<p>Why is it that hard to believe? As everyone knows, UCs primarily accept in-state students. There are basically two criterions for CA high school students: GPA and SAT. I would say that finishing the top of your class is a must to get into a UC thus thats why you see most UCs have mostly top 10% of high school graduates. Next comes SATs, this primarily determines which UC you would be accepted to. The more selective UCs take not only the kids with better GPAs but from better high schools and higher SAT scores.</p>
<br>
<p>I only know what I read. I have often read that California students struggle in national level Math, Science and Reading tests.<</p>
<br>
<p>I dont think it is accurate to take this perception then apply it to college applicants. As stated earlier in this thread, one must control for social-economic factors when doing a comparison of california with other states. Further more, california in "absolute numbers" I am sure have just as much and probably far more qualified students just because of its huge population (not more qualified but number of qualified students) than the Michigan high school system therefor it is uncertain how the self-selecting process of college admissions would work out in practice.</p>
<p>"Golubb, I suggest you learn more about universities before comparing two such vastly difference insitutions. You only make yourself look ridiculous"</p>
<p>Alexandre, that is a rather indignant tone for a moderator to take :(</p>
<p>I was only looking at the stats. Since the acceptance rate for UCI and UMAA are between 55%-60%, a lot of students do end up going to those schools from local districts. Also, they're both great schools to go to. I think if someone from California got into UC-Irvine and UMAA, it would be a tough choice (assuming cost is same)! I don't think you should scoff at Irvine just because of the grad rankings.....the undergrad, which makes the vast majority of the student body, is very similar.</p>
<p>If students work hard at UC-Irvine and UMAA, there's no reason why they can't be successful in their careers. UC-Irvine is not a throw away school...many of the students are equally as smart and hard-working as UMAA students are.</p>
<p>i love it how i haven't seen alexandre around for a while, but once a thread about michigan comes up, he accounts for almost half the posts. haha</p>
<p>"....heck no! Everyone knows the UC-Berkeley and UCLA are the top two public universities!!"</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? Everyone knows that? Is that why US News rated Michigan the #1 Public school? I'm the last person to trust US News but if they said Michigan is the best I can't understand how its indisputable that UCLA and Berkeley are better. As an accepted applicant to both schools I will tell you that without a doubt Michigan is better in every aspect. I only applied to Irvine because I applied to UCB and UCLA and it was just a simple check box. If money weren't a concern then I would choose Michigan over UCI without hesitation and that's saying alot considering I hate the cold and love SoCal weather.</p>
<p>actually US NEWS ranks Berkeley as #1 public, i bought the 2005 issue today, Michigan came in second. As a side question which do you guys think is better, or more prestious, UC Irvine, or University of Washington?</p>
<p>hate to burst your (wolverine) buble, but USNEWs has Berkeley as the #21 ranked National Universities, and Michigan #22 (tied with Carnegie Mellon UVa). Berkeley is the top-ranked public. (UCLA was #25, tied with Georgetown.)</p>
<p>GASP, a whole difference of 3 ranking spots! haha. cmon guys, berkeley, mich, and ucla are considered the cream of the crop amongst publics. It's really difficult to see which one is clearly "better" than the others.</p>
<p>I agree with Rtkysg (dude, do something about that name...and it had better not be Bob!). Cal is clearly the best public university in the nation. Slightly be significantly lower is Michigan and slightly but significantly lower is UCLA. All three are awesome schools, but there is a distinct difference between them.</p>
<p>I object to the idea that the public universities mentioned here are "easy to get into." It varies a lot from school to school, and even the numbers you can find in US News & WR bear some careful interpretation. A lot of things go into a school's selectivity. Right now, California schools are bursting at the seams; there has been significant press coverage about how the university and state college system cannot accommodate the number of interested, qualified students who want a college education. In other words, many more applications than there are places in the freshman class. Thus, that's going to boost selectivity even at the less prestigious schools in the system. Not just because there are a lot of students, but because students worried about getting a place would be wise to submit applications to more schools. </p>
<p>There is also self-selection at work, which has the opposite effect. This might soon depress selectivity at UC schools (if it hasn't already) because students who suspect they'll never get in (due to high standards, or crowding) won't waste the effort applying. I believe self-selection plays a large role already at U-M. </p>
<p>From a public university's standpoint, selectivity is a nice thing to brag about but can be a PR nightmare. When you have to say "No" to a lot of promising young sons and daughters of taxpayers, their parents get ****ed off and complain to their state legislators. In some ways, it's better for the state schools if they DON'T get a huge number of apps and a huge number of people they have to disappoint.</p>
<p>Only once in recent history, has the UC capped its enrollment and denied eligible kids a spot Then, after the budget was approved by the legislature, belated offers were made to those kids.</p>
<p>While you are correct that the Calif system is stretched thin, no one, I mean no one, who is qualified is turned away from their a Cal State, or UC Merced, if they apply on time and meet the MINIMAL qualifiications. It may not be their first choice campus, but this is a spot somwhere. It does a disservice to post that there are many more apps than spots -- just not true. Undoubetdly, classes may be hard to get into once a kid gets there, but everyone gets in somewhere that wants to. Where you may indeed find self-selection is at the top 2-3 schools (B, LA, SD). I heard GCs tell top kids to applying to Mich "just-in-case" bcos their state has a flat population growth.</p>
<p>"UMich is far and away a better school. You know it; the original OP knew it. He got you"</p>
<p>This is a ridiculous comment. The UCs are the premier public schools in the US, and UC-Irvine is a great school!! </p>
<p>Trust me, students that get into UCI and UMAA will think long and hard before choosing one or the other (in-cali or in surrounding states).</p>
<p>yes, in terms of grad rankings UMAA outpaces UC-Irvine, but as far as the undergrad portion goes, UC-Irvine is just as tough to get into as UMAA and has an equal (or higher) proportion of top 10% kids as UMAA! How can you say that it's a slam dunk? (leave out grad rankings)</p>
<p>Uc Irvine is no LA or Berkeley but as a californian id take it. why would you want to live in michicagn? first off its colder than sin. Where as irvine sits in upper middle class orange county. yea 65+ degree winter days kick ass. You trade off some prestige for good wheather. Not to mention irvine is in between san diego, which is arguably one of the best cities in cal (not the best to me cause im from the bay), and Smog Angeles which has a great party scene. What does michigan have? detroit? hahaha.</p>
<p>If UCI and UMich traded athletic departments, I think that some people would be arguing that UCI is better. I still think that UMich is a better school academically, but because so many people see the Maize and Blue winged helmets on TV every Saturday in the fall, and because they grew up watching the Fab Five during March Madness, that's going to impact their impression of the quality of the university.</p>
<p>Disclaimer - I am a proud UCI alumnus who has been very amused by this whole thread</p>
<p>Alicentikid, Michigan's athletic tradition has very little to do with its academic reputation. I suspect its top ranked departments in every field are what make Michigan so reputable. Michigan was already one of the nation;s top universities by 1875. ITs football tradition did not exist until the early 1900s.</p>
<p>if i had the choice, i'd pick irvine. weather plays a big factor in my decision, as does diversity, location, campus aesthetics, and cost (in-state). only thing i'd want from UCI that it lacks are big sports programs.</p>
<p>thanks for the clarification. Am I to understand, then, that a student fills out only one application, ranks his or her choices, and is later told which he or she is admitted to? You said there are never more applications than there are places, but I would only expect this to be true if a there was only one application per student. I'm not familiar with the UC system to that degree. </p>
<p>I didn't understand your last sentence--GCs in Michigan are telling their students to use U-M as a fall back? I would have thought it was the toughest public school to get into in the state, very generally speaking. Michigan Tech being more specialized maybe a contender, but I'm not sure about that.</p>