<p>All have great Engineering programs. Which one would be most worthwhile? Tough call.</p>
<p>depends what you mean by “worthwhile” and whether you want to include many other factors in your college selection process besides the engineering department. </p>
<p>if youre choosing based solely on engineering, then berkeley of course.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s is the best and is world renown. Choose Berkeley especially if you’re interested in Computer Science.</p>
<p>if you like biological engineering tho, it’s better UCSD…</p>
<p>If you want a high GPA, Berkeley might be a poor choice.</p>
<p>As you say, the engineering programs are great at all of these schools and none are that much better than the other (all 3 are ranked above the vast majority of colleges). You should visit each campus and try to get a feel for the campus, the area, what life would be like there, and what just feels right since you’ll live there for at least 4 years. You might also get better deals a one versus the other so it’s worth applying to all.</p>
<p>Cal or UCLA…UCSD if you are into biomed</p>
<p>It’s a tough call indeed. UCB is traditionally most prestigious, followed by UCLA and then UCSD.
What engineering major are you interested in? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>UC Berkeley if you want overall prestige among the three schools but UCLA isn’t far behind. </p>
<p>UCSD would be a excellent choice if you plan to get into Bio. Engineering. SD’s rankings in that field are up there with Duke and John Hopkins. Another benefit of being in SD’s Bio. program is that several biomedical companies are based in San Diego and La Jolla. So getting a job might not be difficult after you graduate.</p>
<p>Either way you go you will end up at top notch school. Just figure out which school fits you best.</p>
<p>You should also take fit into account after academics. There’s not much of a difference in terms of academics, but there’s a drastic difference between the enviorment/lifestyle.
If you’re interested in pursuing grad. school, then I’ll focus on fit. The happier you are, the better you will do.</p>
<p>For engineering, definitely Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t this true of all the engineering programs? Perhaps it’s most true of Berkeley, but I would doubt it’s easy to do well at engineering in UCLA or UCSD.</p>
<p>I’m with ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad and others that say fit is important, and I would say that many people (including those very knowledgeable about the programs) think that Berkeley has noticeably better programs than the other two schools, and that the other two schools still have generally very strong programs. All three are easily in the top 50 in the nation, and the difference between UCLA and UCSD is probably fairly small (with UCLA being somewhat better), while the difference between UCLA and Cal is more sizeable . . . but because all three are so good, the differences in quality, I would imagine, is less significant than in other situations.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why people think Cal has a better engineering program…better as in what? can anyone explain this? engineering programs are credited by ABET so it’s more or less the same in UCLA, Cal or UCSD. So I guess by better you mean the “professor and faculty” but how do you judge that in a research university? If by better you mean that Cal has more prestige among the UCs, then that doesn’t have anything to do with the engineering department, it’s prestigious because it was the first UC, if UCSD had been the first UC then we would be talking about how prestigious UCSD is.</p>
<p>Citan…<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php[/url]”>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php</a></p>
<p>I know. It’s a usnews site, but still…A lot of companies really desire Cal engineering grads, and they recruit them actively. </p>
<p>UCSD has a great bio program; Berkeley is top for engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it means the following, or other things. People, including professors and college administrators, give it higher ratings than other universities in general, including UCLA and UCSD. Recruiters give it higher ratings than most other schools. Berkeley is often cited as being one of the best couple programs in particular fields, such as civil engineering or mechanical engineering, although UCSD is often cited as being one of the best in biomedical engineering. Still, Berkeley is cited in more fields than the other two for the handful of best programs… It has better graduate programs in general, more faculty fame, more produced research, lots of resources devoted to the field of engineering. Perhaps it has better student to faculty ratios, or more fields in which to specialize, or more resources in those fields. Again, I think that’s why people think Berkeley has noticeably better programs than the other two schools, but the other two schools still have generally very strong programs. All three are very good, but people think, and I think they have good reason to believe, that Berkeley’s program is better in general than the other two. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Accreditation doesn’t mean all programs are equal, merely that all programs are equal to or above a minimal standard. Just because Stanford and Cal State Bakersfield are both accredited by the same recognized organization, and if the accreditation is deserved, it does not necessarily mean they provide anything but the minimum for any thing, and it’s obvious, at the very least with some investigation, that one has more above the minimum than the other. Still, fit matters, I would say a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better can mean a lot of things. If you feel certain things are meaningful, such as student to faculty ratios, they can be measured. Opinions of people in industry can be measured somewhat as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The engineering departments or college actually heavily influences it’s greater prestige, also true of UCSD and UCLA- it’s a major part of the schools.</p>
<p>
[quoteit’s prestigious because it was the first UC, if UCSD had been the first UC then we would be talking about how prestigious UCSD is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, age has something to do with it, but look at Stanford- it’s only about 100 years old, and shot up fast. I hope you don’t think UCLA or UCSD, a real fast mover, would have been anywhere near as good without help from their support units? Would UCSD be anywhere near as good as it is today, easily a top 15 public university in only 40 years, without the resources, help, and clout of the UC system?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But these are all subjective decisions. If you are going to claim Cal has a better engineering programs show me how it is better in terms of academics, as in the quality of engineering education you receive. And things like “better graduate programs in general, more faculty fame, more produced research” don’t have any bearing on undergraduate programs, on the contrary it may actually have a negative effect. As for resources, that depends on the university’s strength in pulling in the dollars. Yes, Cal probably has a better hook for the donors but that, again, has nothing to do with it having a “better” engineering program. I don’t think people have good reasons when they assign Cal as having the best engineering program among the UCs. The reason, as always, is superficial - and most just point to the US News ranking. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said equal, but ABET accredition means that the things, as in engineering subjects, that are taught in the respective universities are more or less the same - ABET outlines specific things a uni needs to pass on to their students to receive accredition. Engineering, unlike liberal arts and like many hard science degrees, is a very constrained degree. You are not going to learn only the second law of thermodynamics in Cal State Bakersfield but all the others in Stanford. Again, the distinction made in regards to the “strength” of the engineering department is superficial at best. An EE degree won’t teach you anything “more” in Stanford than in Cal State Bakersfield. As for the first job, yes the candidate from Stanford will get priority - and they will point to the US News rankings. But coming out of Stanford won’t necessarily make you a better engineer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Student-to-faculty ratios and things like that don’t apply here, and if it did private colleges would always win out. I do agree that opinions of people in the industry matters, but that has nothing to do with the strength of the engineering department. Saying that Cal has the best engineering program in this respect doesn’t make much sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prestige != better engineering department</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t compare Stanford to the public colleges, the criterias are much different. And in regards to the “age” question, I was pointing out the tie in between prestige and age between the three mentioned UCs - and the fact that UCSD has “shot up”, doesn’t have anything to do with age. It has to do with the location. Biotech companies didn’t spring up in San Diego because of UCSD’s being there or for its Biomedical Engineering program - for which the uni is famous for. But I believe that age does play a factor in determining prestige, at least in the minds of people. UC Riverside might be a damn good school, but doesn’t have any clout because of it being the youngest. Same with Merced. After all, you determine prestige by how long the school was in existence (and related to that is other factors of course: location, funding etc.) Regardless, prestige doesn’t make a good engineering department.</p>
<p>NeedAdvice: Companies often pick from schools nearby. How else would engineering students from University of Montana get jobs? US News Rankings, unfortunately, does have some clout in the minds of companies but that doesn’t really mean that the said university has a better engineering department.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, so what? It is a subjective decision, isn’t it? But so is saying Berkeley is better than UCR. Having more money is better than having less is a subjective decision, like having more teachers rather than less is. That’s just how it is. Saying Harvard is better than Cal State Hayward is also subjective. What do you want me to do about it? Subjectively, most people, including professors and administrators, think that Berkeley has a better program than UCSD or UCLA in engineering, besides for UCSD in biomedical engineering, recruiters would rather subjective take the average engineering from Berkeley over the average engineer from UCSD or UCLA. And I guess faculty fame can’t help you if it helps to get you into a graduate program, neither can more research if it involves you, and undergrad? I guess if people subjectively decide that the programs are better for whatever reasons, that means they’re wrong? Anyway, my list was in no way exhaustive.<br>
So you subjectively decided that having more money isn’t beneficial. Most people would disagree with you, especially when we’re talking about expensive engineering programs. Money doesn’t just come from the donors- it also comes from grants from private companies and government organizations, as well as from state government. Donors are a source, sure, but that’s only a small part of where all the money comes from. In addition, how the university allots its resources is clearly important- if your university has 10 billion dollars, but only 1/100 of the budget goes to anything engineering related, the engineering department is screwed. Now, I might be wrong, but I think Berkeley has a lot more money than UCLA or UCSD, Berkeley engineering has a lot more money than UCLA or UCSD engineering, and Berkeley engineering gives more money to engineering per engineering student than the other two campuses. Maybe somebody has some numbers to show if this is true or false?
You got it- but I guess whatever is behind the ranking is meaningless? Really, what do people in engineering departments know about engineering? Why should they be asked which handful of programs are the best, and if they say a certain school, why believe ‘em?
Sure, you’re basically going to be learning the same stuff in the classes. Calculus doesn’t change from school to school. I agree with you, you’re generally going to learn the same stuff. But if you’re at school A, where everyone is a genius, the professor will probably go far more in depth than at school B, where everyone is just above average. Now, I don’t think that the differences in ability between the students in the three different programs is very big, but I would suspect that Berkeley has better students- it’s just a more coveted place to be for engineering, and I think the data available, average GPA and SAT scores, supports my claim. Even if all the students are equal, there’s more to the education than accreditation.<br>
The hard sciences are part of the liberal arts. Look it up.
The distinction made is not superficial at best. In many cases, it is quite meaningful. The difference between MIT and Stanford? Not that big. But in some cases? How about resources, research (including undergraduates), and general student’s ability? Very meaningful difference between some different programs. Will going to a certain program make you a better engineer? No, but that’s not what we’re talking about, is it?
That’s your subjective decision- others disagree.
Why not?
I didn’t say that it did.
UCSD’s “shooting up” has to do with age insofar that “shooting up” means rising rapidly during in a short amount of time, and it’s shooting up also have a lot to do with the UC system as a whole as well. Anyway, you don’t have your history straight. UCR isn’t the second youngest campus at all.</p>
<p>
<a href=“University of California - Wikipedia”>University of California - Wikipedia;
<p>Age does play a factor in determining prestige, I would agree, but as shown by Stanford, UCSD, and UCR, there’s more to it than just age.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on, subjective? More produced research is subjective? More resources is subjective? More accomplished faculty (in terms of awards) is subjective? The numbers on the respective Berkeley/UCLA websites seem to indicate otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better graduate program can often seep down to the undergraduate program. For example, better TAs, better faculty (grad instructors often teach undergrad as well), etc.</p>
<p>Resources has nothing to do with a good engineering program? Resources draw in outstanding faculty, up-to-date texts, cutting edge lab equipment and classroom teaching equipment. More resources contribute to better shelved libraries, more available research (for students as well as professors), more grants to cover students’ tuitions, that make an engineering program good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if we are comparing the engineering programs at UCLA, Berkeley, and UCSD then student-to-faculty ratios certainly would apply. It’s part of what makes an engineering program good. Students prefer a low student-to-faculty ratio. It’s more beneficial to the student and to his education.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why you are bringing up private schools, since we are talking about UCB, UCLA, and UCSD only.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not automatically, but it certainly helps. It helps because </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The prestige has to come from somewhere. A prestigious university usually earned it. </p></li>
<li><p>The prestige helps in terms of job recruiting. Many top companies/firms recruit at the most prestigious engineering programs. Now, does this make an engineering program better? Depends on the student. For students who are in the engineering program to get a good job, then it certainly matters for them.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Berkeley’s prestige stems only from age. Look at UC Santa Barbara. It was established in 1905, about 50 years before UCSD. Would anyone today say UCSB is more prestigious than UCSD?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>DRab:
I’ve only seen average SAT/GPA scores indicated for the entire incoming Freshman class but the engineering departments at these schools usually have a ‘higher cut’ for those they accept. I’ve never seen these stats - have you seen them anywhere? It’s possible that there’s more similarity (or differences) between the engineering schools than would otherwise be apparent.</p>
<p>Also, the latest stats I’ve seen on SAT/GPA between UCB and UCLA is insiginificant (just a few points) with UCSD not far behind.</p>