<p>Is curriculum different in public universities than in private universities? </p>
<p>It depends on the specific universities. The large, flagship universities usually have a broader range of courses and departments, but almost every four-year college offers standard science curricula. Some smaller colleges have more flexible curricula, although they don’t have the selection and breadth of studies. Colleges vary wildly nowadays in their degree requirements, so their is no real distinction in whether, for instance, public colleges are more likely to have math or science requirements than private ones are.</p>
<p>I’m still deciding whether or not I want to go to a private. If I have to I’ll go to UCLA to save my parents some money. I’m choosing UCLA as my back up school because I want to live in LA during college and move to silicon valley to get a job with a big company and then start my own. My major is computer science and engineering</p>
<p>It does not vary from public to private, but rather by each individual university. Private or public only defines how the university is funded - by the state or private entities. It does not have any direct effect on the academic quality, curriculum, athletics, etc. </p>
<p>In certain fields like engineering, they are accredited by ABET that ensures standard curriculum among all accredited institutions. Thus, engineering programs are very similar at every accredited university. I believe there is a similar accreditation board for Computer science but I can’t recall the acronym.</p>
<p>You really think UCLA will be a backup for a transfer student? Are you IS for CA? </p>
<p>Erin’s Dad I’m transferring to UCLA whether you like it or not. </p>
<p>OP, you do realize that you just said that to a mod right? Not the brightest idea. Neither is using UCLA as a back up. That’s an even worse idea.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t care. UCLA is my back up school whether you guys like it or not.</p>
<p>i don’t have any problem with that, OP, as long as you have the cred, but not many people do and Erin’s Dad would know that about as well as anyone. There seems to be some pretext here of which I’m unaware. </p>
<p>So what other publics have you considered in the LA region? and the privates? Have you sat down and compared their major and gen ed requirements? You will find some differences there. You will also find that some public schools may be impacted in compsci, and you need to know about that, too.</p>
<p>If you think of USC for private then google USC undergraduate in CS on Quora. I think USC has good entrepreneur program. Do the same for UCLA. You learn tons of information.</p>
<p>Santa Clara, UCSB, and UCSC are good for CS too.
(I’m assuming you’re in-state and have parents with deep pockets who’ll fund your studies.)
In LA itself or nearby, you have LMU, Chapman, Whittier, plus the Claremont (HarveyMudd would be tops but I don’t know if they take transfers and it’s probably harder to transfer in than to UCLA; however if UCLA is a back up, then HarveyMudd may be within the realm of possibilities.)
The difference between public and private tends to be in the environment: privates tend to have smaller class sizes, closer and better advising (advisers you can “drop by” to see vs. upon appointment, personal adviser vs. general adviser, etc.), more funding for research presentations/conferences, material that’s more up to date (or, when broken, that is changed more quickly). This may or may not matter to you.
Then, you have the university’s academic level: classes with stronger students can go faster, more in-depth, vs. classes with weaker students. This has nothing to do with private vs. public (CSULA and UCLA are both public but the class content and expectations are different).
Size also plays a role: a large university will offer more classes. Note, however, than you can only take 5 classes a semester.
ABET-accredited programs are similar in content and curriculum for the science classes.
Finally, I’m a little concerned about the way you’re talking to adults who volunteer their time to help you. </p>
<p>@GAMERFORLIFE40 my point was that UCLA is going to be highly competitive for transfers. They have articulation agreements with certain CCCs <a href=“http://www.ugeducation.ucla.edu/counseling/articulation-agreements.html”>http://www.ugeducation.ucla.edu/counseling/articulation-agreements.html</a> which essentially give those students priority. Calling UCLA a backup is IMO unrealistic.</p>
<p>OP, if you already know you’re transferring to UCLA, what’s the point of this thread?</p>
<p>Just so you know, there’s no reason not to include UCLA in your list. But calling it your “back-up school” is likely to make the people who hear you doing it have a poor opinion of both your judgment and your ego. They will also have a poor opinion of your attitude if you respond to advice with rudeness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless you have already been admitted to UCLA, then it does not matter whether anyone here likes it or not. It matters whether UCLA’s admissions readers like your application or not. That is far from assured.</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_tr/Tr_Prof13_mjr.htm#SEAS”>https://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/adm_tr/Tr_Prof13_mjr.htm#SEAS</a></p>
<p>For fall 2013, UCLA CS had 501 applicants with average GPA of 3.37 and admitted 6 of them with an average GPA of 3.98. UCLA CSE had 224 applicants with average GPA of 3.44 and admitted 10 of them with an average GPA of 3.90.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mm, sometimes, but not always. Those comparisons would hold for a comparison between an elite/top private and a mid-ranked public, but not necessarily for two schools at the same level or if the rankings were reversed.</p>
<p>For example, I would be very surprised if Loma Linda (private) or University of San Francisco (Private) had more money for research and conferences, better advising, and better material than UCLA or UC-Berkeley - or even some of the better Cal States. Honestly, I wouldn’t even assume that USC or Stanford had better material than UCLA or Berkeley, although given California’s budget crisis they probably have more money. That doesn’t mean they want to give it to you, though. I have found that it seems the money flows more freely to support students at my current university, where I am a postdoc (an excellent public university), than it did at my graduate institution (a private Ivy).</p>
<p>Also, OP, I’m pretty sure people were trying to be helpful when they were advising you not to use UCLA as a back-up school. UCLA routinely accepts less than 30% of all transfer applicants. And if you are OOS it is even harder - UCLA accepts about 5-10% of it’s non-resident transfer applicants, so in any given year it could be as difficult to make it into UCLA as an OOS transfer as it is to get into Harvard. But if you’re an in-state resident at a California CC then you probably have better chances.</p>
<p>Whoever mentioned Chapman and Whittier for CS must gone off the rocker. Any CS or CSU has better reputation.</p>