Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Are there any significant differences between the academics and ECs of UC berkeley and UCLA? Since I am an international, the location of the university does not really matter to me.

Also, how are the music at these two UCs like? How good are they? Would you be at an advantage in the application if you are really good at music, like some other schools recruits music people?

By Hwtf (Hwtf) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

berkeley is better

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 04:21 am: Edit

I'll try to be as unbiased as possible.

Both are great schools; some would argue that they are among the best in the world because they don't get enough credit in the US News Rankings because they are public universities. Whatever.

In terms of academics, both have strengths and weaknesses. I would have to say that Berkeley offers more overall (I was accepted to both schools and compared the academic curriculae extensively). If you're interested in business or engineering, Berkeley probably holds the edge. In humanities-related fields and computer sciences, Berkeley also trumps UCLA. Unless I'm mistaken, architecture is number one in the country at Cal, as are many other majors.

That isn't to say that UCLA doesn't beat Cal in certain fields. Most pre-med and biology-related fields are in most cases better at Westwood than Berkeley. Likewise for the fine arts: UCLA's music department is renowned, sometimes even considered equal to the USC music department.

The campuses are both similar and distinct. Since UCLA is in a relatively upscale part of Los Angeles (just off of Bel-Air and Beverly Hills), you're bound to catch at least a whiff of the "Hollywood atmosphere". That means white sidewalks, palm trees, and people dressed to kill. Berkeley is more urban, and, some would argue, more real. While the Cal campus proper isn't much different from many other college campuses, the surrounding area (Telegraph Ave. comes to mind) is something that UCLA can never hope to boast. So many cultures, so many viewpoints, so many oddities and spectacles. It's something of an acquired taste, I suppose, but once you do acquire it...

I would like to note that we have better food than UCLA. Likewise, our football team is ranked in the Top 10 in all major polls, while UCLA is unranked.

Unless you plan on majoring in music or participating heavily in music ensembles, I don't think that music really affects your application too much. The application process for UC's are obviously much more numbers-oriented.

Hope that helps you a bit. I don't know what you were expecting posting in the Berkeley forum...

PookyBear

By Cren (Cren) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 09:32 am: Edit

thank you for that helpful post, pookybear!
I do have the feeling that UCs are numbers-oriented, unlike some other privates; however, do you know if UCs put much emphasis on your past ECs or essays? Does essay weigh a lot? I know it certainly don't weigh as much as schools like chicago.

Also, can someone describe more about the business area/econ area? How's the classes in these areas?

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Although I attended UCLA for undergrad and thus must be a at least a little bias, no one who has ever read any of my posts can say that I have never said anything remotely bad about Berkeley. I think it is easily one of the best schools in the US. I mean, I think Cal is up there with Stanford and Harvard. OK, after I said that, now allow me to try to answer the question. Cal is the overall better school. UCLA is way up there at the top but Cal is way WAY up there! I wanted to go to Berkeley, and was in fact accepted, but chose UCLA because of its proximity to home. Ignoring social scenes, as far as undergraduate education goes, you will find that the two schools are virtual carbon copies of one another. For all intensive purposes, the credentials of the student body are equal. A VERY miniscule edge goes to Cal on this one. The classes are about the same size and the overall sink or swim philosophy is identical at both schools. There is absolutely no grade inflation at either school so they are pretty much notorious for being difficult. In other words, they are about as equal for undergraduate academics as two schools can be.

Unfortunately (for me) the name Berkeley caries more weight. Many students in California choose one over the other because of the atmosphere. The atmospheres are very different. I cannot emphasize this enough: each campus, although different, is literally bursting with excitement. I seriously wonder if any school in the US can beat either school in terms of campus excitement. If there are any, I would love to see them.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Regarding the music though, neither UCLA nor USC are really top-rated in that regard. UCLA does have a very reputated film school (though my friend, a film professor, told me it's program is actually not that great but somehow it's well-known--perhaps like a big-budget well-marketed Hollywood movie?).

Berkeley's name carries a lot more weight due to it's world-renowed GRADUATE programs even though at the undergraduate level, the difference in academic quality between the two are probably pretty small. One of the Nobel winners in physics this year did PhD at Berkeley and Berkeley's graduate programs are top-rated in many fields; UCLA is way behind at the graduate level and that explains most of the gap in reputation.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Almost every school is WAY behind Cal at the graduate level.

Yeah, 1/3 of the Nobel Prize in Physics was won by a Cal alum today. Nobel Prizes are somehow associated with Cal every year almost...well, at least in the last few decades or so. Dam!!! Cal is so freaken awesome!!!

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

I beg to differ, Stanfordalum: USC and UCLA have fantastic music schools that would easily be in the Top 10 non-specialty school list (in fact, I feel that USC offers more than even the San Francisco Conservatory or Peabody Conservatory!).

Addressing the OP, if your stats are well above the accepted standard (I'm talking above 1500/2300/4.2), I don't think they even look at the essays that much. The extracurricular activities they do look at, especially those that exhibit leadership (just like every other college).

In the areas of business and econ for undergraduates, it's pretty much accepted that Cal has the better program. As a potential Business Admin. major, I can tell you that the classes are what you make of 'em. Among other classes, you have to take Econ1 and BA10, both of which are large classes. You do your share of studying, you can easily pass. Of course, to actually major in Business (Administration), you have to get into the Haas school, and merely passing the lower division classes isn't going to cut it. You got to get A's and A-'s to have a good shot at making the cut.

PookyBear

By Sakky (Sakky) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

I have to back up stanfordalum and say that the bulk of Berkeley's prestige comes from its graduate programs, particularly its PhD programs. The Berkeley PhD programs unquestionably vie for the title of the best in the country, and certainly stack up very well with the PhD programs at Stanford, Harvard, or anywhere else. The Berkeley undergraduate program, is however, a different story. It's still good, but does not approach the strength of the PhD programs. The Berkeley undergraduate program, with perhaps a few exceptions, most notably engineering, does not stack up well with the elite undergraduate prorgams. Many people who get into a Stanford or Harvard PhD program will turn it down for a Berkeley Phd program, but far fewer people who get into Stanford or Harvard undergrad will turn it down to attend Berkeley undergrad, except perhaps to save money. Hence, I am quite comfortable with the statement that the Berkeley PhD programs are up there with Stanford and Harvard, but far less comfortable with the statement that the Berkeley undergraduate program is up there with Stanford's or Harvard's. Don't get me wrong - the Berkeley undergraduate program is still good, but it is simply not at the same level as its PhD programs.

I would also point to the phenomenom of Berkeley alums that are Nobel Prize winners. Notice that the vast majority of those Berkeley alums are alums because they got their PhD degrees at Berkeley. Few Berkeley alum Nobel laureates are Berkeley alums because they did their undergrad at Berkeley, which is even more striking when you consider the fact that the ratio of undergrads to PhD's at Berkeley is more than 5:1. If you look at the undergraduate backgrounds of Nobel Prize winners, you will notice that the bulk of them did their undergrads at the Ivies, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, ox-bridge, and places like that. Berkeley undergrad is uncommon.

Again, I would reiterate, that's not to say that the Berkeley undergraduate program is bad. In fact, it's pretty good. But to compare Berkeley undergrad to the undergrad programs at Stanford or Harvard is a bit of a stretch.

Now, to address the OP, the answer depends on what department and what major you are looking at. For certain departments, the difference is minimal. For others, like the aforementioned engineering majors, the difference is significant. I don't know if it's fair to talk about Haas comparatively with UCLA, simply because UCLA doesn't even have an undergraduate business program. {Sidebar - For those who would argue that the fact that a school doesn't have a formal program in a certain discipline automatically proves that that school is bad at that discipline, I would trot out the example of Harvard - Harvard doesn't have an undergrad business program, but does that mean that Harvard is a bad place to go to get a business career? - End of sidebar).

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit

I beg to differ, Stanfordalum: USC and UCLA have fantastic music schools that would easily be in the Top 10 non-specialty school list (in fact, I feel that USC offers more than even the San Francisco Conservatory or Peabody Conservatory!).

-----------------------------------------------

You are right about USC if you exclude the specialty schools. My mind was indeed including the specialty schools and the ones that aren't but came to my mind were Rochester, Oberlin, Yale, Indiana, and Northwestern (when I was a HS senior, I was at one point looking for a school with good science program (which I majored) and good music program (thought I would keep practicing piano). Now that I browsed for published ranking on the web, I realize USC also has a strong program.

By Cren (Cren) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 07:20 am: Edit

Wow thanks so much to you guys!

do most Cal people continue at Cal when it comes to their PhD program? Do you approxmately know whether students usually finish at least their MSc/MBA or whatever, before they come out to work?

Sounds like UCLA and Cal are two good schools with an exciting atmosphere. (Though competitive, right?) I am looking for a suitable college which has a good science program or a econ/UGbusiness program plus a good music program, although I won't be looking at specialty schools like peabody, indianna, etc.

Since I am not from the states, maybe i should share how overseas people see these two schools. People normally don't care what's provided by the school, but simply the ranking. From what I have gathered from the discussion is that UCLA and Cal are two very similar schools, but are there any special reasons why UCLA is lower in the ranking than Cal, i.e. lower not just by one or two level, but several?

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Although both have incredible faculty, Cal's faculty on average is better. Cal's faculty surpasses almost every school. The faculty at Berkeley is about as good as those at Harvard and Stanford. I think People dont like Berkeley because it is a public school. Berkeley doesnt need defense because the facts defend Berkeley. Personally, I love UCLA to death and am so dang proud of it you wouldn't believe. In retrospect, I'm glad I chose it over Cal. Still, I have to admit that while UCLA is most likely in the top 1% of best schools in the world, Cal is likely in the top 1/2%. Cal is better!

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit

does anyone else think that if berkeley admitted the same amount of people as harvard or stanford, it would be alot harder to get into then those two schools.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

That’s an interesting point. I have been saying things like that about Cal and UCLA for quite some time now. I am going to use UCLA because as an example but Cal would work fine too. In 2003, UCLA admitted 10,581 students out of a pool of 44,994. The average SAT score was 1332. Harvard admitted 2,094 out of a pool of 20,897 applicants. The average SAT score was 1485. Lets assume a uniform distribution of SAT scores for each school and also assume that SAT measures the quality of the student. Of course keep in mind that these are merely assumptions. Anyways, if UCLA picked only Harvard caliber students it would only pick the top 10.1% (i.e. 4,540 students with an average SAT score of 1485) but Harvard would have a 10.0% acceptance rate. Harvard wins but only by a tenth of a percent. Not only that, UCLA would admit over twice as many students. The problem is that UCLA continues to admit more and more students so that the average SAT goes down. To answer your question, it would be just as hard to get into UCLA as it would be to get into Harvard. If UCLA only admitted the number of students that Harvard did, UCLA would be more difficult to get into.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

Shyboy13,

That UCLA and UCB have that high number of applicants is closely related to the fact that they are PUBLIC universities in California and the fact that California has a huge population! I didn't attend high schools in the US but if I am not mistaken, it's very rare not to apply to them if you are a California resident and have a decent (doesn't have to be extremely stellar) academic record, not only because they are good universities that are close to home but also, more importantly, because the IN-STATE TUITION is just a lot lower than typical private ones(around 90% of the applicants are Cal residents). Now you turn around to say IF they were to admit the number of Harvard/Stanford (while still holding them public???), it would be blah blah blah...? Well, just keep in mind you can't hold one thing constant while changing another when in reality those things are interrelated. Imagine what would happen if Stanford were to have low in-state tuition for Cal residents? Also if Harvard were to use the more mechanic evaluation that public universities use, its average SAT would likely be higher than 1485 or whatever because Harvard could easily fill half of its class with 1600 if it wants to. But to them, the ones with 1500 and the ones with 1600 are virtually identical and they put more emphasis on other achievements/personal things to distinguish one from another.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

I need to correct myself. The 10.1% of Harvard quality applicants that UCLA accepts makes UCLA WIN by .1% not lose like I said earlier. Still, that tenth of a percent is virtually meaningless; 10.1% and 10.0% are basically the same.

"That UCLA and UCB have that high number of applicants is closely related to the fact that they are PUBLIC universities in California and the fact that California has a huge population!"

That does not affect the data nor the "quality" of student metric that I used. In fact, it does not change the model in any way.

Stanfordalum, Socalnick asked a question and I answered it. So, you can get mad at the conclusion all you want but mathematically it is correct. Notice I tried to be fair even though I could have been bias; i.e. I could have just compared the average SAT scores of those that theoretically would accepted to UCLA IF they only accepted 2,094. This would make UCLA much harder to get into (4.7% acceptance rate and average SAT of 1572). Instead, I held size of application pool constant. Now, we both know, as I stressed earlier, that SAT scores of admitted students are most likely not uniformly distributed nor is SAT score in any way a true measure of a students "quality." I used these metrics for ease of computations, lack of information, and comparability.

Stanfordalum, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my analysis. The only thing that can be argued is that this is only a theoretical model. The fact is that Harvard (and Stanford) is more selective than UCLA (and Cal). I was only analyzing the data. That is much different than what you suggested because you want to create scenarios that do not exist (e.g. if Stanford was less expensive) whereas I concluded something based on existing, although incomplete, data.

Let me repeat myself so that I don’t make everyone mad at me. It is a fact that Harvard (and Stanford) is more selective than UCLA (or Cal). The scenario that I suggested based on data does not exist in this world.

Socalnick, Did I answer your question?

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

"Stanfordalum... So, you can get mad at the conclusion all you want but mathematically it is correct...."

I think my reasoning was pretty clear and laid out in a rational manner. I don't think I reflected any anger.

"I could have just compared the average SAT scores of those that theoretically would accepted to UCLA IF they only accepted 2,094. This would make UCLA much harder to get into (4.7% acceptance rate and average SAT of 1572). Instead, I held size of application pool constant."

Actually I think even if you just compare the top 25% of UCLA class with Harvard as a whole, Harvard's students are still of better quality. As I said before, Harvard rejects a lot of those with 1600s also. I bet quite a few of those with high SATs (but lack stellar ECs/national awards) in UCLA are actually Harvard rejects. Prove me wrong if you can, but I've almost never seen any high school senior winning top national awards pick UCLA (money usually not an issue anymore since the awards include good chunk of scholarship), instead their choices are usually limited to HYPSMC. The fact that Harvard's undergrads are frequent finalists of Putnam, Fulbright, Rhodes, Marshall..etc while UCLA's aren't (despite of UCLA's much larger population) seems to support my point also.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

Stanfordnualum, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Have you even read any of my posts? Why must you continue to imply that I am saying that UCLA is as good or selective as Harvard when I thought I explicitly said the opposite a number of times. All I did was answer a question posed by Socalnick and you obviously don’t like the outcome. Let me summarize my analysis once again. If, given certain assumptions, UCLA were to accept the number of students that Harvard did, UCLA would be more difficult to get into. If UCLA were to admit twice as many students as Harvard, UCLA would STILL be harder to get into. If you continue to come out of left field with strange responses I will not respond to them. Obviously, since you attend(ed) Stanford, you must be intelligent so I expect some type of intellectual responses from you. Let me say this one more time: Harvard is more selective than UCLA!!! Also, so that I am not mistaken by anyone else, allow me to say this: Harvard is a greater university than UCLA!

Now, if you don’t understand that, there is nothing I can do for you.

“Actually I think even if you just compare the top 25% of UCLA class with Harvard as a whole, Harvard's students are still of better quality.”

UCLA has 25,328 undergrads with the SAT middle percentile range of 1160-1410. Therefore, 25% of UCLA undergrad population has a SAT score of somewhere between 1410-1600. 25% of 25,328 is 6332. That is pretty darn close to the entire Harvard undergrad population of 6,684. The average Harvard admit had a SAT score of 1485 in 2003. Since we only have a range for the upper 25th percentile of UCLA admits, it would be ok to assume the average SAT score for them is the average of the upper and lower range, i.e. 1505. 1505 is pretty darn close to 1485 isnt it? In fact it is 20 points higher. If we assume they are equal enough, we can safely say the top 25% of UCLA students, which is pretty close to the entire Harvard undergrad population, is pretty darn close in quality to Harvard’s student population.

Summary: you were wrong when you thought the top 25% of UCLA students were of lower quality than those at Harvard. They are just about equal. Don’t worry though. You are only human and humans are sometimes wrong.

Note: I think SAT scores mean very little. I don’t think they measure the quality of the student at all. I am just using SAT scores because they are the only comparable metric.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 02:52 am: Edit

Shyboy13,

First of all, you need to chill and breath some fresh air.

"Stanfordnualum, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Have you even read any of my posts? Why must you continue to imply that I am saying that UCLA is as good or selective as Harvard when I thought I explicitly said the opposite a number of times."

I didn't continue to imply that. Relax and don't get frustrated. What I said was even if you took the top 25% of UCLA students, they were still of lower caliber which you disagreed:

"you were wrong when you thought the top 25% of UCLA students were of lower quality than those at Harvard. They are just about equal."

You seemed to understand I was using a subgroup (top 25%) of UCLA's yet you felt I continued to talk about UCLA as a whole? Interesting!

"Let me summarize my analysis once again. If, given certain assumptions, UCLA were to accept the number of students that Harvard did, UCLA would be more difficult to get into. If UCLA were to admit twice as many students as Harvard, UCLA would STILL be harder to get into."

Your little analysis is flawed and it's not difficult to see. What you are saying is if UCLA has the same (or roughly the same cos 10%, 11%, 12% are close enough to me) acceptance rate as Harvard (around 10%), UCLA's students would be just as good as Harvard on average. We all know that's unlikely true simply because Harvard's applicant pool is a lot stronger. I think you just hit a blind spot. With some thinking, I think you'll figure out where your flaw comes from.

This has been fun!

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit

“You seemed to understand I was using a subgroup (top 25%) of UCLA's yet you felt I continued to talk about UCLA as a whole? Interesting!”

Yes, at that point in your post you were talking about a subgroup. Like you say, I did understand that. That does not mean that the remainder of your posts addressed the issues I presented.

“Your little analysis is flawed and it's not difficult to see. What you are saying is if UCLA has the same (or roughly the same cos 10%, 11%, 12% are close enough to me) acceptance rate as Harvard (around 10%), UCLA's students would be just as good as Harvard on average. We all know that's unlikely true simply because Harvard's applicant pool is a lot stronger. I think you just hit a blind spot. With some thinking, I think you'll figure out where your flaw comes from.”

Now at least you are understand what I was saying. The problem is that you failed to read (or understand) how I came to that conclusion. In fact, I did take the quality of the applicant pool into consideration. I really do not want to repeat myself especially if you will not read it anyway. Read it again. If you do not understand math, I’ll walk you through it.

Due to the assumptions, the model may not be perfect but you cannot argue with the outcome.

Seriously, you should read and analyze the things that people say before you respond to them.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit

My major was chem engineering; I am not IMO finalist but I did get 800 on SAT math. I think my math is pretty okay. Thanks for wondering.

"If, given certain assumptions, UCLA were to accept the number of students that Harvard did, UCLA would be more difficult to get into."

I was just trying to let you reinspect those assumptions behind your math (cos I was not sure if you were aware of them) and see if they make sense. Why do you need to make extra assumptions other than "if UCLA were to accept 10-12%"? Anyone can make a list of assumptions and a local community college could look as good as Harvard; but what's the point of that exercise? What good is a "model" if it competely defies reality?

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:46 pm: Edit

"I was just trying to let you reinspect those assumptions behind your math (cos I was not sure if you were aware of them) and see if they make sense."

They make perfect sense. How could I not be aware of them if I am the one who assumed them.

"Anyone can make a list of assumptions and a local community college could look as good as Harvard; but what's the point of that exercise? What good is a "model" if it competely defies reality?"

I WAS ANSWERING A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!! I already said that this is not reality. In fact, here is my exact quote:

"The scenario that I suggested based on data does not exist in this world."

Seriously, I am finsished responding to you. I have faith that most of the readers understood the point (especially Socalnick). I still dont think you read/understood my posts. Say whatever you want, I will not respond unless I read something intelligent.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

"How could I not be aware of them if I am the one who assumed them."

Well, you don't seem to understand why your assumptions are invalid. Here's is one of the examples:

Your wrote, "UCLA has 25,328 undergrads with the SAT middle percentile range of 1160-1410. Therefore, 25% of UCLA undergrad population has a SAT score of somewhere between 1410-1600. ....Since we only have a range for the upper 25th percentile of UCLA admits, IT WOULD BE OKAY TO ASSUME the average SAT score for them is the average of the upper and lower range, i.e. 1505."

It's actually NOT okay. If you don't why, perhaps you may want to review some fundamentals of statistics. This is sorta related to what I said about you not fully taking the comparative strength of two applicant pool into consideration even you thought you did. I am sure some of the readers can help you.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I don't want to get into the stanfordalum/shyboy13 scrum except to say that I'm not sure that I agree with the notion that people don't like Berkeley because it's a public school. While I can only speak for myself, but what I can say is that I have nothing but respect for the Berkeley PhD programs, and the last time I checked, they were public. I also have respect for the Haas School of Business, the Berkeley School of Engineering, the Boalt Law School, and the chemical engineering portion of the Berkeley College of Chemistry, and they're public too. And on a wider note, I have tremendous respect for all the UC medical schools, many of the PhD programs at the UC's other than Berkeley, the UCLA law school, UCHastings Law School, the graduate vet school at UCDavis, and the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. Last time I checked, they were all public.

To me, whether you're public or private has nothing to do with it - if you're top-notch, then you're top-notch. If you're not, then you're not. You can be both public and top-notch. Again, look at the Berkeley PhD programs. Look at the UCSF Medical School.

Now let me answer Cren's last post.

First of all, no the majority (meaning over 50%) of Cal students do not finish their PhD's. In fact, only a small percentage of Cal students ever get their PhD's. True, more students from Cal attend PhD programs than from any other undergraduate school, but this is a strong function of the size of the Berkeley undergraduate population.

Furthermore, if you ask of among those Cal students who do decide to attend PhD programs, whether they choose to do so at CAl, the answer is again, no.

First off, many Cal PhD programs specifically will not admit Cal undergraduates as a matter of policy. The chemical engineering PhD program at Cal, is an example of this. Lest you think that this is odd, keep in mind that many other departments at many other schools do the same. For example, it is practically impossible to get admitted to the MIT PhD chemistry program if you were an MIT chemistry undergrad (although many other departments at MIT welcome former MIT undergrads). The philosophy seems to be that if you already went to a certain school for undergrad, then you would end up seeing many of the same profs as a grad student and that would not be an enriching experience.

Second of all, let's face it, in most cases, the Berkeley PhD programs are far more elite and selective than the corresponding Berkeley undergraduate major, and consequently many Berkeley undergrads are simply not qualified to get into the corresponding Berkeley graduate program. For example, the Berkeley PhD program in sociology is one of the best in the country, yet a lot of Berkeley sociology undergrads are quite honestly not very good, and certainly not good enough to get into that PhD program. I don't want to be overly harsh, but the sociology undergrad major at Berkeley is widely considered to be one of the "cheesy" majors for people who just don't want to study very hard, and just want to get an easy degree. I've heard many former Berkeley engineering students complain that engineering is just too hard so now they're studying sociology, but I've never heard a former sociology undergrad complain that sociology was too hard, so now they're in chemical engineering. It just doesn't happen. I've heard many Berkeley undergrads say that they're going to load up on extra sociology classes to raise their GPA. Who's ever heard of an undergrad loading up on extra chemical engineering classes to raise their GPA?

And no, it is also not true that most Cal students leave with at least their MS or MBA before they get out. This is most obviously true with the MBA. The MBA program at the Haas School is one of the finest in the country, and it is generally understood that it is practically impossible to get admitted to a top-flight MBA program without substantial work experience.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Stanfordnualum, now that I think you are actually reading my posts, I think it is ok to respond. If you are who you say you are, i.e. a mathematically gifted person, and I’m going to assume you are, I will feel comfortable discussing mathematical issues with you. I will assume here that I was unclear in my description of the methods of analysis of the data I have been analyzing. Ok, if we do not know the moments of a distribution, as we do not know the moments of the distribution of UCLA admit SAT scores, is it not perfectly acceptable say the expected value is the average of the upper and lower limits of the range? That is precisely what I did. In other words, I assumed a uniform distribution. Now, I am aware that I never explicitly explained all of that but perhaps I presupposed a lot of basic statistical knowledge on the part of the readers. I take responsibility for not being crystal clear.

“This is sorta related to what I said about you not fully taking the comparative strength of two applicant pool into consideration even you thought you did.”

On the contrary, the only data I used was SAT score data of those admitted, the relevant applicant pool size, and the percentage of applicants accepted. The SAT data I used was only of those admitted. The quality of the rejected portion of the applicant pool is irrelevant. The only important portion is that of those accepted.

Sakky, I am aware that you don’t disrespect Cal simply because it is public. I understand everything you say and, although I disagree with most of it, you generally have reasons based on logic so I don’t really have problems with them. I was talking about other people. Even you have to admit that there exists a large set of people who feel that public schools are inferior simply because they are public.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 02:40 am: Edit

"In other words, I assumed a uniform distribution."

That's a bold assumption because we all know it's a lot harder to get 1500+ than 1400+. In fact, uniform distribution is rarely the model of choice because most variables in real life don't follow that. Instead, most real life variables such as test results (given enough number of test-takers), follow normal distribution. It's better to assume normal distribution for the SAT scores among all UCLA's admits and we are talking about the right-end (in our case, top 25%) of the curve. Under this model, substantially more are in the 1410-1450 than 1450-1500; a lot more are in the 1410-1500 range than those in the 1500-1600 range; hence the average would definitely be(significantly) below 1505 and what it would be exactly depends on the spread of that normal distribution curve.

By Cren (Cren) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:00 am: Edit

Wow I really didn't know that some PhD prpgrams specifies that UG students of the same program can not apply to the PhD program! How about if there is an excellent UG student in a specific Cal UG program, and would get into some other stronger, if not equal PhD programs, can he/she apply to Cal PhD program?


Do you apply to Haas after you get into Berkeley? How hard is it to apply to Haas after you get in?


Stanfordnualum and shyboy13, I didn't mean to bring up a discussion which has led to such a "heated" (maybe?) discussion? But that has certainly make me understand more about the applicant pool of Cal and the few Ivies mentioned!

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 10:52 am: Edit

Cren, consider this quote from the Berkeley chemical engineering department:

"Q. My undergraduate degree is in chemical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. I have such happy, fond memories of the department that I cannot bear the thought of pursuing graduate studies away from Cal. Can I go to Berkeley for graduate school, too?

A. Although nearly all of the best chemical engineers are Berkeley graduates, this department, like most other top chemical engineering departments, feels strongly that its' undergraduates are better served by pursuing graduate studies in a new and different environment. Thus, unless you have obtained a degree elsewhere or have substantial industrial experience since you graduated from Berkeley, we will not admit you to the department for graduate work."

http://cheme.berkeley.edu/grad_info/faq.html


Now again, like I said, the policy varies from department to department. Some departments at Berkeley welcome former Berkeley UG's. Others do not.

I'm also not sure what exactly you mean by applying to Haas after you get into Berkeley. If you're talking about the Haas UG program, then the answer is that once you get admitted to Berkeley as a freshman, you have to apply to Haas as a junior, and there is the significant chance that you will not get into Haas, for the competition is brutal. Or you can apply directly as a junior-transfer from another college, but that's not exactly a walk in the park either.

If you're talking about the MBA program at Haas, then that's a different story entirely. Any serious candidate to the MBA program should have extensive work experience.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit

And to shyboy13, I would say that if a lot of people think that public schools are bad simply because they're public, well, I'm not saying they're right, but I think we can agree that there is some justification for them in thinking that. Let's face it - public schools are, on average, less selective and do not offer as strong of an education as do private schools. Take Berkeley, one of the best public schools in the nation. If you meet a Berkeley alum, then odds are that that person is an alum of the Berkeley UG program (because Berkeley UG's outnumber Berkeley graduate students by a ratio of about 4:1), and I think we both agree that Berkeley UG's, with perhaps some exceptions (engineering, bus-ad, some sciences), are on average not as good as the alums of the top-ranked private schools like Stanford's. However, Berkeley alums of the graduate schools are as good as the alums of the private schools, but they are swamped by the huge numbers of former Berkeley UG's.

And that's just talking about Berkeley, which is a quite good school. Think about all the other mediocre public schools around and the vast numbers of not-so-good students they have.

The fact is, private schools, on average, do hold an edge over public schools when it comes to quality. That's not to say that certain public programs aren't very good (again, the Berkeley PhD programs are indisputably top-notch), but on average, they aren't completely competitive. Of the truly elite UG programs, I would have to say that all of them are private, and none of them are public.

So I agree with you that in America, a lot of people think that public schools are bad just because they're public, and that's obviously wrong, but it is not totally unjustified that they think that way. Let's face it - there really are quite a few public schools that have lots and lots of mediocre and less-than-mediocre students.

Contrast this situation with what happens in other countries. In certain other countries like France or Germany, public higher education is tremendously well respected. The Ecole system and the University of Paris systems of public schools in France are the most respected schools in France. Public higher education is far more respected than private higher education in France. I believe the reason is simple - in France, the public college system is of higher average quality than the private system. Public universities in France tend to be more selective and tend to have more resources per capita than do private colleges. Some exceptions exist, obviously, but the general rule holds.

To me, the point is simple. You can't get something for nothing. If a school is less selective and provides less resources per student, then it's not going to be as high of quality than a school that is more selective and that offers more resources per capita, and people are inevitably going to pick up on that fact.

By Cren (Cren) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Thanks for that information Sakky!

Regarding the Haas question, I was asking about the UG business program. I guess it is first getting into the college, then apply to Haas as a junior, right?

Haha these systems are confusing me (but better than the systems I have in my country) hhaha

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Stanfordnualum, now you are showing some reasoning skills. I wish you could have done this sooner because then perhaps this discussion wouldn’t have carried on for so long. You are correct when you imply that the probability is low that the distribution is not uniform. I agree but then again we don’t know if the distribution appears normal either. I wish I had the moments of the distribution…no…actually, I wish I had all of the raw data so that I could not have to use statistics at all. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to such information. Of course this model is not perfect, I never laid claim that it was perfect. Like I said, SAT scores do no measure the quality of the student either. I just used that metric because of its ease of comparability. Socalnick asked a question and I answered it using the incomplete information I had.


Even though I shouldn’t do this, I would like to tackle your notion of the model being completely bogus because of the false distribution factor. Remember I called the quality of the students “equal” even though UCLA had Harvard beat by 20 points? The reason was that I knew the model was not perfect so I was not going to get “nit picky.” But, if we consider the possibility of the distribution being normal, then there is a positive probability that my conclusion of UCLA’s slight superiority in that respect is invalid. But notice I now have a 40 point buffer for error. Look, if I concluded that 1505 is equal to 1485 then we also must be able to say that 1485 is equal to 1465. Therefore, I could have overestimated the number by 40 points and still be in good shape.

Since you don’t like my analysis, let me just give numbers. You questioned the quality of the top 25% of UCLA students compared to Harvard’s entire student body correct? Well, in 2003, 25% UCLA students scored above 1410. 75% of Harvard students scored at least 1400. Those are the numbers.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

"Stanfordnualum, now you are showing some reasoning skills. I wish you could have done this sooner because then perhaps this discussion wouldn’t have carried on for so long."

-------------------------------------------------
Sorry I didn't lay out everything in my head sooner cos I was curious about your analytical thinking and wanted to let you reexamine those assumptions on your own. Thanks for showing good understanding of two models and the limiting of them..etc. I got no further comments.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit

To Cren:

If you enter Berkeley as a freshman, then, yes, you would then have to apply to Haas as a junior, and there is no guarantee that you will get in. So there is the distinct possibility that you will be forced to study something else.

Here are the latest statistics. About 53% of continuing Berkeley students (meaning those who came into Berkeley as freshman and are hence not direct transfers) who applied to Haas won admission to Haas. And of course this does not include those Berkeley students who originally wanted to go to Haas but did poorly enough that they didn't bother to apply to Haas because they knew they weren't going to get in anyway. The point is that it is a long and tough road for incoming freshman to get into Haas, with no guarantees. I would argue that the vast majority of incoming freshman who get into Haas never make it. After all, 47% of those who ultimately apply are rejected, and like I said, that doesn't include those students whose freshman and sophomore grades were so poor that they didn't bother filling an application. I don't know how many of those students exist, but I have a feeling that there a lot of them.

Transfer applications to Haas are, however, a bit different. Transfer admissions work like transfer admissions at most other schools - you apply to transfer in as a junior from another school. Here are the statistics. This is certainly no walk in the park either - less than 20% of transfer applicants are admitted.

http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/Undergrad/statstransfer.html

Personally speaking, I think the way that Haas runs its undergraduate program, with an "extra" admissions program, is too harsh. Don't get me wrong - I have tremendous respect for the program itself. But I have never liked the way it runs its admissions process. You always end up with a lot of guys who come to Berkeley hoping to get into Haas to study bus-ad, and then not making it in, so now they're stuck doing a major they don't really want to do, at a school they don't really want to be at. So you basically end up stringing people along, forcing people to waste their time, only to tell them at the end that they're not going to get in. IMO, if you're going to reject a student, I think it's far more compassionate to reject them as early in the process as possible so that they can then pursue other options. That's how UPenn/Wharton and MIT/Sloan run their undergraduate programs, and I think that's more compassionate.

Now at the risk of wading into a field of bullets, let me involve myself in the shyboy13/stanfordalum scrum here and say that while I tend to agree with shyboy13's arguments that the top 25% of UCLA's students may indeed be equal, at a purely academic level (although probably not at an extracurricular level) with the entire Harvard student body, I believe that at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. For the purposes of company recruiting, for the purposes of graduate-school admissions, for the purposes of anything that matters, a UCLA student is inevitably going to be lumped together with all other UCLA students, both the top ones and the bottom ones. While we can all think of some UCLA students who are very strong, we an also think of other UCLA students who are quite mediocre.

Nor is it easy to stratify the good UCLA students from the bad ones. You might reply that a company recruiter can tell a good student from a bad student just by looking at his grades. First of all, that presumes that the recruiter is going to want to take the time to look at the academic records of the 2 students, and that is by no means certain. That's an extra investment of time that a recruiter has to undertake, and recruiters don't want to do that unless they have a high percentage chance of getting aa good employee. Let's face it - it's easier for a company recruiter to simply hire a random Harvard graduate rather than sift through the academic records of a whole bunch of UCLA graduates, just to find the best 25%. Second of all even with grades, it's difficult to figure out who the top 25% really is. As we both know, certain classes, and heck, certain majors are simply easier to get top grades in than others. Is a guy who graduated with a 3.5 in Speech/Communications Studies or World Arts + Cultures really better than a guy who graduated with a 2.5 in Chemical Engineering? Who knows? Again, it's simply easier for a recruiter to simply recruit at Harvard than to try to sit down and figure out who really are the top students at UCLA.

Ultimately, the fact is, while there indeed are plenty of good students at UCLA, the mediocre students at UCLA ruin it for them. People know full well that while there are quite a few good students at UCLA, there are also lots and lots of not-so-good ones, and since it's not easy to figure out which is which, recruiters have a disincentive to play. This is the 'sorting' problem - it's difficult to sort out who is good and who isn't.

Again, that's not to say that UCLA is a bad school. Not at all. In fact, on the whole, it's a quite good one. But what is indisputable is that the quality of your average student matters. If the quality of the average student at school X is lower than that of school Y, then people are going to prefer to recruit at school Y, if for no other reason, then to dispense with the sorting problem. That's not to say that they won't recruit at School X at all, just that they prefer to recruit at School Y. If School X wants to be fully competitive with School y, then that means that school X will have to raise the quality of its average student.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Sakky Sakky Sakky!! It seems as though not a week goes by without having a week long debate with you. Dang, do I really want to do this?

Ok, here it goes. Actually, I agree with just about everything you said so hopefully there will be no need for a heated battle. The average Harvard undergrad is in fact of higher quality than the average UCLA undergrad. But with the average UCLA freshmen in 2003 having 1332 SAT score, in my personal opinion, that does not make the average UCLA student “weak.” I’ll leave that alone for now because if I’m not mistaken, we have covered that issue before and I know full well that an average SAT of 1332 is not as good as other schools average. Besides, I refuse to argue for something I disagree with. My point is that you made good points.

“Again, it's simply easier for a recruiter to simply recruit at Harvard than to try to sit down and figure out who really are the top students at UCLA.”

What I want to add is a comment of sorts. See, I live in Southern California and the truth of the matter is that there are just not that many Harvard graduates around here. Companies in most cities draw from the local talent pool. I interviewed with a company in Ohio and almost everyone there was from Ohio State. Most graduates from Harvard tend to stay on the East Coast if I’m not mistaken. Now, I know good and well that the best companies on either coast do not limit themselves to local talent. Some great East Coast companies, for example, recruit at both UCLA and USC. In other words I know that local recruiting is not the only way to go. I also know, because I am not stupid, that employers tend to like Harvard grads because there is a good possibility that a person from Harvard is quite bright. I am not arguing that. What I want to say is that by and large, local talent tends to stay local. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why East Coasters tend to disrespect schools like Cal and UCLA; they probably don’t know much about them. The point of all this is that it may not be “simply easier” to recruit way across the country if there are quality students not far away from the work site. Theoretically that may be true if we hold search costs constant but in the real world we know there are search costs.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 01:14 am: Edit

Shyboy13, have we ever had a heated battle. There is a big difference between the civilized discussions that I have with people like you, kryptic, calkidd, tavalich, and some of the other people here, and the verifiable bad blood that I have with certain other people. While I may not agree with what you and those other people say, we at least have respect for each other's opinions. That's a far far cry from certain other people here on CC who shall remain unnamed who I have lost respect for. Personal insults, insinuations that unless I absolutely say that school X is perfect, then I must be a bitter reject of that school, and other such bullshi* like that. Believe me, what we have is not heated.

Now I agree with you that there is no doubt that companies tend to recruit locally. Hence, it is obviously true that if you are looking at employers in SoCal, you are going to find lots of UCLA graduates, simply because there are boatloads of them around.

However, as I can tell you have an economics background, I'm sure you know full well that the price of any good is not determined by demand alone, but is also determined by the supply. There is no such thing as the Law of Demand, there is only the Law of Supply and Demand. So a Socal employer might demand more UCLA graduates, but the fact is, since there are so many more UCLA grads around (hence, the supply is larger), the greater supply swamps the greater demand. One the other hand, there may not be a whole lot of demand for Harvard graduates within SoCal, but on the other hand, there are so few Harvard grads around that the constrained supply makes up for the constrained demand.

So when you say that there may not be many Harvard graduates around SoCal, I don't see that as a bad thing for those that do happen to be there. On the contrary, I would see that as a good thing. Let's face it - the value of a "luxury" good like a Harvard degree is determined by how few other people around you have it. Around Boston/Cambridge, lots of people are Harvard graduates, so you being one isn't all that special. If you own a Porsche, then you want to be the only one around who owns a Porsche. You don't want everybody and his brother to also own a Porsche. Part of the value of the Harvard degree is precisely because so few people have it.

Lest you disagree, I would again point to the old mental exercise that I proposed a while back. Take a bunch of UCLA graduates who work in SoCal, and ask them whether, if they were being perfectly honest, would they trade their UCLA degree for one from Harvard. Now ask the same question from one of the few Harvard graduates that work in SoCal. I think we would both agree that more UCLA graduates would rather be Harvard graduates than vice versa, even if they are working in SoCal. What that shows is that even those many UCLA graduates who stay in SoCal and are potentially taking advantage of the UCLA-network believe that the Harvard network within SoCal, is better. I know quite a few UCLA grads who work in LA who say that they would have liked to have gone to Harvard if, for no other reason, to join the Harvard Club of Los Angeles because, quite honestly, that's where a lot of business deals are conducted. This is particularly true for certain SoCal'ers who intend to live their whole lives in Los Angeles, went to UCLA for undergrad, work in LA, and basically do everything in LA - with one major exception. They spent some years in Cambridge MA, getting graduate degrees from Harvard. How many Bostonians will say that they want to live, work, and die in Boston, except for spending a few years getting a degree from UCLA?

And finally, I think your point of East Coasters not respecting schools like UCLA is a telling one. I believe you contend that part of the reason for the lack of respect is simply because East Coasters don't see many UCLA grads and so don't know much about them, and hence that tends to create disrespect. But I would turn that situation around. You said it yourself - there aren't a lot of Harvard graduates in SoCal. And since you said that if people don't see many graduates of a particular school, then they would tend to disrespect that school, then doesn't that mean people in SoCal would tend to disrespect Harvard? Yet I think we'd both agree that it would be difficult indeed to find a lot of people who live in SoCal who think that Harvard is not a respected school. Maybe Harvard is a resented school (particularly for Harvard's reputation for arrogance which is a somewhat justified reputation), but certainly not disrespected. In fact, there seems to be plenty of justification for the notion that the Harvard name actually becomes MORE powerful the farther you are Boston, simply becaus the farther you are, the fewer Harvard graduates there are around, and so the vaunted Harvard mystique begins to take over. But the point is that it seems to me that there is an easier explanation at foot here. The reason why the Harvard reputation "travels" better than the UCLA reputation is simply because, well, Harvard is a better school. I know that might be blunt, but I think it's hard to argue that this is not the truth.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Sakky, I was half joking about the heated argument thing. I have said many times that I respect you because of your logic, intelligence, and most importantly your lack of immaturity. I have learned to ignore many people on this site because of name-calling and/or lack of reasoning skills. At first I took it personally but I eventually learned the fact that there are a bunch of high school kids on this site. I cannot expect anything more from them. Then there are some downright stupid people who actually make themselves look bad in a public forum.

Of course Harvard is a better school. Harvard is arguably the best school in the world. For me to argue that UCLA is, as a whole, better than Harvard would be ridiculous. I try to say that a lot because there are some people who may not listen to what I say and think I am saying things I do not say. Did that just make sense? Anyway, I have met Ivy League students doing graduate work at both UCLA and USC. It is not that uncommon. The point you made however was well taken. Most people would not trade a Harvard degree for a UCLA degree. I will say no more because I don’t need to keep repeating myself and saying that Harvard is in fact a greater school.

The only thing I’d like to comment on is that East Coast bias thing. See, there are many possible explanations on the reasoning and in reality there is likely no single answer. One reason is because of UCLA’s relative youth. See, the Ivy League has been around for a long time. UCLA is 80 something years old. Even then, UCLA has been one of the world’s great institutions for a much shorter time. It is hard to accept that times have changed and that there are many other great institutions out there. Or perhaps there is sort of a lag in acceptance of greatness. Any way, it is hard to argue against the time factor. Also, you mentioned that public schools have a reputation for being inferior on average and I must say that I agree. The problem is that so many people think schools like Cal, Michigan, and UCLA are bad simply because they are public.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

I agree with you that that any analysis of bias can be a complex subject.

However, I would argue that many perceptions tend to be justified ones. The biggest reason that Harvard is so famous and is so well-regarded is in fact because Harvard really is a very good school. It's not so much that Harvard benefits from East Coast bias or benefits from "age-bias" but because Harvard really is very good. Even those people who believe that Harvard supposedly benefits from bias must concede that even if that supposed bias were to magically disappear overnight, Harvard would still be extremely famous and well-regarded. When it comes to Harvard, the hype is largely justified. Harvard really is that good.

Now to tackle your notion of East-Coast bias or age-bias, I think is to flirt dangerously with excuse-mongering. Any assertions of bias will instantly be seized upon by lazy college administrators who will merely use supposed bias as an excuse for why their school isn't better regarded. Whenever anybody asks the administrators "Why isn't UCLA better regarded?", they will have the standard canned response of "Well, our school is young and not in the East, so our reputation suffers from bias".

Now let me tackle your bias assertions head-on. As far as youth and West-Coast-edness goes, I offer the counterexamples of Caltech and Stanford, 2 schools that are extremely young, located in California, and yet regarded as among the elite. In fact, those 2 schools have surpassed many many schools that are hundreds of years older than them, including a bunch of Ivies, to become fully-fledged members of the HYPSMC sextuplet. The point is that their youth and location didn't stop them from entering the pantheon of the elite.

Now you might argue that UCLA is younger than Stanford and Caltech by about 30 years. So you might argue that UCLA cannot be fairly compared to Stanford and Caltech. But honestly, if we had a time machine and could see the world in the year 2034 (30 years in the future), do you think that UCLA would have the prominence that Stanford and Caltech have now? Probably not. The simple fact is that while UCLA is a pretty good school, I don't see UCLA making any strides to enter the ranks of the truly elite. Forget about trying to catch up to the venerable East-coast behemoths like Harvard or Yale. What is UCLA doing to catch up to Stanford?

Finally, you might come back with the standard rejoinder that UCLA is hobbled by its public nature and so it's unfair to compare public schools to private schools. And to that, I have 2 responses. #1 - I've said it before, I'll say it again, lots of public programs don't seem hobbled by their public nature. The Berkeley PhD programs don't seem to be particularly hobbled by their public status. In fact they are fully competitive with any private PhD programs in the country. UCSF Medical School doesn't seem to be doing too shabby, and it's public. And #2 - even if it is true that public schools are hobbled by their public nature, well, so what? When we're talking about School A doing better than School B, it doesn't really matter why School B is getting beat. The only thing that matters is that School B is getting beat. So when I say that Harvard or Stanford are better than UCLA and somebody will say that the reason for that is that UCLA is a public school, my response is - so what? That doesn't change the fact that Harvard and Stanford are still better schools than UCLA.

Finally, I would add that even if age and East-Coast bias exist, that would mean that that's simply more reason to choose a school like Harvard over UCLA. Let's face it. A big reason why people choose certain schools is because of prestige. For example, a lot of students are in UCLA right now not because they really researched all the programs and all the social activities there and determined that UCLA was the right match. The reality is that a lot of UCLA students are there because it was the most prestigious school they got into. Simple as that. If they could have gotten admitted into Berkeley, they would have gone there. If they could have gotten admitted into Stanford, they would have gone there. The fact is, prestige is a prime determinant for choice of matriculation. You want to be able to market yourself to future employers and future peers with a degree from a prestigious school.

So if it's really true that people convey greater prestige upon older East Coast schools, then that's only more reason to go to an older East Coast school. So if people think that Harvard is a very prestigious school, even if they are biased in thinking that, then that's a very good reason to choose Harvard. Like I said before, you want to come out of the process with a highly marketable degree, and if the population has decided, for whatever reason, that the Harvard degree is a highly marketable degree, then that by itself is a good reason to go to Harvard.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Sakky, I was just going over your last post and noticed an unimportant flaw. You mention the laws of Supply and Demand in your analysis and imply that the supply of UCLA graduates is so great that it should push down the average wage of the degree. In theory every worker in the market causes a pecuniary externality on the other workers so that the average workers wage goes down. You are absolutely correct in implying this but what you fail to take into account is the RELATIVE value of a UCLA degree in So. Cal. In the Los Angeles area alone I can probably name 25 colleges. UCLA is easily, o.k. arguably, the second best school around. Employers would still rather have UCLA graduates than other school’s graduates because on average we are smarter. Now, I am grossly oversimplifying things but just because there are many UCLA grads does not make us crowd out the market thus making our degree less valuable than the average. Our degrees are still valued relatively high in the market. In other words, I think you were looking at supply without fully observing demand.

By Shyboy13 (Shyboy13) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Well, lets see Sakky. Berkeley is honestly better than almost every Ivy League school. So is UMich better than a few and, dare I say, UCLA is better than some also. Why are these schools ranked in US News so low? Further, why do many people think like this? Do I need to say over and over again that Harvard is great? Yes it is! So is every IVY league school. It is not a question of if these schools are great. Harvard deserves every bit of its reputation. If I need to keep repeating myself it must be my fault that I am sending the wrong message in my posts. But look at the individual rankings of Berkeley, UMich, and UCLA. Why is it that you see their departments ranked highly in almost every freaken subject but yet their overall rankings are much lower than what the individual rankings suggest? I guess the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts when it comes to schools. I partially blame US News for this because people (on this site at least) think of that book like the word of God. They refuse to look at other sources and/or think for themselves.

Look, anytime someone says that Cal, UCLA, or UMich is great they are welcomed with a barrage of bullets on this site. They teach division in the 3rd or 4th grade yet people cannot see that if there are over 3,000 schools in the US and if a school is ranked ANYWHERE in the top 50, they are well in the top 98th percentile of best schools in the US. Why is it that anytime someone mentions UMich, UCLA, or yes, even Cal, you hear “Oh, that school is pretty good” or “Oh, that school is OK?” Even you are guilty of that. Can you imagine if someone tried to say that UCSB is a good school?

By Kryptic (Kryptic) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Unfortunately, UCLA has very little brand recognition outside of California. Most of the rest of the country still thinks of it as a surfer party school. (that was definitely the opinion in NYC and Portland, OR, when I was working and hiring there) Reputations are largely formed when the people doing the hiring were researching schools for their own education - changes take a number of years to cascade out and impact the reputation. Surprising as it may sound, most people are completely oblivious to whatever the latest rankings are in USNWR or whatnot. It may be a good school, might be horribly selective, etc... but if no one else gives it credibility - it's all fairly irrelevant. As shallow as it is, brand credibility matters more than just about anything, when it ultimately comes to getting a job, and that's a much harder metric to measure and rank.