UCLA v. Berkeley

College Search & Selection
21

<p>that should read, “…I wouldn’t expect to see at worst, just a few more Berkeley grads practicing law, say, in NYC.”</p>

<p>And both schools tend to be 1a and 1b for public universities at HLS.</p>

<p>A Berkeley grad chided me on ‘Berkeley has more representation at so-and-so presitigious law school or so-and-so presitigious med school or s-a-s b-school, etc…,’ but then we were able to find the numbers and at that time UCLA had more law students at HLS. And I’m sure it fluctuates from year to year, obviously.</p>

22

<p>Yeah, I’m still confused. I’ll probably SIR at the last day.</p>

23

<p>best of luck to you; just remember that you can’t go wrong with either choice or any of the three if Cornell is still in.</p>

<p>(and I know how to spell “renown,” lol.</p>

24

<p>

where on earth did you hear that? I doubt that is even close to true. Berkeley’s Law School is a Top 6.</p>

25

<p>Well UCLA has more certified lawyers in California compared to Cal. I dont know how it is out of state. But I heard that UCLA has more succesful undergrad alumni. I have no idea about graduate/law school.</p>

26

<p>Good lord, how do you define “successful”? Earnings? So a corporate lawyer would be considered more “successful” than a Nobel Prize winning professor?</p>

<p>Wherever you go to school kamilah, be sure to take a logic and a rhetoric class.</p>

27

<p>I don’t know if UCLA has more successful graduates than UCB, when comparing those with undergrad degrees from each school because a lot of things obviously represent the word, “successful.”</p>

<p>This is obviously something very hard to verify. PayScale does a survey of those with just undergrad degrees from various universities, and found that Cal grads, with just undergrad degrees, ten years out in the real world average around $110K. UCLA’s was closer to around $100K.</p>

<p>But this reason is probably simple: </p>

<p>A person working in the Bay Area would probably make a premium of salary a good deal higher than even the LA area. The cost of living in the Bay Area is outrageously high, and we know that Cal grads tend to probably become professionals in that area in greater numbers than UCLA’s.</p>

<p>The survey is probably not conclusive either because it sounds like a self-reported, higher-end-of-the-spectrum survey of those who are employed. The site reports an error of +/- 5% in its reports. </p>

<p>The trouble is, with this economy, and with the way it reports, I don’t know if the lower end, the under or unemployed are included. So we may well have to subtract a good $10k from each of these school’s supposed median salaries per this site.</p>

<p>Have you looked at the real estate prices in the Bay Area? The crammed together houses in SF, 1500 sf, may go for a median $1M; and if you include the Silicon Valley it’s even higher, where there are undoubtedly a lot of Stanford grads.</p>

<p>This is why the employers in the Bay Area have to pony up, at starting, at mid-level associate, and at partner to attract candidates to work in that area. </p>

<p>If you’re talking billionaires – who knows, you may become one – I know that UCLA has produced a good number, ~ 10 or maybe a few more.</p>

<p>And something that might put the relevance of PayScale downward is that both schools produce a lot of post-grad educated professionals: doctors, attys, mba’s. PayScale only includes those with baccalaureate degrees (I really have to be more cognizant of my speling and edittting. ;)).</p>

<p>I think what both schools particularly have to do is schmooze those who are ultimately successful and build the endowments of both schools. I know there are three UCLA grads who’ve contributed mightily to USC, where the accounting school, the entrepreneur school (methinks), and the biomedical lab were named for these gentlemen, the latter, Dr Mann, giving USC $100M. The head of Northrup-Grummon until he just retired, Mr or Dr Sugar (nice name, I don’t know if he’s a PHD), sat on the USC board is also a UCLA grad.</p>

<p>I know that UCLA undergraduate has produced a handful of Nobelists, with the latest being the prof from Indiana University who has a BA/MA/PHD from UCLA in economics, the same for which she won the prize.</p>

<p>The point is, both schools have very successful graduates; the point is, too, for UCLA, particularly, to keep them home with their affiliation and support.</p>

28

<p>You know what, katliamom, you can get off my thread with your negativity. I never said that a corporate lawyer is more successful than a Nobel prize winning professor. All I said was that UCLA has more successful alumni. Nobel Prize winning professors and corporate lawyers fall into what society sees as “successful”. Therefore, I’m saying that UCLA has the HIGHEST NUMBER of successful people. You’re the one who brought up what jobs are considered successful. And for your information, I’ve taken a logic and rhetoric class already and I received an A. I also scored a 4 on the AP English Language exam. So it’s my time to suggest some things to you: go BACK to school and GET A LIFE. :)</p>

29

<p>I just love the love on this Board :)</p>

30

<p>Honestly the two come very close. In plain rankin Berkeley is of course #1. They’re both really good schools but consider environment, student life, dorms, aid and all that junk too. From what I read, it seems like you want to be close to home and dont like north cal weather. Sounds like you’ve already made your decision.</p>

31

<p>Yeah, I’m feeling the vibe of this board a lot, too. lol</p>

32

<p>kamilah,</p>

<p>Check this out:
[Best</a> Schools in California By Salary Potential](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/best-schools-in-california.asp]Best”>http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/best-schools-in-california.asp)</p>

33

<p>I just wanted to correct drax12. UCLA does not produce a significant amount billionaires. In fact, the number of billionaires is below 9. </p>

<p>Here is the 2009 Forbes list of the Billionaire Universities.
[In</a> Pictures: Billionaire University - Forbes.com](<a href=“In Pictures: Billionaire University”>In Pictures: Billionaire University)</p>

<p>In California there are only 3 universities that produce a significant number of billionaires.

  1. Stanford (25)
  2. Berkeley (9)
  3. USC (9)</p>

<p>UCLA use to be on the list in 2008, but UCLA doesn’t produce financially savvy alumni, so their billionaires lost a good chuck of their net value when the economy tanked.</p>

<p>Also, I would like to note that my theory of Berkeley & UCSD >>> UCLA is represented well with both universities and UCSB surpassing UCLA alumni in starting salaries and mid-career salaries.</p>

34

<p>^^ I hope you know that your posts are so mind boggling, absolutely no one takes them seriously. My roommate has who goes to Cal, and she’s here visiting. I showed her your posts. Her response? “OMG please tell me he’s not from my school.”</p>

<p>Way to rep, buddy.</p>

35

<p>You’re messing with the wrong person, bayboi, lol… We are onto you with your anti-UCLA flames. It’s hard to figure what your problem is specifically against UCLA, and as some here said you attend Berk and have a sister at USC. If its an attention fix that you desire, then be mindful that we are onto you.</p>

<p>I’m speaking of billionaires that attended each of the respective universities undergraduate colleges’/universities’ programs.</p>

<p>Absolutely, if one wants to become a billionaire, a good place educationally to start would be Harvard B-School or Harvard undergrad too. </p>

<p>Same with the gentlemen who formed Google, wrt Stanford’s grad engineering program.</p>

<p>One of the quests of USC in educating 17k grad students is to reap in numbers to try to gain a billionaire or two from this set. </p>

<p>And if you notice, the billionaires included in USC"s list are mostly low, low tech, mostly or inheritance – I’m not sure if that Walmart daughter who attended USC, would be included, lol. </p>

<p>And I am including people like Barry Diller and David Geffen in UCLA’s list. Absolutely, neither received his degree to be sure.</p>

<p>Barry Diller, if he is still included as a billionaire, attended UCLA for a term and dropped out and went to work in a mail room. Btw, mailrooms of studios are not to be considered lightly because a lot of people have started there and have risen including a lot of USC film grads. You start where you can. </p>

<p>David Geffen, might not have legitimately attended the university, but, the most important thing is, he is attached to the university and donates to it. He got his start in a mail room somewhere stating he had a UCLA degree, so undoubtedly he feels he owes the university. He had to hijack the letter from UCLA stating that he wasn’t an alumnus. Glad he worked in the mailroom, huh? </p>

<p>I guess you can say the same for those three UCLA grads funding USC’s programs. They may well consider themselves Trojans now. But they were educated at UCLA for undergrad, and I think Dr Mann has all three degrees from/taken/wrested from UCLA. </p>

<p>And since you’re all about Cal and USC, why don’t you address some of the other issues? USC had 224 applicants to med school in 09, and UCLA had 737. UCLA has > 19k CA-bar certified attys; Cal > 18k; USC, > 7k. </p>

<p>Why the large disparity between USC and UCLA wrt JDs? Because of size?; surely that’s not it, USC has 17K undergrads, and UCLA 26, or a ratio of ~ 1:1.5.</p>

<p>Why don’t you complete your post for once and answer all that I addressed in mine?</p>

<p>You don’t because you’re a hit-and-run artist who doesn’t have the wherewithal to sit and converse, and hang, on a one-to-one basis.</p>

36

<p>I feel I’m repeating myself…</p>

<p>But there’s a premium salary offered to candidates by Bay Area firms to attract employees to the area. This premium may well be > 10% over even the rest of CA.</p>

<p>This is because the cost of living is so much higher in the Bay Area, including housing, where small-cramped, jammed-together abodes can go for > $1.0M in SF, wrt Cal grads; and small tracty two bd-style abodes even in Sunnyvale (Silicon Valley) go for the same.</p>

<p>And Bayboi:</p>

<p>Take a look at how many professionals UCSD has compared to UCLA. Look at the number of CA bar-certified attys, per my link and look at the number of UCSD’s med applicants in 09 per AAMC. There’s a lot of flaws in the information-gathering of PayScale’s site, ie, are the sample sizes used representative of all those grads from each school wrt demographics? If they aren’t then statistically they wouldn’t be representative of all the graduates of each school as a whole.</p>

37

<p>Kamilah:</p>

<p>Would you even want to attend a school that bayboi attends (Cal)? Goodness, lol… That boy has a serious chip on his shoulder.</p>

38

<p>This Cal supporter suggests kamilah absolutely, positively and without doubt go to UCLA ;)</p>

39

<p>…maybe a lttle to anecdotal for probably all.</p>

<p>But traveling, watching UCLA (or in Legally Blond, how did they put it, CULA - a dyslexic form of UCLA, I guess) play fb, whatever, some friends and I would attend games in opposing stadia, other Pac-10 opponents. </p>

<p>We’d have conversations with people from Arizona, ASU, Stanford, Washington, etc, and more than once, a handful of times at least, they would say, “Why are you (UCLA people) so laid-back, cordial, but why are the guys (fellow UC’ers) from Berkeley so ‘chippy,’ ‘angry’?,” or however else they put it?</p>

<p>Part of it is Stanford’s rivalry with Cal. But other Pac-10 opponents have noticed this too. If bayboi is representative – he isn’t – then is it mere coincidence?</p>

<p>Kamilah, I was just joking about my comments about being near bayboi, by all means make your own sound decision. I’ll only answer in this thread if bayboi has a retort. Best of luck to you; great choices. And don’t rule out Cornell.</p>

40

<p>Bayboi, if you need, here’s the thread. Answer away to your heart’s content.</p>