<p>actually, the one guy that I have to say is quite brilliant is deciding to go to UCI out of all the colleges he could attend. And there are many other people I know who refused Berkeley and Cal. He turned down everywhere else even with scholarship offers. Everyone else that is going to a better reputed institution is not nearly as smart as this kid. Intelligence can’t be determined by the institution of attendance. Attending UC Berkeley or UCLA does not signify that you’re smarter than those who didn’t get in or not attending. Admissions, especially at UCLA and Cal, are too random and non-academic based to claim that an acceptance letter is automatically a declaration of high-intelligence. People need to stop making that ridiculous assumption. There can be genius people at UCR and stupid idiots at Berkeley. And at the level of UCSD, UCLA and Cal, you really can’t say that there is a difference in the intelligence levels since all three of these colleges have very similar GPA and SAT scores for its entering classes. I really can’t agree or believe that UCLA and Cal’s students are that much better than the other UC students.</p>
<p>so what made him pick Irvine over the rest?
i’d like to know : )</p>
<p>i’m not really sure but he fell in love with the campus and the environment. and for some reason, he thinks the physics dept. at UCI is top notch (when it isn’t that impressive really when compared to other UCs).</p>
<p>I have also seen managers from UCSD head UCLA/Cal grads. So there is hope.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, UCI’s pretty good at some areas of physics that the others are not. I forget who they have, but I met someone who picked them for grad over other UCs for physics because of a specific couple of people in the department.</p>
<p>“I have also seen managers from UCSD head UCLA/Cal grads.”</p>
<p>This is somewhat irrelevant. Unless they are in the same place in their careers, you can’t make a logical comparison. For example, many Silicon Valley pharmaceutical companies are headed by PhD’s from unknown universities overseas, but they manage recent Stanford, Caltech, and MIT PhD grads. So, what you described is quite common and doesn’t quite break the stereotypical mold that degrees from higher ranked schools hold higher values than those from lower ranked schools. It’s just that they are in different points of their careers. Whereas one has worked for a good decade or two, the other has just started.</p>
<p>Edit: I have seen managers from UCSD head UCLA/Cal grads (same age group).</p>
<p>^I also have worked with VP of Engineering graduated from Brooklyn City College who managed lots of UCB EECS grads, all the same age range.</p>
<p>I think our point is that it doesn’t really matter what your alma mater is (especially for undergrad). What counts is your character and performance. If you keep thinking going to UCSD will hold you back on prestige or pride then don’t attend, there’s like a zillion kids waiting to take your spot at the school for “Cal/UCLA rejects.”</p>