<p>Hi everyone,</p>
<p>When it comes to two recent college graduates on the job market how much does the prestige of the school they graduated from really matter?</p>
<p>For example let's take a graduate of UCLA's Biz Econ vs. a UCSC graduate with a degree in a similar field like Economics with an emphasis in Business Management. Will the UCLA graduate be more likely to be paid more than the UCSC graduate out of college based on the school he attended?</p>
<p>Well it depends. The classes you take as well as the grades you earn are also a factor in the hiring process. Extracurriculars also play a role. </p>
<p>But if grades, classes, etc where about equal, i would say UCLA Biz Econ would have a better shot for greater pay and job opportunities.</p>
<p>I have heard that UCSC has one of the best international finance programs in the world. If you want to do biz econ, go to UCLA, but for a specialized field in which UCSC is the top in, go to UCSC.</p>
<p>I’d say it matters a lot in this economy. With so many people looking for jobs, employers are more likely to grant interviews to those who went to top tier universities. For example, my friend who recently graduated from UCI is having a hard time landing interviews, meanwhile my other friend with a UCLA degree isn’t having any trouble at all. I’m not saying you can’t find a job after attending a less prestigious school, just that I’d be more difficult.</p>
<p>I think your success in the job force has a lot more to do with what you actually do in college than where you came from. For example, if a UCSC student nailed an internship , he has more options than a UCLA graduate with no internship. However, if it was between two equally qualified candidates, only differing in their degree, the grad from UCLA would probably get the job.</p>
<p>I like to think the student at UCSC has to work harder than the student at UCLA to land the job he wants post college.</p>
<p>its funny how every response except for mine has ignored the actual programs. If you want to do business econ, go to UCLA, if you want to go into finance, hands down UCSC will give you a better job. It is top 10 IN THE WORLD in international finance.</p>
<p>I know many UCI students that graduated this year who have really good jobs relating to business so I think your one example of your friend struggling isn’t the best example. UCI is awesome.</p>
<p>lol this is not about uci, this about santa cruz and why people fail to realize the program matters a LOT more than the school itself. Program wise, I would say UCLA’s biz econ is a lot more advanced that UCI’s, but that can be attributed to the massive funding disparity between the two programs. (sad i know, but what can you do about a crappy bureaucracy, coupled with low funding to begin with for the entire UC system)</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a difference between business econ at la and Irvine. Both schools allow you to take courses in their respective business schools and the economics classes are pretty much similar: Basic macro/micro, intermediate series, and electives. The only school I would say that has a superior economics program in the UC system is Berkeley in which it rivals Harvard/MIT/ and Uchicago.</p>
<p>Lol biz econ at UCLA is extremely competitive, like really REALLY competitive, much, much more than UCI’s program. Everyone wants to do it and from day one they try to weed people out, there’s a considerably significant difference, particularly in the lower div classes. This girl I know transferred from UCSD economics to UCLA biz econ with a 3.9, after the first quarter (and more studying than what she did at UCSD) she had a 3.3.</p>
<p>Coming from UCSD doesn’t say much. But I agree that the students are much more competitive at LA but the economics departments between LA and I are negligible.</p>
<p>lol ur hilarious. Lets just look at economics rankings.
<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-economics-schools/rankings[/url]”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-economics-schools/rankings</a></p>
<p>As you can see, it is ranked higher than a number of Ivies as well, let’s not even consider irvine in this discussion. On the other hand, if you look at other fields, UCI and UCLA have a smaller gap. It all depends on the major. But for biz econ, there is an extremely significant difference in the students, as well as the program. If you don’t believe me about the disparity in student talent, just take a look at the difference between average GPA’s of acceptance into each program.</p>
<p>holy crap irvine isnt even in the top 40. wow that was depressing lol i shouldn’t have even looked it up…</p>
<p>That list is for graduate school. There is no such thing as business economics in graduate school. We are talking about undergraduate. Even though you may say that there is a small correlation between grad and undergrad, it is very minimal. The professors that even matter don’t even teach undergraduate classes. They are researching and spending time with graduate students. So the face time students get with these so called amazing professors is zero. Also you have to understand these classes that the UC system offers for economics majors are HUGE. None of my economics courses were less than 300 people, majority being 400 people. So the fact that teacher assistants have a huge factor in teaching you rather than the professor is important to take into account. Even IF UCLA has a better faculty, none of the students really get to learn from them. So I don’t know how UCLA students have it better when most of the profs teaching students are at best associate professors. Now I’m not saying that none of the star professors teach, but for an undergraduate program, it is very unlikely. So if you want to talk about graduate programs, I concede LA is better for graduate school. But for undergrad, there is no difference, especially with the additional budget cuts. Grad school is a WHOLE different beast for economics.</p>
<p>lol if there is no difference between the programs (which is an utterly incorrect notion, and you know it), then there definitely is a HUGE difference in the quality of students in each program. This difference has been quantified if you are in denial. That alone leads to much greater job opportunities for UCLA econ grads than even a lot of Ivy schools, let alone econ people from the University of Civics and Integras. </p>
<p>Lol i know B-/C students at UCLA biz econ, and I know a LOT of econ people at UCI…let’s just say there are differences in not only work ethic, but natural intellectual capacity and interest which I won’t delve into because I could go on all day long…</p>
<p>The best comparison I can give you is the difference between people at UCI who double major in quantitative econ and physics (i know 2 personally) and people who do straight business econ.</p>
<p>I never said that there was no difference in students. I point blank said that LA econ students are much stronger than UCI econ students. You also said you know many uci econ students, but there much more than the “many” you know. Maybe the ones that you know aren’t hard working and naturally talented. You have an unrepresented sample that cannot help your cause. But I will concede that the LA students in general are harder working…etc. Does that make it a better program though for undergraduates? Of course not. If there was a causation between quality of students and programs, Harvard should have the best engineering program, where in reality it suffers compared to many other schools like Purdue, Harvey Mudd, etc. In essance, what you are trying to say is that better quality of students, thus, better program. Students at Podunk College may not be the most academic elite students like UCLA students but they can have an amazing economics program. I cannot say that the UCLA business economics program for undergraduate students is a better program than the UCI business economics program for undergraduate students solely on the fact that ucla students are “better”. Like I said, if you want to talk about graduate school, that is a different issue. If you want to look at other factors like class size and class selection, its dead even.</p>
<p>By the way, these rankings definitely do apply to undergraduate quality. I trust them for a reason. For example, UCI is top ten in ochem, a credible evaluation because I have seen the differences between UCLA ochem and UCI ochem, they suggest that UCI is better than UCLA in that department. </p>
<p>All faculty have contracts, and in fact, the best faculty are the ones that are teaching. Only the best professors have the chance to teach because they are vying for a tenure position, which is a legal guarantee of job security.</p>
<p>Therefore, because UCLA has better econ faculty, it is a better undergrad econ program than UCI. It’s a simple fact, just as UCI’s ochem department and literary criticism department (which has famous authors by the way) have better faculty than UCLA.</p>
<p>But the real reason they have better job prospects is that a high GPA in ucla econ means the student had to try much, much, much, much, much harder than the UCI student because of the extreme competition of the program. Therefore their talent is much more valued based on GPA alone, so they are more likely to get hired.</p>
<p>You have to understand just because it works for OChem doesn’t mean it will work for Economics. First of all, you are comparing a subject within an a more general category of Chemistry to a school of thought as that of Economics. Secondly, just because that situation is applicable for hard science does not mean that it is applicable to Economics. In fact, not every major works in the same way. Yes, I agree that there are star professors that do teach, but if they do, its usually a seminar class with 25 students. I can promise you that all of the ucla students will not get to enjoy the teachings of that professor. You and I both know the situation within the UC system and it is impossible to get into classes, period. I had a hard time getting into a 400 person class, let alone a 25 person class. And max, those professors aren’t teaching all year long. They teach one or two classes for a quarter of the year. Now, think to yourself, how do all of these students get to enjoy this professor? How many of these professors exist at UCLA? Are ALL of the professors at UCLA nobel prize winners? Of course not. There IS NO Difference at the undergraduate level because there are simply TOOO MANY STUDENTS. If UCLA had a small business economics major for only the top students, then I would say that it could be better. But in reality, ANYBODY can be an economics major at UCLA as well as UCI. So it isn’t that different. There are millions of kids in these majors.</p>