<p>Cal has much better name recognition nationwide for academics. I sincerely doubt people have “not heard” of it. UCLA, on the other hand, is underrated for academics since most of its national brand is built on its basketball tradition. People consider Cal comparable to many Ivy League institutions (and it is definitely true of the grad programs); UCLA is just conceived of as a “good” state school, I would say UVA and UMich Ann Arbor are more highly regarded as public academic institutions.</p>
<p>Obviously these perceptions are a little bit different instate. </p>
<p>The biggest reason for discrepancy in applicants is that
-LA for the most part (especially the westside) is THE most desirable place for young kids to live- the only other place that compares is New York City.
-Berkeley on the other hand, is a city that is little known besides its school. And those that DO know of the city beyond the school only know it for it’s liberal radicalism; a city rundown with homeless and hippies. Norcal is dreary and unexciting in comparison to LA.</p>
<p>-UCLA has a more beautiful campus
-UCLA has a better location
-UCLA has more normal, beautiful people while Berkeley has more hippies
-Berkeley is internationally respected, which could intimidate applicants</p>
<p>^^^ You sound exactly like my son. He loves it up there. He enjoys all the interesting debates and differing points of views. He loves San Francisco and the music culture there, and really loves Berkeley and its quirky nature. He found UCLA generic and cookie cutter. He found Cal much more unique and intellectually stimulating. By the way, we live in South Orange County. He was set on Berkeley from the beginning.</p>
<p>Wow. Some people have a very mean way of categorizing students into “averageness.” </p>
<p>“Cal is more self-selecting. ‘Average’ students apply to UCLA as a reach . . .” Define “average.” UCLA is such a great school and to say that “average” students apply there as a reach simply bugs me because I’m sorry I have no clue what average is.</p>
Beauty is a subjective thing. I remember not liking UCLA’s campus because it is really small and I saw way more concrete than foliage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the problem, Orange County. I rarely hear of my fellow students complimenting Orange County. I have plenty of friends from Irvine who all say they hate the city and the county.</p>
<p>BTW LA county is indeed better than the Bay Area.</p>
<p>I’m from Orange County. I love it there. Most of my friends love Orange County. Irvine is lovely - a little too lovely (kind of the ‘Westwood’ effect, IMO).</p>
<p>I chose Berkeley over UCLA because I wanted to be in the Bay Area, not LA. I don’t like LA very much. And anyways, if I were to go to school in LA, I would have gone to USC (which has been rapidly increasing in ranking as of late) over UCLA.</p>
I’d argue Los Angeles is much more “cosmopolitan” than the Bay Area given it’s more “urban” nature and appeal as a “global” city. Los Angeles dictates “global” culture with its prominent media and entertainment industries. The Bay Area is more or less a “niche” culture as many have pointed out. </p>
<p>I somehow also have this image of bars, Hollywood fashion, and glamor in my head when I hear the world “cosmopolitan”, but that may just be from the alcoholic beverage and Cosmopolitan magazine (and, now, Las Vegas casino). -.-</p>
<p>Orange County had nothing to do with my son’s choice of Berkeley. We live about a mile from the beach and he loves it here. He didn’t like LA and he wanted a different experience from Southern California. Cal had everything he wanted - the location, academics, the vibe he was looking for, and a division one sports program. He has no problem with UCLA. It just wasn’t the right fit for him.</p>
<p>Orange County definitely has its benefits. It is a nice place to live and the freeways are much better maintained. But, it is a new, sorta sterile environment.</p>
<p>Sentiment, when I was referring to cosmopolitan, I was mainly comparing San Francisco vs. Los Angeles. San Francisco is a more densely populated urban downtown…sorta like a mini-New York with hills and trolleys. I agree that L.A. has world influence in media, entertainment and fashion…which is cosmopolitan. However, I feel San Fran, with its dense downtown, better public transportation, beautiful surroundings and top universities close by feels more cosmopolitan.</p>
<p>Silicon Valley influences world technology…but that is more of the Bay Area’s Orange County in terms of look and feel.</p>
I think what you’re describing is San Francisco’s unique vibe, but it’s not what I feel most people imagine to be “cosmopolitan”.</p>
<p>San Francisco’s well groomed gardens and trolley give it an “old-time” feel rather an “cosmopolitan” feel. Most modern cities are actually lacking in greenery. and full of steel, glass, and concrete. At their best, you get a bunch of huge LCD displays and flashing neon signs. Street cars are nothing comparable to the dark, grim, zippy underground subways of NYC. </p>
<p>Also, Berkeley and Stanford are not similar to universities of other “cosmopolitan” cities. Berkeley and Stanford are huge and located in college towns. Universities, such as NYU or Columbia, in New York have small campuses and tall buildings. While UCLA and USC might not be as academically keen, their minuscule campuses and taller buildings embody exactly how a typical university in a “cosmopolitan” city would look like.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that San Francisco isn’t a great city with many, many aspects better than Los Angeles; but there are two sides of a coin and not all “cosmopolitan” aspects are positive. When it comes to “cosmopolitan” cities such as Berlin, New York, Tokyo, or Hong Kong, Los Angeles has a greater resemblance than San Francisco.</p>
<p>Very simple answer. Berkeley is overshadowed by Stanford. No normal person would want to settle for Berkeley when an obviously better institution exists next to them. People have egos. You won’t find a lot of Stanford admits who turned it down to go to Berkeley…</p>
<p>UCLA however, you can argue that you love Socal and never want to go north. USC and UCLA are similar in prestige. So you’re arguably going for the best institution in Socal. </p>
<p>Hmm, I don’t know if this is a big factor or not but UCLA has greater media exposure than Berkeley. Many shows set in Southern California have characters who went to UCLA and I don’t really know any Berkeley grads. In other words, Berkeley may not have the “glamour” effect that UCLA has.</p>
Welll duhhhhh!!! It is because UCLA is arguably better and wayyy prettier than Berk. Berkeley is pretty much on par with UCLA, but it is located in a garbage dump. Who wants to go to school with garbage and homeless people everywhere? Also, UCLA students for some reason tend to be much more friendlier and more well kept than students who attend Berk. Oh and UCLA apparel is also much cuter than Berkeley’s apparel. And who dosen’t want to go to school in Beverly Hills?!
Yes, I am a Bruin who seriously should be sleeping right now instead of surfing College Confidential.
I’m from North Orange County, and a lot of my friends chose UCLA after Bruin Day. Many felt that UCI was too close.
I think there’s also a term called “Berkeley goggles” (UCSD has “Triton goggles” as well"), which apparently afflicts Berkeley students. As a result of a lack of attractive people, Berkeley students’ standards are lowered, and they come to see people through “Berkeley goggles”. No idea how true it is.
When the reasons to attend UCLA include the significantly cuter apparel…
I never thought people choose college based on looks. At least not those who are smart enough to get into UCLA and UCB.
At my D’s school many got into both and from those more choose UCLA. I think academically both schools are about equal with the exception of EECS and CE at UCB, but UCLA has better location.
Another myth is that UC schools coordinate admission and one cannot get into both campuses so people don’t apply to both.
