Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Well at least on college confidential. Good job guys!

By Subparasian (Subparasian) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Oh Yea! Berkeley next! =)

By Kaz (Kaz) on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit

"Well at least on college confidential."

at least? Michigan has always been and always will be the better school.

what more do u want?
:P

By Atpchik (Atpchik) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit

GO BLUE!!!

UCLA WHAT????


NO NO NO NO

U of M WILL ALWAYS DOMINATE!!

By Becks777 (Becks777) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Go BRUINS for ucla

both schools r pretty good but if i had a choice i would definitely pick UCLA

By Celerystalksme (Celerystalksme) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

unless you're going in to one of the VERY few programs for which UCLA is more highly regarded, i simply can't fathom why you could prefer UCLA...unless your a california resident, cuz that in-state tuiition is pretty nice...

By Becks777 (Becks777) on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Whats wrong with picking UCLA? Both are ranked equally right? plus there are some other advantages of going to ucla than academics too.

By Celerystalksme (Celerystalksme) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

nothing wrong with UCLA...good school...great weather. i got a chance to visit while my cousin was there.

it's can be a bit socially intimidating for some...LOTS of VERY rich kids...i mean LOTS...seems like more than half the kids there own a BMW/Mercedes/Porsche/ect. every other kid there is (or says) they're either an actor or model...lots of covermodel looking folks. so many live off-campus in luxurious condos.

and if you're not a filthy-rich/porsche-owning/cover-model-look-a-like/condo-owner...well, some of the folks treat you funny...

i'm just not a big fan of UCLA...and i honestly do not understand why they're so closely ranked with UM. on the whole, UM's programs are much more highly regarded than UCLA's by prof's and researchers i've met outside of either institution...

By Becks777 (Becks777) on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Yeah like UM doesnt have preppy rich kids

By Celerystalksme (Celerystalksme) on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 06:39 am: Edit

every school has some preppy rich kids...but ucla is in a league of it's own! the only other place that i've been to that's anything like ucla is georgetown...

don't take my word for it...just go visit...and compare it to just about any other school on the planet...

By Chitownsfnst3 (Chitownsfnst3) on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:45 pm: Edit

i don't understand why ucla and michigan are tied in the us news at 25. michigan's programs are rated higher in virtually every field (yes, undergraduate too). i would think michigan would be ranked significanly higher. ucla is a great school but it's just not at the same level as michigan.

By Celerystalksme (Celerystalksme) on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:11 pm: Edit

are you talking about US News rankings?

because i think a couple things really hurt michigan for US news rankings. their acceptance rate is extremely high...their financial resource rank is a bit low...their alumni giving rank and alumni giving rate are both sorta low...

all that is taken into consideration for their rankings.

but yes, from a purely academic point of view, UM is probably a top 10 institution. they have more highly regarded programs than just about any school in the nation save a very very tiny handful.

but don't let that fool you into thinking UM is some mecca of higher learning. like i've said many times, UM has more than its share of average and stupid kids...and nothing is handed to you on a silver platter...however, if you are ambitious, UM can provide you with an education rivaled by only a few places in the world...

By Chitownsfnst3 (Chitownsfnst3) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

but at the same time, although UCLA's acceptance rate is low, look at the stats of their incoming freshman. it's not extremely hard to get accepted, that is, if you lived in cali. one of the reasons why their acceptance rate is so low is b/c they're only allowed a x amount of out of state sudents, and they get tons of out of staters who are more than qulified, but they just don't have room for them b/c of the CA law.

michigan's acceptance rate is real high but at the same time they have about 35% out of state, and they're probably more qualified than some of the in-state students who get in basically b/c they're from michigan. michigan, overall, is more prestigious than ucla. the top undergrad public schools are michigan, berkeley and virgina. outside of the academic comparaion between the two schools (where michigan is better) michigan is the #1 research institution and they have the #2 sports teams in the nation, just to name a few. like ucla, the students are culturally diverse as well.

it's all what you put into your time at michigan, and i think you'd get more out of michigan than at ucla.

By Rmehney (Rmehney) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

I personally don't think an acceptance rate of about 46% is that "high". I mean it needs to fill it spaces with students, so why not? Would you leave an entire dorm empty so your acceptance yield could go down to say 39%? By allowing more students to attend, they are essentially ripping off more kids, so then they have the money to support their programs.

Secondly, I love when people who don't even live in Michigan talk out of their @$$ about "how easy" it is to get into if you in-state. People don't just get in because "they're from Michigan." Sure, it is easier than if you are applying as an out-of-state resident. But, that's how any state university is. Its class generally comprises of 5,000 students (with 35% or so being out-of-state + internationals only 3,000 are from MI). With that being said, I find it hard to believe there aren't 3,000 worthy enough students in the state of Michigan that could attend. Believe me, I can't say I know one clown that attends UMich undeservingly.

By Dstark (Dstark) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

My daughter has been accepted to Michigan. It is one of the best schools around. But this crap that it is not hard to get into UCLA is ridiculous. It is extremely hard to get into UCLA. http://sonicpixel.net/ahs/ucla.gif
That link is from a very good public high school (average sat score is around 1200). Below a 1350 SAT score, good luck. Oh yeah, those grades are all unweighted.

By Kaz (Kaz) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit

"That link is from a very good public high school (average sat score is around 1200). Below a 1350 SAT score, good luck. Oh yeah, those grades are all unweighted."

Umm, UCLA's average SAT is around 1265 despite its low acceptance rate. Michigans is somewhere in the 1280's last I checked, despite its higher acceptance rate.

The entire UC system gets swamped with applications because:
1) California publics are cheap
2) California is one of the most populated states in the country.

therefore, almost every graduating senior in california applies to the UC's. so of course UCLA is going to have a low acceptance rate when they get over 40k applications per year.

Michigan might have a higher acceptance %, but its applicant pool is better qualified overall as indicated by SAT averages.

Also, Michigan's awesome athletic program and its strict URM policies also have a significant effect on Michigans SAT average.

there's more to it than just acceptance rate.

By Chitownsfnst3 (Chitownsfnst3) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Rmehney.....i wasn't trying to imply that it was easy for a michigan resident to get accepted, but rather, i was just saying what you were saying, like any state school, it's generally easiER for an in state student to get in (as in mentioned about UCLA), and b/c it's harder for out of state students to get in, they're usually very qualified to attend the state university. I'm not talking out of my @$$ and i'm not trying to disrespect you. i was also saying that they can be more choosy of who they select rather than other public universities who "strictly" accept people from in-state. (not just cali schools. unc-chapel hill is like that as well)

By Chitownsfnst3 (Chitownsfnst3) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Kaz i agree with what you said.

And DStark, i know people from CA and if you're a resident and a well rounded/good student, you're in at UCLA. it's a great school but it's not impossible to get in if you're from california. if i was from california, i don't think i'd get rehjected from ucla, but b/c i'm from out of state...who knows.

By Dstark (Dstark) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Chitownsfst3, I know people from California, ... for a long time, too. I know people involved in the admissions business, too. I live in California. If it makes you feel better to believe that it is easy for well rounded students to get into UCLA, go ahead. Many people believe falsehoods. I'm not saying UCLA is a better school than Michigan. I don't think it is, but it is harder to get into UCLA than Michigan, average SAT score notwithstanding.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Since I like Michigan, I won't troll over here
but this is from Los Angeles Times
(and students mentioned here are in-state students.)


Excerpt

I was surprised," said Dollinger, 18, who figured her SAT score of 1490, A- average and rigorous course load at Harvard-Westlake in Studio City made her a worthy candidate.

Also surprised are many other high school seniors who, despite strong grades and SAT scores above 1400, are rejected by Berkeley or UCLA, the University of California's top two campuses.


Joshua Clavell, a freshman at Pomona College, was one of them. Clavell, whose father is from Puerto Rico, scored 1420 on the SAT. He figures he was turned down by UCLA .
He doubts that his high school activities ? which included playing on the football team, serving as the secretary-treasurer of his senior class, participating in a model United Nations and doing volunteer work for the American Cancer Society were seriously weighed by the UCLA admissions office.


"We have to turn away right now 76% or more of our applicants, no matter how we go about selecting" them, said UCLA's Lifka.

Lifka acknowledged that many of those turned down "could succeed here, if we had a spot for them."

Some college counselors are struck by the difference with times past. Until a few years ago, top graduates at respected private schools such as Harvard-Westlake "would have been a slam dunk" to get in to UC Berkeley or UCLA, said Edward W. Hu, who headed college counseling there for nine years.


Now 19 and a sophomore at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., Hall was denied admission by UCLA and UC Berkeley, as well as by Yale University, his first choice. He had excellent test scores. 1550 on the SAT, along with two perfect 800s and a 760 on his three SAT II subject tests (given twice the weight as the basic SAT in UC admissions).


At some top public high schools such as San Marino High in the San Gabriel Valley, rejections from UC Berkeley or UCLA are far more common than acceptances.
"For many of our Asian parents, there are really only two UCs ? UCLA and UC Berkeley," said Marilyn Colyar, San Marino's assistant principal of guidance and instruction.

But several of last year's UCLA denials surprised her ? including those of Pearl Poon, Marilynn Chan and Melissa Wang.

All three scored above 1400 on the SAT and each averaged 730 or above on her three SAT II subject exams. Their high school grades were strong too. All three elected to attend UC San Diego, although Chan, despite her rejection at UCLA, was accepted by UC Berkeley

By Celerystalksme (Celerystalksme) on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit

i've heard people in cali say that the entire UC admissions process if a friggin mystery. your credentials don't seem to have any correlcation with which UC school actually takes you. students with brilliant academics records have been rejected from ucla and berkeley while some students with subpar grades get in...

now, this actually happens at a lot of schools. but, i used to frequent a korean message board where a large majority of the board was from california. and they all swear that the entire UC admissions system is like a friggin lottery.

so i don't know what to make of the SAT scores and acceptance rates when comparing UCLA and Michigan.

not to mention that UM's numbers are quite skewed because of their now defunct affirmative action policy. about 15% of UM student body is made up of URM's...the last time UM released numbers by race, the admission rate exceeded 90% for all URM's with GPA’s above 2.8 or SAT’s over 830 (those are not typos). so if your white or asian, you probably scored above the US News published averages of admitted students...

so it's hard to compare numbers between UM and UCLA (or any two schools, really).

but as far as peer ranking for individual programs, UM FAR outranks UCLA in nearly every academic field...

i take peer rankings as a good measure of an institution (as good as anything else, at least).

BUT...UCLA is a fine institution. my cousin went to UCLA for undergrad and went to harvard medical school. he enjoyed his time at UCLA and thought it was a pretty good school!

By Becks777 (Becks777) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Haha UCLA takes over Michigan again
GO BRUINS

By Dstark (Dstark) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 08:02 pm: Edit

When UCLA's admissions come out next month, it will be over.