<p>I think there is a good chance that UCLA will surpass Berkeley in prestige in the near future. UCLA has already become slightly more selective than Berkeley. In addition, Berkeley must forever lie in the shadow of it’s bigger, better neighbor, Stanford, whereas UCLA is king of its domain. So what do you guys think? Will UCLA be better than Berkeley within 5-10 years? I think it will.</p>
<p>NOT GONNA HAPPEN</p>
<p>USC is going to surpass UCLA but
"UCLA is [NOT]king of its domain"</p>
<p>UCB will remain second tier to Stanford but still above UCLA</p>
<p>UCLA king of it's domain my ass. Westwood, sure. Los Angeles? USC-UCLA-Caltech all struggle for that. There is no king.</p>
<p>And this issue has been battered to death.</p>
<p>Collegeperson12: UCLA slightly more selective than Berkeley? Think again. This year, they selectivity were about the same; UCLA reported 26.9% and Berkeley reported 26%-27%; there is not statistical difference in the two.</p>
<p>Fine, Berkeley has Stanford to compete with, but if you're taking prestige of a school, which would encompass the entire academic program (graduate schools included), Berkeley consistently ranks in the top 10 for grad programs.</p>
<p>Oh I forgot about Caltech. Caltech is definitely King of LA no question, but it's a very narrowly focused school. USC is a TTT, and therefore UCLA is the only comprehensive university that is king of its domain. </p>
<p>Berkeley's acceptance rate is 27 percent and UCLA's is 26.9. That counts as "slightly more selective" even if it is a miniscule difference. Also, UCLA traditionally has had a slightly lower admit rate than Berkeley in recent years.</p>
<p>UCLA will never have the prestige of Cal. That doesn't mean its not an awesome school, but Cal is older, Cal is THE university of california, while UCLA will always be an offshoot of Cal. It doesn't really matter, but I just don't see it happening.</p>
<p>for some reason, I think this whole train of thought will do nothing to make UCLA look better domestically and internationally. </p>
<p>UCLA riding the coattails of Berkeley had done far more for UCLA, than UCLA was able to do on their own in the real world battling the ivies out there. </p>
<p>I guess UCLA wants to shoot the lead horse, so they can be the lead horse of a coach that doesn't go anywhere. Interesting approach...</p>
<p>UCLA will do far more in terms of getting respect by going out there and taking care of business with privates, instead of this approach. I can guarantee you that much.</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA are so equal in terms of prestige, selectivity, and academics that I think it takes quite some balls and/or stupidity to state that Berkeley is definitively superior. I also find it strange that Berkeley thinks it is better than the Lesser Ivies like Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, and Upenn when in fact the lesser ivies have much much MUCH better stats, prestige, and definitely selectivity. You Berkeley people make it seem like your school is on par with the ivies when the stats are far off. Then you turn around and talk about how "UCLA will never have the prestige of Cal," "Cal is THE university of california, while UCLA will always be an offshoot of Cal," and "UCLA riding the coattails of Berkeley." The funny thing is that UCLA has already beaten Berkeley in selectivity, its SAT score range is about the same, UCLA gets more applications, and UCLA's prestige is nearly identical with that of Berkeley. The hubris of Berkeley people never fails to amaze me. If you take the argument that Berkeley is better than UCLA when their stats are nearly identical, I wonder how you can justify the fact that schools like HYPS have nearly a third the admit rate of Berkeley and much better SAT scores. The lower ivies have nearly half the admit rate of Berkeley and measurably superior stats. I guess that makes them so good that Berkeley belongs in the dumpster.</p>
<p>rooster08, as a UCLA alum I thank you for defending UCLA like that. However, I strongly believe that selectivity has very little to do with the greatness of a school. If we take everything into consideration, we have the following (please understand that these are all approximations and not strict equalities):</p>
<p>Harvard=Berkeley>Princeton=Yale>UCLA=Columbia=Cornell>Penn=Dartmouth=Brown.</p>
<p>Harvard equal to Berkeley?
Berkeley better than Princeton and Yale?
UCLA better than the other ivies?</p>
<p>You've got to be kidding me. Apparently, it's not only Berkeley kids with hubris...</p>
<p>^ Yes UCLA is better than some ivies. </p>
<p><em>Bush falls</em> </p>
<p><em>The world rejoices</em></p>
<p>what's the purpose of getting all defensive here? This was just meant to be a friendly place for debate wasn't it? Rooster, ur post seemed very over the top to me, and the fact you are making generalizations about "cal kids" makes it all the worse. Let's just say that both UCLA and Cal are great institutions and leave it at that, okay? They both have their strong points, and they both have their weak points, regardless, within the public school rankings, they are the cream of the crop. Let's just leave it at that.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that I said Berkeley is approximately as great as Harvard because no two schools are exactly equal. Berkeley is consistently ranked higher than Yale and Princeton in most departments and in most rankings. The only close rivals Berkeley has are Stanford and Harvard. The same logic can be applied to the rest of my formula. If you really look objectively at the grand scheme of things you will see that I am not far off in relative positioning of those schools. Try not to get emotional and instead look at various sources. US News is only one source of data. Besides, even if we looked at US News' individual departmental rankings you may wonder why Berkeley, and to a lesser extent UCLA, receive the disgustingly low rankings they do.</p>
<p>Elitism breads ignorance.</p>
<p>Dang!!! I think I'm getting addicted to this site again. I need to quit posting ASAP before I once again get sucked into this small world of College Confidential.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's acceptance rate is 27 percent and UCLA's is 26.9. That counts as "slightly more selective" even if it is a miniscule difference. Also, UCLA traditionally has had a slightly lower admit rate than Berkeley in recent years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A .1% means that it is "slight more selective"; I would understand if we're talking 24% to 27% with 3% difference; but .1%? </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that I stated selectivity was 26%-27%; Berkeley admissions reported 26% but Berkeley news reported "about 27%."</p>
<p>Both are decent for undergrad education but I don't see an surpassing anytime soon. They're state schools.</p>
<p>Berkeley will be more prestigious for a long time to come. Selectivity has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dang!!! I think I'm getting addicted to this site again. I need to quit posting ASAP before I once again get sucked into this small world of College Confidential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You see a small world. I see a new generation. ;)</p>
<p>Hahahaha..."alot" is two words...after yelling at us for being stupid...(dang, I got sucked in to ad hominem)</p>
<p>Rooster, since you quoted me in your little diatribe I thought I'd do a follow up. You're confusing quality with prestige. I've never said that Cal is better than UCLA. I have said that Cal has more prestige. If you can't see that then you're dillusional. But again, prestige and quality are two entirely different animals. And, Cal IS the university of California, and ucla IS and offshoot of Cal. Are you arguing that? Why do you even care about a topic that concerns two schools that you don't attend? I admit, there are alot of pretige whores on this board that I don't agree with, but guess what? You're one too.</p>
<p>yeah berkeleys admit rate is slightly higher but thats because berkeley has enough prestige to scare away some admits with lower stats. ucla doesn't have that prestige so those kids aren't scared about applying to ucla. thats why ucla has more people apply</p>