<p>So from what I've read and heard, UCLA is probably the cooler place to be. But talking classes, student life, surrounding area, name, quality of education, etc, how are these two schools different? Berkeley students go on about how Cal will change you and challenge you, and pretty much just pummel you. Is it the same at LA? Are they more alike than different?</p>
<p>Funny i have heard the exact opposite. From what i've HEARD, the city of LA is really dirty and dangerous. Without a car, you are basically chained to the campus. The only negative comments I have heard about Berkeley is that there are many (by many i mean HELLA) ugly girls around...Someone please refute this last fact lolx...</p>
<p>by many i mean HELLA</p>
<p>::gasp:: A nor-cal colloquialism! No place for such things on this board...
:)</p>
<p>But besides that... kingofighter, you probably have never seen the area that UCLA is in. Westwood, Brentwood, Bel Air, and Beverly Hills are not usually associated with the descriptives "dirty and dangerous".
To Aim, a lot of college is what you make it - if you want to be "changed and challenged", either the People's Republic of Berkeley (sorry, couldn't resist) or UCLA could offer that to you. Off the record, both schools offer a very similar (if not identical) quality of education. On the record, Berkeley sucks! ;)</p>
<p>Berkeley is the school for Stanford rejects...UCLA attracts a completely different student body...more laid back...better looking (by far!) :p</p>
<p>hehe, had to get my lil dig in :D</p>
<p>I detest the area around Berkeley. The area around UCLA is FAR FAR better. I have lived in both areas and I did not apply to UCB for 2 reasons: One was because I hate how that is all anyone talks about around here...and the number one reason, the location...seriously...the location was my primary decision not to apply to UCB...I don't give a crap how uber people think the school is..I want to go to a place that sounds like fun to ME, not to someone else.</p>
<p>Biggest difference? Berkeley is really competitive. UCLA is more laid back. I've heard the same from numerous reports, and from being a Cal student myself.
There is nothing I have against ULCA except for the arrogance of its students. You will never see Cal students claim that Berkeley is better than Harvard or Caltech (even though according to US news, Berkeley is rank 2 in Engineering, above caltech), but some UCLA students just are ******.
From what my UCLA friends tell me, some undergrad classes are easier than their equivalent AP classes in HS. But at berkeley, it's a terrible idea to skip a certain class that you Ap'd out, even if u got 5 on the AP test.</p>
<p>I consistently hear UCLA is highly competitive. The diff between the two is that in Berkeley that is all there is to do because the town sucks...in LA students tend to be more balanced, so the MISCONCEPTION is they are less competitive -- the astute observer knows better.</p>
<p>So what specifically is wrong with the city of Berkeley? And if the academics are the same, then wouldn't both schools be equally tough? It sounds like UCLA classes are a little less killer.</p>
<p>UCLA academics (purely anecdotal): A
UCB academics (purely anecdotal): A</p>
<p>UCLA campus: B-
UCB campus: A-</p>
<p>UCLA off-campus: A-
UCB off-campus: C-</p>
<p>UCLA hotties: A+
UCB hotties: C</p>
<p>UCLA William Hung: None, so A++++++
UCB William Hung: F--------</p>
<p>It can't get more unbiased than this! :P</p>
<p>UCLA and Berkeley are both excellent schools, no doubt.</p>
<p>All of high school, I've wanted to go to Berkeley. But after visiting UCLA, I agree with what people seem to say that the area is a lot nicer than Berkeley... But, I like the people at Berkeley better, who seem to be more down-to-earth... so we'll see.</p>
<p>UCLA is located in a better area, but for some reason, students there are VERY arrogant. The difference between the UCLA and Berkeley board provide testimony to that fact.
Sure, UCLA is growing more quickly than Berkeley, but neither school will ever dominate the scene like Berkeley did in its heyday from 1950-1980. The hypernova of ideas and inventions in that period will remain unsurpassed, since its brilliance dwarved all the ivys put together. Now both UCs are regular stars, with privates far ahead. Back then, Cal was far ahead at # 1 in terms if its academic influence. The periodic table provides evidence of that.
Cal was #1 in terms of political influence as well.</p>
<p>Bubbles: Going off your logic- you're just one Cal attendee but based on your statements, all Cal students are VERY arrogant and condescending. Looking at the forum from your type of perspective: Some Cal students apply to Stanford but are rejected and wind up going to Cal but a few Cal student posters on this forum consider themselves equal and even superior to their Stanford rivals, therefore all Cal students are EXTREMELY arrogant.</p>
<p>Aim: Back to the intent of your original post, the quality of your undergraduate education are on par at both schools. If you take some watered down physics for poets class at either school, of course its going to be a laid back course. On the otherhand, if you take the more challenging series, for instance the ones engineers must take for chemistry (20/30 series for LA), its everything but a cakewalk. Really the difficulty is affected by a variety of factors: the professor you're taking, the curriculum (you already start o-chem in the first course of the 20/30 series- something new to this year), etc. Colleges in general are suppose to change and challenge you, and LA is no different. Its how you take your own initiatives that will ultimately determine your college experiences.</p>
<p>Sure, I'm a bit proud of my school. But I wont brag about it openly. I havent worn one Berkeley shirt, much less paint my face yellow, compared to numerous UCLA students who do so. Being implicit means being professional. Explicit braggers like exilio really ruin their school's image.
And condescending? I'm expression my opinion, not my demands. Did I demand one request? I think you should check the dictionary. (No, that's not a damand because I said "i think".)</p>
<p>Cal students paint their faces, you see them in pictures all the time and on tv, so by your logic, Cal is a very arrogant school. Your inherent bragging is no different. Cal sells Cal sweatshirts too, based on your logic, wearing that sweatshirt is an openly expression of arrogance. How can you possibly differenciate your pride from what you claim is another's arrogance? A condescending opinion is a condescending opinion- what does "demands" have to do with anything? Everything everyone states in this forum is noted as an opinion. You did not say "i think" once in your post at 11:40. So because you did not explicitly state "i think" (which is implicity implied in EVERYONE'S post), are you not professional? </p>
<p>You do more damage to a school's image trolling around and making blanket statements with no true basis outside of some flawed generalizations while judging others who do just the same by condescendingly saying that what you do is somehow professional while another who does the same is clearly inferior and damaging to a school's image.</p>
<p>Look at the very first thread and post you started and tell me that isn't openly bragging.</p>
<p>The first sentence in my first post included the sentence "I think". I was extremely explicit that you're reading something subjective.
Really, I dont want to argue any more about this. We're just going in circles. If you really think that what I say sounds objective and thus should be bashed, then take an english class.</p>
<p>Regardless, it doesn't matter if you say "I think" or not, because everyone's post is what they think, wheter they state it or not. Just because you put "I think" at times doesn't qualify you to say that what you post is professionally done while someone else is unprofessional and damaging to their image.</p>
<p>The hypernova of ideas and inventions in that period will remain unsurpassed, since its brilliance dwarved all the ivys put together.</p>
<p>Yeah, your whole arrogance thing just went down the tubes with this statement...</p>
<p>JYancy, here's the logic.
1)When the phrase "I think" is put into a sentence, it makes the post subjective, not necesarily professional. It's fine to bash an objective post that's wrong, but subjective posts are meant to be biased.
2)If a post is subjective, like it's supposed to be, there's nothing you should object to regarding style and professionalism.</p>
<p>And I dont think anyone can argue that Cal wasn't at the forefront politically and scientifically in the 1950-1980's. The school is still called the "Flagship" for a reason.</p>
<p>Cal students seem to have a cynical side to them; almost all the ones I know have a quick wit with a drypan cynical sense of humor.</p>