<p>I do not think you could go wrong with either. I would personally pick Cal but that is just me.</p>
<p>Pffft! At least I gave my $0.02 in the relevant conversation. I was modest enough to say it was a shameless plug. In this case, your diversion was much worse. ;)</p>
<p>Since I’ve digressed the thread OP, i’ll give my opinion on your problem</p>
<p>Both are essentially equal for academics. Between Michigan and Berkeley, choose based on fit criteria like weather (cold vs warm, respectively) and environment (clean and nice vs dirty and dilapidated, respectively ;))</p>
<p>Or Stony Brook to save $120,000 to $140,000…</p>
<p>“Cal has a stronger faculty and stronger student body overall.”</p>
<p>Cal does indeed have a stronger faculty. Cal’s faculty is among the top 3 in the US. Michigan is not far behind though. I would say Michigan has one of the top 10 faculties in the US. A far as undergrads are concerned, the difference is not worth noting. Chicago’s faculty is stronger than Dartmouth’s, and Columbia’s faculty is stronger than Penn’s, and Cornell’s faculty is stronger than Brown’s, but in such instances, one should choose based on other factors since all of those universities are close enough in terms of overall excellence.</p>
<p>As for student body strength, I would say Cal and Michigan are virtually identical. Cal seems to have a winder range of students, but the midpoints are almost the same"</p>
<p>FRESHMEN GRADUATING IN THE TOP 10% OF HIGH SCHOOL CLASS
Cal 98%
Michigan 94%</p>
<p>HIGH SCHOOL CUMULATIVE UNWEIGHED GPA
Cal 3.84
Michigan 3.80</p>
<p>MID 50% SAT
Cal 1220-1490
Michigan 1260-1460</p>
<p>MID 50% ACT
Cal 27-33
Michigan 28-32</p>
<p>“It’s one of the premiere world-renowned institutions of higher education. Michigan is not really on Cal’s level and has a 40% acceptance rate. Since costs are same, choose Cal.”</p>
<p>Cal and Michigan are both premiere, world-renowned universities, with the slight edge going to Cal. But Michigan is a heavy hitter in this domain too, and is certainly at Cal’s level, trailing by only an insignificant margin. But I am not sure how acceptance rate is relevant, and even if it is Michigan’s acceptance rate is dropping rapidly, from 50% in 2010 to 40% in 2011 to 36% in 2012 and to 32% this year. </p>
<p>There is no denying that Cal has the edge academically. But there are other factors to consider that could sway things in Michigan’s favor.</p>
<p>Faculty strength can influence the rankings. However, the difference really only matters to the extent it makes a difference in specific courses you will take. In the first two years, many of your courses are likely to be very large, with hundreds of students in some of the lectures (and little personal interaction with the lecturing professor). If there are lab/seminar sections, they probably will be led by very junior faculty or grad students. </p>
<p>Can you predict which courses, with which professors, you are likely to have in your 3rd-4th years? Probably not. So unless you’re fairly sure of your major, and you know there is a significant difference in faculty strength between the specific departments at Michigan and Berkeley, then this issue (in the abstract) probably shouldn’t be a deciding factor. It’s much more important (in fact, it’s nearly everything) in choosing a grad school.</p>
<p>Berkeley has more renowned faculty and fewer undergrads. Your chances of being taught by top faculty at Berkeley is much higher. Berkeley is top 5 in nearly every academic department. Michigan is top 15 at best.</p>
<p>Actually UCBChemEGrad, most Michigan departments are ranked well within the top 10, including Engineering and Mathematics. Only 4 departments are ranked lower than #10, and each of those are ranked among the top 20.</p>
<p>Also, while Michigan has 3,000 more undergraduate students than Cal, it also has larger faculty. That being said, I agree that the odds of being taught by a world authority is higher at Cal than at Michigan. If that is one’s #1 priority, Cal is a very appealing option.</p>
<p>Top 15 is not necessarily a bad place to be.</p>
<p>Realistically, what likely matters more to most undergraduates is the following (for each major or department that the student is considering):</p>
<ul>
<li>How the curriculum is structured.</li>
<li>What in-major elective offerings there are (often based on faculty interests).</li>
<li>How rigorous and fast-paced the courses are (too slow can be boring and wasteful of time, while too fast can leave the student struggling to keep up; obviously, this depends on the student; some courses in some schools have honors versions for the stronger students).</li>
<li>How in-depth core courses for the major are (e.g. how much math do intermediate micro/macro economics courses use).</li>
<li>Undergraduate research opportunities (for students preparing for PhD study in the subject).</li>
</ul>
<p>Of course, these are determined by the faculty, and the student must consider them in the context of his/her goals and interests.</p>
<p>Teaching quality is obviously of interest, but which faculty will be teaching which courses when the student takes them is not necessarily predictable (even if the student does go digging around for reviews on each faculty member’s teaching quality; of course teaching quality can also be dependent on the student, as a faculty member who teaches a rigorous course may get poor reviews for being “too hard” even though stronger students may prefer it that way).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would suspect that the OOS yield for both UCLA and Cal would be woefully low. However, UCLA undershot the all-student yield from last year, 2012, because it mainly undershot its International-student %:</p>
<p>Applied: 9,499
Accepted: 3,109, 32.7%
Enrolled: 1,012, 32.6%, which is not that far off of the instate students</p>
<p>This year, 2013:</p>
<p>Applied: 12,429,31% increase in apps because word got out that UCLA is taking Int’ls.
Accepted: 2,509, 20.2%
Enrolled: ~ 800, assuming same yield % as last year, which is probably wrong</p>
<p>The OOS students acceptance rate jumped from 29.6% to 33.6%, which I can prove is not a horrible rate given that there’s a pretty high floor of 3.4 a-g minimum gpa req to apply.</p>
<p>It looks like the adminstration would like ~ 800 each of International and OOS students. Add that CA students could drop to 3,800 or so given 40% yield -> 30% non-resident similar to last year, though In’tls by far had greater enrollment in 2012.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA and Berkeley are selective enough that it is likely that the 3.4 HS GPA minimum for out-of-state applicants is irrelevant to these two campuses. However, it is likely that the out-of-state applicant pool is stronger than the in-state applicant pool.</p>
<p>Of course that’s a good point; there won’t be any with 3.4 UC gpa (where uw~UC gpa because grades are so low) that will gain acceptance to either u. And I absolutely agree that the high schools from which OOS students apply will be the stronger hss. </p>
<p>However there will be a no. of auto-rejects that would apply also, I believe. I did a [study](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/1472470-my-study-superscoring-sat-other-stats-related-things.html#post15689078”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/1472470-my-study-superscoring-sat-other-stats-related-things.html#post15689078</a>) on that one high school that has such an outstanding database, with posts #6 and 7 most relevant to your and my points. Even at this one great high school, there is still a bunch of students who should realize that they have no chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>According to a CC survey thread, ucbalumnus, the most important factor mentioned for undergrads is academic strength in their intended discipline. Faculty strength drives academic strength.</p>