<p>I got accepted in UCLA and have an offer from Imperial for Physics with Theoretical Physics. I'm currently struggling between the two. Imperial is higher in rankings overall and for Physics but UCLA i think will have a much better atmosphere and social life. If i do decide to go to UCLA, i will major in Physics </p>
<p>I've visited both universities and they both have pros and cons i.e. California has the weather and atmosphere but London is amazing as well.</p>
<p>I would like to have a future in science or investment banking and i know that Imperial is a target university in the UK whereas i know nothing about UCLA in the US. I would also like to work in east asia in places like: Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and also outside of east asia like australia.</p>
<p>Which university would you recommend for my situation</p>
<p>This is hard to say. UCLA has a (very) slight edge in reputation/recruiting, but Imperial specializes in both medicine and business. (UCLA doesn’t specialize in the latter for undergrad.) Both would work well if you wanted to work internationally, which you say you do, but UCLA would also work well if you decided to work nationally in the US as well.</p>
<p>Since you are undecided though, between business and science, ICL might be a better option. If you ever decide that you want to go back into business, you could go into UCLA’s Anderson, which is very recruited.</p>
<p>I think part of the question needs to be how committed you are to physics. In the English system, which I assume ICL follows, you study one thing, plus some courses that support that one thing (e.g. you’ll take math as a physics major), there’s no core curriculum, and little or no electives. In contrast at UCLA you could say “well, I’m going to major in physics since I like physics and I know I want something with applied math, but I’m also going to take a lot of Econ, since I might switch to International banking, and I’d like to learn how to speak Japanese and study abroad in Japan while I"m at it”. </p>
<p>As far as reputation, UCLA is a very solid well known school in the US. I think that it’s similar to ICL, in that it’s one step down from the very very top (e.g. ICL isn’t Oxbridge, UCLA isn’t Ivy) but it’s very well known, with recruiters coming and people being impressed with your degree.</p>
<p>As far as I know, ICL is one of the most ridiculous places to attend for the sciences and would compare quite well to most of the very top engineering schools in the world. It would offer an incredible (though extraordinarily challenging. I think many British Schools, especially top ones, expect more preparation in the prospective field of interest than an elite US school. Also, the coursework is mapped out completely differently. ICL seems to offer most classes in say, chemistry based on a single concept, and not a class on a full subject area) environment if you are really dedicated to it. So I guess Curious Jane is right, you must consider how rigid you want your track to be and how rigorous you want it. While both rank well and have amazing reputations, the environment is completely different. Environment wise, it’s like choosing between UCLA and MIT or Caltech (but more rigid than either). I also question if it’s a whole “step” down from Oxbridge. It generally ranks between 3 and 5 in “Europe” in most subject areas.</p>
<p>@beyphy I would disagree. Imperial is considered a target school for Investment Banking in the UK, as far as i can tell, UCLA isn’t a top target for wall street. In asia, loads of people know Imperial such as in Hong Kong or Japan.</p>
<p>Loads of people know UCLA in Asia as well. Notice that in my initial comment, i recommended ICL. I didn’t say that ICL would offer an inferior education in science or physics, i merely meant that if he wanted to come to UCLA and really wanted to study business at a professional program, he could do so at Anderson.</p>
<p>My comment on UCLA being heavily recruited was with regard to international recruitment, not national (e.g. not wall street.)</p>
<p>As a caveat OP, you should know that schools in the UK, like ICL, are notoriously less funded than American schools like UCLA. This might affect things like the quality of labs (i’ve heard this complaint from UK students,) but i’m not sure how much that would factor into a major like physics.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s true that UCLA has nearly 4x more undergraduates students than Imperial. However, UCLA’s endowment is over 25x that of Imperial’s. Chances are the quality of resources that you’d have access to would be better at UCLA than Imperial.</p>
<p>@ruvermillion: do the investment banks recruit from the science students at ICL? Or would one need to study econ or finance or something related to benefit from ICL’s status as a target for that sector of jobs?</p>
<p>@beyphy @CuriousJane Check the student room investment banking section (<a href="http://www..co.uk/showthread.php?t=259237%5B/url%5D">http://www..co.uk/showthread.php?t=259237</a>). They are essentially the British equivalent of CC. </p>
<p>Yes Imperial isn’t a top target uni for wall street but it is for the city of london. For a job in an IB it isn’t essential you have something financy/econ related (although i guess it does help). </p>
<p>It is true that Imperial is much less well funded, but when it comes to recruitment (especially in sciences where the OP might head to). I feel Imperial has much stronger links (as it is known maybe not that well in the US, but for asia and UK it is known to be a top specialist science uni)</p>
<p>I’m an international student from Hong Kong, China who is currently in UCLA. I recently did a summer program in CERN along with some Physics students from all around Europe, some of which are in Imperial.</p>
<p>First of all, in GENERAL (i cannot stress this enough) in that in the science related field, Imperial trumps UCLA, while it is true UCLA has more funding and all that, but OP is doing Physics with THEORETICAL PHYSICS. So lab work is probably non-existent or at least done in much lower levels than normal physics students. In this case, funding doesn’t matter by that much in terms of quality of education. Imperial is also a world renowned (i know it is not known in the states) specialist science university and its rank</p>
<p>To the OP, if you want to work in the US-UCLA Europe-Imperial if you want to work in asia you say, neither would be really well known in the sense of HYP, oxbridge etc.</p>
<p>If you are serious about a career in science/tech choose Imperial, it has a bigger brand name in that field, much bigger than that of UCLA</p>
<p>i would go UCLA. British unis are underfunded garbage (apart from Oxbridge). The US college experience will be much better than Imperials plus you’re in california!!</p>
<p>@aphalleon Are you serious? UCLA while i admit is by no means a bad school, i don’t think it is up to Imperials standard for sciences/engineering. We have to remember, although Imperial has much less funding, it is a specialist uni which means less subjects are offered and so less money is needed to run the uni. </p>
<p>I guarantee you, in the City of London, Imperial is a target whilst UCLA isn’t on wall street or city of london. If OP wants to have any decent shot at investment banking, then Imperial is a leap towards it.</p>
<p>You’re reasoning is faulty. You’re saying ICL is a target in the city it’s in. That might just be (and probably is) in virtue of the city it’s in, rather than it being a much more impressive university than UCLA.</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about investment banks to say which cities are big in them. But i did do an interview at an investment bank, and among the list of major cities my interviewer told me about, he mentioned Los Angeles (as well as London, Tokyo, and Frankfurt i think.) Similarly speaking, UCLA is a target in Los Angeles as well, where imperial is not.</p>
<p>The “City of London” is the financial district in London, the way that “Wall Street” is the financial district in NYC. </p>
<p>Looking at various League tables, ICL ranks between 4th and 14th. If you figure that the US has 5 times as many people, and thus should have 5 times as many top schools, UCLA’s UNSWR ranking of 25 translates to 5th in the UK, really very close.</p>
<p>I still think that given the huge difference between an English uni where you focus on one thing, and the more broad education offered in the US, the OP needs to think about whether they know what they want to study, or want to explore. The fact that they’re wavering between finance and physics makes me think that the US is a better choice.</p>
<p>^ That makes sense. I was like “why’s he comparing wall street with the whole city of London?” My argument still stands though, it has to do with proximity. That’s not to say that the university isn’t good in and of itself, but it’s location undoubtedly has something to do with it.</p>
<p>Investment banks don’t really care that much if you major in econ/business. They just want smart people (majoring in physics sends a strong signal that you are smart) who can do the work, which isn’t really as high-level technically as you may think and most of the work are more administrative than technical (that’s why finance background isn’t necessary; that said, I’d suggest a course in accounting just so you have some general idea how the financial statements are tied to each other). </p>
<p>So given that and if Imperial is a science specialist school with talents that rival those in OxBridge, it’d make sense the IB recruit there, especially considering its location.</p>
<p>UCLA is more popular than Imperial. Imperial has better Physics program. Both schools are popular in most parts of Asia and Europe. Imperial is a top target school for IB in London. But California >>>>> UK. I’d pick UCLA in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’ve never heard of Imperial (I live near LA) and I don’t think most of my friends have either. But from the other comments here, I get the feeling that Imperial is a prestigious university (more than LA) that is well known in Europe, and it has more difficult academics (but we’d probably need someone who has been to both to know for sure).</p>
<p>UCLA has a more marketable lifestyle (and they do market it). I guess it depends on 1. where you want to live/work and 2. get out of your college experience. If you want a well-rounded college experience where you grow as a person, make lifelong friends, and have some fun while you’re at it, choose UCLA. However, if you want to learn, choose Imperial.</p>
<p>I would choose LA, but I’m probably biased. Sorry about the lack of organization in this post haha.</p>