<p>In most academic circles, Cal is far superior to UCLA. USC is catching up on UCLA on the other hand due to their strategy to strengthen the basic science and medical departments. Traditionally USC was good at Cinema/TV, Business, Communication, Architecture, etc, which are not highly regarded in academics. Even though these departments are all top in the country, they don't do well when doing rankings.</p>
<p>large, huge ... whatever. You see what caught your eyes. You see what you are looking for. I also saw some nice cars, but I see more corolla, civics. Think about it.</p>
<p>I don't know that Cal is considered "far superior" in most academic circles. I've spent a lot of time now in academic AND professional circles, and I think that most academics don't really look at things that way. They go department by department. By that measure, UCLA is pretty competitive in most areas.</p>
<p>Berkeley still has an edge, but few serious academics are going to scoff at UCLA.</p>
<p>Definitely no one scoffing at UCLA. But Cal is top 5 in most of their ranked departments, whereas UCLA is between 10 to 20. The difference is Cal grads can go teach at Harvard, and UCLA's teach at UNC, UT-Austin and the like. </p>
<p>When you graduate and compete with Cal grads for a faculty position, you will know it.</p>
<p>13-9, nuff said ;)</p>
<p>QW553,</p>
<p>I'm a grad student and I've got more than a few friends at top PhD programs. Cal does have good placement, but you know who beats Cal AND UCLA in my field?</p>
<p>UCSD.</p>
<p>As far as grad programs go, it doesn't matter how many top 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 programs a school has. It matters what it offers you as a future academic. It means nothing to me as a PhD candidate in X if program Y is really strong. </p>
<p>Oh, and UCLA recruits new blood from all over as well. We also woo some from Ivies and Cal. So does USC. The only school that UCLA always loses to is Stanford. Good weather and better pay kills. At least with UCLA vs Harvard we can point at the almanac.</p>
<p>LaxAttack, at least Cal beat Oregon State. Besides, you lost to UCLA if I remember correctly. 44-9 Enough said. (Cal Nobel Laureates vs UCLA Laureates)</p>
<p>infearandfaith: It would be great if you could point out where I said that "everyone is wealthy". In fact, I think I remember saying something like "of course, this is not the case with everyone."</p>
<p>QW553: Not too many rich kids at USC? Name another place (other than Stanford) where you can find 39/54 cars in the parking lot that are either BMWs or Benzs. Yes, I counted.</p>
<p>UCLAri: whites were a minority at UCLA last time I checked, so I'm not sure what they could learn from USC. Are you saying less Asians should be admitted? That's the only way it could become more diverse, but in my opinion they deserve to be there. Also, Cal finally breaking a dry spell? What planet are you on? Any school that produces 3 Nobel Prize winners in one year deserves to be commended, not condemned. Berkeley has had 20 Nobel Prize Winning professors, and 24 Alumni have gone on to win that award as well. UCLA lists having 5 Nobel Laureate faculty and 4 Award winning graduates. So Cal owns UCLA in that category. USC has stats similar to UCLA, but exact figures were not available on their website. Have a little more respect now? Though I do agree with you that UCSD is a good school. Maybe not BETTER, but possibly just as good.</p>
<p>ursa: you're funny</p>
<p>side note: Last year Cal had more top ranked departments than any other school in the country. Yes, more than Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, UCSD, and USC.</p>
<p>vc08,</p>
<p>Less whites doesn't mean more diverse. More Asians doesn't mean more diverse.</p>
<p>African American: 3.0%
American Indian: 0.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 38.5%
Chicano/Latino: 15.0%
White: 34.2%
Other: 2.4%
Not Stated: 2.7%</p>
<p>International 3.8%</p>
<p>Yes, these numbers are very good. But UCLA does have trouble wooing black and Latino admits-- even they admit it. </p>
<p>And don't deign to teach me about Cal's academics. I know plenty about what goes on up there. But Cal did go through a bit of a dry spell. I don't see how this shows that I don't "respect" Berkeley. Please don't be snide and try to condescend me. It's not like I'm some dumbdumb who doesn't know what goes on in academia-- I do have a degree with another one on the way.</p>
<p>sorry, but your comment "Cal finally broke a dry spell. I don't know that you can expect a repeat performance, sadly" seemed a little disrespectful to me. Obviously if you graduated from UCLA you're smart, so I apologize if you thought I was insulting your intelligence. The reason the UCs in general have a hard time attracting more diverse races is because of them banning AA. I think most schools struggle with that though, not just CA publics.</p>
<p>vc08,</p>
<p>Cal gets nothing but respect from me. However, let's be honest here: the recent decades have been spotty relative to the golden era of the 50s to 70s. Cal will probably never have that sort of dominance again. That's not disrespectful...it's just the truth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LaxAttack, at least Cal beat Oregon State. Besides, you lost to UCLA if I remember correctly. 44-9 Enough said. (Cal Nobel Laureates vs UCLA Laureates)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please clarify....</p>
<p>Haha, sorry, I thought 13-9 was the USC over Cal football score from last season, but it wasn't, that'd be 22-9. My bad.</p>
<p>vc08, i don't think i was even replying to your post haha. I didn't even realize what you were talking about at first. I would have referred to your directly if I had meant to question something you had said, so sorry if you misunderstood my post. I also agree with UCLAri in regard to Cal, and with issues ranging from a less than pleasant college town to a crunch on housing... it definitely seems like a rebuilding era by Cal standards. When I applied to Cal, I was really impressed by its academics but there were just so many issues. I also wasn't impressed with a lot of kids I knew to be going to Cal, which isn't to be critical, merely to point out that in my mind there isn't much difference between Cal and LA.</p>
<p>I don't know much about cal, where is berkeley?</p>
<p>Here's a map, zoom in and out as necessary:</p>
<p>infearandfaith: sorry about misinterpreting your post :D. well I've been to all three schools, and IMO Cal definitely has the nicest campus. Plus, I'd take the streets of Berkeley over those of South Central LA any day. Also, again, 44 NL compared to 9 at the other schools should say a lot. I mean, they have around 4.5 times as many. Not that prestige is everything by any means, but I'm just saying that after spending a considerable amt. of time at each campus, I think Berkeley is IT. As far as it's issues, well, every school has them. It just depends on if you want to help solve or avoid them.</p>
<p>44 Nobel Laureates is misleading. </p>
<p>Should we count the Nobelists that didn't get it at Berkeley? If you do that, UCLA has a few more than most list. How about the Nobelists who only were at Cal for a short while? The ones who only go their BAs there?</p>
<p>And so what? Does a Nobel Laureate mean that you'll learn anything there? Most of the laureates aren't teaching, and even if they do, who says they really want to focus on undergrads?</p>
<p>By the way, did you know that City College of New York claims around 10 Nobelists? Would you consider City College of New York to be a better university than Brown or Dartmouth?</p>
<p>"Not that prestige is everything by any means"< ok, i said this originally. obviously there is more to a campus than NLs.</p>
<p>Also, fyi, I have a close relative who's going into his junior year at Cal (so he IS an undergraduate), and he's already had two Nobel Laureate professors, and worked closely on research with one. So the whole "Most of the laureates aren't teaching, and even if they do, who says they really want to focus on undergrads?" thing is absolute bs in my opinion. If you want to learn from them, the opportunity is there.</p>
<p>As far as CCNY, it would depend on what discipline. You made a comment earlier on how great UCSD is, and I agreed. I would choose UCSD engineering over Harvard because it has a better program. Which is also why I said it depends on what you're looking for as far as UCLA, USC, and UCB are concerned. You don't have to get all mad bc Cal has more Laureates than UCLA. I was responding to someone else's question about prestige, and that's just one factor of it.</p>
<p>vc08,</p>
<p>You're missing my point. </p>
<p>Many many more Nobelists are going to be able to avoid teaching. Also, Nobel Prize doesn't mean "good teacher" by fiat. It's an award for research, not teaching.</p>
<p>And don't assume that I'm "mad" that Berkeley has more Nobelists than UCLA. I couldn't care less. I'm trying to get you to understand that Nobelists are not necessarily a measure of a school's quality as far as undergrads are concerned. Most people are going to enter undergrad not knowing what they want with their future, and many are going to bounce around majors for a bit. The majority will change majors at least once. What difference does it make if CCNY has had 10 Nobelists if you're majoring in something no Nobel is awarded?</p>
<p>I majored in poli sci. There's no such award for political scientists. What does it matter to me if the physics department at UCSB has a good number of Nobels in its trophy case?</p>
<p>You can't look at one case (your relative) and extrapolate much, either. You should look at the average undergrad and ask what opportunities they will have. So I ask again: Would you choose CCNY over Brown or Dartmouth because of a few Nobelists?</p>
<p>Cal has a nicer campus than UCLA?! South Central also is more like USC, UCLA is in West LA and is next door to Beverly Hills and Brentwood. UCLA has a less cramped campus in my experience. My dad spent half his life at Berkeley so I've been there many times and never thought much of the town or it's proximity to Oaktown. Different strokes for different folks I guess, I've always considered Berkeley cramped and in a less than well kept area. Not terrible by any means, but outclassed horribly by say Stanford's campus.</p>