<p>
</p>
<p>To some extent, I agree with that statement. I think a person should try and go to the best school possible (on an academic level), that fits said person well, on a personal level.</p>
<p>The problem is, a lot of people completely blow-off personal fit for academic fit, pedigree, and prestige (mostly due to immaturity and inexperience). It’s the “I only have to be here four years” mentality… and I feel sorry for these people.</p>
<p>@James Madison</p>
<p>UCB beat Cal Poly on ROI. They did this regardless of their major composition via brute force of good high paying job opportunities. </p>
<p>Then how come UCLA didn’t beat Cal Poly outright like Cal ? Why is there a need for adjustment when it comes to UCLA? </p>
<p>On a separate related note for people to think about: </p>
<p>People say Cal Poly is in the middle of nowhere and is hard to have internship opportunities, and therefore hinders post-graduate job placements. Then how can we account for the good showing for Cal Poly’s ROI.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but when ~5% of UCLA students are in engineering, then that huge gap is enough to explain why SLO is a better “return on investment” according to your research. I think if you compare students in the same major and adjust for cost of living, you will find that in fact UCLA (in state) is a better return on investment, or at the very least, not worse!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, it is a big mistake to understate the importance of theory. Since for example, the principles of algorithmic complexity do not change, but the latest hottest technology such as Android come and go. Theoretical foundations are necessary and what seperates a real engineer from a technician. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…but that being said, your preference towards Cal Poly seems to be based on misinformation and anecdotal evidence. It is extremely rare at UCLA for a TA to teach a course, and the order in which you complete your major coursework should not be a big deciding factor. </p>
<p>Though the SLO degree may have some weight in california, ultimately this degree will typecast you as a 3nd tier engineer if you choose to leave the area and work in ie. the east coast. </p>
<p>And while it is ok to choose the less renowned university for personal reasons, it seems you have this unwavering belief that graduates of SLO are dramatically more prepared for the industry than graduates of UCLA/UCSD. There is no basis behind it, despite the fact that many people repeat this for no reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because UCB is better enough that even without an adjustment, it still wins on ROI. </p>
<p>Surely you realize that lumping together the entire student body and coming up with a ROI number is ridiculous, given the sheer variety of different career paths and demographics.</p>
<p>Precisely, that’s my point. UCB IS better than Cal Poly. (UCB undergrad engineering 18% of total student body)</p>
<p>Hence it is natural, UCB ROI > Cal Poly. (no problem, UCB got skills) </p>
<p>How come UCAL can’t beat Cal Poly outright LIKE CAL if, according to you, it is substantial superior than SLO?</p>
<p>UCLA Endowment >> Cal Poly
UCLA General Resources >> Cal Poly
UCLA facilities >> Cal Poly
UCLA student population size >> Cal Poly
UCLA proximity to major employers (LA)>> Cal Poly</p>
<p>And yet…</p>
<p>Cal Poly ROI > UCLA </p>
<p>(Cal Poly got skills, it beat a “superior foe” while under resourced, under men, under funded). </p>
<p>And this is not the first time, it tied with UCLA on salary for several years already, but lagged behind Cal. </p>
<p>And if Cal Poly (as a university on a whole), with a 3rd tier engineering school can beat UCLA, looks like UCLA has a HUGE problem. (12% of UCLA undergrad is engineering). So let’s not even mention UCSD, UCSB, UCD, and their step-siblings, UCM, UCR, UCSC. </p>
<p>And by your logic, Cal is definitely superior to UCLA. (UCLA needs to work on its skills).</p>
<p>So basically, by your logic, only UC Berkeley can claim the bragging right of being “better enough” than Cal Poly. Rest of the UC needs to go home and practice more, ESPECIALLY UCLA, given they are supposed to be on par with Cal.</p>
<p>I don’t understand this discussion. The engineering programs at Cal Poly vs. the UC’s are very different animals. What might be a good fit for one person at one school may be a wrong fit for someone else. I do get tired of the “prestige” factor that many associate with the UC’s as it is just not an important issue to me. Cal Poly has a well proven track record and many employers favor it over the UC’s (just as others favor the UC’s over CP). The bottom line is that prospective students should thoroughly research both types of programs and select the best fit for them.</p>
<p>Forgot to mention, if Cal Poly engineering is 3rd tier, then you must mean Caltech/MIT/Stanford is tier 1 (I can agree with that), Cal engineering must be tier 2 (if MIT is 1, I can agree with Cal being tier 2), and UCLA engineering MUST BE tier 3.</p>
<p>So looks like Cal Poly engineering = UCLA engineering</p>
<p>@takeitallin</p>
<p>I agree with you. But Jamesmadison likes to flame, so I felt the need to retort.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a rational argument. Bravo!</p>
<p>Yes, Jamesmadison, just as rational as yours. So you get your own logic now ?</p>
<p>And you didn’t even answer my questions from earlier. A lowly state school with a 3rd tier engineering school beating the mighty UCLA. How absurd?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really, Cal Poly = UCLA = U of Arizona = San Diego State = U of Wyoming… etc etc. The vast majority of ABET schools, at the undergrad level, have engineering programs of similar quality. Each school, however, will have unique strengths and weaknesses in particular areas.</p>
<p>The thing to remember is that the average Joe assumes whichever school is more difficult to get in to is automatically the better school (in this case, UCLA). In reality, this is very flawed logic. And it’s this very issue that causes so much contention in academia. Exclusivism and prestige are key.</p>
<p>@JM
Actually, I was the guy in the room with my family on Admitted Student’s Day at UCLA when the department head specifically told us that TA’s would be the parties primarily responsible for my son’s education. I heard it, we all heard it, and quite frankly, I’ll believe the professors themselves over you. Then they went on about how great the TA’s were and even broke out a pie chart of all the different countries they came from. Sorry buddy, you are mistaken.</p>
<p>Also, the order in which you complete your major coursework is a huge deciding factor. My kid was chomping at the bit to begin his engineering courses and would have shriveled on the vine if he had to wait another 2 years. Sorry, but in the case of my kid you are dead wrong. At Cal Poly he came home after his first quarter as a freshman with his hands all beat up from the machine shop and he was in heaven. He was also brought on to a supermileage prototype vehicle team and was brought to Houston for national competition as a freshman. They took 3rd place nationally beating every other California school including UCLA and UCB. Sorry, but he wanted to be thrown into his major and he got exactly what he hoped for.
Dead wrong again about Cal Poly, buddy. You wrongly assume that Cal Poly teaches little theory. This could not be further from the truth. Typically my son will take a full lecture on theory and then go into a lab to prove it. Devry and ITT Tech graduate technicians. Cal Poly graduates experienced engineers who are work ready at graduation.</p>
<p>^ That’s all folks!</p>
<p>The new Freshman Profile for Cal Poly 2013 came out today: [Student</a> Profile - Admissions - Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo](<a href=“Cal Poly Admissions”>Cal Poly Admissions)</p>
<p>Engineering Freshman GPA 4.08; ACT 31; SAT 1388 (Math & Reading only)</p>
<p>Total All Majors - Freshman GPA 3.96; ACT 29; SAT 1311 (Math & Reading only)</p>
<p>Folks, these are average stats and speak for themselves. These stats would get you into any top tier school. The kids applying for Cal Poly these days are so well qualified that they literally can go anywhere they want. Some of them had stats like my kid (4.5 GPA; 34 ACT) or even higher. Nuff said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am a graduate student at UCLA who has been a TA. I was never responsible for anyone’s education. I did teach a discussion section (typically run by TAs) where we did some practice problems, but the course is run by an instructor, who gives the lectures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if you get a full lecture on theory followed by a lab, again tell me what is it that SLO offers that UCLA doesn’t? That has been my experience at UCLA as well. There are theoretical lectures, then homework assignments, labs, and projects to solidify the concepts. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So look at this recommended course schedule for UCLA EE:</p>
<p>[EE</a> 4 Year Plan ? UCLA Engineering - Office of Academic and Student Affairs](<a href=“http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/undergraduates/ee-curricular-requirements-and-department-information/ee-4-year-plan]EE”>http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/undergraduates/ee-curricular-requirements-and-department-information/ee-4-year-plan)</p>
<p>In the first two years, you are suggested to have taken 7 EE courses, 2 CS courses, as well as some math and physics courses and electives…so you can potentially take more. </p>
<p>Once again, your preference for SLO is based on misinformation.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Both universities appear to have a similar mix of theory and application (in any case, your course selection can steer things in whichever direction you want)</p></li>
<li><p>Both universities have courses taught by instructors, with TAs only handling discussion sections</p></li>
<li><p>Both universities allow students to take engineering courses in their first year</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The only difference is UCLA has a big international reputation while SLO is unknown outside of California. So the question is: why are you so eager to believe that SLO is such a superior choice? My theory is that it is very gratifying to explain to everyone how your son chose the “underdog” university for these noble reasons.</p>
<p>^^ What are you studying @ UCLA ? What did you get your undergrad in ?</p>
<p>I went with electrical engineering, so I can’t really speak for mechanical engineering.</p>
<p>BTW there are a few big reasons why I would not recommend UCLA as a school, but they are not issues you would really be exposed to as an undergrad so I won’t go there in this thread…</p>
<p>I’d still love to still get your insight.</p>
<p>I think UCLA is a fantastic school and would definitely love to have it as a potential graduate school in the future . I don’t know if I want to go the MBA route or stick to the engineering route. Hell, I don’t know what my drive and mental game will be like after I finish my undergrads but, I’d like to hear what you have to say about UCLA.</p>
<p>Do you have any peers that came from the CSU system in your graduate program ? Any insight or trends that you’ve seen with grad school admissions at UCLA ?</p>
<p>Well, there is a lot I can say…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I suggest not going for the MBA because I have not met a single manager in my engineering career who has one. I don’t think it is useful for my industry (EE/CS). A good technical background, some years of seniority, and good people skills are all it takes to become a manager. Perhaps it is different for mechanical eng- I couldn’t say. But in any case I recommend sticking with the technical route. MBA is useful at maybe a top 10 school to get you into a finance/consulting career…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as graduate admissions, getting into an MS program in engineering is quite easy if you are willing to pay. I think the EE program at UCLA has a 50% admissions rate for masters- for domestic applicants. For international, maybe 10%, so it levels off to about 25% overall. So- if you have a GPA over 3.2, getting into UCLA or schools of similar caliber shouldn’t be that hard. I think its mainly a numbers game to get admitted. </p>
<p>Yeah, masters at UCLA can be a pain the butt. But its just 4-5 quarters, so who cares anyway. Its a very small part of your life- you just take classes and move on. PhD is a different story. While you have access to some world class research labs, you’ll find that they sometimes don’t treat their grad students so nicely, and there is a big pressure to publish papers…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually have not met a single CSU student at my UCLA grad program yet. I think simply the students who go there just don’t care about graduate school and research. I doubt its because they can’t get admitted.</p>
<p>And to the original point about SLO vs UCLA, honestly the truth is it doesn’t matter that much either way. If I were in your shoes, I would go for UCLA with my eyes closed simply because the average CSU student is weaker than the UC student and almost everyone knows this. So if you are talented enough to go to UCLA, I don’t want you to risk getting labeled as a 2nd rate engineer. </p>
<p>So in your case, since UCLA is the more well known university, its still fine to go to SLO. But understand that you are throwing something away, so make sure your reasons for doing so are very carefully thought out, and not based on a whim.</p>