<p>Like most schools other than ivies, UCs (with the possible exception of Berkely) have more prestige/recognition on the West coast. Public east coast schools have more prestige on the east coast, and little to none in other parts of the country.</p>
<p>Gee golly gosh Izziebear, and yours perhaps is the educated response of a kid from Cali headed to a UC? Has anyone noticed that all impressed by a UC go to one or hope to?</p>
<p>Ah yes Izzibear, your thread asking about transfering to a UC comfirms my suspicions.........</p>
<p>Well, its settled, the UCs all suck. Suzzee's rich east coast private school friends don't like them, so the are obviously bad. Case closed. Lock this thread.</p>
<p>I didn't start a thread asking about transfering to a UC. I've only commented on threads advising those who seek the knowledge on how to transfer to California publics like the UC's. I like to help others rather than question the merit of their university choices.</p>
<p>I didn't say YOU need to think that going to a UC is prestigious or worth your time. You just made a comment stating that only (some) grad degrees hold any merit to the general public. Your comment was uneducated because you didn't take the time to gather enough information. As someone still in high school, there is no way you could know how heads of large businesses or institutions look at UG degrees from UC's. </p>
<p>Yeah, you're right. I am headed to a UC, and sure, I'm happy about it. Doesn't mean I didn't have the chance to attend a university on your side of the country. Don't worry, I'm not picking favorites, my entire family hails from the east coast. </p>
<p>But it's seems a bit strange to me that you wouldn't understand the prestige or quality UC's actually hold. My east coast family were all very informed on the education quality and name Berkeley holds.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, please don't repsond to me like an elitist. We are all friends here. <em>squeeze cuddle hug</em></p>
<p>"There are tons of Cali kids at my East Coast prep school and almost none want to go to a UC. "</p>
<p>the cali kids in your east coast prep school are most likely more affluent/richer kids who can afford to attend private schools or other out-of-state schools. even some cali kids in some of the top prep schools in california don't want to attend UC's.</p>
<p>hey, if you can afford it, why not pay for a private education then? you don't need to consider a UC when you can get more personal attention elsewhere. </p>
<p>but for the many others who can't afford a private education, the UC's are a huge bargain... a great deal that will help their kids get far in life at half the price of a private college. that's why its respected and hyped.</p>
<p>I heard from parent with 1 kid at Tufts and another at UCLA : </p>
<p>"The only difference between a UC and a private school is $20,000"</p>
<p>hehe...true</p>
<p>but before all the out-of-staters get riled up, allow me to say this is only true if you're a california resident. </p>
<p><3, Izzie Bear</p>
<p>P.S. even californians that can afford it will sometimes pick a UC over a private simply because they like the area, atmosphere, department, or feel of the campus. But it's always nice to save the bucks, no matter how wealthy you are, especially if you're grad school bound. =)</p>
<p>
Good one! :)</p>
<p>'the only difference...'</p>
<p>Don't forget the weather and the fact that UCSB adn UCSD have thier own beaches! Lemme see, Yale has New Haven (and Pepe's pizza). :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
'the only difference...'</p>
<p>Don't forget the weather and the fact that UCSB adn UCSD have thier own beaches! Lemme see, Yale has New Haven (and Pepe's pizza).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, keep in mind that the comment of 'the only difference' was actually a comparison of a UC and Tufts, not a UC and any East Coast private school, and certainly not about Yale. I think it's safe to say that the majority of people who got into the undergrad programs at Yale and a UC are going to choose Yale. I think even the biggest Berkeley fanatics like california1600/westsidee would concede this point. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you're talking about a place like Tufts, I think you could say that most people are going to choose Berkeley or UCLA over Tufts. I am quite comfortable with the notion that, for undergrad, Yale is better than Berkeley/UCLA, which are better than Tufts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but for the many others who can't afford a private education, the UC's are a huge bargain... a great deal that will help their kids get far in life at half the price of a private college. that's why its respected and hyped.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the whole idea of the UC's being such a huge bargain is often times overhyped. I've often times heard of UC's being the best education money can buy, and I question that. Consider my brother. He could have gone to a UC. But none of them were willing to offer him a good financial deal. Instead, he got offered the Caltech President's Scholarship which not only paid for tuition and room/board at Caltech, but also gave him a stipend. Hence, he actually MADE MONEY by going to Caltech. So the choice was for him to go to UC and have him pay UC, or go to Caltech and have Caltech pay him. You guys tell me which one really is the better bargain?</p>
<p>Another example I know of was for a guy who wanted to get his MBA. He got into Berkeley-Haas and UCLA-Anderson. On the other hand, he also got into the MIT-Sloan LFM program which is basically a dual-degree program (an MBA from Sloan, and a Master's of Science in any participating Engineering discipline taught at MIT). The best part about getting into LFM was that tuition is free. That's right - free. So think about it. He could have gone to Berkeley or UCLA and paid tuition for an MBA. Or he could have gone to MIT through the LFM program and gotten 2 master's degrees, and paid zero tuition. You guys can tell me which one is the better bargain?</p>
<p>I also think about 2 guys I know who found out that for them, Harvard turned out to be cheaper than Berkeley, after financial aid was figured in. These guys came from fairly modest family backgrounds, including one guy who truly did come from 'the hood'. Basically, Berkeley offered these guys a package that consisted of grants and loans, whereas Harvard gave them full grants. Hence, the choice was to go to Berkeley and take on debt or go to Harvard on a free ride. Which one is the better bargain? I distinctly remember one guy joking that he wanted to go to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. He had a pretty sarcastic and dry sense of humor. </p>
<p>I think the REAL truth is that UC's are indeed a very good bargain for those people who are good but aren't good enough to get a scholarship from a top-notch private school, who aren't good enough to get into special programs like LFM at MIT, or who aren't poor enough to qualify for need-based financial aid. Which gets to a point I've been making here on CC - if UC really wants to be a good bargain, then it should strive to become a low cost option for everybody. As it stands, UC is only a bargain for certain people only, but not others. It certainly wasn't a bargain for my brother who got paid to go to Caltech. It wasn't a bargain for the guy who went to LFM. It wasn't a bargain for the guys who went to Harvard on full rides.</p>
<p>Well Katiee most Californians like my self prefer the UC's for a simple reason WE LIKE CALIFORNIA. most people dont care about what the degree will get them on the east coast because... UGH who would want to live on the EAST COAST? HAHA</p>
<p>croberts532, I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but the east coast has a lot to offer.</p>
<p>While I do not deny that California has stunning beaches and excellent weather, it really cannot match NYC/Philly/Boston for culture. These cities have museums and other institutions that California simply does not have.</p>
<p>katieeee.</p>
<p>i'll assume you have taken a road trip through california, venturing through each town and city, top to bottom?</p>
<p>I agree, the east coast offers a whole lot of culture. But don't be so quick to judge the greatness that is California.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well Katiee most Californians like my self prefer the UC's for a simple reason WE LIKE CALIFORNIA
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, I like California too. But simply liking California is not by itself a reason to choose the UC's. After all, there are very good schools in California that aren't UC's. My brother went to Caltech on full ride and stipend. And then of course there is a certain school in the South Bay. The point is that the UC's certainly do not have a monopoly on providing an education in California.</p>
<p>I've seen certain parts of California, but obviously not the entire state. California residents don't see the entire state...</p>
<p>I obviously haven't seen all of the east coast either.</p>
<p>I just found Los Angeles to be generic and mundane- certainly not a bad place to live though.</p>
<p>Guh. I hate when people base their opinions of California on their experience in Los Angeles.</p>
<p>I spent half my life in L.A. and believe me, the whole state is not like that. Northern California is worlds different than Southern California, in terms of atmosphere, weather, culture, and feel.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I still have SoCal pride...there are MANY parts of southern california that are stunning.</p>
<p>Well, one of the two best branches of the UC system that you laud so enthusiastically is in LA...</p>
<p>I'm not commenting on the UC system, or the quality education and experience you can gain from UCLA. I'm merely commenting on how your judgement of California lies solely in your experience in L.A. I'm just pointing out that Los Angeles does not represent California entirely. </p>
<p>The great thing about the UC's is that there is at least one in every type of cultural area in California. I liked Berkeley's location and culture best (even over those not in the UC system), which is why I chose it. Claiming that I favor Northern California has nothing to do with my perspective of the UC system.</p>
<p><3,</p>
<p>Izzie Bear</p>
<p>Katie says that east coast cities "have museums and other institutions that California simply does not have." Well, yeah, California doesn't literally have the same museums and "other institutions" (whatever that means) but you're looney if you think S.F., LA, Sac, and S.D don't have museums and other instituitions that rival any cities on the east coast. She then continues with the observation, "I just found Los Angeles to be generic and mundane- certainly not a bad place to live though." Huh? So generic and mundane makes for good living? To each their own.</p>