Mid-tier UC's don't get as much credit as they should?

omegared179
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:55:30 +0000

A lot of this might have to do with past perceptions of these schools. It wasn’t until relatively recently that all of the UC’s got really, really good. When my dad went to Cal, you could get in with a 3.3 (this was like 30 years ago), and at that time, if you had not so good grades, you would go to a lesser UC. So, you were considered not so bright if you didn’t go to either Cal or UCLA.

Then, Cal and UCLA went from good schools to amazing schools and the people that couldn’t get in, went to mid tier UCs, improving the quality of the schools. So, I think that the reputation that they originally had stayed with the schools.

Just the other day, I told one of my bosses at work that I wanted to attend UCSB (of course she went to CAl) and she asked why I wanted to go to a party school. Even though UCSB is obviously a very good school, with an average GPA of like 3.9.

While on the other hand, schools like UW and UT have always been good schools, and continue to be. They have no real competition in their respective states for public schools.

So, I guess what I am saying is to give it time. Mid Tier UCs will eventually get the notoriety that they deserve.

*O yeah, when my Grandma went to Cal 60 odd years ago, it was considered a bad school ( all of her sisters went to ivy leagues), so you can see how reputations can really change