<p>I know that this will end up being just a drop of water on the fire, but I think we should stop trying to personify these institutions as competitors in some vast educational struggle for supremacy in the university arena. Sure, they might compete on the football field, but once you get to college, you will notice that in terms of academics and research, it’s not a case of trying to beat the other colleges, but working together for the sake of knowledge. Stanford and Berkeley, Harvard and Yale, and other infamous rivalries simply don’t apply in the academic sector.</p>
<p>That being said, if you want to give UCLA a true rival, it would have to be on the athletic field. USC is, of course, a natural rival due to proximity. For some reason, UCLA has been known to be rivals with such schools as Notre Dame. UCLA’s football team, to be frank, stunk up the joint when they came up to play Cal this year, but perhaps in other sports, they have long-going rivalries? I know in women’s softball, Cal, UCLA, and Stanford are the best in the nation and have a very entertaining rivalry.</p>
<p>competition at the university level depends on the subject. for example, if universities were researching colonial latin american history and indigenous cultures, then they would rather collaborate with each other and even form research teams. for most science related research these days, work is split up between many universities with many researchers. however, for highly competitive grants and funding to potential breakthrough research that will give the school fame and publicity, that’s when you get the rivalries. most notable to me is the biotechnology rivalry between Harvard and UCSF, although some corporation like Genentech ends up winning in the end. nevertheless, big name schools compete against each other for big name academic research. </p>
<p>UCLA’s primary athletic rival is USC, to a lesser extent cal, and for non-money generating sports, stanford. UCLA’s academic rival is really cal, with ucsd, stanford, and usc also in the mix.</p>
<p>In theroy I don’t think any of the UC’s would actually be competing, considering it is the same people (the University of California) who is running them.</p>
<p>allena, i actually agree. UC’s dont compete against each other in terms of research; they actually help each other out. i guess what i was meaning was that cal, ucla, and ucsd all compete with each other for students, and at times, for research project funding.</p>
<p>Coto, Stanford will never be surpassed again by a UC because it is too filthy rich. </p>
<p>As for your rankings, I agree with them, BUT, if UCLA is filled with arrogant people like you, UCLA will go down completely with no hope of recovery. A school is rated by people who see the types of people the school graduates, not by it’s students. And right now, Berkeley graduates are much better, both in personality and academic skills.</p>
<p>As of 2005, according to the income made by graduates
Stanford > Berkeley > UCLA > UCSD</p>
<p>A graduate from Stanford has an initial starting salary of something like 50,000.
I’m not certain EXACTLY what the averages for the UC’s are, but UCSD’s average is certainly below 30,000, while UCLA is slightly above. Berkeley’s, however, is well above 30,000.</p>
<p>A Chemical Engineer can expect to make around 55,000 upon graduation. UCLA doesnt come anywhere near that. In the workplace, you can’t start out with the outlook and arrogance of a UCLA graduate.</p>
<p>as for 60 years ago… to put it into perspective, ucla was only 26 years old. to see it climb up to #25 (higher in past rankings too) on the USNWR rankings (and others) in just 86 years is amazing. heck, there’s people out there who are older than ucla!</p>
<p>i don’t think stanford will be surpassed by a UC, at least if UC’s rely on state funding and if they remain in the mess that they are in now. however, i do think ucla has the potential to surpass berkeley, as radical as that idea may seem since berkeley has always been the flagship UC. ucsd will also rise up quickly in the rankings, as will UCI i suspect. USC too, and they can probably rise up USNWR fast because they have the pro-private school criteria that USNWR is looking for. </p>
<p>but it would be nice to dream. i think most people on CC would be shocked (or disgusted) that berkeley used to be a level below HYP, around the current “duke, penn, dartmouth” level. but for graduate sciences, berkeley is still a “HYPSM” of that.</p>
<p>“A graduate from Stanford has an initial starting salary of something like 50,000.
I’m not certain EXACTLY what the averages for the UC’s are, but UCSD’s average is certainly below 30,000, while UCLA is slightly above. Berkeley’s, however, is well above 30,000.”</p>
<p>Do you have a source for these statistics?
I would like to know where you get such confidential ones as wage earnings from.</p>
<p>“A Chemical Engineer can expect to make around 55,000 upon graduation. UCLA doesnt come anywhere near that.”</p>
<p>Who says UCLA students can’t be chemical engineers (225 majoring in ChemE as of 2004)?</p>
<p>It’s not confidential at all. If you were accepted to UCSD, you will get a package that shows all the average starting incomes of the graduates.</p>
<p>For Berkeley and UCLA, you have to do a bit of research, but a Berkeley’s degree is worth more than a UCLA’s, and a Stanford’s degree is worth more than a Berkeley’s.</p>
<p>USC gets a ****load of money because they accept a lot of people who’s family has an income of above 500,000.</p>
<p>Least year, they rejected plenty of people with 4.0’s, but a few people with 3.0’s and 1200’s got accepted. The only common characteristic that I could see was that their parents had incomes above 500,000.</p>
<p>tons of money is gonna keep flowing into USC. no question about that. an already strong alumni network… and USC is using the WUSTL marketing strategy to boost their USNWR ranking.</p>