<p>Just wondering what the big deal is...they are practically ranked right next to each other. Sure, Berkeley prides itself on being ranked higher (in U.S.-terms at the least), but LA has just as much prestige itself. In fact, if it makes any UCLA undergrad/grad/alumni feel any better, I know a hell of a lot of students from my high school who got into UCB but got rejected from UCLA... and a substantial number of the ones who got accepted into UCB got in solely based on their "numbered" statistics (but hey... who can blame the admissions process...UCs heavily favor #s, as is commonly known).</p>
<p>So what's the point of arguing?</p>
<p>Each offers a great education at a great cost (to in-state students, at least =/), and I respect each equally. </p>
<p>I don't usually create lovey-dovey topics like this one, but I'm bored and felt a whimsical urge to try and settle the dispute ... which I fear, will continue lol...</p>
<p>UCLA is a undergrad and medical based university. Most of their graduate programs are not ranked as high as Cal's. Cal is amongst the highest ranked graduate schools across the nation. All UCLA's prestige is in the their undergraduate program and medical school but there are two problems with that. UCSF is the flagship medical school of the UC. UCSF is and will always be more supported by the UCOP than UCLA medical school, because that is the benefit of being the flagship institution. The same goes for their undergrad+grad, except in comparison to us.</p>
<p>UCLA and UCB admissions are two very different beasts that on the surface are supposed to look very similar (like regular wolves to Tasmanian wolves). Both of them use holistic analyses, but the emphases are different.</p>
<p>To generalize a little:
-For LA you need to be completely well-rounded; you need good numbers AND good extracurriculars.
-For Cal you need to be well-rounded, but not as much; you need great numbers and ok extracurriculars, or great extracurriculars and decent numbers.
-For SD/D/I/SB you just need the good enough numbers for the school
-For SC/R/M you pretty much need to have the minimum UC requirements met and not seriously **** up on the application.</p>
<p>Also not to forget, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and UVirginia stand in between Cal and LA.</p>
<p>in reply, UCB > UCLA, if only because UCB is not IN LA.
LA is literally THE black hole of materialism and birthplace to the notion that one's worth is in direct proportion to the girth of his wallet. westwood, the moment you step off campus, is no different.</p>
<p>set foot in berkeley on a friday or saturday night and what can you do?
Oh right. Nothing except go to lame (frat) parties here and there. Either that or sit around or perhaps even study.
And if I had cared more when deciding what college to go to, I just might have ended up at LA instead of here at Cal</p>
<p>batman: do you really need 'something to do' to have fun on the weekends? don't you have friends?... i've been up to visit berkeley a lot in the past few months, haven't set foot in one frat party and still managed to indulge in really entertaining drunken banter with some great people. and if your life is so exciting that you place beneath you basic human interaction with some of this country's brightest young minds, by all means, take a 20 minute ride to san francisco so that by the end of the night, you can come up with yet another few reasons to hate your shallow, empty little life. </p>
<p>leftist: "la is by no means as rich dominated... as oc." - um, yes. yes it is. keeping in mind we're not talking about silverlake, glendale, ktown, where all the hipsters get way too hip, way too often. </p>
<p>and that right wing claim, yeah, you're right... but consider it as a status thing. if you think for a second that all those ma'suckas who are making the big bucks aren't fighting to keep them one way or another, you're sadly misinformed. as great as it is to have so many charity events, organizations and some reasonably productive activism in such a densely populated area, i can't help but get the sense that their motives might be a little, you know, off par with those of Jesus and Gandhi.
also, more new money in LA / old money in OC, which partially explains the leftist / rightist thing.</p>
<p>Enlighten me pinker. If you do not have something to do, then you must have nothing to do on the weekends. So how does one relax or find entertainment on a Friday night after a long week? (I'm sorry...entertaining drunken banter with these so-called great people is out because I haven't had a drink since junior year in high school) Do you suggest talking with friends? Well, after three months of sitting in a common room doing just that every weekend, we've pretty much ran out of things to talk about and have long awkward silences until someone says that we need to find something to do. Interesting, right?
So yeah. Thanks for making awesome assumptions about me and my exciting life and giving me the great tip about San Francisco. You're right...I do hate my life. And since you seem to be so good at this, can you also tell me where I can find $20000+ so that I can have surgery on my leg?</p>
<ul>
<li><p>when i put 'something to do' in quotes, i was talking about the whiners who start **ing when there's no definite plan come friday / saturday night.. one such person you seem to be. if that's as a result of some serious health problem you've got, you know, my condolences, but don't get sucked into a life of self pity. you went to berkeley to learn. everything else is supplementary. if you're not content with having 'nothing to do', do ANYTHING with good people and you'll enjoy yourself. become proactive. i got bored earlier this year and organized a small dodgeball game in parking garages starting at midnight, every friday night. after a month, the turn out was between 40 to 60 people, and among those people, it was looked forward to on each coming week. there are a bunch of other similarly trivial things that can be made exciting if one person instigates excitement in a few others. if you're bored, and won't settle for world of war craft, be that person.</p></li>
<li><p>you live in a place that fosters creativity and, at the same time, shuts down any hope of social acceptance of the nautical star tattooed, f150 driving, too much hair gelled, 10 hours a day at the gym going, jager drinking, alpha male **** type so keen to Los Angeles, and that's saying something.. (which was kind of my initial point..)</p></li>
<li><p>if you don't drink in college, and socialization (or fornication) is what you're after, i figure you've got a little more of a challenge than most. and ok, it sounds like you don't drink based on some ethical code, but what ever happened to indulging in things in moderation? one or two drinks can be pretty powerful uninhibitors. if it doesn't pose any major health risk, and your will is strong enough to keep you from landing yourself in a 12 step program, get a few people together, have a beer, and watch a sunday night football game (or a glass of wine and some Godard), and see what comes of it. maybe *****'s changed since your were in 11th grade.</p></li>
<li><p>if, as you describe, your friends suck, you probably never really shared much more in common than the "omg! we're in college now! we have so much work to do all the time!" sentiment. someone once told me, "there are millions of nice people out there, but i don't have to be friends with every one of them." if you're bored with your present company, go out and meet people. i promise, they're totally willing to put up with you if you're earnest and have a few redeeming qualities about you.</p></li>
<li><p>good luck</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Homie, I don't drink or do drugs anymore and I have a blast. </p>
<p>East Bay has some great night spots, 'specially for music. SF and East Bay have some GREAT MUSIC spots. You into anything that ain't mainstream? Lots of acts come through here, and lots of locals are great too.</p>
<p>And I meet someone new every day. Just get out of yourself a bit and talk to others.
I strike up conversations over the most benign comments ever.</p>
<p>I think that if you're a determined student, for instance wanting to go to grad school, you should take a look at the grad schools of UCLA and Berkeley in areas you want to study, because you will be exposed to the professors and grad students in a nontrivial way. Berkeley seems to have more top grad programs for sure, but it only depends if this matters to you.</p>
<p>I know a grad student or two at Berkeley (VERY smart people) who went to LA as undergrads...so really no big deal. Just depends if you WANT Cal's grad program sitting around you as an undergrad. </p>
<p>I think people can do well at and have fun at both schools, they're too big to generalize too much about. I was accepted to both, and was in no way well rounded.</p>
<p>leftist, you mentioned that berkeley is known for its graduate? what about its undergraduate? how does it compare with ucla? cus im at cal for undergraduate, not graduate</p>
<p>I'm not leftist, but I think LA and Cal can be compared for undergrad. Well, there are a few departments that are better reputed, like engineering, especially some branches.</p>
<p>My comment is that it's fine whichever place you go, just that if you're applying to grad schools from Cal, you probably had access to a slightly more elite faculty, whose letters of recommendation can help you immensely. But LA has its share of equally elite faculty. Well, they have Terence Tao :) </p>
<p>We all know that brilliant prof's aren't necessarily the best teachers, so that isn't a point of comparison. Just a slightly more elite faculty.</p>
<p>At the undergrad level, academically-speaking, there's so little difference it's not even worth making a thread over. If you're smart enough to be admitted to both, you'll likely succeed at both.</p>
<p>"but that is not to say that UCLA is bad."</p>
<p>You're right. In fact, we've even relegated ourselves to mediocre just so the mama bears can get over themselves and get back to things that actually matter. </p>
<p>I should mention though, the feeling of entitlement at the two schools is astronomically different. Whatever Cal students gain in intellect, they also gain in arrogance (their responses to this topic are proof). </p>
<p>Other than that, they're both two of the most premier academic institutions in the world (honestly). And, if you were to ask UCLA students, 99% of them could care less about the academic "difference" between the schools; in fact, that discussion rarely comes up. We just want to beat $C.</p>
<p>
[quote]
-For LA you need to be completely well-rounded; you need good numbers AND good extracurriculars.
-For Cal you need to be well-rounded, but not as much; you need great numbers and ok extracurriculars, or great extracurriculars and decent numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I applied many many moons ago (early 90's), and at that time, all UC campuses had an 'auto-admission' tier. Basically, if your composite-score (GPA + SATI + SATII) were high enough, the admissions-committee looked no further at your app, you were admitted. (Assuming you completed all the high-school prereqs: foreign-language, math up to trig, english 4 years, etc.) You could be ultra-lopsided super-geek, and as long as your numbers backed it up, that was sufficient.</p>
<p>So ... there's no more auto-admission tier?</p>