<p>I thought this was an interesting post.</p>
<p>
<p>Surround yourself with kids that will push you higher. You dont want to be the biggest house in the neighborhood and you dont want to be king of the avg students.</p>
<p>Challenge yourself. You never can tell where it may lead.
</p>
<p>"Or maybe I just like being challenged? Try not to assume people's motivations..."</p>
<p>Are you saying its impossible to challenge yourself at UCR? </p>
<p>Listen, I am not saying the average person at UCR receives an education equivalent to the average person at Cal. Its plain and simple that your average Cal student will work harder than your avg UCR student and thus learn more. However, if said student were to go to UCR they could certainly be challenged if they tried and get a similar education. This may take a few extra classes or whatnot, but the opportunity to educate yourself is still there. Dont mistake minimum required effort with something else. </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>
<p>Elitism, pride, and a difference in what people want from college. And most importantly, your peer group as the previous poster mentioned. Honestly, the main reason (90%) I am transferring to Harvey Mudd is because I just dont feel UCR is nerdy enough for me to have the time of my life that I want to in college. I want to get drunk and square 5 digit numbers in my head without making it impossible for me to get laid. I also want more nerdy/smart girls around me to court.</p>
<p>Seiken,</p>
<p>I don't know that it's necessarily elitism or pride per se, because plenty of top students go on to LACs that have very little name brand value relative to top research universities.</p>
<p>People know that 4 years is a lot of time, and they (consciously or not) want to maximize that time by going to the best school they can. Name brand is more than just a label-- it's something that's earned.</p>
<p>Seiken:</p>
<p>you are backing off from your assertion that the academic challenges are "similar", are you not? If you mean to say that an excellent education can be had at UCR (and, for that matter, Cal Poly SLO), you are correct. BUT, the challenges are not similar, IMO, nor in yours since you have now reverted to the "minimum".</p>
<p>Only if you consider the words 'similar' and 'equal' to be completely synonymous terms. What I am basically trying to say is: UCR and Cal are not as far apart as everybody seems. the required knowledge to earn a degree at either is similar, though at Cal it might just be a little more difficult if there are any deviations (I have to acknowledge this possibility less I get shot). However, the difference between the minimum can easily be made with just a tiny bit more effort at UCR, at which point he becames equal in level to the Cal student. Thus, if a student applies himself equally at either school, he or she will learn the same information. But with that in mind, who goes to college to learn the absolute minimum?</p>
<p>Seiken,</p>
<p>But that's simply not reality.</p>
<p>I've experienced lectures from a number of UCs, and the lectures at the top UCs tend to be more challenging and in-depth.</p>
<p>Plus, the depth of the pool of opportunity at top UCs is just deeper. You will not work in as good of labs at UCR as you will at UCLA or Cal or UCSD. Now, not everyone cares. But let's face it: top universities do provide better potential opportunities to students than non-top universities.</p>
<p>UCR is an excellent school, but it cannot keep up with top 25 schools. Is that bad? Maybe not. For many, such as you, it probably doesn't matter. But for most it probably does.</p>
<p>I've also experienced many lectures from the UCs, and the top ones simply did not fail to impress me anymore than UCR, including how deep it goes down the rabbit hole. This might be a physics thing though. </p>
<p>And my I ask what you mean by labs? If you mean research then there certainly was a lot at UCR, even with the obscure subject matter I had been dealing with since HS (biophysics, yuck). For physics there was a bit of every flavor, including Umar Mohideen who does some pretty nifty stuff (read about him in Discovery mag at first)and I was considering doing research under if I stayed. But this is that one department.</p>
<p>look, why don't we call it a draw. Seiken is convinced the UC Riverside is every bit as good as the other UCs, and nothing will change his mind. Fine for him.</p>
<p>Others might want to pay attention to what peer assessments say, the scores of incoming students, rankings of the undergrad and grad education, where firms recruiting college grads go, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Different experience. It was the opposite for me.</p>
<p>"I want to get drunk and square 5 digit numbers in my head without making it impossible for me to get laid. I also want more nerdy/smart girls around me to court."</p>
<p>Now there is someone who has their priorities straight. I'm serious.</p>
<p>Others might want to pay attention to what peer assessments say, the scores of incoming students, rankings of the undergrad and grad education, where firms recruiting college grads go, etc.</p>
<p>lol- interesting wording. Anyways, I am not trying to say that these things do not matter; I am transferring after all. They are very important when making your decision. However, whereever you go you will learn what you have to learn as long as you put forth an equal amount of effort. </p>
<p>And rocket, are you? lol.</p>
<p>Why don't people include UCSF when ranking UC's?</p>
<p>because they don't have undergrads?</p>
<p>Ohhh.....it's only a grad school? I didn't know that.</p>
<p>In some ways, you are going to get a better education at one of the smaller UC's (UCR, UCSC, UCSB) than one of the larger ones (Berkeley or UCLA). Professors are more accessible and you don't have to rely as much on TA's. Most universities build a reputation based on their graduate programs anyways. I think for the first two years of college, you are better off at one of the smaller UC's. Once you get into your major, the quality of the professors will differ depending on the strength of the individual program (not the reputation of the overall school).</p>
<p>"In some ways, you are going to get a better education at one of the smaller UC's (UCR, UCSC, UCSB) than one of the larger ones (Berkeley or UCLA). Professors are more accessible and you don't have to rely as much on TA's."</p>
<p>What? This is ridiculous. Yes, they're smaller, but that doesn't mean that professors are going to be more accessible. Why? Because there are fewer professors, of course! So no, that isn't how it works. And in fact, in many cases, grad student instructors are better than professors (at explaining certain material), and can easily teach some of the lower-division courses, where the concepts aren't very difficult and it's not so involved. On top of that, there are tons of seminars offered; lecturers and visiting scholars help keep classes small, etc. Professors are very accessible at Berkeley and UCLA, probably more so than at the smaller UCs. Believe me, smaller does not necessarily mean better.</p>
<p>BigB_85: UCSF is a med school. =p</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSF%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSF</a></p>
<p>"What? This is ridiculous. Yes, they're smaller, but that doesn't mean that professors are going to be more accessible. "</p>
<p>I had 2 professors of physics, one of biology, and one of chemistry all asking me if I wanted to do research, and invited me to chat a couple times for office hours. This could be do to the lack of "prodigy-types" at the school however, and not a result of size.</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence isn't valid. (And it just might be a "prodigy" thing, as you say, considering that you're going to Harvey Mudd.)</p>
<p>Ah but if we are talking about people chosing UCR/SC/SB over Cal then we are dealing with people who are a bit above the UCR curve as well. Almost every single science major that I knew in the honors program was doing research of some kind by the start of spring quarter. (the others I think are starting in the fall) </p>
<p>Though I will say this, at UCR there are quite a bit of foreign teachers who, although accessible, can be a hassle to work with due to the language barrier. (only one comes to mind, one of my best teachers was actually Asian)</p>
<p>worried student:</p>
<p>overall, the State budgeting process doesn't work that way. The smaller UCs cannt keep smaller classes for long, or their budget will be cut. Primarilly, the $$ go with the students. (Take a look at what's happening at Cal State Humboldt, for example. They've had the lowest student-faculty ratio of the Cal States, but no longer, since their budget has been cut significantly to give more $$ to the growing Cal States.)</p>