<p>which one is better for civil engineering?</p>
<p>ucla or cal poly pomona</p>
<p>why? </p>
<p>this is for someone who wants to do technical work for 5-10 yrs and then do managerial from then on</p>
<p>submit your responses </p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>ummm... UCLA. There isn't even a comparison.</p>
<p>UCLA, mainly for the name recognition.</p>
<p>Even though I am a UCLA parent, I have to say that Cal Poly Pomona holds its own in Civil Engineering.</p>
<p>Look at the most recent ASCE student competition results, CPP came in 2nd, and UCLA came in 3rd:
Pacific</a> Southwest Regional Conference 2008 |</p>
<p>I don't know what the Civil Engineering pass rate on the EIT test is for Cal Poly Pomona, but I do know that UCLA has an extremely high pass rate.</p>
<p>Why not consider Cal Poly SLO</p>
<p>ASCE competition results do NOT correlate well with academic quality. What they do reflect, however, is student involvement and student interest in civil engineering.</p>
<p>Civil engineering is civil engineering wherever you go. At least at major schools the difference in education is not going to be that great. Cal Poly is a well-respected engineering school, but the difference between Cal Poly and UCLA is not the education but everything else.
Look into the school's social aspects and location. I live by Cal Poly... its not a very fun or college-like place. Also, the competition at UCLA is much higher than at Cal Poly, plus you have the advantage of mingling with an overall more motivated group of people, more well-known professors, etc.... really, the opportunities are endless.</p>
<p>One thing I like to look for in undergrad civil engineering programs is a variety of concentrations in the major. Glancing at the two programs, it appears that UCLA offers more tracks than Cal Poly. </p>
<p>CP only offers a general civil engineering, environmental engineering, and geospatial engineering. Perhaps I underestimate the industry, but geospatial isn't that big, and I wonder if you really need that many engineers to manage a surveying project. </p>
<p>UCLA offers a structural, geotechnical, environmental, and water resources track. </p>
<p>A variety of concentrations isn't critical though. All schools offer pretty much the same basic required courses, which is standardized by ABET. These core courses usually touch on each area of civil engineering, so you'll get exposure wherever you go. However, I think it's nice to have the option to concentrate in a specific area if you wish to do so.</p>
<p>i'm not sure...the thing is that cal poly has easier requirements than ucla...meaning i'll get into cal poly, but it's a push for ucla...i was thinking about entering ucla as a non-engineering major, and then getting into engineering department after i'm in</p>
<p>how does that sound guys??? anyone know of anyone who has done this??? do you think it'll work??? comments!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
i was thinking about entering ucla as a non-engineering major, and then getting into engineering department after i'm in</p>
<p>how does that sound guys??? anyone know of anyone who has done this??? do you think it'll work???
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>My son entered UCLA as undeclared major, and started taking basic math and science classes. At the end of his freshman year he figured out what he wanted to major in, so he applied to the eng school, and was accepted over the summer. There is a minimum college gpa that you have to have to get into the engineering school (I forget exactly what the minimum gpa is) and you also have to write an essay on "Why I want to be an Engineer". He'll be graduating summa cum laude on Saturday. :)</p>
<p>don't count on being able to transfer into engineering. your best option is to apply there in the first place.</p>
<p>if you're in engineering and don't like it, though, switching to a major in L&S would work.</p>
<p>Kind of obvious. UCLA.......</p>
<p>ucla band mom/ woooow. that's so awesome. summa cum laude from ucla just speaks alot.</p>
<p>guys i'm thinking of TRANSFERRING (meaning after 2 years at a junior college) as a business major to ucla (meaning i would be in the college of letters and sciences), then i would like to switch to ucla's college of engineering...commentssss...suggestions....certain cases that you've heard???</p>
<p>If you want a job after graduating, Cal Poly is the way to go. Besides a nice glossy degree on your wall, UCLA won't give you the lab prep work or the networking that Cal Poly will. I've heard numerous stories of people graduating from UC schools in engineering, and then having to get trained on all the equipment. Not true of Cal Poly graduates.</p>
<p>Plus it's a lot cheaper (about half the cost). Besides, if you want the prestigous school name, go to Cal Poly for undergraduate so you can get a job, then go to a really good grad school (Berkeley or USC) where you'll actually want to focus on theoretical work. Undergrad should be practical.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've heard numerous stories of people graduating from UC schools in engineering, and then having to get trained on all the equipment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Getting trained on all the equipment is not difficult. Learning the heavy theory after the fact... that's very difficult.</p>
<p>Undergrad should be partially practical (and all civil engineering programs do at least <em>some</em> practical-based work in undergrad), but it's even more important to get a good foundation going with your theoretical knowledge. How on earth are you going to hack it at Berkeley if you don't have a solid theory foundation in the first place? Berkeley isn't going to take you back and explain to you what the principal of virtual work is if you've only read a couple of paragraphs about it in undergrad.</p>
<p>Both Cal Poly and UCLA will give you a good foundation, so I'm not disputing going to Cal Poly for cost issues (in fact, I think that's wise), but I think it's a terrible mistake to assume that a strong practical program is what will best prepare you for what's out there, particularly in structural engineering.</p>
<p>If you wanna tie rebar for your whole undergrad career, might as well just go out and join a crew of rodbusters and get paid union wages to do it. If you're going to be an engineer, you ought to have as strong a background in the theory as you can afford. There's too much practical stuff to cram into undergrad, and you're going to spend your entire career learning the practical side. There won't be time to brush up on basics later.</p>
<p>aibarr,</p>
<p>Would you recommend a soon to be graduating undergraduate to reread notes from previous courses? You (and others) emphasize the basic and fundamental theory knowledge of engineering.</p>
<p>I also understand that it is difficult (in terms of motivation and time) to review all the old material consistently. Also, students tend to forget concepts after they are not used for a distant amount of time.</p>
<p>What advice would you give? I feel that if I don't look back at old material, I might forget 50% of the material I learned (only retaining the basic knowledge, but if you ask me to derive a certain formula or explain something, I might have to reread the text for a hour and get back to you). is this normal?</p>
<p>Totally... I also had the good intention to reread all my notes before grad school.</p>
<p>Yeah, that didn't happen.</p>
<p>Mainly, just <em>keep</em> your notes. If anything, try to organize and bind them. You can buy twelve-packs of cheap two-inch binders... That's how I kept all my class notes organized. It helps to be able to go back and refer to my notes whenever I've forgotten something, which doesn't happen infrequently. Don't sweat it, just don't throw away your notes.</p>
<p>so...if i transfer into ucla as a major other than engineering, what is the process of switching to civil engineering...speak to specific people??? just take prereqs and they'll accept??? </p>
<p>type your suggestions/opinions!!!</p>
<p>You can find relevant info pertaining to this question in post #10 on the previous page. But you would probably be better off transferring directly into civil engineering.</p>