<p>UCLA probably gets more applicants simply because there are so many more students in the LA area than the Bay Area. The general population anyway, was more than double as of 2000. I think this also accounts for some of UCLA's supposed "randomness"; they just have more applications that need to be denied.</p>
<p>I have a greater respect for you UCLAri, for going against the tide. Theres too much of a team mentality on these boards where theres a fear to step out of your sides view. I guess its also too common in politics (god forbid a republican endorse a pro-choice view) this might be reflection of that.</p>
<p>"this is from my berkeley rejection letter:
..."We received more than 10,350 applications for only 2,850 admission spaces, and most of these candidates were extremely well qualified."</p>
<p>my ucla rejection letter was something along the lines of...
13000 applicants with 3200 spaces. (website closed - i'll get the quote later)</p>
<p>someone wanna explain the applicant numbers to me? if berkley is supposed to be the better of the two schools; why are more people applying to ucla?"</p>
<p>Although UCLAri put an argument why amount applicantions dont mean a thing numbers from CSU Long Beach might shed light on the previous logic fallacy 21,953 applicaitons ,more than UCLA and by previous logic CSU Long Beach is better than UCLA UCB and Harvard</p>
<p>I just believe in being factual, scientific, and logical in how I approach things. If I believe that UCLA is better in something, I'll say it loud and proud. But in this case, it's a bit too much of a stretch to really say that UCLA somehow matches Cal in prestige (such an odd concept).</p>
<p>May it one day? Maybe. </p>
<p>Do I care either way? Nope.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<h1>1 I doubt your first statement.</h1>
<h1>2 You can't prove your second.</h1>
<h1>3 No matter what, Bruins > Bears.</h1>
<h1>4 No EMPLOYER EVER will see a UCLA grad and a UCB grad and go: "Hmm well UCB is more prestigious, I better take the granola cruncher". (unless of course they went to UCB).</h1>
<h1>5 See #3.</h1>
<p>exilio,</p>
<p>What is my first and second statement? I've made quite a few, and I don't know which ones you have designated as such.</p>
<p>And don't put words in my mouth. I've consistently stated that Berkeley's being more prestigious has no effect whatsoever on hiring and grad school. However, this is like saying that Columbia is as prestigious as Harvard. Nobody in their right mind would argue this to be true.</p>
<p>I chose UCLA over Cal because I believe that prestige is just one factor in the college selection process. I don't think that it matters that much. However, based on sheer numbers alone, easily obtained from the UCOP website itself, it's pretty f'in obvious that Cal has more reputable professors in its departments in general. No, this is not proof of UCLA being less prestigious (in fact, Cal has more reputable faculty than most Ivies, but that prestige argument is certainly moot), but it's a good first step.</p>
<p>I take it you haven't looked at CVs of students at top grad schools. I have. I can verify with my own two eyes that Cal is better represented in most fields. Just look at faculty webpages at top schools, and it's even more glaring. If you don't believe me, fine. However, you're the one that's ignoring empirical fact if you do so.</p>
<p>No one put words in your mouth but your inference was obvious to everyone, except yourself.</p>
<p>I have seen lists where there are more UCLA grad students in reputable programs than UCB. In fact I posted one such stat on the previous page.</p>
<p>Your betrayal is a disgrace to the Bruins and I weep for your progeny. ;)</p>
<p>Man I love rivalries! Too bad you are a Bruin though...oh well it's been a serious displeasure to meet you.</p>
<p>First off, ad hominem attacks are the surest sign of a poor argument.</p>
<p>Now that that's out of the way, get a grip. You don't believe me? You go out there and look at CVs of grad students at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, and other top grad schools. You'll find that there are many many more Cal grads in top PhD departments nationwide. This is a well-published fact.</p>
<p>I don't find this limiting at all, however. It's certainly not as if admissions at Harvard see a UCLA grad and say, "oh jeez, a second rate applicant." However, based on what I've been told by people in various departments nationwide, Berkeley applicants do edge out their UCLA counterparts.</p>
<p>You assume that because I'm willing to honestly approach the strengths and weaknesses of my alma mater that I'm some traitor or something. That's jingoism, if it's possible to apply it to something like your school. You have yet to provide me with quantifiable proof that UCLA undergrads are consistently, based on a time series or similar statistical analysis, better represented at top PhD and professional school programs than their Berkeley counterparts.</p>
<p>And was the last line really necessary? How on earth does that improve your argument?</p>
<p>Ad hominem means to attack the person, I never said anything directly about you, so ease up Joe Philosophy.</p>
<p>Secondly your posts is rife with broadly sweeping comments but no data to back it up. </p>
<p>You choose to put stock in heresay and rumor with very little real world experience or hard evidence...if anyone needs to get a grip on reality it is you.</p>
<p>You equate self-deprecation with honesty and I can agree to a point, but you have nothing to substantiate your claims. Perhaps you have some kind of inferiority complex that compels you to be so "honest". </p>
<p>In none of my postings have I ever maintained that UCLA is more prestigious, I merely stated that it is impossible to qualify or quanitfy the statement that UCB is more pretigious than UCLA. It is like arguing Citizen Cane is the best movie of all time, not Casablanca. How can you say?! You cannot. But you are trying to just that.</p>
<p>You aren't being honest, because to be honest is to know the truth, and the truth in this case cannot be known. You aren't even being impartial. </p>
<p>So don't come in here and spout off that you heard this and you heard that, and so-and-so said this so it must be true...you must not be a pre-law student, because you can prove neither jack, nor sh1t of your argument.</p>
<p>EDIT: Regarding the last line..it was to amuse..obviously your sense of humor has not fully developed. Maybe in grad school, at Cal, please.</p>
<p>EDIT PART DEUX: I'm done with this thread...it's harshing my mellow. ;) Another type of fallacious reasoning people use is circular reasoning, which UCLAri, you are quite adept at, kudos!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your betrayal is a disgrace to the Bruins and I weep for your progeny. </p>
<p>Man I love rivalries! Too bad you are a Bruin though...oh well it's been a serious displeasure to meet you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not engaging in argumentum ad hominem? Calling me Benedict isn't? Give me a break. Dare I say it, you're rude...</p>
<p>Anyway, look, I know you think I'm just trying to self-deprecate or be humble. I'm not. But have you applied to grad school? Have you actually tried going through the process? I have, and it's tough to compete out there. I don't enjoy saying it, but Cal students get a leg up over us Bruins when PhDs are on the table. Why? I don't know. But, I see about a 2:1 or maybe 3:1 ratio in terms of Cal students in top PhD programs.</p>
<p>And no, I'm not pre-law. I was at a point, but I realized that I don't want to go to law school. How does that make me any less of a person or logician? I don't want to make a fallacious statement, but I daresay you're arguing based on one aspect of "prestige" (professional school, law school in particular.) Unfortunately, PhDs are a significantly large component of how academia defines prestige because the bulk of what gives a university "prestige" is based on such tangibles as Members of the National Academy of Science, Guggenheim Fellows, Sloan Fellows, Nobel Prize holders, Fullbright Scholars, etc. Berkeley trumps us in those very quantifiable categories.</p>
<p>And if you could point out any clear instances of circular reasoning, I'd be glad to admit it's fallaciousness.</p>
<p>And I don't want anyone to believe for a second that I have any "agenda" or "vendetta" here. I lobby for UCLA as often as I do for Berkeley. UCLA has much better intangible benefits than Berkeley, in my mind.</p>
<p>And exilio, I would gladly accept a spot at a Berkeley grad program. For many areas, however (American politics) UCLA is clearly better. But I don't go to a school simply based on the prestige value. I go based on what I believe it can offer me as a whole package.</p>
<p>I may believe that Berkeley is more prestigious, but it's not the better school at which to study. It's too limiting in terms of the social experience, its campus isn't as uplifting, and the student body lacks a sense of savvy that I love about UCLA.</p>
<p>I still can't tell everyone with a straight face that UCLA is as prestigious in academics.</p>
<p>Westow, I come back here the next day and you're still arguing? Don't you have anything better to do? You and Exilo are like children. Someone(me) comes on your board to say that he agrees with everything that's being said about UCLA except in the prestige department and you all flip out. You have an all or nothing mentality, and I'm just now starting to feel what many stanfurd students feel about some berkeley students when they make crazy assertions that Cal is better than stanfurd. And exilio, you say, "man I love rivalries." Well, sorry to burst your bubble but Cal's rival is Stanfurd, not UCLA. You guys have a longstanding rivalry with USC that is just as good as ours is with Stanfurd, so why don't you just keep yours going and hop off of our coattails. BTW, the reason that I keep posting is just to see you nut-cases freak out. Its pure entertainment.</p>
<p>Gentleman,</p>
<p>"Jump off our coattails" is a bit...condescending (I think.) I propose, "quit givin' us guff, yo." Much friendlier, and conveys the message without sounding like a rabid Cal fan. </p>
<p>One of the fallacies that some people on this board propagate is that UCLA is trying to be Cal. It's not. Carnesale himself has said that it's ambitions are not in line anymore. UCLA is trying to be UCLA.</p>
<p>Well, like I said, I think UCLA is an amazing school that doesn't need to try to be Cal. I have no problem whatsoever with UCLA, its the fanboys here who go apeshat whenever anyone says Cal is above UCLA in any way at all. So seeing people that are so easily thrown into fits of hysteria just makes me want to egg them on with condescending comments and laugh at their cheesy insults. Childish? You betcha!, but still fun.</p>
<p>girls r much hotter @ ucla...im in
hahahha</p>
<p>That alone brings up the hotness quotient exponentially.</p>
<p>Hello all. I have to agree. I've seen plenty of hot girls in LA, but that's not to say there AREN'T hot girls at Cal. There are plenty here too, but I guess not as many? Well of course I wouldn't know for sure but just based on sampling from what I see I would have to say that LA girls hare hotter.</p>
<p>But to say that out of 24,000 undergrads you can't find a hot girl at Cal for you is just.... BS. If you could do that in HS among a class of 500, then I'm sure you can find a girl anywhere.</p>
<p>Hello UCLAri, you can continue hammering me for being a Cal nut. =P Good luck Bruins and maybe I'll see you next yr when I come down to see the Cal vs UCLA game.</p>
<p>QUOTE FROM UCLAri:</p>
<p>"I may believe that Berkeley is more prestigious, but it's not the better school at which to study. It's too limiting in terms of the social experience, its campus isn't as uplifting, and the student body lacks a sense of savvy that I love about UCLA."</p>
<p>Social experience? there are 2000 CoE students here just like the 2000 HSSEAS students you have. There is plenty of social experience here. Campus isnt uplifting? You win there. Student body that lacks sense of savvy? Man, when you see Sproul Plaza everyday then you would say differently. coming from liberal Berkeley, you're saying our student body just SITS there and lets the smallest issues skip by? Why do we have stupid candidates insisting on getting Wireless Internet by Cal (AirBears) access into YOUR HOME. We have protests and people screaming all over teh place on campus and it's just awesome.</p>
<p>I mean if you judge Berkeley on the more boring town compared to LA, then by that argument NYU owns the crap out of LA. I say that's just unfair. You're basically moving down the ranks of largest municipality. NYC is first, then LA, then Chicago, then the Bay Area. However, that doesn't mean with 8 million people in the Bay Area there's nothing to do. Sure we don't have Hollywood, but we have a lot, and it's not like you would be BORED here.</p>
<p>Then I talk to my NY friends about Thursday night parties. Apparently you all party on Fridays or something, but on Thursdays, the dorms here go CRAZY at Cal. We party a day before you guys and we do it all through the weekend. Enough for social life?</p>