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

UCantTouch9Feet
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:38:56 +0000

I’ve realized that the mid-tier UC’s (Irvine, Davis, SB, and perhaps a little of SD) are, while decent schools, always plastered with the notion of “second rate” schools, as they tend to operate under the shadows of more renowned schools such as Berkeley and LA, both of which are in the same system.

However, let’s say you take the top public schools from other states, so let’s take UT Austin and UDub, for instance, if someone told you that they go there, chances are you won’t immediately think, “oh, it’s cause they got rejected from Cal”. But if someone told u they go to UCI or Davis, there are people who may think that.

And yet, the mid tier UC’s are ranked exactly the same as schools like Texas and UW, but they unfortunately are part of a school that contains even “better” schools, so they are always seen in direct comparison with these more renowned counterparts. Schools like Texas and UW, however, don’t really have to worry that since they pretty much get all the credit for being the top public school in their respective states, while in fact, they may only be around the caliber of the mid-tier UC campuses. I mean, if someone told you “UCI is as good as UCLA”, you may instantly think that he’s bluffing, but if he were to say “Texas is as good as UCLA”, they may actually have reason to believe him and won’t impulsively dismiss him.

so yeah, i guess the whole point of this was to show how the “2nd rate” UC’s may not be so 2nd rate after all, it’s just due to faulty public perception.