Hey everyone, I am a community colllege student looking to transfer to the UC system and have run into some complications. My CC experience has been fairly good, having great professors who can teach very well. I have a few friends already in the UC system (we are all 3rd years), and they constantly complain about how they end up having to teach themselves most of the material because they don’t understand it in class, and how all of their finals have to be curved because the average scores are around 60%. And this makes sense, as most of the professors (from their UC) are full time researchers, not teachers. However, with professors that have such low quality teaching abilities, what really considers research UC’s to be good schools? Is it the research opportunities? The campus life? Someone please explain!
I think you’re asking what makes a school considered “good” by public opinion vs an individual student, right? Because for any one student one school might be “good” and another “not good”, it’s all about what you want. But in the court of public opinion it’s about reputation, prestige, name recognition, opportunity as well as the average student’s level of accomplishment.
In the experience of the students I know who have attended both UCs and CCs they had to work harder to get less impressive grades at the UCs. So that implies the UC courses were more “rigorously” academic but you could also interpret that as the UC professors being less available or helpful. The problem of poor teaching at a University level is a fair criticism of large research institutions and it’s sometimes taken as a badge of honor that students can teach themselves difficult subjects… but I agree with you that it really shouldn’t be.
@CaMom13 Yes, thank you for your clarification! It is definitely more about public opinion. In the grand scheme of things, how much more leeway does obtaining at degree from a “prestigious” school offer than a “non-prestigious” school? I like the idea of students having more to show for themselves for making it through a more rigorous school, but if the payout is the same as going to a state school or a private school, is the extra work necessary? I know this is a fairly relativist question, so it would be nice to hear opinions from multiple people.
^by “leeway” I mean potential to obtain job after graduation and salary.
I am sure many people have differing opinions. 
Probably as many opinions as there are CC members. IMO and many people will disagree, the career payoff of going to a college that is recognized as 'good" is immeasurable. I know for sure how many times people looked at my resume and said “Oh, you graduated from UCLA!” in the first 10 years of my career. The UCLA name didn’t get me the jobs but it helped establish me as a good candidate and the jobs I got lead to other, even better jobs. In terms of education, I say I got my education from a small, intense LAC I attended for 2.5 years before I transferred to UCLA. No one in LA really knew the college’s name and no one cared that on the east coast the name carried more weight because I started working in LA. Silly, huh? I will say that both of the schools I attended put a lot of the burden of education on the student and that is a hallmark of a good college education - students learn how to learn difficult subjects through substantial expenditure of their own effort. That skill does carry forward in life and if probably useful well above and beyond the knowledge you get from your college coursework.
???
it is highly subjective and a school that might be perfect for one person would be awful for another. To some people, a huge campus like UCLA where you have to be self disciplined and focused to compete is a great place to challenge themselves and thrive academically. Others might find it difficult to learn in large classes which are often taught by a grad assistant who is still learning to teach. For them a smaller school like LMU, or Sonoma State might be a better fit; where class sizes are smaller, there’s more direct interaction with faculty, and therefore more near term accountability. . For many classes they will use the same text-book at all 3 campuses so, they essentially learn the same material, just in a different way.
Speaking as someone whose been involved in the hiring of hundreds of people over many years, your experience is WAY more important than where you got your degree. In fact, I know people who don’t like to hire from top UCs because, in their experience, the candidates feel entitled, are stressed out and don’t know how to work. My approach is more open minded. For a college hire, any accredited school is fine - I am looking for a candidate has found a way to gain relevant experience while in school, through a job, a small business they run, an internship, campus affiliated leadership activity - that kind of thing really will give them a head-start in the work world - and require less baby-sitting for the hiring manager.
"it is highly subjective and a school that might be perfect for one person would be awful for another. To some people, a huge campus like UCLA where you have to be self disciplined and focused to compete is a great place to challenge themselves and thrive academically. Others might find it difficult to learn in large classes which are often taught by a grad assistant who is still learning to teach. For them a smaller school like LMU, or Sonoma State might be a better fit; where class sizes are smaller, there's more direct interaction with faculty, and therefore more near term accountability. . For many classes they will use the same text-book at all 3 campuses so, they essentially learn the same material, just in a different way.
Speaking as someone whose been involved in the hiring of hundreds of people over many years, your experience is WAY more important than where you got your degree. In fact, I know people who don't like to hire from top UCs because, in their experience, the candidates feel entitled, are stressed out and don't know how to work. My approach is more open minded. For a college hire, any accredited school is fine - I am looking for a candidate has found a way to gain relevant experience while in school, through a job, a small business they run, an internship, campus affiliated leadership activity - that kind of thing really will give them a head-start in the work world - and require less baby-sitting for the hiring manager."
@NCalRent …completely agree with the above from this UC Riverside alumnus from way back in the day when there were only 5 thousand students (25,000 now projected at 40,000 in the future)! Smaller classes with great student/professor (not grad assistants) interaction, better financial aid (in many cases), had that “personal touch” that many UC’s lack (some of the professors would actually go to the parties back then!), down to earth, non entitled students, and just a better fit for some like myself. Enjoyed the benefits of the small campus at the time which was still part of the large University of California system which is one of the best publics in the world at any UC! Definitely shoot for the top and take into consideration the name and prestige as well, however everything above was really most important to me in my college experience. If I had to do it all over, it would have been done the exact same way. Go Highlanders!