<p>The title pretty much says it all. I got accepted to both programs. I am overwhelmed with happiness. I absolutely LOVE both of these options. I'm wondering a few things:</p>
<p>Do you think that the fact that Cal's major is electrical engineering AND computer science makes it more desirable for potential employers, compared to UCLA which is just electrical engineering?</p>
<p>What program is better? Are they equal in quality?</p>
<p>Basically, I think that I prefer the UCLA environment more, though I need to re-visit the Cal campus in order to really tell. Even if I do like UCLA's environment more, I have to balance out my love for the area with the quality of the program.</p>
<p>If it helps, I want to go to grad school and get my MBA. From what I understand, though, the school which I attend is less important than the work which I do after I graduate. </p>
<p>Any advice would be appreciated. I'm still in shock from the hurricane of joy that assaulted me with these two exceptional offers! Seriously, this is surreal.</p>
<p>MY vote goes to berkely
Their EECS program is one of the best in the nation and it’s proximity to silicon valley provides you with the best internship and employment opportunities</p>
<p>EECS does not open more options for you than EE. Its skills that get you jobs. Not degrees. And you will take the same # of classes at each school.</p>
<p>That being said, I believe Berkeley has a bigger reputation. They are both good schools. Good luck!</p>
<p>Actually, I would definitely take fewer classes at Cal, since it is on the semester system, and UCLA is on the quarter system. It seems that UCLA wins in all of the superficial areas (surrounding area, atmosphere, beautiful campus, gorgeous women), where Cal wins in what probably SHOULD be the most crucial aspect --the quality of the program. Or so I’ve heard…
Wow, this decision is killing me. But I suppose that it’s a wonderful decision to have to make.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why everyone thinks UCLA has so many beautiful women. Do you really think beauty is used as admission criteria? I mean, what is the explanation for that alleged “trend”?</p>
<p>It’s a different culture. I would say that the culture at UCLA is more superficial, and therefore, people care more about their appearance. This doesn’t necessarily bother me. Also, in climates where people tend to wear warm-weather clothing, it is an extra motivation for people to stay in shape. And yes, I did notice this trend at UCLA. The females there were far more attractive than the ones at Cal. This is absolutely not a reason for me to pick the school. It is just something that I noticed.</p>
<p>Berkeley EECS gives you almost complete freedom to choose which part of EE and/or CS to emphasize in your junior and senior level course work. That may be an advantage if you are undecided whether you want to emphasize an EE area or a CS area most, or an area that bridges the two (e.g. computer architecture), or take a more general program of study.</p>
<p>UCLA EE does have a Computer Engineering option, although it still requires some more EE type of courses. It also has more requirements for specific junior and senior level courses for all options.</p>
<p>In practice, the difference may be mainly if you later decide to emphasize mainly CS with less EE course work, in which case Berkeley EECS gives you that option.</p>
<p>Berkeley also has some advantage of being local to “Silicon Valley” employers.</p>
<p>Don’t forget to take into account your own personality and motivations. Berkeley is a great school, but UCLA is too. Its program might not be just as good, but after a few years of working your school starts to matter less and less. If you enjoy UCLA much more and function better there, then you’re likely to do better in classes. Doing well in UCLA is better than doing badly at Berkeley.</p>
<p>My situation was further influenced by the following:</p>
<p>My junior college is on a semester system, therefore classes transfer more perfectly to Berkeley, since they are also on a semester system while UCLA is on a quarter system. This ended up meaning that if I were to attend UCLA, I would take at least 2 years + 1 quarter to graduate, as opposed to Cal, where I could very possibly graduate in 2 years (assuming I can get the necessary classes).
The extra time is not enough to make the decision easy, but then I considered my financial aid: Blue & Gold expires after 2 years for transfers, and so I would lose a lot of money by sticking around for any longer than 2 years. Were it not for this, I think that I would have chosen to attend UCLA. I love it there. Perhaps I can go there for grad school one day. But I really, really like Cal as well. Just not quite as much as UCLA.</p>