<p>Evaluate The Statement Please... This Is Gonna Be Used In A Class Debate...</p>
<p>Wow...there's plenty of ppl who got into Cal and not UCLA. Differenet schools, different admission process.</p>
<p>right...ask my over achieving friend from HS...</p>
<p>not really, have you noticed how there are so many ppl that get rejected from either ucla or cal and get accepted to the other one. and only a few end up getting into both. My dad told me that uc's probably channel stuents, because almost everyone who applies to ucla probably applies to cal as well, so based on "intelligence" except for athletic recruits every one who got into cal should get into ucla. but they dont and the reason has to be channeling.</p>
<p>i was skeptical at first as i am sure you guys might be too. but this proof changed my min. first off the application is same and while you might think that it is sent to only the campuses you selected, uc's can forward the apps if they please. a friend applied to cal, ucla, ucsd, and uci top four uc's but got rejected except uci gave him winter admission.</p>
<p>in addition he recieved admission packages from ucr and ucm without even applying the letters mentioned that their sister uc forwared the application.</p>
<p>also in my class i am ranked 7, 4.1 weighted, very good ec's sat of 1710 i got into ucla, rejected by cal.
my friend is the valedictorian, 4.6 weighted, good ecs, sat 1710 got into cal rejected by ucla.</p>
<p>so there you go. </p>
<p>i would say the statement can be true both ways.
Cal- Because not everyone gets into UCLA
or
UCLA- Because not everyone gets into Cal</p>
<p>you got into UCLA with a 1710?! Sorry to say this but most people didn't get into both UCLA and cal because they were not up to par. </p>
<p>But even if someone had the scores, it really comes down to the essay for UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>Evaluate the statement? First, I was accepted and offered the regents scholarship by both, and i chose UCLA. I know many in my position, and out of the people i know who were accepted by both, more have chosen UCLA. Second, this is just a rip off of Caltech's prank on MIT, which was actually funny. If you want to show that Cal is better than UCLA, the least you could do is be original.</p>
<p>okay, read my lips: "UCLA > Cal" Period. :eek:</p>
<p>I was accepted to both Cal and UCLA but chose UCLA. I'm going to UCLA with 7 other students from my school and 4 of them (myself included) were accepted at Cal. There are plenty of students who were accepted at both schools and chose UCLA for one or several reasons (campus & location, competition, social life, Honors program, sports).</p>
<p>Think of it this way.</p>
<p>every year, both cal and ucla recieve among the highest applicant pools in the country (ucla being the highest)...now they only have room for so many, and given that they matriculate roughly a third of their accepts, it makes sense that the two schools would channel students to fill enrollment quotas (which are responsible in lare part for rankings). Since most acceptees to a cal or ucla get into one or the other, it only makes sense that the two would compare notes and make sure they enrolled the appropriate number of students...</p>
<p>remember, there is only one governing body of the UC....it's very easy to send your information between campuses, even though people SAY they don't.</p>
<p>I know lots of people who got into both and lots of people who got into Cal but not UCLA. I chose UCLA over Cal myself. My IB cordinator and I were discussing how rare it is for people to get into both actually, and that this year a lot more kids got accepted into a lot more UC's. She suspects it's part of a push to keep California students in California (maybe by giving them more options).</p>
<p>One thing's for sure, UCLA is not a poor man's Cal (figuratively speaking).</p>
<p>"okay, read my lips: "UCLA > Cal Period. "</p>
<p>Anyone can argue that UCI>UCLA or UCSD>CAL... so don't end it with period... every school has it's strengths and weaknesses... for example... UCLA is the smallest campus in acres... u gotta support ur claims...</p>
<p>lol.. what kind of class has such a trivial debate? </p>
<p>anyway.. i agree with most posters above. i know people that don't get into Cal, but get into LA, and about the same number of people that dont' get into LA but get into Cal (fall or spring semester). so in terms of difficulty in admissions, i would say cal & la are about the same. and you also have to take in consideration that some departments (cal's engineering, la's film) are harder to get into than other schools.</p>
<p>"UCLA is the smallest campus in acres"</p>
<p>i know this isn't really relevant, but even though this is true, it has no bearing on how much of the campus is used. UCLA is situated on something like 415 acres, but almost every bit of it used up. berkeley has over a thousand acres, but most of the campus is concentrated on 122 acres, and the rest of the land is the hills behind campus.</p>
<p>i have no idea why i just wasted my time typing that.</p>
<p>alin88,</p>
<p>Trivia isn't really a waste of time and I think you provded useful info. The relevent point is that UCLA's actual campus (excludes outlying unimproved land) is larger than Cal's but this doesn't matter that much to many people.</p>
<p>I don't really understand all of this UCLA vs. Cal debate/banter. Many get accepted to both and just choose the UC they think is a better fit for them. I'm not convined one is any better than the other or, for that matter, better than some of the other UC campuses. </p>
<p>There are many aspects to selecting a school including curriculum, proximity (or lack thereof) to family, living conditions, weather, the look of the campus, access to internships/jobs in the area, safety, political leaning, etc. This is why there's no 'automatic' choice of one UC over the other and people with different tastes/desires will choose different campuses even for reasons other than 'rankings'. </p>
<p>btw - Both of my daughters turned down Cal for other UCs (UCSD, UCLA).</p>
<p>"you got into UCLA with a 1710?! Sorry to say this but most people didn't get into both UCLA and cal because they were not up to par." </p>
<p>Hey I have some valedictorian friends with similar scores who got into both Cal and UCLA. They love people with straight-A's and tough courseloads? :confused: ?</p>
<p>^ Just reaffirms once more that SAT scores aren't everything, much to the dismay of many.</p>
<p>i got a 2020, and i thought even that wasn't good enough. my friend got a 2290. she got rejected by usc though. </p>
<p>i think they should put equal weight on the sat scores because it backs up your A's...same with sat 2s.</p>
<p>People from my school with scores in the 1600s and a couple Bs and Cs got in to UCLA. And another student who failed chemistry got into Berkeley.</p>
<p>oh yeah, my friend got into YALE, princeton, and Berkeley, but got rejected from UCLA</p>
<p>Quit feeding the troll</p>