<p>I was recently admitted to both schools and I was wondering what would be a better school for me. For UCLA, I was accepted in chemical engineering and for Cal, I was accepted in biology (College of letter and science) </p>
<p>My question is, what is more prestigious? and which is a better department? thanks :)</p>
<p>Im in the same situation as you. Berkeley is more known to be prestigious but I feel like ucla is funner haha
you should visit both schools and see what you think,. Both major are great. You can go to us news to check out rankings if you want</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with the poster above. In this instance, UCLA is significantly more prestigious. </p>
<p>The reason why? You’re comparing across majors! Any run-of-the-mill Berkeley student can be admitted into the College of L&S and major in Biology. However, getting into UCLA (or Berkeley) Engineering will require both significantly higher test scores and grades. It is a notch more difficult to be admitted into UCLA Engineering than Berkeley L&S. Its common knowledge that Chemical Engineering is a much more sought after major than Biology.</p>
<p>If this were between UCLA Engineering and Berkeley Engineering, I’d tell you to just compare across USNWR ranks as well; but it isn’t. You have to think long and hard about your future. If you turn down UCLA, you will likely not have an opportunity to do Chemical Engineering again.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s Biology program is ranked higher in its respective field than UCLA’s engineering program.</p>
<p>But, like I said before, you can’t directly compare ranks across fields.</p>
<p>That’s analogous to saying, I prefer going to Berkeley’s rank 1 History program to UCLA’s rank 14 Econ. Biology and Chemical Engineering are like that in that CE will open many more doors than Biology. </p>
<p>You have to account for how much more prestigious the CE major is itself than the Biology major. Everyone knows you will have to climb down the academic ladder for better majors and this is one of those instances.</p>
<p>I believe the rankings sacrificed between Berkeley Biology and UCLA CE are more than justified.</p>
<p>That’s only analogous to your example if you are interested in both history and econ. The OP seems to be interested in both biology and chemical engineering, so a comparison of the rankings is relevant. If anything, he can attend Berkeley as a Bio major, and if he does well enough in his GEs (assuming most cross over between the two majors), he can transfer to chemE.</p>
<p>In regards to ChemE being a “more prestigious” major than Biology, that’s a bold statement. What about different disciplines of Biology? Biochemistry or Microbiology or Molecular Biology for example, are these fields for “run-of-the-mill” students as well? On average ChemE probably has stronger students, but are you trying to imply that Biology is for less intelligent students?</p>
<p>If you follow the normal ChemE track anyways (L&S admits everyone undeclared regardless what they put down), and you do well enough, CoC will allow you to transfer in. CoC actually has a much higher admissions rate than L&S. (Berkeley does not put ChemE in the College of Engineering, it is in the College of Chemistry instead.)</p>
<p>Guys, no one really cares about major ranking.</p>
<p>Think about it. Even if XYZ school is a no.1 school in biology, it would be better to study Bio at Harvard than at any other school. </p>
<p>Comparing major rankings is futile, and in this case, carefully the number of and quality of opportunities you will received and utilize from both schools.</p>
<p>Let me remind you that major ranking comes from the prospect of academic, scholarly, and research opportunities that are AVAILABLE to you, but if you are not taking advantage of such opportunities, then such ranking is meaningless.</p>
<p>For your information, sitting in the lecture hall, writing down notes, taking final exams, and acing on your exams do not constitute TAKING ADVANTAGE of opportunities. There are more to college experience than merely sitting in the classroom. With this said, I really want you to visualize your impending college experience at both schools and ask yourself,</p>
<p>“Which school will nudge you out of your comfort zone and push you to a vast array of different opportunities and experience set?”</p>
<p>Which school would make you more daring in terms of taking chances?</p>
<p>This is a good question to ask for yourself : )</p>
<p>You are more likely to get a higher paid job with better benefits with a degree (and good GPA) in Chemical Engineering than in Biology. I would go to UCLA.</p>
<p>Gah… no one read what I just said, switching into College of Chemistry at Berkeley is actually rather easy, so the major difference should not be very different.</p>
<p>As long as you have a 3.3 in lower division ChemE requirements, College of Chemistry will let you into ChemE. If you have less than a 3.3, you probably wouldn’t do all that well in ChemE.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a much better place for Chem than UCLA.</p>
<p>Also, to answer a question mentioned earlier, there is much cross over between ChemE and Biology prereqs. ChemE majors need to take the harder physics (7A-B instead of 8A-B) and chemistry (4A-B and 112A-B instead of 1A and 3A-B) sequences, but IB and MCB both allow use of those.</p>
<p>
Yeah, but he may not make it. Getting a B+ average in impacted courses isn’t that easy in a college level. 3.3 GPA in lower division ChemE requirements is pretty high.</p>
<p>Saying, “you probably wouldn’t do all that well in ChemE” isn’t going to cut it because this largely only means he wouldn’t do well at Berkeley. I’d also like to add you really only need to maintain a 2.7 GPA to fly through college.</p>
<p>A 2.7 would not get you into any graduate school and would not get you a decent job.</p>
<p>Also, you are assuming Cal is harder without evidence.</p>