UCSD vs Cal Poly SLO vs UCLA

Colleges and Universities A-Z Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
1

Hello everybody,

I am a prospective mechanical engineering major and I’m having a difficult time deciding which school to attend of those mentioned above. I got accepted into Warren at UCSD for mechanical engineering, into Cal Poly SLO also for mechanical engineering, and I got waitlisted at UCLA for mechanical engineering. I’m still waiting on Berkeley, but I don’t think I will get in or attend if I do. I understand that getting into UCLA off the waitlist is a long shot.
Let me tell you about myself and also about my current impressions of these schools based on research and internet surfing. I’m currently a senior in a northern CA high school. My academic stats are as follows: GPA (weighted): 4.5, GPA (unweighted) 4.0, SAT: 1490 (760 math, 730 English), ACT: 33 (superscore 34, highest subscores are 36 english, 35 math, 32 science & reading), and finally SAT II Subject tests: Physics: 800, Math 2: 800. So I’m no slouch, and I was highly disappointed to see myself get waitlisted at UCLA, but let’s ignore that for now. I’ve applied mainly for mechanical engineering, but what I really want to do is nuclear engineering, thought this is incredibly difficult to get as an undergrad as you all probably know.
Let me start by saying that I couldn’t give less of a sht about a school’s name recognition. My impression of Cal Poly SLO is that everyone really likes it there and that professors actually care about their undergrads (a real problem at the UC’s according to my brother at UCI). My main concern, however, is that of classes being impacted and the average graduation time, *especially because my goal is to graduate in 2-3 years if possible (I have a ton of AP credits). Also it seems as though nuclear might become a major in the next few years? Anyone know about this?
As for UCSD, it’s nationally ranked and whatnot (not sure of the criteria for this), but it appears to me that everyone who goes here is simply miserable. The location obviously speaks for itself, but the campus is just awful (drab cement everywhere). It almost seems like the UC Merced of Berkeley and LA: a dumping ground for the UCB and UCLA rejects. They have a large endowment (compared to Cal Poly), but apparently the professors don’t care about undergrads (as with a lot of the other UC’s) and none of the money is actually spent for a Freshman’s benefit.

I hate to be so negative, but I reiterate that these are just my own impressions.

So, given my scenario and my potentially inaccurate impressions, which of the schools do you think is best and why? Also, if I were to by some miracle get into LA, should I choose this over the other two?

Please don’t just say, “choose UCSD, because I [went/am going] here!” or “choose UCSD because a group of pretentious journalists with esoteric criteria ranks it higher on the charts,” because I see this a lot on these forums.

Thanks in advance.

2

Can’t comment on the nuclear engineering, other than it is an option for me as an MSEE student. So, mechanical or not, seems like you could pursue nuclear as a graduate student without a problem if you end up wanting that later.

Outside of that, I can say that everyone I’ve spoke to who knows someone or has been to UCSD echoes your comments. Not sure that the campus aesthetics are worth knocking, because I will tell you that most of Cal Poly’s buildings are old and ugly. As an ME you will most likely spend time in the newer buildings, though. Our EE buildings don’t even have air conditioning.

I know someone who went from Cal Poly to UCSD for their Master’s and they have said it’s night and day from Cal Poly. The culture is much worse at UCSD - partially for the reasons you already mentioned, like the professors not caring as much.

You haven’t listed any other factors that are important to you, such as cost of living or your preference of city vs small town living. There are many other things to consider.

As I’ve said in other posts, I turned down UCLA for Cal Poly and I wasn’t even waitlisted there. It was a tough decision, and while I still think about “what if…”, I am happy with my Cal Poly education and know I did much better here than I would have at UCLA. If prestige isn’t important to you, think about lifestyle. I think you will love the SLO area and Cal Poly. Also look up the past career fairs at both UCLA and Cal Poly, compare the companies in attendance, and see what the differences are and if you could envision yourself working at one of them.

Good luck.

3

@c172pilot My main desire is to graduate in 2-3 years, is this possible or easier to do at SLO then ucsd?

4

You’re an incoming freshman right? I would say 2-3 years is unrealistic for any major or school. The standard 4 years is possible at Cal Poly, and UCSD of course. You just need to be on your game - know what classes you need, take classes over the summer (especially GEs) and be in charge of your path.

The 4-year graduation rate may be higher elsewhere, but it’s definitely not 100%. Engineers just have a lot of ground to cover and it’s hard to fit into 4 years with all of the other extras like GEs.

On another note, graduation in 4 years would most likely mean no internships over the summer as you will be trying to do as many classes as possible. IMHO not having an internship or co-op will put you at a disadvantage down the line.

5

There aren’t many ABET accredited nuclear engineering programs for undergrad. Twenty-One to be exact. So, as you’ve done, plan on grad school. You need a graduate degree to get meaningful work in that field anyway.

As for school, I’m a big fan of Cal Poly for the reasons you cited, and my son’s experience as an ME from out of state has confirmed that. Classes are small. Most professors care about their students and the quality of their instruction, although like all schools, a few do suck. Its location is great and the community is nice.

He had similar stats (most MEs will since it’s one of the most competitive admits at Poly) and lots of APs. He utilized his APs and dual enrollment credits as efficiently as possible, skipping out of freshman english, chemistry, physics I, calculus I and II and several GEs. He’s had an occasion or two where he was waitlisted, but he started back when registration was on rotation and there wasn’t seniority based on degree process. He still won’t graduate early.

The issue isn’t as much about class selection as it is about the sequential nature of the curriculum. He’s way ahead. In fact he’s taking his first graduate class this spring and he’s a junior. It’s Design sequence and Senior Project and all the classes stacked up in front of them that make it hard to finish in less than 4 years. His approach was to take advantage of the 4+1 and have most of his masters done in 4 years.

This will be a problem at any engineering program. The basics are set out by ABET and there’s no way to cut them short. They are very cumulative.

Good luck in your quest.

6

Oh my, you are in the same boat as my D. However, she is no longer considering UCLA since opting in the waitlist. Both are great schools, however the employment rate from SLO is excellent! That should be the deciding factor. As for what you want to study, (my daughter is Structural @ SD, ARCE @ SLO) UCSD is better than UCLA and SLO. Difference between SLO and UCs is SLO prepares you for a job after 4-5 years where UCs you may need a Masters.

Also, think of the distance and convenience. I know a lot of kids want to leave and go far away from home, but many become a bit homesick after the excitement dies down. Good luck. With your stats, you will do well at either.

7

@eyemgh See, that’s exactly what greatly concerns me about SLO. On the one hand, everyone loves the school, and that’s great and all, but I’m not looking to stay there for four years. I’ve heard that it’s difficult to get classes there due to many of them being impacted, and I’ve also heard that it’s basically impossible of for an engineer to graduate in <4 years. I’m still not sure why this is, but I have heard that while it is incredibly uncommon, it is entirely possible for an undergraduate engineering student at UCSD (or any UC for that matter) to graduate quickly if they put in enough work.

Any idea as to why this difference exists?

8

@AnxMom2021 I would be careful to use employment rate as a criteria for decision. To my understanding, Cal Poly’s employment rate right out of undergrad school is greater than most of the UC’s, except for UCSD and UCB (so yeah, I guess it beats UCLA, probably because they waste their funding on basketball). It’s fantastic that people with non-engineering degrees get jobs right out of college, but I don’t think that I can say the same for those with engineering degrees. In today’s economy, apparently getting a graduate degree is essential for an engineer, both in terms of employment and pay. My dad, as an example, is an aeronautical engineer who interned and eventually worked for NASA before and during his graduate studies, and he always tells me that one of his greatest regrets is failing to get his doctorate.
Anyways, I’d rather not do career work at all until I’m done with all of my schooling, or at least not any work that interferes with the pace of university education, so I’m looking to go to graduate school immediately after completing my undergraduate (hopefully in 2-3 years). For this reason, even if I get into UCB tomorrow (unlikely lol), I’d probably not take up the offer, because of their problem with grade deflation.

9

UCB has an undergraduate Nuclear Engineering program I believe. Cal Poly is trying to add nuclear engineering as a certificate or as a new concentration under mechanical engineers, it’s not set in stone yet.

I’d suggest UCSD if you’re trying to do nuclear engineering for sure, because it will help you more with getting into grad school for that program. If you’re open to any other industry that falls under mechanical engineering and aren’t interested in grad school, then I’d suggest CP.

10

I have no idea why UCSD would be any better than Cal Poly to get into a nuclear engineering graduate program. Sure, there’s more research going on there because they have a doctoral program, but it won’t be relevant to nuclear any more than what you could do at Poly.

UCB does have nuclear as does the flagship north, Oregon State.

As for why you won’t get out in two or even three years, it has nothing to do with the inability to get classes at Cal Poly. It has everything to do with the fact that you have to take classes in order because they build on one and other. If you’ve taken differential equations, three classes in college level physics, statics and dynamics in HS you could get out early, but if you’re like most advanced students, you haven’t.

Here’s how you can figure it out. I’ll use Cal Poly as an example, because they have awesome flow charts with prerequisites listed. At other schools you’ll also have to reference the course catalog to find prerequisites. I picked Mechatronics, because you can see courses filled in, but it isn’t the concentration classes that are the rate limiting factor. It’s Senior Project.

Print the flowchart and AP chart linked below. Cross off every class you’ll bring in credit for. With Calc BC you can go directly into Calc III. Physics 1 and 2 get you nothing. You can move into Physics II only with Physics C Mechanics. A 5 on the Chem AP will get you out of half of your chem. Etc, etc. If you have dual enrollment credit, it can be more powerful. My son transferred credit that completed his full chemistry requirement.

Now go to ME 428, Senior Year, and look at the prerequisites. Draw lines from that box back to those classes. From those classes, trace back to their prerequisites. Now do this for every class with prerequisites in the whole flowchart. Colored pencils or markers help. From there, you can plot best case scenario.

What you will find is that every school that is ABET accredited, and all you mentioned are, have minimum course guidelines. You have to have a certain amount of physics and calculus before you take statics. You need statics before dynamics. You need dynamics before thermo, thermo before fluids, then there’s advanced courses in each. There are things like Materials, that you can take out of order, but for the most part, it’s like climbing a ladder and you can’t skip a rung, no matter where you go.

If you are absolutely intent on minimizing your time in undergrad, you should do this for every school you’ve been accepted to and see if there’s even a possibility of accelerating.

Alternatively, you might want to call Oregon State Admissions. They have rolling admissions and are still taking applications. You can see if they have any engineering slots open.

http://flowcharts.calpoly.edu/downloads/mymap/15-17.52MEBSU.MCMEU.pdf

http://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/registrar/1/Degree_Progress/articdoc/APCRED2016.pdf

Lastly, some important humble pie. You’re stats are strong, but you’ll be surrounded by roughly 200 ME freshmen with nearly the same stats. You don’t get into ME at Cal Poly unless you are that strong. Don’t overestimate your ability based on your high school record. Engineering is hard…WAY HARDER than high school. The further you get into the curriculum, the harder it gets. I say this not to demean your achievements (you’ve done great and should be proud) or to scare you, but so you’ll know the reality of what is in front of you…lots of hard work, no matter how easily it might have come to you so far.

Good luck. I’m sure you’ll do well no matter where you land.

11

The only thing I would add to all the excellent comments above is: why nuclear engineering? You do realize the industry is dying in the US and the disaster in Japan crushed any glimmer of hope of it reviving. And secondly: why the rush to get through college? Slow down! I can tell you did not even read the comments carefully as you completely misunderstood what @eyemgh was trying to say in his initial response about why you cannot finish the ME major in 2-3 years. You have great stats and you will probably do very well academically. But, there is much more to future success than GPA. Many of the “soft” skills you need to develop in college are derived from varied experiences outside the classroom. And there is no “fast track” for obtaining them.

12

I’m not sure how there can even be a discussion on whether or not you can graduate with an engineering degree in 2 years… @eyemgh laid it out perfectly. All you have to do is take one look at the flow chart (at any college, except ITT) to understand why that’s not possible.

" In today’s economy, apparently getting a graduate degree is essential for an engineer, both in terms of employment and pay. "

Wrong. It’s not essential, to every engineering job anyway. I’ve bounced that question off of recruiters from General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and a few other employers and the answer was always the same. It’s not essential, but tuition assistance is offered as encouragement for those who want to pursue that route. The pay bump? One or two pay grades typically. A graduate education will deepen your understanding, but so will becoming skilled in your field.
I’m pursuing my Master’s while working full-time because it’s paid for - if it wasn’t the cost and time might not justify it.

If you’re not interested in working at all, then I might suggest UCSD over Cal Poly. There are more opportunities for research that you can get involved with during your studies or over the summer while doing more classes.

But regardless, slow down! What’s the rush? If you can afford not to work all those years then I’m sure you can afford to enjoy college over a normal time span.

For reference, here’s a link to ITT’s “Electrical Engineering” program that is 168 weeks long. Or 3.5 years. Even their associate degree is just under 2 years.
http://programinfo.itt-tech.edu/posi/ind/bseect/

13

@choroidal there’s actually some really sexy developments in nuclear engineering, namely with a heavy move towards non-plutonium energy reactors. While the industry is currently dying in the US due to low gas prices and excess regulation, Trump is re-piquing interests with deregulation talk and as the current research and market is being propped up by heavy Chinese investment.

Why UCSD:
Any research is good for Grad school because you’ll get that letter of rec and lab experience and Cal Poly just doesn’t have as many opportunities

14

Strictly referring to the need for a graduate degree for engineering. I work for one of the largest software companies, starting salaries for fresh out of college kids with no experience are six figures (which is typical in the industry). I had many interns working for me and many fresh graduates with both masters and bachelor degrees. There is absolutely no difference in starting pay between having a masters or not. When an intern shows promise in the summer before senior year, they are made an offer and HR puts a ton of pressure on them to accept it, rather than go to grad school. I am spending a lot of time on the phone with those kids in September getting them to accept. Not only there is no difference in starting pay, but I have noticed absolutely no difference in qualifications and knowledge between masters and bachelor degree holders. In my experience, I would rather take a holder of a bachelor degree with one year industry experience, than a fresh masters graduate.

I also have not seen much of a difference in the quality of the new hires between schools. As a matter of fact, graduates of top state schools tend to be humbler, more effective and have better engineering sense than Ivy league-rs. One of the worst hires I had was a Stanford guy so arrogant and obnoxious he did not last a year, as it was impossible for anyone to work with him. This is in line with the observations made by the (former) top HR guy at Google - Laszlo Bock in his book “Work Rules”.

Not saying this is a rule for all engineering companies or majors, I am sure in certain fields a masters is absolutely valuable, just sharing what I have been observing directly over the last 10+ years in my field.

15

@iulianc Sorry to revive a thread that is several months old, but this was a question I had when deciding between colleges, specifically UCLA and WUSTL. In your experience working at a large software company, is it significantly more likely for someone to get hired if the college they went to is close, location-wise, to the company? How difficult is it for someone who went to college thousands of miles away from a company to secure internships/jobs there? I ask because one of my goals is to land a job in California after I graduate; this is where I felt UCLA won. However, Wash U seemed to be the better “fit” for me as a school and as an engineering program, so I ended up choosing it. Do you have any advice on how to land an internship or job if your school doesn’t really have great connections with a specific area? Thanks.

16

Big companies have the resources and motivation to reach out far across their “home range”, and go after graduates of many schools with big names (such as WUSTL and UCLA). They have a policy of selecting a limited number of students from each, since schools won’t allow them on their campus unless they hire at least a predetermined number each time they visit and they have incentives to be in good terms with these schools. From this perspective, you might have better chances to land an internship/job with a big company from a far away school, since I would guess there is less incentive for local students to have tech internships in California especially if you have a better chance to stand out from your peers at such a school. The flip side is that many smaller companies in California might not have the resources to reach out so far, so those might be harder to connect to. I would encourage you to make sure you try to proactively build your network, reach out to alumni, figure out connections your school might have in CA (Linkedin is a great resource), join clubs, professional fraternities/sororities, connect with professors with industry connections, friends, family, etc. Make a list of companies that seem to have an outsized number of alumni from your school and find ways to target them. Most of them would have job/internship postings on their websites, if you’re willing be flexible it should not be that hard to connect.

Don’t over emphasize internships though. While they are super important, it is more important what you learn, your major and how determined you. A solid education is the single most important factor for a successful long term career, so you chose wise based on fit. Good luck.

17

Son graduated from CalPoly in mechanical, Daughter at Calpoly in Industrial. Both parents engineers, attended different schools – It isn’t possible to get a mechanical engineering degree from CalPoly in two years, but three years is possible if you take most of your General Education credits on-line during the summer months, come in with two quarters of AP credit, overload to 19 credits each quarter and not miss a class sequence. It is very difficult to take six or seven engineering/math classes in a 10 week quarter, and comprehend the material. Its not just about getting the grade, its about comprehending the material so you can successfully master the next class. . CalPoly will give you maximum credit for AP and IB classes.

CalPoly provides an excellent comprehensive engineering education without a cut-throat environment. It’s degrees are respected by employers and other universities.

Can’t talk about UCSB, I know nothing about that school.

Carefully consider why you are trying to complete your undergrad so quickly. The immense opportunities at both colleges should be experienced – build a car, a satellite or a complex SCADA system for an intercollegiate competition, four years so you can get three interships, allow time to take an out of major class.

You will likely live 87 years and work for 45 years. Another year mastering critical material will serve your future live and career.

18

I read on a CC thread for UCLA that the GPA for STEM courses at UCLA are bell curved to a B- (B minus) average. Does Cal Poly have a similar grading system for STEM courses?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

19

Cal Poly does not have a uniform grading policy. Within the CENG there’s a high variability in grading. ME is by far the harshest.

20

eyemph, thank you for the response. I went to an reception for admitted UCSD students today. A representative for UCSD said the general practice for grades in STEM courses is to bell curve to a B/B- average. So 50% of students in STEM courses get a B/B- and above, and 50% get a lower grade.