<p>I did okay. I'm definitely learning more from Mcdevitt than I learned from Brown.</p>
<p>I had never seen a multiple choice question with 10 choices :rolleyes:</p>
<p>he's harder.. but he's better... i HATE brown... he's so far the worst one i've ever had in UCLA....
my econ 11 professor was good also btw.</p>
<p>anyways, mcdevitt is now my favorite.:):):)
so maxx.. did u take ravetch last quarter??
do you guys live in dorms or apartments?</p>
<p>i live off-campus.</p>
<p>i agree, mcdevitt is definitely better, but I found brown's tests pretty easy. no, no ravetch, thank god, i waited one quarter to skip his class, litt seems okay so far. Not too time consuming like Ravetch</p>
<p>u are lucky! i had him for my mgmt 1B!~!!</p>
<p>I'm living in a university apartment. I applied for on campus housing but there weren't enough spaces. :(</p>
<p>are u gonna live in university apartment next year?
which college did you guys tranfer from?</p>
<p>I'm gonna live in an apartment on kelton next year since juniors can only enter a lottery for on campus and univ housing.
I transferred from city college of sf.</p>
<p>Well, I'm still deciding. This really sucks.</p>
<p>go to UCLA for more business related coursework.</p>
<p>UCLA BizEcon curriculum includes:
-Econ courses
-Finance courses
-Accounting courses</p>
<p>Cal Econ curriculum includes:
-Econ courses
-one "finance" course (Financial Economics)</p>
<p>:)
If we were to talk purely on economic courses, I'd have to admit that Cal has more variety of coures THAT ARE SOLELY ECONOMICS-RELATED. They have more well rounded courses of different disciplines of economics, and if you plan on getting Ph.Ds and the like advanced degrees in economics, I would choose Cal over UCLA.</p>
<p>However while UCLA lacks JUST A LITTLE BIT behind cal's econ curriculum (or i should say PURE econ curr.), it has more more... MIXED curriculum of courses (we are talking about BizEcon, correct?). UCLA's econ is not only limited to econ but also consist of Business courses (Finance/Investment/Entrepreuner/etc) as well as Accounting courses, so if you want more practical education that you can utilize straight out from college and go into the field of finance and accounting, I would suggest UCLA. This is not to say that Cal students will have harder time getting into those career, but because UCLA students would have built up their knowledge ever since they were in college I should say UCLA students will be better prepared for such career area.</p>
<p>And I would like to say to you all not to put too much emphasis on prestige when it comes to UCLA vs Cal for econ departments because each school's Econ department are among the top in the nation and graduates from both schools are rigorously seeked upon by the recruiters so you will have no problem getting 50k+ jobs (which is a lot, considering hte fact that the college graduates earn an average salary between 30k and 40k).</p>
<p>totally agree with dhl3, money will be the same for both schools, on average about 50K, with the possibility to make more.</p>
<p>Ok, this may be irrelevant, but we all know UC berkeley's econ is recognized nationally for graduate school:</p>
<p>it tied with stanford and harvard for #3...
where is ucla? ;)</p>
<p>since i have been called biased by dhl, i might as well start!</p>
<p>You're right, it really is irrelevant. Those rankings drove me nuts when I made my decision last year, but in the end, we're still talking about an undergraduate degree here. So as long as the school is prestigious, you're fine. Employers most likely won't hire one undergraduate student over another one based on their schools' graduate program rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
where is ucla?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLA is ranked #11, along with Columbia, Michigan, an Wisconsin. I'd like to point out that UCLA is head of NYU and Caltech, as well as Cornell, Brown, CMC, Texas and Duke (The difference of ranking between cal and ucla is 8 places... the difference between ucla and Brown & Duke is 10 places). Now ould you say Brown and Duke are looked less favorably upon by the recruiters because they are not even top 20 econ programs in the nation?</p>
<p>When it comes to top programs, rankings become irrelevant.</p>
<p>really irrelevant, maxx? i doubt it, since it drove you nuts last year as you claimed. </p>
<p>and to DHL, hmm harvard 3 > columbia 11. Case closed!</p>
<p>ever heard of someone learning from past mistakes ??</p>
<p>last year, i DID consider it relevant. Not anymore though</p>
<p>I'm not arguing that UCLA has better econ program than Cal's. As I mentioned before, when it comes to PURE economics (which is what most of the Graduate level Econ programs are) Cal has the edge, whether it be graduate or undergrad level, and if your goal is to maximize knowledge on pure economics (aka the theories) to become a researcher or a professor in the area, sure you might as well educate yourself at Cal which is particularly strong in the area.</p>
<p>However, we were comparing two seemingly-alike but different programs. One is PURE economics, the other's BUSINESS economics and as similar the two programs look like, each has their own unique characteristic. My point was when it comes to such closely matched school for quality and reputation, the prestige factor should be a very minor deciding factor and a smart candidate would instead look carefully into teh strength and weaknesses of each program and determine which will better prepare him for the career he wants to get into. As I said before, the two schools we are comparing are the two public schools in the nation and both have highly reputable econ dept (undergrad AND grad), so just because you choose the lesser ranked school over the other does would not mean the recruiters will think you are a dumass.</p>
<p>Everyone on this board is probably leaning towards Ibanking or the finance industry in general. So I think this should help settle some of this discussion as far as those interested in entering the finance industry.</p>
<p>Here is the typical way the schools are ranked by recruiters(for undergrad).
Tier 1: HYSP, Wharton
Tier 2: All other ivies, umich, etc
Tier 3: UCLA, Berkeley, etc
Tier 4: All other schools are considered "non-targets"</p>
<p>Its not in order from left to right but from tier to tier. Just because UCB has the prestige of being a greater school doesn't mean recruiters in the finance industry care. For the most part, its a tier 3 school. Tier 3 means you've got a reallly good shot of landing a great position in finance.</p>
<p>When considering UCB and UCLA, you should pick the one that fits you best. Because, its considered of the same prestige as Berk in the finance industry. Both schools recruit the best and the brightest students. The programs alone don't prepare students for careers in finance, its the pick of the liter. These top tier students generally have a strong passion for the career they wish to enter(IE study outside of class to prepare for interviews and their future career).</p>
<p>As harsh as it may sound, but its true, on average***, HYSP students are more educated in the finance industry than Tier 2 and Tier 3 students. Why else would recruiters go to HYSP to recruit?</p>
<p>So Berk econ would still be good for just getting a job out of college. I really don't want to go to grad school unless there's a glass ceiling and the only way to break through is grad school.</p>