<p>I got into
UC: Davis, Berkeley, LA, San Diego and Irvine</p>
<p>I want to major in Latin American Studies/ Chicano Studies and later go on to med school</p>
<p>I'm torn between UCLA and Cal, both are offering the same fin aid but Cal is giving me more loans. The LA campus is gorgeous and the atmosphere/people is great. However, Cal is prestigous and would give me that "alternate experience." They are also about equal in distance to home. </p>
<p>you're a humanities major. Go to LA. Cal is only slightly more prestigious than LA and that's for engineering. Since you're not doing engineering, why bother?</p>
<p>The Chicano Studies program is pretty high-profile at UCLA given the amount of protests held to give it departmental status. Then there was the whole "Cesar Chavez" affair as well, which I don't think happened at UCB. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>As a UCLA alumnus, now living in the Bay area, I've got to support my alma mater on this one. The humanities programs at UCLA simply cannot be beat by any other school on the west coast (and there's only a few on the east coast or midwest that compare). If you are in the Chicano Studies programs, you will love it at UCLA--and while the housing costs are high in LA--they are insane in the Bay area. Go to UCLA and enjoy your life while getting a fantastic education.</p>
<p>agree that UCLA's chicano studies program is definitely stronger than Berkeley's, but it is silly to say that the Southern Branch's humanities programs trump Cal's -- all evidence is to the contrary.</p>
<p>really they are two great choices. The atmosphere of the 2 schools is quite different, so you should visit both and go to the one you feel is a better fit. As for Cal being more "prestigious", for an undergrad its not going to make a whit of difference in your future compared to a degree from ucla.</p>
<p>Oh, and as far as business schools--UC Berkeley is ranked tied for 3rd with Michigan in undergraduate business (UCLA has no undergraduate School of Business). UC Berkeley is ranked 7th in graduate business (tied with Columbia) and UCLA is ranked 10th (these are US News & World Report rankings).</p>
<p>obviously, two of the very best in the world....but, puhleeze, your post #7 that UCLA was 'best in the west in HUMANITIES is not supported by your datapoints.</p>
<p>bluebayou,
yep, I have to agree with you on that--the UC Berkeley stats in humanities are better than I thought they were. My apologies to Cal students and alumni.</p>
<p>You know, while we're on this subject, I should mention the weird way that schools like Cal and UCLA are treated in rankings done by US News & World Report magazine. This magazine ranked Cal 21st best national university, and ranked UCLA as 25th or so. Yet if you look at the #1 major item--peer rating--Cal would rank something like 6th, and UCLA something like 12th. </p>
<p>The reason they get moved down so much in the rankings is because USNW adds in things like financial aid and alumni giving rates (notoriously lower at public universities than private ones) to lower the rankings significantly as indicated above, as well as selectivity (meaning % admitted). Since Harvard and Princeton admit something like 7 to 9% versus Cal's 21% and UCLA's 25% (mostly because the class sizes are about 5 times as large), this works against the California schools.</p>
<p>Doesn't seem very fair in my view--seems like academics and teaching quality should practically be the only factor covered. (Maybe an overall experience factor could be added--but that's about it).</p>
<p>you are spot-on.....when the first USNews ranking came out, Cal, UCLA, Mich, UVa, and UNCC were all top 25 schools, but, not-too-fast, upstart publics; need more space for the blue bloods at the top of the heap. Can't sell magazines in the NE if their schools aren't top-rated. Voila -- USNews added endowment and alumni giving rate, among other criteria, which immediately put those publics back into their place. hahaha</p>