Virginia, Michigan vs UCLA

College Search & Selection
101

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry, Alex!! Someone brought MSU into the discussion earlier not me. I am only responding for the purpose of clarification, and trying my best to remain passive whenever Michigan is mentioned. :stuck_out_tongue:
*
Eli Broad (MSU Alum), 58 years old, the chairman of the Kaufman & Broad Home Corporation, is giving $20 million to the Michigan State University business school to strengthen its M.B.A. program and provide students skills to help American manufacturers compete more effectively.*</p>

<p>I guess my point was to show how Broad’s contribution of $20 million decades ago had made MSU Business School (MBA program in particular) a global brand name these days, similar to what Mr. Fisher did for Ohio State’s Business School around the same time frame with the same amount of contribution. In short, State’s “Broad” School of Business certainly earned the top Business related ranking, and it is not to be confused with University of Michigan “Ross” School of Business imho.</p>

102

<p>

</p>

<p>The international community generally has no problem accepting this ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yet when a university of relevence has around a ten ranking advantage in engineering, it has a ‘decided edge.’ ;)</p>

<p>Your reasoning also suppresses evidence, at least for the THE ranking. UCLA is ranked as tier-2 university, which only has four schools (the others being Yale, Princeton, and TokyoU) </p>

<p>Although UCLA’s only ranked 3 positions above Michigan, its reputation is over 10 points higher, at 33.8 and 23.3 respectively. The same point could be made comparing UCLA and Berkeley, where the latter has over twice the reputation the former has although it only enjoys a four position advantage. Given these differences in reputation, it seems like a stretch to call them interchangeable.</p>

<p>[Top</a> universities by reputation 2012](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012/reputation-ranking]Top”>World Reputation Rankings 2012 | Times Higher Education (THE))</p>

103

<p>beyphy, I have often stressed how international rankings are inconsistent. There are certainly valid, but they should be taken with a pinch of salt. And I do not think the difference in reputational rating between UCLA and Michigan according to the Times is noteworthy. Columbia has one of the strongest brand names of any university on the planet, yet according to the Times, its reputational rating is relatively low (#15 I believe). I can tell you from extensive experience that in Europe and the Middle East, Columbia is second only to Harvard and Stanford, and has the reputatuional edge over Michigan, albeit only marginally so.</p>

<p>As for the difference in the overall ranking of world universities vs the ranking in a single field in the US, yes, I think a 10-spot difference makes a difference in the latter, not so much in the former. With the exception of few universities, most universities specialize in a handful of fields. For example, in the case of Engineering, there are not that many excellent programs.</p>

104

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t have a problem with your saying this. In rankings, absolutely, UM is ranked higher. </p>

<p>The quality of students coming out the E programs might state otherwise, however. I don’t have any doubts that UM E grads place well, but so do UCLA’s. This is because the average/median stats of students admitted to UCLA’s E programs is very high. There is negligible difference in the grades/scores of UCLA students in comparison with Cal’s. Ask UCBChemE, who said something to the effect, that “the qualifications of engineering students at UCLA and Cal are virtually the same,” which must have been a tough admission for him. </p>

<p>He seems to believe that the professors at Cal will help the students gain better footholds into placement, because they are, again, approximately, “the leaders in their fields, with greater membership in the Academy of Sciences [or Engineering?],” along with his reciting of rankings. He added things like “they wrote the books, and teach the classes based on their own materials” and cited a listing of some books written by Cal E professors, which didn’t seem impressive at all to me. Some were basic, elemental, lower-division stuff.</p>

<p>Again, though, California is a hotbed for E industry. UCLA places very well within this set, as it should, for it is a CA institution. That’s all that really matters: it places its grads well into top engineering grad programs as well as places them well into industry, an industry in CA that gives UCLA E grads a lot of options.</p>

<p>**</p>

<p>Wrt admissions standards of both:</p>

<p>When I get a chance, I will do a more thorough examination of how tough UCLA is to gain entry overall for all students, with examination of SAT and ACT scores, which I will post on the UCLA board and later use as a link reference to my debates on this board. One thing is clear between the two: UM seems to concentrate more on scores, even if it is a public, and UCLA more on grades.</p>

<p>**</p>

<p>Someone posted earlier something about his experiencing a greater perception of Cal and UM in countries outside of the US. In just a few years, UCLA has improved quite a bit within this perception, by its seeking a lot more Int’l students. </p>

<p>Things are changing very rapidly. For example, UCLA is shooting up a lot of “most entrepreneurial colleges” lists by having bootcamps and competitions for undergrads who want to start their own businesses.</p>

105

<p>“This is because the average/median stats of students admitted to UCLA’s E programs is very high”</p>

<p>The same with Michigan.</p>

106

<p>^^^</p>

<p>My point was just to counter the exclusivity-of-rankings argument that Alexandre proposed as to why UM’s E programs are significantly better … by my stating that UCLA’s E programs, though not as highly ranked, produces top-notch grads because of its quality of students. (And no one should state that UCLA’s E programs are bottom-feeders wrt rankings. There’s a high quality of E-faculty on campus – all noted PHD’s in their fields.) </p>

<p>Nowhere did I state that UM doesn’t admit similarly high-ranked students, though, by my not stating such, I can see where you could have received this notion … or maybe my wording was a bit off. </p>

<p>Again, I think what helps UCLA’s placement besides its quality of students is that CA is such a hotbed for E industries, more so than Michigan or the midwest in general.</p>

107

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not a very slight difference in terms of faculty.</p>

<p>Let’s look at some current faculty award counts (from the two campuses websites):</p>

<p>Award: Berkeley, UCLA
MacArthur Fellows: 32, 12
Academy of Arts and Sciences: 222, 120
American Philosophical Society: 42, 18
National Academy of Engineering: 91, 23
National Academy of Science: 141, 50
National Medal of Science: 12, 4
Nobel Prize: 9, 3
Pulitzer Prize: 4, 3
Turing Award: 3, 1
Fields Medal: 3, 1</p>

<p>Institute of Medicine: 11, 39</p>

<p>Looks like Berkeley, on average, is about 3x more distinguished than UCLA…not including Berkeley’s separate medical campus :)</p>

<p>[Awards</a> held by faculty - UC Berkeley](<a href=“About - University of California, Berkeley”>About - University of California, Berkeley)
[Awards</a> & Honors | UCLA](<a href=“http://www.ucla.edu/about/awards-and-honors/faculty-honors]Awards”>http://www.ucla.edu/about/awards-and-honors/faculty-honors)</p>

<p>UCLA also has what, about 3-4k more undergrads than Berkeley as well?</p>

108

<p>There are actually ~ 2K more undergrads at UCLA. But when both are as large as they are, it’s really insignificant. </p>

<p>I’ve never seen someone receive such a vicarious thrill over the quality of the faculty of one’s alma mater. But if this makes you a proud Cal grad, feel free to keep up your spiel – I’m sure you have this ready to cut-and-paste.</p>

<p>No one’s doubting the academic juggernaut that Cal is. But both Cal and UCLA are helping supply the nation with the most bac -> MD’s in the nation to help it overcome this shortage within the healthcare field. Cal is no. 1 in pure nos. of bac -> PHD’s and UCLA is top-10 within the STEM field, both helping the nation overcome it’s shortage in these science fields.</p>

<p>As Bluebayou, Cal grad, stated, essentially, “Whatever one can do professionally at Cal, one can do at UCLA.” Let me add, essentially one can do at any UC. I think you and I agree, that this wouldn’t be the case if we threw Harvard into the mix for certain professions. </p>

<p>Add to this, the quality of life at UCLA is infinitely better. UCLA’s better in ancillary things to make an undergrad’s life more enjoyable. (This one bluebayou actually discounted. I think he was trying to trade some of UCLA’s quality of life for some of Cal’s academic prestige.)</p>

109

<p>“UM seems to concentrate more on scores, even if it is a public, and UCLA more on grades.”</p>

<p>Actually drax, that is incorrect. Michigan, like UCLA, deemphasizes standardized tests and places far more weight on high school curriculum and unweighed GPA. According to the latest CDS, the average unweighed cumulative high school GPA for Michigan’s freshman class of 2012 was 3.80. For some reason, I could not open UCLA’s CDS, but I managed to open Cal’s, and the average unweighed cumulative high school GPA for Cal’s freshman class was 3.83. I doubt UCLA’s unweighed cumulative high school GPA would be much higher. </p>

<p>The reason for the insignificant gap in standardized test ranges is likely due do to socio-economic factors. Michigan students tend to come from upper income and upper middle income families. As such, they probably attend schools in wealthier neighborhoods and have access to more test prepping opportunities than UCLA students, who tend to come from middle income to lower middle income families. For example, only 15% of Michigan students are eligible for Pell Grants, compared to 40% of UCLA students. This is one domain where UCLA is clearly superior to Michigan. It is a university’s duty to welcome all qualified students. Michigan has failed students who come from lower income families. I hope the University will rectify this in the future.</p>

<p>This said, Michigan does not place too much importance in test scores and relies more heavily on classroom performance.</p>

110

<p>Good post Alexandre. I’m sure UM will do a better job in taking a wider range of students wrt socioeconomic mix in the future. </p>

<p>The average uwgpa of UCLA students for 2012 was 3.82, which would not be reflected in the CDS. I’ve had similar problems opening up the CDS, but the school would probably only reflect wgpa of 4.27, which would be jr and sr grades -> 4.4 upon graduation.</p>

<p>And I agree about the de-emphasis of scores. Poorer kids can’t “buy” good scores and therefore have less motivation to retake the SAT and ACT -> lower scores.</p>

111

<p>Virginia, Michigan, UCLA, North Carolina, Texas, California, Wisconsin are all peers of each other. Arguing about them is just splitting hairs.</p>

112

<p>Let me add this to my post #110:</p>

<p>But UCLA’s admissions will seemingly continue to eliminate the middle class, by drawing in the full-pay wealthy along with offering liberal financial aid to poor CA students. </p>

<p>Wrt CA students, the top feeder high schools to the U will continue to be from wealthy areas, with a lot of poorer kids making up ground by finishing up at their local community college in an effort to gain college-level courses, or attending specialized magnet hss in their area. </p>

<p>Add, the large influx of wealthy full-pay Int’l or oos students and you have a significant rich/poor mix, with lesser amts of middle class.</p>