<p>Is UCB more prestigious than UCLA, if so, why is it harder to get into UCLA?</p>
<p>Two points:</p>
<p>1) UCLA is not tougher to get into than UCB.
UCB: 25% accepted, 99% graduated at the top 10% of their class, mid 50% SAT 1200-1450
UCLA: 23% accepted, 97% graduated at the top 10% of their class, mid 50% of SAT 1180-1410</p>
<p>I would say they are pretty equal in terms of selectivity.</p>
<p>2) Since when is selectivity a measure of prestige? Washington University is more selective than the University of Chicago. Emory is more selective than Johns Hopkins. Rice is more selective than Cornell. Does that mean Wash U., Emory and Rice are more prestigious than Chicago, Cornell and Johns Hopkins?</p>
<p>also, think about the state demographics: SoCal has a millions of residents, whereas NorCal has less. Since most kids go to college within 250 miles of thier home, the Southern Branch is bound to recieve more apps.</p>
<p>Just to add, UCLA had a slightly higher acceptance rate in Fall 2005:</p>
<p>Some kids get into one and not the other, some both, and some neither school. It is difficult to say if one is "more selective" because they are so very close, but most evidence seems to show that Berkeley is slightly more selective. Both are great and have relatively equal prestige.</p>
<p>funnyman:</p>
<p>UCB is slightly more prestigious than UCLA, moreso at the graduate level, but the two are as equal as they can be in terms of selectivity, as Alexandre shows.</p>
<p>When you say at the graduate level, you should say "in general, department for department," because that is much mor specific to the department, even if people think "Yale nursing must be as good as Yale Law or English" whether or not that is the case.</p>
<p>Berkeley is more prestigious than UCLA, without a doubt.</p>
<p>Depends . . .</p>
<p>well, which school would provide more undergrad medical research opportunities?</p>
<p>Probably UCLA as they have a med school on campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many people on this board that DO think that, it seems.</p>
<p>Probably UCLA, although Berkeley's bio research would probably be slightly more available. Either way, you would have to get lucky and or try really hard for the ability to do reserach, especially medical reserach.</p>
<p>Never quite sure what people mean when it comes to the prestige factor, but I think general opinion here in California is that Cal is held in higher esteem than UCLA. </p>
<p>As to the selectivity issue, that is another factor I just don't get. That translates more into a popularity contest than an assessment of worth.</p>
<p>Towerpumpkin, I agree. Too many young students in this forum confuse popularity/selectivity with prestige and quality. Most of them will change their minds in the next 10-15 years.</p>
<p>Berkeley is way ahead of UCLA in terms of prestige ,academic quality and international reputation. They have more departments in top 10 than even Harvard or Princeton, and many professors belonging to the National Science Foundation, oh, almost forgot, Nobel laureates, too. UCLA only seems more selective because many more students apply to it. That is a subject of another discussion really. But as a starter: you have school A with well-known rigorus curriculum and entrance requirement where only the "serious" apply, then you have school B, almost as strong. Will school B draw more average students thinking they have a shot? A corollary exists: school A is also scaring those same students away?</p>
<p>but which school has a higher top-pier medical school placement rate (as in Harvard, Penn, UCSF), UCLA or UCB?</p>
<p>emory is not more selective than JHU, wat ru saying? Emory has about an acceptance rate of 40 percent, JHU is like at 30, and JHU has higher sat scores.</p>
<p>I was using the USNWR selectivity ranking. I guess JHU and Emory are equally selective. But Rice and Wash U are more selective than Cornell and Chicago...and they are not quite as prestigious.</p>
<p>listen...u have to account for something else, Rice for a long time has been throwing merit money to many ppl, who wouldn't go there if it weren't the generous financial aid and substantial MERIT money. Wash U's selectivity in 3-4 years has gone from an average sat of like 1300 to like 1450, alrite. Cornell and Nwestern and Chicago (they have a lil bit of merit money, not like Rice or Wash U) do not play those games.</p>