for my standard, more lengthy response. there was recently a long thread devoted to the topic. </p>
<p>basically, yes. comm is entirely theoretical in nature. this is because UCLA believes that education shouldn't end in the classroom, and so they view the classes as only one aspect of your education. comm majors are expected to intern in the field of their choice (which varies widely throughout the department) in order to gain practical experience. there are various options both on and off campus that help you fulfill this (people interested in journalism would do the daily bruin, people interested in PR go find internships, etc). departmental research is also an option if you desire to take a more academic approach to the major. because gaining the practical experience is up to you, i'd say the program offers a whole lot of freedom to tailor your experience and your education to your personal interests. for such a small department, there's actually a pretty impressive course selection, however they're all entirely theoretical. </p>
<p>comm is not only one of the impacted majors, but it is the MOST impacted major in L&S. this is because it was intentionally designed to be a small department. acceptance is based almost entirely on GPA. the higher the grades, the better your chance of admittance into the program. approximately 200 people (4 years + transfers) are admitted each year.</p>
<p>Allie, thanks for the reply. I did try searching on comm before I posted, but in the wrong place - I was searching all of CC and getting mostly garbage. Your posts certainly provide a lot of useful information on the UCLA comms program.</p>
<p>Do you know why comm is so impacted at UCLA and (as far as I understand) not impacted at UCSD? Academically the two departments seem very similar, and the quality of research they do also appears similar, at least by semi-quantitative measures such as citation per article published. Is it just the size of the department relative to the size of the school, or is there more to it?</p>
<p>It has a lot to do with the opportunities UCLA (and specifically comm at UCLA) has to offer versus the other UCs, SD included. There's just much, much more work in the industry here than there is in San Diego. Also, because of our proximity, we have the benefit of professors who are still really, really active in their fields (as opposed to retired professors at other schools). </p>
<p>Geography doesn't affect other programs as much (which is why similar programs among the UCs are often similar in quality) because you can, for the most part, do research anywhere. But with comm, you're pretty much limited to LA and NY as far as the ability to obtain a notable (and more importantly, relevant) teaching staff. I have professors who currently work for companies like LA Times, Disney, etc. Also, the ability to get internships at relevant, credible organizations is just much greater in LA than it is in SD. San Diego would <em>maybe</em> be ok if someone was REALLY interested in mobile comm, since most of the mobile phone companies are based there. But otherwise, there's just not the same kind of breadth of opportunities down there. </p>
<p>Because of these opportunities and these professors, the program is extremely competitive, which has then gone on to make it pretty notable. It's one of the best communications programs in the country, and definitely one of the best (if not THE best) in the state (some would argue SC, but since the type of education there is completely different, I see them as two totally different things). So by nature it's going to be much more competitive than at other schools. </p>
<p>Comm at UCLA is a flagship major, it's something the school is known for and something the school continues to make strides in. Comm at UCSD is run-of-the-mill. (I was accepted to both programs, among SBs and USCs, and this is the conclusion I've drawn from my own experiences, from the faculty I've spoken to, and from outsiders currently working in various comm fields).</p>
<p>So how are comm at UCLA and USC different in your opinion? As you know already know, I have been posting to numerous boards trying to get a sense of what the programs are like. My own research seems to indicate that USC seems to pay more attention to the practical aspects of the education, and is in some sense a more "vocational" program that teaches you both how to produce and analyze communications, but if you look through their faculty research there seem to be plenty of things that are similar to UCLA.</p>
<p>Some selected faculty project names, that seem to reflect well the scope of the project - Persuasion and Politics, Technology and Society, Interaction and Social Processes, Globalization and Cultural Production.</p>
<p>By the way, thank you so much for taking the time to share your experience and knowledge on these boards. I don't know when you sleep or study - you answer my questions at all times of day :-)</p>
<p>I'm currently at my job/internship and have down time : )</p>
<p>I just feel that USC is <em>entirely</em> vocational in scope in so far as what it offers its students . I actually just consulted a friend on IM who was briefly in comm at USC until switching out, and to quote him: "Its all mundane practice and no theory. the whole premise of it is training the next generation of mindless middle managers, people to watch over the drones. there's no real creativity there and its noticeable in the student body. it's a vocational school disguising itself as a university education". This friend went on to find a different major at SC, and was somewhat happier with that, but this is his general conclusion about the comm school itself and USC in general. </p>
<p>And I tend to agree with him, a lot. Based on my own outside perception of the program, USC is VERY textbook. I recently observed their advertising team in competition, and was pretty amazed at the utter lack of real creativity, or anything exciting for that matter, in their presentation. </p>
<p>While Annenberg certainly does have good research opportunities and does produce research by faculty, its otherwise completely unremarkable (in my opinion). Because courses are SO vocational in nature, getting through the program very much requires going through the motions. </p>
<p>And while people always highlight the alumni connections available at the school, I've found that similar connections can be made at UCLA with very little effort.</p>