<p>if i was to be admitted to these schools as a engineering major, which one would u prefer to attend? </p>
<p>some factors including global prestige, education, social life, campus, grad school and such....</p>
<p>i really need ur opinion. thank you</p>
<p>Umich without any discussion needed…Umich is on par with Berkeley from UC system. It has a great global prestige (most in Europe would only know Harvard, Yale, MIT and Michigan in the US)
Social Life, Campus : Ann Arbor is definitely at Top 5 Campus Towns in the US</p>
<p>So Conclusion : GO to Umich…Go Blue !!!</p>
<p>I’d prefer UMich, no question. But…are you an in-state CA resident? It’d be hard to pass up in-state tuition at UCLA.</p>
<p>Both are excellent. If one would cost you significantly less than the other and finances are a concern, go with the better deal. </p>
<p>Overall, I partly agree with Matthewyy, though not quite to the same degree. Michigan is not quite as good as Cal and not significantly better than UCLA. I would say Michigan is slightly weaker than Cal and slightly stronger than UCLA, but in both cases, the difference is negligible. </p>
<p>I also agree with Matthewyy that Ann Arbor is an awesome college town, but some people prefer a huge city to a mid-sized city like Ann Arbor, so it really depends on personal preference.</p>
<p>In short, if finances aren’t a concern, I would recommend you go for the school that fits you best. Academically and reputationally, those two universities are virtually the same, with UCLA obviously having a better reputation than Michigan in the Southwest and Michigan having a better reputation in the Midwest and Northeast.</p>
<p>i am an oos for both colleges. how about the business program? and how about the factor of getting a job after your college life? </p>
<p>thank you for the responses</p>
<p>UCLA does not have an undergraduate Business program, but it does have a Business Economics option which is well regarded. Michigan’s undergraduate Business program is elite. Again, it depends on what you wish to do when you graduate. If you want to work in Southern California, UCLA will serve you very well. If you want to work in the Midwest on on Wall Street, Michigan would be better. Michigan also has strong ties to Silicon Valley, but I can imagine UCLA does as well.</p>
<p>
Hmmm…honestly, I’d choose UMich over UCLA in that case, unless you want the warm weather and the fake L.A. glamour.</p>
<p>
UCLA does not have an undergrad business program…but they do have a business-econ major.</p>
<p>For both engineering and business, UMich is held in higher regard.</p>
<p>Yeah..Actually Alexandre is right…Berkeley is seen slightly higher than Umich. But still Berkeley>Umich>UCLA…BUT of course as some posters said: If you are from CA..then it is another story. Otherwise Umich has a prestige globally and it is a great school…
But in my opinion, you better choose the school that you feel better not which people rank higher..Since they are both state schools your job prospects totally depend on your success in these schools. If you could be successful in any of these schools, there wouldn’t be any difference…Your 4 years is what differs..=)) Good Luck..Visit Ann Arbor and UCLA if you can..</p>
<p>Statistically, these two are near clones. Which one is which??</p>
<p>O B J E C T I V E D A T A </p>
<p>UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT<br>
College A 25,432 College B 25,555
% FROM PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS<br>
College A 80% College B 80%</p>
<p>% OF STUDENTS IN GREEK LIFE (Male & Female)<br>
College A 13%/13% College B 16%/15%</p>
<p>TOP MAJORS AT EACH SCHOOL (acc to collegeboard.com)<br>
College A 27% Social Sciences, 13% Biology, 13% Psychology, 8% Engineering, 8% History, 7% English, 7% Visual & Performing Arts, 5% Interdisciplinary Studies<br>
College B 17% Engineering, 16% Social Sciences, 8% Psychology, 6% Arts, 6% Biology, 6% Business/Marketing, 6% English, </p>
<p>IS & OOS COST (Tuition & Fees)<br>
College A $7,034 College B $10,341
College A $26,102 College B $30,154 </p>
<p>TOTAL COLLEGE ENDOWMENT AND PER CAPITA (undergrad and grad)<br>
College A $2.9 bn ($77,383) College B $7.09 bn ($172,746)</p>
<p>GRADUATION RATES<br>
-% OF STUDENTS EXPECTED TO GRADUATE IN 6 YEARS:<br>
College A 83% College B 83%
-% OF STUDENTS WHO DO GRADUATE IN 6 YEARS:<br>
College A 89% College B 87%
FRESHMAN RETENTION RATE<br>
College A 97% College B 96%
USNWR GRADUATION & RETENTION RANK:<br>
College A 24th College B 26th</p>
<p>FACULTY RESOURCES<br>
-% OF CLASSES WITH <20 STUDENTS<br>
College A 54% College B 45%
-% OF CLASSES WITH 50+ STUDENTS<br>
College A 20% College B 17%
-FACULTY/STUDENT RATIO<br>
College A 16/1 College B 15/1
USNWR FACULTY RESOURCES RANK<br>
College A 42nd College B 69th</p>
<p>STUDENT SELECTIVITY<br>
-% ACCEPTANCE RATE<br>
College A 26% College B 47%
-SAT/ACT RANGE (Middle 50%)<br>
College A 1180-1410 College B 1210-1420
-% OF STUDENTS RANKING IN TOP 10% IN HS CLASS<br>
College A 97% College B 90%
USNWR SELECTIVITY RANK<br>
College A 19th College B 23rd</p>
<p>USNWR FINANCIAL RESOURCES RANK<br>
College A 26th College B 29th</p>
<p>S U B J E C T I V E D A T A </p>
<p>PEER ASSESSMENT<br>
College A 4.2 College B 4.5</p>
<p>I think the best advice is what matthewyy says above-visit both if possible because there is a difference in campus feel and lifestyle.</p>
<p>^ I’m not going answer your question, Hawkette, because I know which is which…;)</p>
<p>Fortunately numbers don’t tell the entire story. Or maybe some do–one has over 200 NAS members, the other under 50 when you take out the med school members. One made its reputation in basketball, the other in virtually every area of science, humanities and engineering. One was a founding member of the AAU, the other joined decades later.</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>You make good points, but I’m going to disagree with this:</p>
<p>
While that may be true with the general public, in defense of UCLA, it does have high quality academic programs.</p>
<p>Similar statement could be said for Michigan and football.</p>
<p>Go Blue!!! (btw I don’t go to Umich but I am from Michigan lol)</p>
<p>Which one has a better social scene?</p>
<p>Back when JW was running things in Westwood, UCLA was not yet where it is today in academics. UM was a highly regrarded school before football was even widely popular. It, UCB, and UW were the first state schools to be known as full universities producing research and new PhD’s. UCLA was not even founded yet.</p>
<p>UM has a more traditional social scene. UCLA tends to be absorbed into LA though Westwood does have some life too.</p>
<p>Social scene depends on what you like and expect..What do you like and expect?</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad, Michigan has been a pillar of the academic world since the late 19th century. Its football program did not become popular until the 20th century. I won’t deny that much of Michigan’s popularity is derived from Football, but I would not attribut its past and present success to Football.</p>
<p>I don’t see much of anything separating Michigan from UCLA. Ranked the same by USNWR undergraduate, and also ranked the same in the 1994 Ph.D. program rankings (10 & 11th overall). Similar size.</p>
<p>Michigan is nowhere in the league of Berkeley, to address another poster, but then I’m of the opinion that Berkeley stands alone, period. No, I did not attend Berkeley, but rather the other school across the Bay.</p>
<p>DunninLA, Just as much separates Cal from Michigan as Michigan from UCLA. In terms of overall rankings according to the USNWR, all three schools are ranked between #21 and #25 nationally on an annual basis. All three universities weigh and report SATs in a similar fashion and they all have roughly equal SAT means (Cal stands at 1340, Michigan at 1320 and UCLA at 1300). </p>
<p>So far, all three schools are equal. Where they separate from each other slightly is in other criteria. </p>
<p>For example, the Peer Assessment score. Cal has a PA score of 4.8/5.0. Michigan’s PA score is 4.5/5.0 and UCLA’s is 4.2/5.0. In the case, Cal is as much ahead of Michigan as Michigan is to UCLA.</p>
<p>In terms of endowments, Cal’s endowment stands at $3.5 billion (or$100,000/student). Michigan’s endowment stands at $7.1 billion (or $180,000 per student) and UCLA’s endowment stands at $3 billion ($80,000/student). Cal does not have a medical school, UCLA and Michigan do, so Cal’s endowment of $3.5 billion is more geared toward pure academics that UCLA’s or Michigan’s, but Cal and Michigan are both better off than UCLA is that regard.</p>
<p>You mentioned PhD programs. According to the latest USNWR graduate rankings, Cal gets an average score of 4.8/5.0 in the twelve academic disciplines. Michigan gets an average score of 4.4/5.0 and UCLA an average score of 4.2/5.0. Cal is slightly better off than Michigan, particularly in Chemistry, Computer Science and Physics and Michigan is slightly better than UCLA.</p>
<p>Furthermore, although by insignificant margins, Michigan is usually ranked ahead of UCLA in all the professional disciplines, including Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine.</p>
<p>At any rate, for undergraduate education, I think all three schools are awesome, with Cal having a small advantage over Michigan and Michigan a small advantage over UCLA.</p>
<p>
I don’t…nor would I say UCLA’s academic success is attributable to its basketball.</p>