<p>Hello fellow CCers!</p>
<p>I'm currently deciding between UCLA and Wellesley. I'm not quite sure which one I should pick, so which one would you guys pick and why? Current students at either are more than welcome to respond.</p>
<p>UCLA Bruins*</p>
<p>and they’re drastically different schools… what factors are you looking for?</p>
<p>I’m looking at the overall college experience; I don’t doubt that either school would provide a quality education. But I’m trying to weigh the all-girls factor of Wellesley with the prospect of having a huge school with such a large student body with UCLA.</p>
<p>You should choose Wellesley if you are planning to go to grad school. Otherwise, UCLA is the safer choice since we’re a name employers will recognize. We’re also cheaper for instate students.</p>
<p>Also, Cal’s mascot is the Bears. UCLA’s mascot is thw Bruins. In case you posted this in the wrong subforum, my advice still stands.</p>
<p>^the whole grad school statement is complete bull</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I follow…</p>
<p>If you want what I call “Elite Education” by all means go to Wellesley for the pursuit of strong and personalized liberal arts education. But if you want to meet many people from various walks of life and perhaps want to push yourself outside the comfort zone for your personal and cultural enlightenment, UCLA will give you a more comprehensive package of opportunities, agonies, frustrations, renewed happiness, perseverance, and different meanings of life.</p>
<p>Initially you will be a face in the crowd, but as you push yourself outside the enclosed envelop of your previous life closely guarded by your family and friends at home, you will get to discover more about you, I guarantee you.</p>
<p>You may argue, “Hold on, wouldnt Wellesley give me the same kind of life introspection opportunities as well?”</p>
<p>True. Yet, UCLA, as a larger, more diverse, more dynamic, and more chaotic institution than Wellesley, would probably give you more opportunities. On a final note, I must argue that the culmination of your formative years upon graduating from UCLA will really hinge on what you make out of those presented opportunities.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>Where are people getting this stuff? elite education? both schools have their own departmental strengths.</p>
<p>OP, you should tell us your major, type of person, how much cost factors in, etc. before any of us can actually help you. otherwise, you’re going to get stupid responses.</p>
<p>lol BruinLifer is obviously biased…(no offense)</p>
<p>
I regard Wellesley as an elite education. The university has a vibrant history with prestige comparable to Amherst. It is very, very difficult to be admitted. This was the Harvard for women before they could actually go to Harvard!</p>
<p>I would say, “Go to Wellesley!”, except I have a bias against all liberal arts colleges and find them a waste of time.</p>
<p>Technically, Radcliffe was the Harvard for women.</p>
<p>^what he said.</p>
<p>and their acceptance rate is over 35%; their average SAT/ACT is near UCLA’s.</p>
<p>what you regard as “elite education” is vague and idiotic. they’re two entirely different universities: a less populated liberal arts college on the east coast vs a heavily populated research-oriented university on the west coast. you can get an elite education at both universities. You should look at the factors that actually distinguish the universities, not false misconceptions and slight differences in their respected ranks.</p>
<p>Incognito, you need to calm down and stop getting emotional over my SUBJECTIVE reply.</p>
<p>Please read my post one more time. </p>
<p>I said “What I call Elite Education”. Granted, I should have gone a bit far in trying to explain the detailed descriptions of such elite education.</p>
<p>Wellesley definitely offers a more customized, strong liberal arts education with the better prospect of faculty accessibility.</p>
<p>No one deny this, even though my generalization can easily be overriden by personal initiatives. </p>
<p>In the end, I made the implicit claim that at either university, the same sort of opportunities are available at both universities.</p>
<p>Just mind you, this is a very SUBJECTIVE forum here. The OP did not inquire anything relevant to the cost factors. As such, we all simply assumed that the costs does not factor in here.</p>
<p>The OP can find his or her own share of factual statements (research endowment, faculty student ratio, major rankings, etc). I really dont think he or she is that much ill-prepared. </p>
<p>This is a forum in which we can share our subjective, yet personal insights and experiences with others who may seek for those. Sometimes, the most subjective tales can be the most telling.</p>
<p>Let’s not get carried away by assuming that we are trying to pretend that we are all OBJECTIVE, something no one has managed to do here at CC.</p>
<p>To BruinLifer:</p>
<p>My later posts were directed at sentimentxg4s not yours, though I did still have trouble with the term “elite education”</p>
<p>My biggest criticisms were with these posts:</p>
<p>“You should choose Wellesley if you are planning to go to grad school. Otherwise, UCLA is the safer choice since we’re a name employers will recognize. We’re also cheaper for instate students.”</p>
<p>"I regard Wellesley as an elite education. The university has a vibrant history with prestige comparable to Amherst. It is very, very difficult to be admitted. This was the Harvard for women before they could actually go to Harvard!</p>
<p>I would say, ‘Go to Wellesley!’, except I have a bias against all liberal arts colleges and find them a waste of time."</p>
<p>There is a difference between subjectiveness and crude misinformation. This suits the latter.</p>
<p>The reason I get rather sensitive is that I was in the same position as most seniors are now and feel that I misjudged on how I should treat my acceptances. Seeing terms as “elite education” obviously puts the school which is classified as “non-elite” as somewhat “lesser.” </p>
<p>Saying “Wellesley has smaller class sizes which are better suited for faculty interaction, and can provide a more intimate education” is still subjective, yet still tremendously more valuable than a term such as “elite education.”</p>
<p>My intentions are for the OP to see the full spectrum of both schools, perhaps provide us with more information about himself/herself and then best decide. If people wish to contribute to the decision of other’s futures, then I feel that they should take the time and responsibility to respond sincerely and comprehensively.</p>
<p>Your point well taken.</p>
<p>"The reason I get rather sensitive is that I was in the same position as most seniors are now and feel that I misjudged on how I should treat my acceptances. Seeing terms as “elite education” obviously puts the school which is classified as “non-elite” as somewhat “lesser.”</p>
<p>For your information, it was actually I who first brought up the term “Elite Education”. LOL</p>
<p>Again, I should have explained further the precise connotational meanings of the term previously. To clarify, I used the term to ACTUALLY highlight both the positive and negative connotations associated with the term.</p>
<p>My original intention behind the vague use of the term was to explain that if one is solely concerned with the in-class training and somewhat aristocratic way of getting education, then Wellesley may give you the better prospect. However, I did not imply to mean that my alma mater was in any way a lesser school by comparison. It was actually the opposite.</p>
<p>We all know that “education” and “learning” are not always necessarily mutually inclusive. While Wellesley may offer a better outlook on the inclass training and education, UCLA may, by comparison, offer a more comprehensive “learning environment” with its tremendous diversity of student body, city amenities, club organizations, and a wide range of potential experiences.</p>
<p>To be sure, it is still a generalization, as the individual experience is by far the most important factor in navigating undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>But by no means did I mean to degrade the quality of UCLA learning community by applying the term, Elite Education, to Wellesley in the single most absolutely and wholly positive way.</p>