UCLA: Overrated School?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
21

<p>I think the only reason why UCLA is going down is because of the budgetary issues. I think UCLA can emerge from this better and then go on the uphill. If UCLA can become more privately funded, then in practicality it will become a mostly private school (despite having to conform to some UC and state mandates). </p>

<p>UCLA is in a coveted area, it has great weather, it has a beautiful campus, it has great opportunities. For these and other reasons I don’t think UCLA is over-rated. It makes perfect sense why it’s so popular. In fact, because UCLA isn’t at the Stanford or Cornell level, it’s even more popular. It has prestige but to students it seems like it’s still within reach. Most people don’t even bother to apply to Harvard with like a 7% acceptance rate.
I think UCLA’s down-trend is temporary if managed well and will become better.</p>

22

<p>@dhl3
Its not only the UCs that are going downhill, but all schools in California (public and private), it’ just that public is being affected the most. But you can’t compare a public to a private school like that, each has its own benefits and also disadvantages. UCLA is considered one of the top public schools in the world, it just became the most selective UC in the UC system, and it’s slowly climbing up.
Sure if you have the money, you can go for private, but at a time when our economy is its worse, I think you should save as much money as possible while still getting a good education and a top research university.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>I choose the present. I choose UCLA. No one can predict the future and if you do well in college whether private or public, you can do well anywhere.</p>

24

<p>I like how UCLA is consistently ranked higher than USC, despite the budget cuts.</p>

25

<p>dhl3- just wondering; If it is “a universal fact that UCLA has been on its downhill. UCLA’s Golden Age is long gone” then why were there over 55,000 freshman applications for Fall 2009–the most applications to any one school in the nation??</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>Three reasons:</p>

<p>1) California is the most populous state in the nation
2) UCLA is a Public School
3) UCLA is located in the middle of the best part of Southern California </p>

<p>If UCLA was a Private school, or if it was located in Wyoming, or if it was located in Compton, then UCLA would never even dream of having the application pool it boasts today.</p>

27

<p>

If Harvard was an African school, or if it just totally sucked or if they just had a shackled one building campus, then Harvard would never even dream of having the global rankings it boasts today.</p>

<p>No seriously, what you said is THE stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time! (Maybe I need to hang around USC more often).</p>

<p>A college isn’t always prestigious JUST for the education. Yes, UCLA’s a complete package. Awesome location, college culture, top-class academics, famous alumni, best sports, good weather, awesome people! And that’s why we’re among the best! :)</p>

28

<p>he asked why ucla received the most application. I answered it. State residents apply to State schools. If I was a Texas Resident, I’d apply to UT - Austin whether I’d really go there or not. If I was an Idaho resident, I’d apply to University of Idaho anyway even if it’s the last school I’d dream of going.</p>

<p>Using this same logic, California residents apply to UCLA anyway even if it’s the last school they dream of going because it’s a state school. And California happens to have the largest amount of residents, which gives a natural boost to the application pool. </p>

<p>and lol @ you for associating me with USC.</p>

29

<p>I know plenty of people that didn’t apply to UCLA, even among qualified applicants. People don’t automatically apply to UCLA.</p>

30

<p>My bad for clearing things up. I meant to say “state residents tend to apply to the public schools of their state”. My point still holds.</p>

31

<p>right. which is why berkeley, ucsd, and the rest of the uc’s and csu’s have as many applicants as ucla.</p>

<p>…oh wait…</p>

32

<p>and to be honest, college is what you make of it. if you go to a “worse” school and excel, you will succeed more than someone who does poorly/average at a “better” school. it’s about personal preference, really. i chose ucla over usc and berkeley for numerous reasons. if it’s overrated to you then that’s fine, but it’s met and exceeded all of my expectations and i absolutely love it. i wouldn’t dream of going anywhere else.</p>

33

<p>I chose UCLA over Cal and USC too. I think that UC Davis is a great school too, but it all depends on what you want to do with your education. Each school has its strength in a particular area, and that area would not be covered by UCD in comparison to UCLA for my objectives. USC is a lot of money for not being well-known outside California for much more than its sports, so that was a no-brainer decision compared to deciding between UCLA and Cal. UCSB was not a good visiting experience for me, so I am biased in saying I will never go there as a physical science major.</p>

34

<p>To dhl3: I agree totally with your assessment on USC versus UCLA. USC is only two spots down on the ratings from UCLA and USC is on the rise while UCLA is sliding. The effects of the severe budget cuts this year won’t be apparent until next year and you’ll see a definite slide in the UCLA reputation. USC IS the future and private schools will always have an advantage over a public school. My daughter chose USC over UCB and UCLA because she could double major and double minor if she chose – at UCLA and UCB they told her she’d be lucky to get the clasess for ONE major and no minors to finish in 4 years. AND USC is very generous with aid. Its costing less for our daughter to attend USC than Berkeley or UCLA because the public schools have basically no money to give. AND they still cost $28,000 to attend including room and board, tuition, etc. So they are cheaper but they aren’t cheap!! USC is the future…</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>Good for you, and your opinion will stay an opinion.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, we might as well abandon the whole ranking system then.</p>

<p>To me, UCLA is just like any other state level universities. The whole fad about it being the “Public Ivy” and being “the third/fourth best public university” is just… a fad. </p>

<p>when people generally say it’s overrated, they usually compare the published “rank” of the school to what they actually perceive it to be. Social factor is generally not considered in the rank since, as you said, it’s one factor that only YOU can make of, not the school. In that sense, I honestly don’t think UCLA is any different than the “lower ranked” UCD or UCI. the greater difference may be more evident at graduate level where you actually get to talk to the fellow accomplished colleagues and do things with the renown profs, but at undergrad level, most college students have accomplished nothing spectacular besides getting A’s in high school and being in Varsity Sports or All-State Band or whatever. </p>

<p>In that sense, I’m saying UCLA is over-rated. At least I give credit to USC for having a magnificent networking system (a common characteristic among private institutes). </p>

<p>And over the past 30 years, UCLA ranking has only been slipping down (I believe it was once ranked number 10 or somewhere along that line). I remember USC being ranked closed to 40 just 8 or 9 years ago. Back then, the gap between USC and UCLA was far more evident. Now, with UCLA’s downward trend and USC’s continuous upward trend, I find it hard to believe how you would disagree with me saying UCLA is on its way down. There’s data out there, and numbers don’t lie.</p>

36

<p>i disagree, rosieoney. i plan to double major, and i’ve never had difficulty getting into classes i need. usc is still not widely recognized across the united states. in any case, i seriously doubt an employer/graduate school is going to choose a usc graduate over a ucla graduate or vice versa simply based on the school they went to. you can get a great education at either school, and like i said, it eventually comes down to what you make of it. it also depends on fit. if usc is a better fit for your daughter, then great. that’s the school for her. i personally could not see myself happy at usc.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>UCLA had 5,000 more in-state applicants than UCSD, 6,000 more than UCSB/UCI, and 23,000 more than UCR. Obviously UCLA has more going for it than just being a public school in Southern California.</p>

38

<p>I honestly think UCLA is slightly underrated. People on this forum have mentioned that US News ranking criteria have been favoring private universities for the past 10+ years. Regardless of what US News ranking states, UCLA is a great school in many ways as some have alluded. </p>

<p>I personally picked UCLA over many good universities: UVa, University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, NYU, UNC, etc. Do I regret my decision? Not one bit because there’s so much stuff that UCLA offers that these other universities do not.</p>

39

<p>you seem to base the idea that ucla’s golden ages are past because of a less famous basketball team. come on, ucla’s academics and academic rankings were nowhere near as high during those “golden” years as they are now…so clearly ucla is on its way up as far as a college’s academics go. do you base your college quality on the quality of its basketball teams? thank god you don’t look at the football team cuz then wow, you would have thought ucla was a joke (aka, what trojans use as their primary argument against ucla)!</p>

<p>alumni connections? sure they can help, but those of us who have stopped riding on daddy’s coattail when we hit our teens, don’t need special treatment to survive in this world. sure it would be easy, but where’s the respect in that? would you rather be known for going to usc and having it easy, or going to ucla and having survived?</p>

<p>i for one, am out of state (in fact, out of country but not international since i’m an american citizen). so i pay almost as much as i would have if i had gone to a private like usc. why the hell did i choose ucla over schools like usc? well, i had a long and arduous thinking process because well, the finance factor was out of hte question for me. all i had to think about were the objective qualities of each school and which would make which better. so i believe i am the antithesis of your argument dhl3.</p>

<p>USC
Pros cons
private private yea, but still as big as some publics
alumni usc has no respect whatsoever outside of california
ummm location (aka trojans drive to chill in westwood, and i don’t have a car)</p>

<p>realistically, thats it. alumni and private status</p>

<p>UCLA</p>

<p>cons
public (class sizes, being just a number)</p>

<p>pros<br>
academics-on the rise. as i said.<br>
recognition-i come from an east asian country and here people think it’s an ivy. no joke. UCLA is well regarded even in europe and other asian countries. i honestly thought usc was university of south carolina. then i was taught it was univeresity of second choice, university of spoiled children, university of Scking cck, university of you get the point, right? ucla? U C LOTSA ASIANS. SO WHAT? I’m ASIAN, BTCH! lol
location- need i elaborate?</p>

<p>i personally favor recognition, respect, and academics over private status and alumni connections. on its way down? really? athletically, yeah compared to wooden’s days. academically? if class size is your sole source for deciding academic quality…then ucla’s education is shiet. rankings? it’s not rising as fast as it used to, if you consider that as going down hill. besides, ranking is undoubtedly in favor of private institutions because of the endowment factor in calculating rank. does that have anything to do with education? not really. it has more to do with financial aid. ucla has more than enough money to fund a superior education than usc’s thought it seriously lacks in the ability to fund financial aid. hence the public status and lower cost. on the whole? some might say, but is it a universal fact? simply put, no. it’s not a universal fact. it took usc 20 years to become respectable in california. how long will it take to be respectable in the world let alone not be mistaken for university of south carolina? a long, long time. ucla has already achieved that. and i know that by the time i need to join the work force, ucla’s reputation will be more than enough to help me get hired. besides, employers don’t look at how many people were in my classes, nor do they look at my basketball team’s track record. if anything, the basketball team may be in my favor if the employer in question is a fan. is the employer a trojan? then he’ll know perfectly well that ucla is an excellent academic institution. sure, he might choose a trojan applicant over me, but that’s the risk i take with choosing ucla.</p>

<p>you may think i digress to far, changing this into a ucla vs. usc argument. but i say my digression is befitting, as this discussion is based upon the uphill and downhill trends of ucla compared to usc (as you imposed). ok i’m hungry. bye for now. as i assume you will have some sort of rebuttle.</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>far from it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You sound like a very naive simpleton to be talking down on the power of networking and connection like this. Apparently, in today’s world in this economy, no one is going to mind a little helping hand with jobs, personal supports and other assorted assistance to get started with their career. In today’s world, you can’t survive from merit alone. Sorry, but that’s not reality. Humans are social creatures, and those who are able to network and make connections can go much further than someone who locked him/herself in the room and study day and night without taking one breath of fresh outdoor air.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>USC’s alum connection is concentrated in California. But then, Ivy League’s alum connection is concentrated in the Northeast. What’s your point? California is big and it’s the most populated state in the nation. I wouldn’t mind being confined to this one state for the rest of my life. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are arguing the wrong points. Your arguments are based on how UCLA gained recognition throughout the PAST. Sure, as I pointed out earlier, it’s hard for a school to be forgotten once it’s already recognized by the whole World. I’d say it’s near impossible for something already famous to be “derecognized”. And for this reason, people will have in their mind either consciously or unconsciously that UCLA is a highly respected school, which I also agree to.</p>

<p>I’m not saying UCLA is a bad school. I acknowledge that UCLA is still one of the best universities in the World. But putting the Bruin Pride aside (I am a Bruin myself), you still have to acknowledge of what’s going on. If you can’t keep up with the rest of the world, you will fall behind, as is the case with UCLA (and any UC’s for that matter) vs private schools (including USC).</p>