<p>I saw this post the other night and it made me curious. When it was posted though, there weren't too many responses to it, so I'm still pretty curious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The UC's are all pretty level academically for undergrads, the biggest source of differentiation in rankings would be prestige (and of course putting the UC you chose over the UC's that you didn't or that rejected you).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So UC's only differentiate between graduate programs? Or is this completely false?</p>
<p>I think that it's true...to an extent. The UCs, in my opinion, should be divided into three categories. </p>
<p>Tier one would include Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD. I'd say that the strength of undergraduate education would be about the same at all three. </p>
<p>Tier two would include Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz. Again, the strength of undergraduate education would be about the same at all four. </p>
<p>Tier three would include Riverside and Merced, which aren't considered as impressive or challenging as the other UCs.</p>
<p>I think the poster whom I quoted, meant that ALL the UC's undergrad programs are equal. Like the UC Merced undergraduate program being equal to UC Berkeley's.</p>
<p>So yeah, is this true or not? This is what the poster who I quoted originally in this thread said, after someone asked what he originally said was a joke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. For an undergraduate degree you're kidding yourself if you think you'd have a much better education at Berkeley than you would at Santa Cruz. There's some variation in the each schools strengths, but even then the difference isn't much in regards to academics, it has a bigger impact on the number of research opportunities you'd have on campus.
<p>pdef haha, are you joking? UCSB/UCD in a tier above UCI. UCI is the fourth ranked UC very similar stats to UCSB and UC Davis, with a higher slightly higher GPA and slightly lower SAT. The numbers are almost identical. How on earth would you put UCI with UCSC? And why would you put it below UCSB and UCD? Come on. What a joke.</p>
<p>I almost completely agree with the quotation from the original post. After spending a year at UCR I can definitely say that it presents a challenge similar to the upper tier UCs. The main difference is in the student body and how they react to such a challenge. This would explain why UCR has a relatively low average GPA (<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">www.gradeinflation.com</a>) </p>
<p>Even the highlanders that got into Cal but turned it down for a Regents at UCR spend endless hours at night doing problem sets for chemistry, physics and math. Humanities majors, however, play lots of poker.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but even then the difference isn't much in regards to academics...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That statement is just plain incorrect. The academic rigor at UCR (sorry Seiken) and UCSC pales to that of Cal. Just take a look at the top quartile of entering test scores. It's those kids who are fighting for the A's in the Frosh math and science courses, which are curved. </p>
<p>Then, of course, socially, Cal and UCLA have big time sports, which for many is a positive, but for others not-so-much.</p>
<p>Well I hope that's right bluebayou haha. Because yeah, that would suck for someone who worked extremely hard in high school and got accepted to Cal, to later find out that Cal was equal to all the other UC's for undergrads. So it would suck if he/she found out that they worked a lot harder than they had to, since UC's like Merced for example don't require the GPA, test scores, etc. that a UC like Cal does.</p>
<p>"The academic rigor at UCR (sorry Seiken) and UCSC pales to that of Cal. Just take a look at the top quartile of entering test scores. It's those kids who are fighting for the A's in the Frosh math and science courses, which are curved."</p>
<p>Funny, because there are math classes at UCR where NO STUDENT gets an A. And like I said the students at Cal will be smarter, but that does not mean they will be getting a more rigorous and indepth education. </p>
<p>Of course I am not saying they are completely on par, especially with say engineering students, but the difference is not even close to as large as you think it is. The way you are taught to integrate at Cal is the same method they use at UCR; dont kid yourself.</p>
<p>No kidding needed. I don't doubt that there are classes at UCR and UCSC where it is hard to earn an A, and that is a professor's perogative.</p>
<p>And, yes, Calculus taught at, say, Riverside Junior College is the same Calculus as they teach at Stanford, Cal Tech MIT and Harvey Mudd (congrats, btw); they may even use the same text. But, and this is a BIG but, the COMPETITION is different at all of those schools. Taking math in a class where a lot of students scored 700+ on the SAT (and are repeating the class for the 'easy A' since they already took the AP) is a lot different than competing with kids who score ~550.</p>
<p>And, thus, it is much harder to obtain an A in Frosh Calc (or chem) than it is at Riverside Junior College (and UCR). It's the competition that makes for more rigor not the material per se. But, the prof needs a curve, to the tests become more difficult.</p>
<p>There is absolutely a difference between going to a better school with smarter students. </p>
<p>Ask any grad student. The material in grad school isn't always that much harder. The people you work with, however, make the grades much harder to get.</p>
<p>for comparable classes, i have found that calc at UCR is harder than that at UCLA. Competition or not, the class was twice as difficult with a midterm and final that went into a significant amount of material that UCLA students never even got to. UCR as wll has a leg up on UCSB when it comes to calc.</p>
<p>*
And, thus, it is much harder to obtain an A in Frosh Calc (or chem) than it is at Riverside Junior College (and UCR). It's the competition that makes for more rigor not the material per se. But, the prof needs a curve, to the tests become more difficult.*</p>
<p>Or as mentioned the professor could give hard tests regardless of the talent of the student body or lower the # of As he gives (which is very popular there). </p>
<p>Nevertheless I will not doubt that it is harder to get a 4.0 at Cal than it is at UCR, but a 4.0 at Cal does not necessarily gain more knowledge than one at UCR, which is what I thought we were discussing (quality of students != quality of education). All UCs make the same knowledge available for their students to learn, regardless of latitude or longitude. It just so happens that students in college make their own schedules and choose what they wish to study as well as how much.</p>
<p>Being challenged will, by itself, force you to learn more. I learned more in one quarter of grad school than I did in two quarters of undergrad simply because everyone around me was working so hard and pushing me to work harder.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to be a downer on the other UCs, but there's a good reason why UCB or UCLA is a better signal in the marketplace than UCR. And it's not just the admission standards.</p>
<p>Well grad school is somewhat different from undergrad in the fact that you are primarily studying information related strictly to your major, and only those truly dedicated to their work will go, quite different from the core calculus classes mentioned before or even upper division classes filled with people just after a degree. </p>
<p>That being said, if you are the type of person that needs a competitive enviroment to motivate you, then by all means UCB or UCLA is probably a better environment for you. However remember that the reason you need such a place is because of your lack of motivation, not the other's lack of opportunity. </p>
<p>Remember we are discussing which can offer the best education, not which has smarter students; that is already plain and simple.</p>
<p>I am well aware of the differences between undergrad and grad school, having gone to undergrad...</p>
<p>But my point remains. Being in a more competitive and dynamic environment benefits all involved. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However remember that the reason you need such a place is because of your lack of motivation, not the other's lack of opportunity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or maybe I just like being challenged? Try not to assume people's motivations...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Remember we are discussing which can offer the best education, not which has smarter students; that is already plain and simple.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If top schools don't offer better educational opportunities, then why do we have top schools at all? Why isn't there a more even distribution of top students at other schools?</p>