<p>I’ve realized that the mid-tier UC’s (Irvine, Davis, SB, and perhaps a little of SD) are, while decent schools, always plastered with the notion of “second rate” schools, as they tend to operate under the shadows of more renowned schools such as Berkeley and LA, both of which are in the same system. </p>
<p>However, let’s say you take the top public schools from other states, so let’s take UT Austin and UDub, for instance, if someone told you that they go there, chances are you won’t immediately think, “oh, it’s cause they got rejected from Cal”. But if someone told u they go to UCI or Davis, there are people who may think that. </p>
<p>And yet, the mid tier UC’s are ranked exactly the same as schools like Texas and UW, but they unfortunately are part of a school that contains even “better” schools, so they are always seen in direct comparison with these more renowned counterparts. Schools like Texas and UW, however, don’t really have to worry that since they pretty much get all the credit for being the top public school in their respective states, while in fact, they may only be around the caliber of the mid-tier UC campuses. I mean, if someone told you “UCI is as good as UCLA”, you may instantly think that he’s bluffing, but if he were to say “Texas is as good as UCLA”, they may actually have reason to believe him and won’t impulsively dismiss him. </p>
<p>so yeah, i guess the whole point of this was to show how the “2nd rate” UC’s may not be so 2nd rate after all, it’s just due to faulty public perception.</p>
<p>Um.. I'm pretty sure people don't think you goto a "second rate" university if you goto UCSB/UCI/UCSD/UCD.. I know a lot of UT grads and they don't have the superior snobbish attitude that Cal students have here in any way.</p>
<p>A lot of this might have to do with past perceptions of these schools. It wasn't until relatively recently that all of the UC's got really, really good. When my dad went to Cal, you could get in with a 3.3 (this was like 30 years ago), and at that time, if you had not so good grades, you would go to a lesser UC. So, you were considered not so bright if you didn't go to either Cal or UCLA.</p>
<p>Then, Cal and UCLA went from good schools to amazing schools and the people that couldn't get in, went to mid tier UCs, improving the quality of the schools. So, I think that the reputation that they originally had stayed with the schools.</p>
<p>Just the other day, I told one of my bosses at work that I wanted to attend UCSB (of course she went to CAl) and she asked why I wanted to go to a party school. Even though UCSB is obviously a very good school, with an average GPA of like 3.9.</p>
<p>While on the other hand, schools like UW and UT have always been good schools, and continue to be. They have no real competition in their respective states for public schools.</p>
<p>So, I guess what I am saying is to give it time. Mid Tier UCs will eventually get the notoriety that they deserve.</p>
<p>*O yeah, when my Grandma went to Cal 60 odd years ago, it was considered a bad school ( all of her sisters went to ivy leagues), so you can see how reputations can really change</p>
<p>I'd actually say people who pay attention to college admissions know how good Davis, SB, and Irvine are. It seems as though employers from around the area would be more willing to hire people from mid-tier UCs than people from UT-Austin or UW.</p>
<p>I totally understand what you are saying. There are a small number of people (i know 2) who will turn down Berk/LA for the other UC's. My friends chose to attend Irvine. </p>
<p>A lot of this has to do with age, i think. The older the school the more respect it gets (in certain cases). </p>
<p>UC's >> all other state schools (even if its considered 2nd rank) They are just "overshadowed " by Berk/LA</p>
<p>Cal has been great for years. Back in the dark ages, Santa Cruz was the only selective UC (yeah, go figure). Cal and UCLA accepted nearly every minimaly qualified applicant. The big differences today are: 1) demographics (lotsa more 18 year-olds); 2) a higher % of kids now go to college, as opposed to the work force; 3) kids are more willing to go OOS to college. </p>
<p>btw: HYPSM was much, much easier to get into as well.</p>
<p>^I actually did know about UCSC being good, i know many people who are ~40 that were accepted into both UCB and UCSC and chose SC and have been kicking themselves in the ass ever since.</p>