<p>Why can’t you guys just be happy with your own schools and stop trying to compare them with others?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/744650-tens-thousands-uc-workers-go.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/744650-tens-thousands-uc-workers-go.html</a></p>
<p>Here’s an interesting thread addressing the budget cuts and ramifications on UCLA.</p>
<p>“You sound like a very naive simpleton to be talking down on the power of networking and connection like this.” I did not downplay the usefulness of networking. in fact, i acknowledged it. but networking doesn’t have to take place through a school’s affiliation. networking can happen in all sorts of ways. thus, the networking available exclusively through usc was not of true value to me and shouldn’t be weighed in so highly. I come from OUT OF STATE. so these connections IN SOCAL mean NOTHING. I even said, i PERSONALLY favor academics over connections. not much of a critical reader are you? i come from a rather well connected background myself so to say that i don’t understand the benefits of such a lifestyle is in itself an ignorant assumption on your part. i’m not sure if you’ve ever been exposed to good connections, but i have plenty of experience in this area. as such, coming from this background has taught me the infinite cons that also come with the prospective pros of having an easier time being hired in this ridiculous job market. for example, the ability of a person is infinitely more important in KEEPING a job once they have acquired it, and advancing upward. connections do nothing more than give you that initial step. granted that the person hired is talented enough to stay employed, hats off to them. but as i said. i’m OUT OF STATE so those connections most likely won’t be AVAILABLE to me unless i decide to move to california. i find true quality and personal dignity in rising due to my own abilities rather than as i’ve said before, riding on someone else’s coat tail. Now i assume you are once again thinking that i am being naive and not understanding the true value of networking and that i’m being ungrateful for the benefits i’ve had in the past. but i’m sure you can agree that we all have different needs and personal beliefs, right? besides, no man knows better a situation until he has actually experienced it. as such, i would appreciate it if you reserved your accusations of naivete and “simpleton” status if you really don’t know the background and experience from which i am coming from. </p>
<p>“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.” way to state the obvious…if you really are trying to use this as an argument, i find it laughable since you are baselessly assuming that i lock myself in my room all the time studying. what kind of an argument is stating the obvious? come on, this is not even amusing anymore.</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>yes, but some of us do mind being confined to one state. so my point is valid. especially since i have stated that i come from OUT OF STATE. what don’t you understand about my point? i come from out of state…so it DOES matter, especially since i plan on working all over the us and the world. seriously man, critical reading. work on it.</p>
<p>Quote:
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.
“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>-so you’re saying i’m arguing the wrong points and you’re just agreeing with me? that was my EXACT point. UCLA’s PAST has given it it’s current status that will last. USC has not yet accomplished that, and i don’t know when it will. therefore, UCLA > USC in this respect, when i go out in the world most likely OUT OF california. all of my arguments intertwine. you are picking them each out of context and trying to dissect them so that i sound stupid…do you intern at fox news by any chance?</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.”</p>
<p>I DID. but i said, it’s not as bad as you put it.
do you really want to drag this on?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that person was just a tad bit off in his interpretation of the news… they’re not letting go of tens of thousands of employees (at least at this present time)</p>
<p>make no mistake, every UC and CSU schools will be hurting. the private schools are hurting too because their endowments are taking huge blows, but they at least possess autonomy over the decisions made regarding how to deal with reorganizing in light of the circumstances. for the uc’s, you have idiots trying to shove some generalized, unideal measures down the throats of each UC that are clearly different and require unique attention for each school. schools like ucsf which takes a lower percentage of state funds for example will be asked to make the same level of cuts as the other uc’s. professors whose salaries are mainly coming from federal grants are asked to make cuts in their salaries that will do nothing for the state and the only purpose it could possibly serve is to drive those highly sought faculty members to other universities that aren’t so short-sighted</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but CC’s biased against UCLA ;)</p>
<p>You and I are arguing two different points.</p>
<p>You are interpreting my “UCLA is going downhill” as a “UCLA is a bad school”. I’m not arguing that UCLA is a bad school. Anyone with a reading comprehension ability beyond 6th grade level will know this. However, given the decades of downward trend in UCLA’s performance (and no, I’m not talking about sports) as compared to other schools of its league (and honestly, I tend to compare UCLA with that of top private’s and try avoid associating it with other state schools) is an indication that public schools have its limit. UCLA and Berkeley are two primary examples.</p>
<p>And your observation is biased itself. You are speaking from an international student point of view, who plan on going back to Asia after graduation. Such people make up very small portion of the UC student body. A vast majority stay in California to work or for grad school. Not everyone cares about what some dude in China or Sweden thinks about their school. Sure it may give you the bragging rights, but then, not everyone cares about this also. For us locals, connection and networking can mean a lot, which is one reason why USC continues to attract many applicants all over the country.</p>
<p>What I’m arguing is, as much as UCLA has done a magnificent job in spreading its name across the globe (mainly thanks to the Asian population in California), it’ll be hard to topple its long-lasting fame. A Harvard will be Harvard no matter what kind of scandal it gets tangled in. So it is unfair measure UCLA’s CURRENT performance based on what it has already established in the PAST. Just because Kobe Bryant is #1 player in NBA right now (establishment of his reputation) doesn’t mean he’ll maintain that position if he doesn’t constantly practice and tone up his skill continuously. Sorry for the lame analogy but either way, it leads to the same point I’m trying to get across. And you are right, USC has yet to spread its name across the great plains of Asia, but it’s doing one hell of a good job in building up its rep through improvement in its programs and careful management of its budget. UCLA (as well as other UCs), on the other way, is going through major issues right now with potentials of closing down an entire academic division, cutting of financial aid, and massive lay-offs of staffs. I don’t blame UCLA for this, but this is a result of being a government funded public school. It has its limit. And because of this, the trend will follow its natural course, private schools will fare lot better than public schools in the midst of bankruptcy of what was once one of the richest states in the nation.</p>
<p>USC may not yet have outranked or outperformed UCLA, but many people believe it will one day catch up and outrank it. VERY SOON. That has been the trend, and unless USC goes through a major de-evolution of its already successful decade-long reconstruction, it’ll keep up its pace and things will change for them.</p>
<p>I honestly do not care what factors you considered for choosing UCLA. Reputation, Prestige, Name Value, honestly I don’t care because that’s not what we are arguing here. At least I hope we are on the same page.</p>
<p>Going downhill based on what? Rankings?</p>
<p>Large portions of USNWR are just based on how wealthy the school is. Another ~25% is based on graduation rate, which will mean different things depending on each student. 15% is based on selectivity as defined by USNWR.</p>
<p>Private schools will tend to excel in these categories. Whether they are useful for ranking colleges is more debatable (and actually seems to be the only debate going on here). UCLA is one of the top public schools in the country and a world renowned research institution. USC is a private school.</p>
<p>umm i believe that your initial point was that ucla was overrated. you believe that the school is in decline, which is reflected by the ranking slowly sinking. you still think it’s a top notch school and that it presently outperforms usc. the rankings also reflect both of these statements at the moment. seems like its ranking/reputation is right where it ought to be by your standards.</p>
<p>i understand your reasoning right now (though i disagree), but i still don’t see how you think ucla is overrated. i personally think that it is underrated, as most public schools are.</p>
<p>also, why do you go to ucla if you think it’s overrated? why didn’t you go to usc instead?</p>
<p>since you insist on continuing…</p>
<p>“You and I are arguing two different points.”
-no, you are arguing that ucla is on the downhill, i am saying, yeah, but it’s not as bad as you make it sound. then, i am proceeding to explain why and to what extent i am disagreeing with your evaluation. you are failing to grasp that.</p>
<p>“You are interpreting my “UCLA is going downhill” as a “UCLA is a bad school”.”
-am i really? have i not referred to the word “downhill” enough and talked about how the downhill you mention is not as bad as you say enough times for you to understand that i am indeed talking about the “downhill” aspect? do i really need to explain this to you?</p>
<p>“I’m not arguing that UCLA is a bad school. Anyone with a reading comprehension ability beyond 6th grade level will know this.”
-again, since when did i say you said that?</p>
<p>“However, given the decades of downward trend in UCLA’s performance (and no, I’m not talking about sports)”
-decades of downward trend? really? you must be tripping, bad. what do you base this statement on? i was thinking more the past year or two. in fact, ucla was ranked 26th in 2007. last time i checked, 25 is a step higher than 26.</p>
<p>“as compared to other schools of its league (and honestly, I tend to compare UCLA with that of top private’s and try avoid associating it with other state schools) is an indication that public schools have its limit. UCLA and Berkeley are two primary examples.”
-you said… “I honestly don’t think UCLA is any different than the “lower ranked” UCD or UCI.” on a previous post. soooo… i call bull.</p>
<p>-of course public schools have their limit. i didn’t say they didn’t. what i said was that the downward trend you refer to isn’t quite as bad as you think. once again, even if USC surpasses ucla in the rankings, it will only be because of the money. NOT because of the academics. you just can’t deny that. the ONLY thing usc has above ucla is the class size and money. ucla has a better track record and better potential because of its superior staff and student body (looking at GPA and individual sat scores, not the combined sat scores that usc uses). ucla also brings in more apps, and the laws that prevent ucla from accepting students based on background. ucla is all about the numbers that the students provide in their gpa and sat scores. thus, it is only logical that ucla’s class is constantly improving with the level of competition rising. USC on the other hand, is a private school that values the enrollment of students of “unique” backgrounds. thus, the GPA and SAT scores aren’t necessarily helped, while their “diversity” factor gives them another boost in the rankings you refer to.</p>
<p>“And your observation is biased itself. You are speaking from an international student point of view, who plan on going back to Asia after graduation. Such people make up very small portion of the UC student body. A vast majority stay in California to work or for grad school. Not everyone cares about what some dude in China or Sweden thinks about their school. Sure it may give you the bragging rights, but then, not everyone cares about this also. For us locals, connection and networking can mean a lot, which is one reason why USC continues to attract many applicants all over the country.”</p>
<p>-exactly. which is why you arguing with me in the first place was so very stupid. i was giving my opinion to your opinion, showing you that what you said isn’t necessarily true for people like me. then you went on to argue against me (ineffectively), and made yourself sound very, very dumb. why do you keep stating the obvious? it’s not helping you…</p>
<p>“What I’m arguing is, as much as UCLA has done a magnificent job in spreading its name across the globe (mainly thanks to the Asian population in California), it’ll be hard to topple its long-lasting fame. A Harvard will be Harvard no matter what kind of scandal it gets tangled in. So it is unfair measure UCLA’s CURRENT performance based on what it has already established in the PAST. Just because Kobe Bryant is #1 player in NBA right now (establishment of his reputation) doesn’t mean he’ll maintain that position if he doesn’t constantly practice and tone up his skill continuously. Sorry for the lame analogy but either way, it leads to the same point I’m trying to get across. And you are right, USC has yet to spread its name across the great plains of Asia, but it’s doing one hell of a good job in building up its rep through improvement in its programs and careful management of its budget. UCLA (as well as other UCs), on the other way, is going through major issues right now with potentials of closing down an entire academic division, cutting of financial aid, and massive lay-offs of staffs. I don’t blame UCLA for this, but this is a result of being a government funded public school. It has its limit. And because of this, the trend will follow its natural course, private schools will fare lot better than public schools in the midst of bankruptcy of what was once one of the richest states in the nation.”
-again, exactly. which is why this fits my particular situation. as i have said over and over…</p>
<p>“USC may not yet have outranked or outperformed UCLA, but many people believe it will one day catch up and outrank it. VERY SOON. That has been the trend, and unless USC goes through a major de-evolution of its already successful decade-long reconstruction, it’ll keep up its pace and things will change for them.”
-as i’ve said. the ranks are more to do with money and the diversity factors giving private schools a significant advantage. for example, carnegie mellon is ranked higher than ucla, but you can’t deny that ucla has had much more academic accomplishments than CM. besides, rank differences of 1 or 2 don’t say much since the ranks are so easily affected by little details like the way a school decides to report its figures.</p>
<p>“I honestly do not care what factors you considered for choosing UCLA. Reputation, Prestige, Name Value, honestly I don’t care because that’s not what we are arguing here. At least I hope we are on the same page.”</p>
<p>-then why do you keep replying? just give it up already…</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=pdb2110]
i smell a trollll~
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No, I’m actually not a ■■■■■. I chose Regents Scholarship benefits at UCSB over UCLA. I somewhat regret choosing SB over Cal, but I am very happy with taking a free $24,000 over a spot at LA :)</p>
<p>i was actually talking to the OP…lol congrats on ur regents though!</p>
<p>“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.” That too bad you listened to “they” because 2 of my kids go to UCLA (Biz Econ and MCD Bio) and they haven’t had any problems getting classes either! UCLA has the largest endowment of the UC’s so even with the budget cuts, they will be fine…so don’t worry about UCLA</p>
<p>
[News:</a> More Rankings Rigging - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc)</p>
<p>hahah! it’s not even the money. they just cheat!</p>
<p>is ucla an overrated school? - maybe,maybe not…it is a great school nevertheless and that is all that matters for undergrad…yes maybe ppl exaggerate it, but ppl also exaggerate the importance of an ivy education…UCLA IS A GOOD BANG FOR YOUR BUCK</p>
<p>the rankings issue: ok EVERYONE KNOWS THE RANKINGS FROM US NEWS ARE BULL-CRAP…HOW IS IT THAT NO PUBLIC SCHOOL IS IN THE TOP 20? HMM…I WONDER LOL US NEWS IS SAYING EMORY AND RICE ARE BETTER THAN UCLA AND BERKELEY…hahahah…ROFL!!!</p>
<p>USC compared to UCLA: USC costs a crap load of money $50K…they are still not better than ucla which is sad…even if USC does catch up who really gives a ****…i would rather save money for grad school than spend more money on a school where if i walk off campus i’ll get shot!</p>
<p>WHY NOT TO COMPARE PRIVATES TO PUBLICS: Just stop doing it ppl its such a stupid comparison to make!! Privates cost double that of public…why would you spend so much money on a private if your going to grad school (unless you ONLY PLAN on living off of your undergrad degree. ex: engineering)…JUST GO TO A DECENT SCHOOL THAT GIVES YOU THE BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK…UNDERGRAD IS JUST A STEPPING STONE DAMN…some girl in my class is not that smart got rejected from UCLA and is going to emory…she doesnt have brains or talents but she does have a prickly demeanor and MONEY! so do i care that emory is ranked higher? no i could care less, and so should you</p>
<p>UCLA: yes it needs to improve, but every school needs to improve…budget cuts suck yes layoffs suck yes…overenrolled classes suck yes…but thats LIFE…S-H-I-T HAPPENS IN LIFE! people get cancer, lose abilities and loved ones, school isnt that BIG OF A DEAL GROW UP PEOPLE!!</p>
<p>I officially love this thread. I think I laughed out loud at least 8 times while I read through it.</p>
<p>I would’t say Ucla is an “elite” university but should be good enough for the typical “good” hs student and miles above davis, sb, and I daresay even sd. Ucla is “overrated” in that I don’t think it can be mentioned alongside say an ivy, or a northwestern, washu, etc. so so I roll my eyes when ppl call la one of the best universities “in the nation”. What it is is a school with a lot of generally smart and studious people in a great location, but you won’t really find too many “geniuses” or fanatically driven type-As which I imagine are what you’d find at Hyps. The professors in general seem
incredibly brilliant but teaching is pretty hit-or-miss and the bureaucracy is a nightmare. On the plus side people are generally friendly, the campus and westwood are awesome, and there’s a lot of school spirit. As a ucla student i think thats a pretty fair appraisal of the school and its merits.</p>
<p>i would like to officially thank all of you who posted after my last post. my faith in humanity has been restored. to those of you who enjoyed reading, it is my pleasure to have entertained =D.</p>
<p>wtx234:
I agree with pretty much everything you said. It’s ridiculous to use that US News “ranking” and it’s ridiculous how people give it so much importance. University ranking is too subjective in my opinion. I would prefer to compare the number of academic publishing by professors/researchers/whatever among different colleges than the endowment each receives -_-.
Haha, you mentioned someone getting into Emory and not UCLA. I know tons of people that got rejected by UCLA and Berkeley but accepted to Emory, so yeah… </p>
<p>About UCLA getting a lot of applications: do not disregard the number of international applicants. I’m one myself and I’ve been at three different international high schools across the world and people consistently apply to UCLA every year. One small factor I believe is because they don’t require teacher rec and interview.</p>
<p>I think that this whole discussion of which school is better is useless. Both SC and UCLA have their strengths and weaknesses and no matter what anyone says, people will still have their prejudices. You really can’t convince everyone 
</p>
<p>To the original poster, I think you’ll find, as you have already seen, that you will definitely get two answers to this one.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m really excited and happy to be going to such a great school like UCLA…I’m sure that wherever you are happy will seem like the better school to you. :)</p>