<p>Is it better to go to Mt. SAC for 2 years then to transfer to UCLA a better choice to be successful or just attend UCR for 4 years? </p>
<p>What will make you more successful?</p>
<p>The UCLA path is cheaper and will usually be better, since you won’t need to mention the CC transfer at all on your C.V. </p>
<p>However, if you fit in much better at UCR, it could be a better choice.</p>
<p>That said, you need to be absolutely certain you get a high enough GPA at the CC.</p>
<p>Other thing to consider is whether UCLA or UCR has the academic programs and majors that best match what you want to study. Also consider whether the CCs you are looking at have the needed major preparation courses to transfer in your major – see [Welcome</a> to ASSIST](<a href=“http://www.assist.org%5DWelcome”>http://www.assist.org) .</p>
<p>Either choice is reasonable and full of opportunity. What will make you successful is what you do with those opportunities. If the choice were mine, I’d choose the UCR route. I think you will have more of an opportunity to make connections and make an impact studying for four years in a university setting rather than just two. Professor recommendations are important for graduate work. Go to UCR, work hard, and connect with your professors. You can get a great education at UCR if you go after it.</p>
<p>If you’re just worried about how an employer looks at UCLA vs UCR, as a Californian, I think the difference is unimportant. It’s all about the person.</p>