<p>So i've been accepted at UCLA and waitlisted at Cornell for Fall 2013. and wanted your opinion on which one is a better school for pursuing urban planning ?</p>
<p>Ive heard that IVY league tag does help to fetch good jobs. is it true ? even if cornell is not as good as UCLA in many aspects (academically and otherwise) ?</p>
<p>The Planetzen guide 2013 says program at Cornell is better than UCLA. But then again, it comes with a heavy price tag.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts guys ? Being an international students its tough to make decision without being able to visit the campus. Would appreciate your feedback.</p>
<p>The world is ran by prestige hungry imbeciles. Once you acknowledge this, you will find that if you get accepted to both you will want to go to Cornell.
-This is not a bash on UCLA-
I love UCLA.</p>
<p>As far as food, oddly enough both of these schools are consistently ranked in the top 5 nationally. Cornell has their hotel management school which plays a big role in the quality of their meals. UCLA just ha great eating facilities I suppose.</p>
<p>In the East, Cornell certainly has more name recognition as the Ivy League affiliation has a big role. UCLA is very highly regarded in California and on the West Coast, and is far less expensive. I think a lot depends on where you eventually want to live.</p>
<p>Accepting cornell just because the world is full of idiots and I want to be one too (and get an ivy league tag) doesnt completely convince me. Especially when so many jinny and johnnies i know have got into Harvard, Yale, etc. who had no clue what they are getting into. </p>
<p>I just want to make sure whether UCLA is as competitive in its curriculum and whether it can give me the international advantage that I’m looking for.</p>
<p>From my experience at least, I can tell you that Luskin sucks for UP. For one, the outlook for jobs is already pretty bleak in CA. Then, Luskin’s career fairs are terrible. Unless you have an engineering background, expect to work in non-profit for ridiculously low pay or to “intern” with no pay or “volunteer.” Luskin has it’s own job site, but the jobs posted there are limited and often require years of experience. This might be attributed to the fact that there just aren’t many jobs in UP. Lastly, the professors are downright terrible. Most are hardcore left wing socialists (and I don’t mean that as in they’re just liberal cause all university profs are liberal, but I mean that as in they have posters of Lenin and Marx on their office walls and advocate for unions and laborers) and teach only theoretical concepts. You won’t learn anything practical IMO.</p>
<p>I had a feeling that the focus would be a little social/policy based and that was my biggest concern. Especially since the program is located in public affairs building. Ive applied for a Masters program and having odne my undergrad in Architecture, im looking forward to learning the physcial planning/design aspects of UP. Not sure if i would get it at UCLA though. Would you have any idea if they do have a good design oriented program ?</p>
<p>There is hardly any focus on design or physical planning. It’s very broad IMO. I took a course on logistics, and that was as practical as it got. We took a field trip to the Port of Long Beach and got to analyze 3PLs and environmental policies. In another course, we analyzed zoning laws, sprawl, the effects of introducing Wal Marts to regional markets, unions and day laborers, etc. In a course with Edward Soja, we spent the entire class shooting the breeze. It was all non-sense. Pure theoretical jargon based on his book, which btw he forces you to buy. You’ll learn words he made up like, “spatial justice,” urban agglomeration" and “agglomeration of urbanism” which are apparently two totally different bloody ****ing words.</p>
<p>Most of the international students,esp. from the developing countries, look for a brand to brag about! In a place like India, Cornell will have a better name recognition, whereas, in China, Korea, Japan, UCLA is equally well known. The fact is people do their graduate degree in the USA, in most cases, with an expectation to stay back under the pretext of acquiring experience. There is nothing wrong in it, as long as one is pretty much open about it. Rest assured, if the OP gets admission to Cornell, he will forget about all these exchange of views:)</p>
<p>@notaznguy so if I were to want to go into Urban Planning, specifically sustainable design, would it be better for me to get a bachelor’s in engineering and then a Murp?</p>
<p>truth be told, you can go into sustainable design with just a BS in Engineering. A masters degree in UP, imo, is really unnecessary. It wouldn’t be as difficult as you think. Just get a BS in Civil Engineering and a minor or double major in Geography, Urban Planning, Environmental Sciences, etc. It would take you 5 years and a lot of summer school to get your degree, but if you did well and got a solid GPA, you’ll have no real problem finding a job. A masters in civil engineering would be better than a MURP.</p>
<p>@notaznguy
Thank you so much for the reply. I have seen that csun has an environmental/occupational health major. I am planning on going to cal poly Pomona for civil engineering with an environmental emphasis. I was wondering if you know if there a huge difference between these majors. From what I have been told by people in the environmental field (EPA), getting the engineering degree will open more doors. Quite frankly I am not interested much in structures, but I am very much interested in waste management, resource management, and sustainable city planning. Would the csun major cover this? Or is it still better to major in engineering? Please and thank you.</p>
<p>My conclusion is that both the program are equally strong. And you get what you put in it.
Cornell is a tad bit cheaper in tuition and living expenses and has offered me a research assistant-ship for both the years. UCLA however has offered a big fat zero but a lot of hopes once I enroll.</p>
<p>I have a few more days to decide, but most likely it is Cornell since it will put me in less debt.</p>
<p>I know it is too late for me to chime in, as it is already September of 2013; however, as a recent (class of 2013) alumnus of UCLA, I can confirm what notaznguy said. My goal in posting is that someone who is thinking about going to the Luskin School of Public Affairs read this to help determine if the program is for them.
If out of touch with reality planning theory and pseudo-intellectual jargon turn you on, then UCLA urban planning is for you. Seriously, I graduated with a minor in Urban and Regional Studies and out of the 7 planning classes I took, only ONE was practical and useful. And that was my Urban Planning 120 class, Intro to Urban Planning. The others were flat out idiotic. The two worst professors I had in that department were Professor Soja, who when I took the class Winter of 13 wasn’t even present to teach the class, and Professor Hecht, an old nasty looking white woman who looks like she is burned out on LSD, Mushrooms, Quaaludes, PCP, and whatever else she took in the 1960s. Professor Soja’s class had absolutely nothing to do with planning, but rather the use of outrageous and useless theory and meaningless jargon in an attempt to discuss the political economy of urbanization (<strong><em>?) and define spatial justice. That class was a mental circus. Writing papers for this class was a joke. I had zero direction, zero clue what I was writing about, and zero knowledge of the ludacris terms. Writing essays for that class was a matter of getting high enough to conceive of intelligent sounding chit to pull out of my a$$. I ended up with a B+ in that class and honestly, I’ll take it, considering I still to this day have no clue what I was talking about in any of the essays I turned in.
The worst professor I ever had in my college career by far, was Professor Hecht. Her environmentalism class was eurocentric, chaotic, worthless, unorganized, theoretical, and not practical at all. I literally learned NOTHING of use in that class, and like Soja’s class, the terms that are brought up in class are terms that have zero relevance to planning. She talked about Disney, Shamanism, and the great Cabinet of Wonders (</em></strong> does this have to do with planning or the environment?) and tried to relate it to the growth of environmentalism through the ages. As a history major, I was appalled by her giving students historically inaccurate (in terms of time frames and the correctness of facts) information in her extremely unorganized notes. On top off that, the woman had no office hours. Worst professor I ever had in my life.
If I were to give a rating of the planning program as I have experienced it, it would be a C-. The only reason why it is a C- and not a D or an F, is because of the UCLA name and prestige that is attached to the program. I personally believe the program should not be ranked as high as it is and worst yet, I have met a lot of Southern California planners who are not impressed with UCLA’s grad program despite it being ranked and based in LA. Most of them acknowledge that the program is very theoretical and does not prepare students well for the practical and hands on side of planning. Cal Poly Pomona and U$C are more respected planning institutions in SoCal than UCLA.
One last thing about UCLA’s program, placing their students in legit internships, or actual paid planning careers seems to be low on their agenda. I have applied for over 15 planning internships within the LA region, all of which was found ON MY OWN and without help from anyone in the department. Going into Boelter Hall (the engineering building) was depressing, because it seems like that department cares and treats their students better. This was evident by the hallway walls covered with job listings. I’m a proud Bruin and love my school, I just don’t like the planning department.</p>