Virginia, Michigan vs UCLA

College Search & Selection
1

<p>many people here thinks that Virginia (UVa) and Michigan (Ann Arbor) are in the same league as Berkeley, yet thinks UCLA is a step below them.</p>

<p>I may not have been "wised-up" enough to know the reason for this, but from what i know so far, I just don't believe that either Virginia or Michigan deserves to be listed as a "better school" than UCLA.</p>

<p>I mean, in terms of international recognition, UCLA EASILY beats both of them, and all three schools (UCLA, Virginia, and Michigan) have fairly similar job placement rate after the graduation. Moreover, out of these three schools, UCLA has the lowest rate of admission (UCLA: 27%, Virginia: 38%, Michigan: 57%), and UCLA also has the highest rate of students in the "Top 10 percentile in High School" out of the three (UCLA: 97%, Virginia: 86%, Michigan: 89%).</p>

<p>So obviously, it's not like it's any easier to get into UCLA than Virginia or Wisconsin (In fact, it's one of the hardest university to get admitted in the nation), nor their faculties are far behind (Seven of current UCLA Faculties are Nobel Laureates), nor their education lacks in quality (Four of UCLA alumnis are Nobel Laureates). Not to mention that UCLA has won more athletic championship than ANY OTHER SCHOOL IN THE NATION (including both Publick and Private). So their atheltics and school spirit is at its peak.</p>

<p>But inspite of all these excellent qualities of UCLA, many people here seems to disagree on the idea that UCLA is on par with Virginia and Michigan.</p>

<p>Why is UCLA being looked down inspite of all of its accomplishment and merits?</p>

2

<p>because its not fair for california to have two flagships.</p>

3

<p>It seems Cal/UVA are on the same level and UCLA/Umich are on another level. The reason is mostly because of selectivity. It's quite easy to get into Umich OOS compared to the others and UCLA instate is seen as not as had as Berkeley.</p>

<p>This is just an observation and not my personal opinion.</p>

4

<p>But AcceptedAlready, if you are ranking this solely on selectivity, then Mich. should be WAY below UCLA (compared to Mich.'s OOS admission, UCLA's OOS admission is almost comparable to Harvard's).</p>

<p>As for Virginia, I'm not quite sure. In fact, i can't seem to find any data that shows the admission rate for the Instate and the OOS applicants. All three schools just show the overall admission rate (OOS and Instate combined), but not separate. But I'm sure OOS UCLA is just as rigorouos, if not more, as Virginia's OOS admission.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
It seems Cal/UVA are on the same level and UCLA/Umich are on another level. The reason is mostly because of selectivity. It's quite easy to get into Umich OOS compared to the others and UCLA instate is seen as not as had as Berkeley.</p>

<p>This is just an observation and not my personal opinion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I somewhat agree with this. I think Berkeley and UVa and pretty close and Michigan and UCLA are a little behind.</p>

<p>But honestly it's hard to place colleges in tiers. They don't clump nicely together that way. It's really more like a gradient: Berkeley > UVa > U Mich > UCLA. The differences are minimal, though.</p>

<p>I'm not too familiar with Michigan; ask Alexandre why it should be better than UCLA. Honestly UCLA is just popular, with a great location, great athletics, great weather, that attracts students. Thus, many apply (it receives the most applications out of any colleges), and selectivity goes up. I'm not trying to bash UCLA, it's just that the selectivity is probably skewed a little.</p>

6

<p>Seems like with the way the U of California system admissions process works, just about everybody in-state is going to take a shot at UCLA, whereas in Michigan (where the emphasis on prestige is relatively light and even a lot of really top students are content with Michigan State, Western Michigan, Wayne State, Central Michigan, and Michigan Tech) very few non-competitive students would even bother to take a shot at U of M.</p>

7

<p>Cal is #1 among state universities. Michigan is generally considered #2 and UVa and UCLA are generally considered #3 and #4 in that order. That is not to say there is a large difference between those 4 universities. All four are awesome, but there are small variations.</p>

<p>In terms of the quality of the student body, all four schools are roughly equal. The mid 50% SAT range for all four schools for this year's freshman class was approxinmately 1260-1480 (their means ranged between 1360 and 1380) and all four schools had roughly 90% of their freshmen graduate in the top 10% of their class. Obviously, Cal and UCLA, which serve a state with close to 40 million people, are going to have much larger applicant pools than Michigan and UVa, which serve states with populations of roughly 10 million. But the quality of the students at those schools is roughly equal, and considering their size (14,000-24,000 undergrads), those schools manage to attract incredibly gifted students. Schools that are 5 times smaller manage to recruit student bodies with average SAT scores barely 50 points higher.</p>

<p>As for international reputation, I'd say Cal is #1. In Europe, Michigan is generally considered #2 (by a sizeable margin) among those 4 schools and in Asia, UCLA is considered #2 (slightly over Michigan, especially in Japan and Korea). UVa does not have as prominent an international reputation.</p>

<p>In terms of graduate school and professional placement, all four universities are excellent, primarily thanks to huge and very loyal alumni bases, but Michigan and UVa have a slight edge because their alums are more spread out.</p>

<p>As I mentioned above, very little actually separates those universites. All of them are top 25 universities afterall. But there are some differences. For example, Cal's overall reputation is hard to match. Only Michigan competes where reputation is concerned. UVa and Michigan are significantly wealthier than Cal or UCLA. In fact, Michigan is wealthier than Cal and UCLA combined and the gap is only widening. UVA is as wealthy as Michigan on a per/student basis. And when I say wealthy, I mean WEALTHY! On a per/student basis, Michigan and UVa are almost as wealthy as Brown, Columbia, Cornell or Penn. </p>

<p>Of course, I am just stating my own personal opinion. Others may differ in their opinions.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
in Asia, UCLA is considered #2 (slightly over Michigan, especially in Japan and Korea).

[/quote]

I don't agree with that ... at least not in the Greater China region, or even in SE Asia. Cal is definitely #1, but Michigan is a close second. Micnigan has a very long history in this region. I've bumped into some very old alum, and know numerous people whose parents or grandparents got their degrees at Michigan in the 30's and 40's.</p>

9

<p>I really haven't had much exposure with the East. I do know that Michigan was THE first American university to tie up with Japanese, Korean and Chinese universities as far back as the late 19th century. At that time, the outside world was restricted in its dealings with China and Japan. </p>

<p>I assumed that UCLA, being in California, would have a slightly better reputation than Michigan in East Asia today, but I could be wrong. But even if I am right, the difference in reputation between UCLA and Michigan in East Asia is negligible. </p>

<p>In the Middle East and Europe, Michigan's reputation is second only to Cal where state schools are concerned. </p>

<p>In fact, in Germany, Michigan's reputation is second only to Stanford and it is more respected than Cal.</p>

10

<p>ucla is probably the worst of the 4. Out of state comparable to harvard? don't make me laugh. I have many friends from NY who got into UCLA who got rejected from Ivies that are not Harvard. UCLA is mad easy to get into in state. also umich isn't that good as of now, it's kinda slipping as its easy to get in.</p>

11

<p>Sternman, Michigan isn't slipping in any way. From an endowment point of view, Michigan has far outstripped any other university over the last 15 years. Michigan's endowment has grown by 1,000% in that period, compared to an average of 200%-500% at all other top 20 universities. </p>

<p>Michigan is also getting harder to get into. </p>

<p>Class of 2008:
62% accepted
Mid 50% SAT range: 1220-1420
Mean SAT: 1330</p>

<p>Class of 2010:
47% accepted
Mid 50% SAT range: 1260-1480
Mean SAT 1380</p>

<p>Michigan is also expecting another drop in acceptance rate and another spike in SAT ranges for the class of 2011. </p>

<p>Obviously, given its size and its obligation to the state, Michigan isn't going to be as selective as most Ivies any time soon. However, the quality of the student body is improving rapidely.</p>

12

<p>You can't make judgments about the schools based on their admit percentages, and % of class in top 10%. Remember, california is the largest state, and with the ease of the UC application, its extremely easy to apply to it. Remember, if Michigan or UVa had a population the size of California, they would also have admit percentages in the mid 20s. </p>

<p>That being said, its also a well known fact that, at least at berkeley, the top 10% number is made up. Berkeley does not have 99% of its incoming class in the top 10%. there was an article posted a little while ago about this, which I'm not going to go scronging around for right now, but basicly that 99% in the top 10% excludes all recruited athletes. When it comes to how difficult it is to actually get admitted to these schools - it seems that at least UVa, UCLA, and Berkeley are about the same difficulty to get into - given that the students who are accepted are of equal caliber. Michigan may be slightly easier, simply because it is rolling admissions - the earlier you apply you might just stand a better chance.</p>

<p>Another fact which has also plagued the UC system (particularly berkeley and ucla) is that the school's student body comes across as much stronger than it actually is. When looking at Berkeley's admissions statistics, you could say "wow thats a really talented student body," which is true, but also we forget that 30% of berkeley's student body have transfered from community colleges, and there scores and grades are not included in any of that admissions data. I know that is not the case at UVa (which is about 7% transfers), and I havn't really checked it out at Michigan. Now this isn't saying that the students transfering are stupid, its just, I'm betting the majority would have went there if they had gotten in as freshman.</p>

<p>Other seemingly problems that stem from the UC schools include a high % of 6 year graduates, vs. a high % of 4 year graduates at UVa. People just take longer because there is a lot of red tape at Berkeley and UCLA. As someone else said, the UC schools are not in the same league finacially as UVa and Michigan. UVa and Michigan are cheaper to attend, and have more national appeal. The international appeal - who really cares - 99% of people coming out of the schools arn't working internationally, and people could care less if some guy in india or korea thinks my school is good.</p>

<p>Basicly, all 4 schools, at least in the undergraduate sector, will provide a great education. While 1 person can say "Cal is 1 Michigan is 2 UVa is 3 UCLA is 4" another person can say just as easily "UVa 1 Berkeley 2 Michigan 3 UCLA 4." What makes the schools stand apart however, is the national appeal. And getting back to the main point, UCLA doesn't have the same appeal that the other 3 schools have. It is generally accepted that in the northeast and south, UVa reigns supreme with regards to state schools. In the midwest, Michigan is no. 1. In the west, Berkeley is no. 1, and thats why UCLA comes in at no. 4 overall.</p>

13

<p>I'd worry much more about the quality of the faculty and school than about minor differences in the students. All four have plenty of highly capable students so that is just moot. UVa has more undergrad focus but lacks the faculty and resources quality of the others. Go to whichever appeals on a comfort level.</p>

14

<p>Barrons is right.</p>

<p>For business I'd take Umich.
For engineering I'd take Cal.
For liberal arts I'd take UVA.</p>

<p>I kind of think UCLA is the weakest of the four but if this is the case it is only slightly.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
UCLA is mad easy to get into in state.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you obviously don't know anything about UCLA or about UC admissions :rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
You can't make judgments about the schools based on their admit percentages, and % of class in top 10%. Remember, california is the largest state, and with the ease of the UC application, its extremely easy to apply to it. Remember, if Michigan or UVa had a population the size of California, they would also have admit percentages in the mid 20s.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>what does selectivity have to do with a state's population? by your logic then MA has a much larger population than CA because the admit % is so low in MIT or Harvard. CA has enough unis to have any specific college be worried about being flooded with students</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another fact which has also plagued the UC system (particularly berkeley and ucla) is that the school's student body comes across as much stronger than it actually is. When looking at Berkeley's admissions statistics, you could say "wow thats a really talented student body," which is true, but also we forget that 30% of berkeley's student body have transfered from community colleges, and there scores and grades are not included in any of that admissions data. I know that is not the case at UVa (which is about 7% transfers), and I havn't really checked it out at Michigan. Now this isn't saying that the students transfering are stupid, its just, I'm betting the majority would have went there if they had gotten in as freshman.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yet statistics show that transfers perform as well if not better than freshmen...let's get off the "freshmen are academically superior" horse :rolleyes: people choose to attend community colleges for other reasons than because they didn't get in UCLA/Cal</p>

<p>
[quote]
Other seemingly problems that stem from the UC schools include a high % of 6 year graduates, vs. a high % of 4 year graduates at UVa. People just take longer because there is a lot of red tape at Berkeley and UCLA. As someone else said, the UC schools are not in the same league finacially as UVa and Michigan. UVa and Michigan are cheaper to attend, and have more national appeal. The international appeal - who really cares - 99% of people coming out of the schools arn't working internationally, and people could care less if some guy in india or korea thinks my school is good.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wonder what the reason is behind that...oh, wait...maybe because CA is much more expensive to live in. </p>

<p>of course, reputation has no bearing on anything :rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is generally accepted that in the northeast and south, UVa reigns supreme with regards to state schools. In the midwest, Michigan is no. 1. In the west, Berkeley is no. 1, and thats why UCLA comes in at no. 4 overall.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know whether to :rolleyes: or :D at this....hey! look at me! I can also take out stuff from my ass</p>

16

<p>As jags861 pointed out, admissions percentage is pretty meaningless without context. Thankfully Alexandre provided the context.</p>

<p>
[quote]
UCLA is mad easy to get into in state.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
That being said, its also a well known fact that, at least at berkeley, the top 10% number is made up. Berkeley does not have 99% of its incoming class in the top 10%. there was an article posted a little while ago about this, which I'm not going to go scronging around for right now, but basicly that 99% in the top 10% excludes all recruited athletes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I think it might be a bit off, but I don’t know. However, I can’t imagine it being too much lower than it is now, say below 90%. I bet it’s around 95% or higher.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another fact which has also plagued the UC system (particularly berkeley and ucla) is that the school's student body comes across as much stronger than it actually is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does this plague the schools? Do you mean that it causes people to say that the student body is statistically weaker than it looks to be?</p>

<p>
[quote]
When looking at Berkeley's admissions statistics, you could say "wow thats a really talented student body," which is true, but also we forget that 30% of berkeley's student body have transfered from community colleges, and there scores and grades are not included in any of that admissions data.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Indeed. I think the actual number is closer to 20% (maybe a little below that). Not all of the transfers came from community colleges (certainly an overwhelming majority did, but not all of them did).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Other seemingly problems that stem from the UC schools include a high % of 6 year graduates, vs. a high % of 4 year graduates at UVa. People just take longer because there is a lot of red tape at Berkeley and UCLA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Certainly we can look at the statistics and see what they show, but they don’t show some important things. I think it’s not that hard to graduate from Berkeley in four years or fewer, especially if you come in with some previous college credit (the more the better). What the statistics fail to show is that many students who do not graduate in four years or fewer CHOOSE not to graduate in four years or fewer for whatever reason(s), or basically had to because of financial difficulties or because they failed a course or courses in sequences which prevent progress in their major. Certainly some students cannot graduate in four years or fewer because of “red tape,” but I think it is way misleading when people portray Berkeley students as unable to graduate on time because of the school or something when, while that is sometimes the case, so much of the time it is the choice of the student to stay.</p>

<p>
[quote]

yet statistics show that transfers perform as well if not better than freshmen...let's get off the "freshmen are academically superior" horse people choose to attend community colleges for other reasons than because they didn't get in UCLA/Cal

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let’s not get into the weeder skipping/lower div (which supposedly have less friendly grading) skipping route that transfer students take debate. How can you say "if not better?" I've seen only documents which say "as good as" from UCLA and Berkeley. Are you demonstrating your ability?</p>

<p>
[quote]
hey! look at me! I can also take out stuff from my ass

[/quote]

:)</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
I've seen only documents which say "as good as" from UCLA and Berkeley. Are you demonstrating your ability?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"According to the Office of Student Research, the latest six-year graduation rate of freshmen was 82 percent, identical to the four-year graduation rate of community-college transfers. At the end of the fall 2000 semester, the average GPA of transfer students was 3.37, compared with 3.28 for all students."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/03/12_trf.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/03/12_trf.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Studies have shown that these community college transfer students perform as well as or better than their upper-class
peers who enter four-year colleges and universities directly from high school. Yet, it can be difficult for community college
students to transfer in a timely manner. Reasons include: reduced funding for public colleges and universities, which limits
program availability; an increase in the number of high school graduates seeking college admissions, which also increases
competition for available spaces; and restrictions or requirements imposed by the University of California and CSU, which
add to the expenses and time commitment of transfer students."</p>

<p><a href="https://www.rsccd.org/Uploads/state%20policy%20statement.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://www.rsccd.org/Uploads/state%20policy%20statement.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>the point is that they myth of "transfer student are dumber than people who got in through HS" is well....just a myth :rolleyes:</p>

18

<p>UVa has started a transfer program for Virginia CC grads meeting gpa requirements.</p>

19

<p>Citan,</p>

<p>I don't understand how you extrapolated some things from my post.</p>

<p>"what does selectivity have to do with a state's population? by your logic then MA has a much larger population than CA because the admit % is so low in MIT or Harvard. CA has enough unis to have any specific college be worried about being flooded with students"</p>

<p>hmm, i don't know. Maybe because Berkeley is a State School, in the State of California, that would affect how many applications it got from California. Since 33 million people live in California, that would help increase the amount of applications Berkeley would receive. Notice how Berkeley receives 35,000 applications from California vs UVa which receives about 7000 applications from Virginia. Notice how California has nearly 5x the 7 mil population of Virginia, and receives about 5x as many applications. Notice how Berkeleys ugrad population is only about 10,000 larger than UVa. I think that would GREATLY affect the % admitted, don't you?</p>

<p>"yet statistics show that transfers perform as well if not better than freshmen...let's get off the "freshmen are academically superior" horse people choose to attend community colleges for other reasons than because they didn't get in UCLA/Cal"</p>

<p>you didn't respond to my statement. I believe I said that most of the community college applicants wouldn't have gotten in if they applied as freshman. Now of course I don't have proof of that, but it does seem to make common sense. Like I said, I don't think they're stupid - probably late bloomers, but did these students have 1350 on their SATs and were they in the top 10% of their high school class? I'm guessing not. They would be at another school on a scholarship if they did. So when Cal says that it has this amazing 99% top 10% and their students SAT scores are great, its not exactly true of the student body as a whole - just the percentage who applied as freshman.</p>

<p>" I wonder what the reason is behind that...oh, wait...maybe because CA is much more expensive to live in."</p>

<p>I don't even know what thats supposed to mean? Let me shed some numbers, UVa's endowment 3.5 Billion. Berkeleys Endowment 2 billion. School populations UVa 20,000 - Berkeley 30,000. the endowment shouldn't have anything to do with where its located...</p>

<p>"of course, reputation has no bearing on anything"</p>

<p>international reputation...doesn't really matter to the overwhelming majority of people who attend these schools. Yes if you plan on working abroad, then international reputation matters - but like I said, it doesn't matter if you work domesticly - where 99.9% of graduates will work. And domestically, UVa, Michigan, Berkeley, all have roughly equal reputations.</p>

<p>"I don't know whether to or at this....hey! look at me! I can also take out stuff from my ass"</p>

<p>Hey! Look at me! I can be a douchebag who thinks he's hot **** on an internet message board, too!.</p>

20

<p>I think in all reality, Berkeley is the top, and UVA, UM and UCLA are all pretty equal. </p>

<p>You really can't go wrong with any of those 4 schools. They're great institutions.</p>