<p>UC Davis would be another exception. Davis is the classic College Town - small town dominated by a large school, the polar opposite of a commuter school. I suspect the same is true of UC Santa Barbara, although I am less familiar with it.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know what you mean by “lack of resources.” Unless the resource you are talking about is football, the UCs I am most familiar with, UC Davis, UCSD, and UC Irvine (plus UCLA and Berkeley) are each endowed with an impressively comprehensive set of resources.</p>
<p>Well, that’s just one of the immutable laws of nature, just like the corollary that UCLA hates USC. In another news flash, Cal hates Stanford and Stanford hates Cal. Also, the Giants hate the Dodgers, and the Dodgers hate the Giants. :)</p>
<p>C’mon, people, it’s not always about academics and reputation. Sometimes, it’s just about screaming hordes of fans.</p>
<p>Not really. The perceived “neglect” is only visible because a great number of discussions are brought to this general forum by a small core of Cal boosters, who relentlessly seize any opportunity to make Cal the center of attention. To a lesser degree, this also happens with Michigan and … Duke. And, fwiw, those are the schools that seem to be most afflicted by the Ivy Envy Syndrome -a disease that seemingly causes its victims to develop a passion (or obsession) to create comparative lists and tables of mostly arcane and insignificant data, and this for the sole purpose to eradicate the great calamity that is a … perceived lack of recognition as being at the extreme apex of academic greatness. </p>
<p>If you were to take a look at the dedicated forum, you’d see the following tally:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prestige and neglect are obviously in the eye of the beholder.</p>
<p>don’t forget the USC forum which is for some unknown reason still buried in the “Alphabetic List of Colleges” under the “S” section instead of “CC Top Universities”… and yet still manages to get more posts than most schools.</p>
<p>University of Southern California ( 111,144 Posts | 10,076 Topics )</p>
<p>Depends who the audience is. Among people who know academia, certainly Berkeley is well respected. Among the man-on-the-street outside of California? Its brand identity is linked to San Francisco and sort of a “hippie/liberal” heritage (not that there is anything wrong with that). Because you’ve lived in CA and had ties there, it’s not surprising that you think that Berkeley is high on radar screens. Just like because I live in the midwest, I think that Michigan is high on radar screens, and when I lived out east, UVA and to a lesser extent UNC were high on radar screens. Again - it’s all regional when you’re talking about man-on-the-street familiarity, recognition and prestige.</p>
<p>xiggi for the win. The “ooh! ooh! what about me!” syndrome. Really, can’t people who went to good schools be content with that knowledge, without having to try to get everyone else to admit Oh Yes Your School Is So Wonderful, Everyone Should Bow to It? I mean, I went to a top 20 school, but I don’t see boosters of my school constantly starting threads to try to argue that it should be classified right next to HYPSM, or get upset because so-and-so from some other part of the country isn’t duly impressed and doesn’t bow to those who attend / attended. What ever happened to self-confidence and self-satisfaction?</p>
<p>What other state would have separate wikipedia articles for the two halves? res ipsa.</p>
<p>Because of CA’s 36 million population, six (6) of the UCs are ranked higher in the USNWR than the highest ranked Flagship in Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc.</p>
<p>Personally, I find the whole USC / UCLA trash-talk phenomenon very unappealing. It doesn’t reflect well on either school. “Good” academic schools don’t need to have anything other than friendly rivalries. It’s stuff like this which is what comes to mind outside California when USC and UCLA are mentioned. Not academics. Which doesn’t mean that the academics aren’t fine, but the top-of-mind association is going to be sports and a trash-talk rivalry, not academics.</p>
LOL on this very passionately written yet quite absurd comment. </p>
<p>Assuming you were referring to me, well, you’re wrong about me. I do not envy an Ivy school. I may admire some of them, HYP, for example, and to some extend, Penn and Dartmouth, but my admiration is far from enviousness. </p>
<p>And, btw, xiggi. Havent you noticed? You’re never gone when there’s a mention of Berkeley. In other words, you’re always there where Berkeley is mentioned. Oftentimes, your posts even exacerbate some issues which often lead to very long, quite arduous and unending discussions. So, if there’s anyone who’s been greatly affected by what you call, envy syndrome, i think it’s clear that it isn’t me.</p>
<p>This may have already been mentioned in this thread, but I have read that UCLA is not the most selective college as the OP suggests, but rather has (or had?) the most total applicants. That is, more people apply to UCLA than any other school (I believe worldwide, but at least in the US).</p>
<p>^ Yeah, just like in the UK where the University of Manchester, for example, receives something like 40k applicants annually as opposed to only around 16k applicants for the University of Cambridge.</p>
<p>The difference in “stats” between both schools is that UCLA has a larger burden wrt geographic proximity than Cal does because there are much more under-performing hss in LA County than in Alameda, where Cal is located. </p>
<p>Also, in a more general sense, both schools will be tougher in the geographical regions outside their area, and less restrictive to nearby hss. Cal would be tougher on PVPHS and PVHS rather than Berkeley or Richmond or some of the Oakland hss, or across the bay to the really good Silicon Valley hss.</p>
<p>Alexandre #7:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference in SAT’s according to Statfinder wouldn’t be 60 points in Verbal, Math, less Writing component. The difference would be closer… </p>
<p>Sentiment #9:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cal isn’t taking spring admits to “game” the system. It’s doing this because of space concerns. The “stat” differences between spring and fall admits isn’t as great as I once thought. </p>
<p>Alexandre, #10:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CDS doesn’t invoke some sort of honesty rule. Cal reports a 3.9 uw gpa for incoming frosh acc to CDS. This isn’t true. It’s probably more like 3.82-3.85 or so. UCLA’s is ~ 3.81. Note the Michigan admits from Peninsula HS (there’s actually Peninsula in San Bruno, so let’s call it PVP…). Michigan took just around everyone. UM takes just about everyone from Harvard-Westlake and Beverly High…this is the reason why so many Californians take UM’s offer of acceptance -> extremely easy in admissions for Californians and great national rep.</p>
<p>I think USC students might be more “accepting,’ because there are a lot of Bruins at USC grad schools, law, MBA (med school off campus).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA students aren’t elite in the SAT sense, compared to the nation’s top private colleges, absolutely. This is because the university, as a public, admits some students under the guise of Holistics, that show “potential,” whatever that means and aren’t up to par with the rest of the students. In fact, UCLA will admit, say, three that are top standing, but admit, say, one that has a 3.7 gpa (~ same as uw) and 1700 SAT. The more it can admit to o/s standing -> more admitted to lower standing from a diversity standpoint. This is why the “stats” to the university haven’t gone up during the wave of college-aged eligibles (on which we are now at the tail-end). Also, UCLA, generally, doesn’t value SAT as much, but admits more towards class-standing and gpa wrt the student’s native hs. </p>
<p>Regarding USC v UCLA:</p>
<p>I always thought USC took a lot of students from private secondaries to bring up its SAT means, and from public schools to pull up its mean uw gpa, without a lot of regard to uw gpa. But it’s apparent according to the three public high school listings of class rank that USC takes a good portion of ‘special admits’ from public hss also. Therefore, I question USC’s mean gpa of 3.7, mainly, mostly question the reporting > 80% t-10 of hs, and I now question it’s SAT means also by seeing some private hss listings. I don’t see how USC can have a mean SAT of significantly > 2,000. By superscoring, maybe, but generally not even then.</p>
<p>In good hss, UCLA generally has greater SAT means than USC. USC makes up the difference in bad high schools to which UCLA admits more, USC not as much or any at all, including those under-performing hss near USC”s campus. This is how USC catches up to UCLA in the quals of the frosh classes.</p>
<p>Xiggi, #16:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely…</p>
<p>But cc students have a bad reputation on cc, if that makes sense, because cc posters are biased more on elite-college admissions, which frown on cc students. The cc (and other 4-year xfer) students both Cal and UCLA admit are outstanding and have the same grad school and professional opportunities as those who entered as frosh. </p>
<p>UCLA is just trying to integrate the state’s master plan of higher education moreso and accomodate and admit ripe, ready-to-be-admitted-to-their-major students.</p>
<p>Sentiment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree somewhat to the first sentence/clause, absolutely agree with second.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl:
</p>
<p>Internationally UCLA is pretty well-known. Your statement is true for the other 49 states, for after all it is a public university.</p>
<p>“…but it’s not really known or associated with anything in particular…”</p>
<p>UCLA is known for producing a lot of professionals, = Cal, wrt Mds, maybe > attys, and a lot of bus people. </p>
<p>UCLA as well as other SoCal colleges are known for surf, though SB and SD and SC (Santa Cruz) people would say that UCLA is landlocked, being 7 miles from the Pacific.</p>
<pre><code>UCLA is known for sun also. Here’s a link to an interview w/ UCLA’s only Heisman, Gary Beban. Great 30+ minute interview; he has great stories to tell. If it’s too long to listen/watch the whole thing, then watch the first five minutes or so, showing students in the background, walking to class probably around 9AM in shorts and tees.
</code></pre>
<p>The problem with persons like yourself and others on this board is you think that college is solely about academics. True, UCLA doesn’t measure up to the true elite universities in the country, but it has other things far >>> going for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree. And opposed to sentiment’s statement taht there’s somewhat of a homogeneous nature to the schools… there really isn’t. Cal and SB are probably at opposite poles, UCLA is somewhere in between. None of the nine UC schools are at all alike.</p>
<p>It is interesting to note on the Berkeley admissions profile the statistics are for admitted freshmen, not enrolled freshmen. In other profiles I have seen there can be a difference in the scores between admitted and enrolled.</p>
First off, you clearly haven’t paid attention to Sam Lee’s posts (fervent Northwestern booster). At any rate, the reason a lot of these arguments pop up on CC is because of the acronym HYPSM. What is the need to separate these 5 universities so distinctly from the next 10-15 best universities that succeed them?</p>
<p>Outside of CC, no educated non-teenager I know uses the acronym HYPSM. Certainly, news sources and media outlets don’t worship HYPSM as some sort of holy grail.</p>
<p>RML, do you really think anyone familiar with your history might buy your “disclaimer.” Fwiw, here is a random thread that could be Exhibit XXX1 of your typical contribution. </p>