<p>Hooray for a fellow Brazilian!</p>
<p>Berkeley is to Stanford as UT-Austin is to Rice.</p>
<p>teknosoul,</p>
<p>Good explanation. I'll buy it.</p>
<p>UCLA = UT Austin
Rice > UT Austin</p>
<p>End of Discussion.
The only reason why UCLA's admission is tougher is because California has more Asian population than Texas, and I think nobody here will disagree that Asians in average tend to have higher academic stat than any other race. Naturally, more Asians will apply to UCLA than Austin, and with more applicants with higher average stat (in terms of GPA and SAT), the UCLA's admission tend to be tougher than the less Asian-populated Austin.</p>
<p>Plus UCLA's location TOTALLY PWNZ Texas.
Regardless of race, more people will apply to UCLA solely for the location alone.</p>
<p>"even UCLA and UNC-Chapel Hill earn much more respect than UT"</p>
<p>Why wouldn't they? UCLA and UNC are ranked in the 20s. UT's 20 spots back at 47.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think nobody here will disagree that Asians in average tend to have higher academic stat than any other race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You obviously never met the Asians from UC Riverside and UC Irvine. Well, okay, Irvine's Asian population are pretty decent students (1100 - mid 1300 SAT scores, 3.5 to 4.0 GPAs), but the Asians attending Riverside (and the Cal States) are pretty dumb. </p>
<p>Still, Irvine's Asian population have a major inferiority complex, especially towards UCLA (and USC to an extent). That's prolly b/c the Asians who go to UC Irvine simply don't have the statistics that match the stereotypically smart Asians who attend the more prestigious universities. </p>
<p>Anyway, UT Austin itself has a pretty sizable Asian American population (I believe somewhere around 6000 to 7000) itself.</p>
<p>Asians in general, while they are more accomplished and intellectually superior, also tend to be more status-conscious and concerned with prestige (in comparison to blacks and hispanics). It's a by-product of how Americans perceive Asians. Americans think that Asians (especially Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese) are supposed to be intellectually superior so Americans generally have much higher expectations of them. This in turn puts a lot of pressure on Asians to do exceptionally well in school and go to a Top 25-30 university (at worst). These Asians also feel that prestige is the only path to success not only to validate their parents, but b/c prestige is the only way for these Asians to break the barriers erected by corporate America. Graduating from an elite school is supposedly the path to getting money, power, and respect. </p>
<p>Just look at facebook.com. Almost every Asian (if not all) who goes to Harvard, Yale, etc. has a facebook profile. Yet the Cal State schools have a much higher proportion of Asians compared to the Ivys, but it seems that the majority of Asians who go to these schools don't even use facebook! However, in their defense, some of these Asians I know who goes to these Cal States either have full time jobs or are already raising families in addition to going to school so they don't have time for facebook though...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why wouldn't they? UCLA and UNC are ranked in the 20s. UT's 20 spots back at 47.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those are undergrad rankings. Still, UT Austin is a pretty damn good institution, and as a complete package (taking into account research, faculty, and grad programs), UT Austin is definitely a great school. And being ranked in the Top 50 university is not too shabby. Then again, most of those who post on CC are elitist prestige wh0res who think that any university ranked below the Top 30 is a junior college (w/ few exceptions, NYU undergrad is ranked in the mid-30s and was even ranked as low as 39 at one point yet it seems to get a lot of respect here).</p>
<p>UT is only 47 in the overall USNWR undergrad ranking, where factors like class size and selectivity will always bring it down. The academic reputation rank of 4.1 puts it in the top 25 otherwise, again TIED with Rice. And as for Rice being greater, again, all the data shows UT has the higher academic ranked programs.</p>
<p>And as for UCLA's location "owning" Texas, have you ever been to Austin?? It's a very nice city, and an awesome place to spend 4 years (or 5 or 6 lol). If anything, you could argue LA is really nothing more than Houston on steroids.</p>
<p>Actually UT Austin has a lil less than 5000 Asians where as UCLA have very close to 10,000 Asians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If anything, you could argue LA is really nothing more than Houston on steroids.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and you obviously have never been to Los Angeles.
If you have, you only probably been to the Eastern or the South Central Part.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually UT Austin has a lil less than 5000 Asians where as UCLA have very close to 10,000 Asians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UT Austin has a 17% Asian American population, and the undergrad student body is around 36,000. So there are at least 6,000 Asian Americans at UT Austin. </p>
<p>Also, according to Black Issues, approximately 1,450 Asian Americans earned Bachelor's degrees from UT Austin. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, UCLA and UC Berkeley dominate the top of the list, further adding pressure to Asians everywhere that they have to attend a top notch institution.</p>
<p>However, there are a ton of "crappy" (at least in the eyes of prestige wh0res) schools that graduate a large proportion of Asian Americans. Hawaii, UC Riverside, and the Cal States graduate 1,000 to 2,000 Asian Americans per year...</p>
<p>I dunno how i ended up in this poisition, but my originial intention was to argue IN FAVOR of UT Austin regarding its "Admission Rigor". Anyway, it's not about how many Asians curretnly enroll there; it's about how many Asians have APPLIED to the school. When more Asians apply to a school, the general trend is that the average stat for the applicant pool tends to increase (GPA- and SAT-wise), which naturally makes the admission tougher.</p>
<p>That is the ONLY reason why UCLA has tougher and a more rigorous admission than UT Austin. Not because UCLA has higher quality education or anything, but because more asians APPLY to that school. Now whether the admitted Asians decide to attend there or not, it doesn't matter. But in general, Asians tend to make the admission pool LOT tougher.</p>
<p>UCLA was founded in 1917, yet in less than a century, it has attained more prestige and respect than many universities which are more than TWICE the age of UCLA (e.g., Rutgers, Pitt, Georgia, even William and Mary, etc.). Not saying that those schools are inferior, it's just than w/n such a short period of time, UCLA has entered garnered a lot of respect both from the elitists and the lay persons. Many ppl speculate that UCLA's success is attributed to its high Asian population.</p>
<p>Most people would probably say high Asian "student body" not "population". Only at the really big state schools does the word "population." haha</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many ppl speculate that UCLA's success is attributed to its high Asian population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a source for this? I'd say that UCLA's success has just as much to do with its leadership and ability to maintain good education as its student body...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people would probably say high Asian "student body" not "population". Only at the really big state schools does the word "population." haha
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLA is a BIG state school. Besides, the Asian student body is so large that is can be considered a population.</p>
<p>And the comment about UCLA's success being attributed to its high Asian student population was a tongue-in-cheek comment .</p>
<p>Ah, fair enough.</p>
<p>I won't deny that the Asian student population is a definite plus for the school, but I'd say that UCLA's rise began around the time of Wooden.</p>
<p>UCLAri, a lot of what ppl have to say on these message boards must be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when you read comments from elitists and prestige wh0res who claim that you will have more job opportunities if you graduate from Harvard even with a 2.1 GPA. Or that, it's better to graduate from a brand name university in the bottom 10% of with a 2.0 GPA than it is to graduate from a "medicore" state university in the Top 10% with a 4.0 GPA....</p>
<p>teknosoul,</p>
<p>I know that. Look at my post count. Trust me, I know. But you're new, so it's hard to tell what your MO is.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I can tell you that I have absolute respect for UCLA and think its a great university. I have no intentions of slamming it, or calling it overrated, etc. I might make jabs at the school, but it's all in good fun. </p>
<p>I do have other MOs, though...</p>