UCLA, Berkeley, or San Diego

[DRab]

<p>I’ve seen Berkeley’s, at least that of the college of engineering (which does not have the chemical engieers). I think I’ve also seen UCLA’s before, but I could be wrong. I don’t think I’ve seen UCSD’s because of the way they operate with the college system, and whlie one of the colleges is supposed to be the most common place for engineers (I forget which, but I think it’s Warren), certain colleges don’t breakdown the data. I agree with you, the difference between the data in general is fairly small.</p>

[Citan]

<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>What does research have to do with undergraduate engineering education? </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>Of course, better TAs, faculty has somewhat of a bearing on undergrad engineering education…but how can you judge that Cal is better in those areas?</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>I didn’t bring up private school…I said they should be judged on different criterias. And how does student-to-faculty ratio different in the three UCs…yes UCSD has lower engineering population than Cal and UCLA but not significantly. In Undergrad programs you have more or less the same student-to-faculty ratio in the three UCs, unless you have any data to prove otherwise.</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>I said that prestige does matter in terms of the first job, but that prestige is superficial at best, and has no bearing on the quality of undergraduate engineering education.</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>Did you even read my post? I said age does matter but so does location. The fact that the biotech companies are located in San Diego, and it being a bigger city than Santa Barbara, also has some bearing on its “reputation”.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>DRab:</p>

<p>At UCSD, the cut I’m referring to isn’t by the college (Muir, Warren, etc.), it’s by the Jacobs school of engineering. Basically, the applicant is first selected or rejected by UCSD then, if accepted, the app is sent to the Jacobs school of engineering for a second selection which is to a higher standard than the general selection for UCSD. This means it’s possible to be accepted by UCSD but rejected buy the Jacobs school.</p>

[shaqpak34]

<p>ucsd is ranked higher the LA for engineering by usnews…if thats of anyhelp</p>

[dyip10]

<p>Graduates from all three schools get a lot of job offers. So if job prospects is irrelevant. You should consider academics, prestige, fit, preference of campus, social life. Different people have different preferences and opinions.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

What does research have to do with undergraduate engineering education?

</p>

<p>Well, my point is that more produced research certainly isn’t subjective. But as to your question, many undergrads participate in research, and more(and better) produced research can mean more opportunities for students to participate in meaningful research.</p>

<p>

Of course, better TAs, faculty has somewhat of a bearing on undergrad engineering education…but how can you judge that Cal is better in those areas?

</p>

<p>Well, I’m judging that because I think Berkeley has a better graduate school than UCLA or San Diego. What makes a graduate school great? Great professors and great students. The professors who teach grads often teach undergrads, and the grad students become TAs for the undergrads. So, logic tells us that Berkeley probably has better TAs and faculty.</p>

<p>

I said that prestige does matter in terms of the first job, but that prestige is superficial at best, and has no bearing on the quality of undergraduate engineering education.

</p>

<p>For some people the former is more important than the latter. But alright, say we are talking about quality of undergraduate engineering education. Prestige often correlates with quality of education. For example: let’s take a look at Harvard and the University of Massachusetts. Now, I doubt too many people have heard of the latter. Harvard is obviously more prestigious. Which one offers better education? Harvard probably does. It has more resources, better faculty, stronger students, higher graduation rates, etc. Let’s compare Harvard with…Virginia Western Community College. Which one is more prestigious? Harvard. Which one offers a better education? I would go with Harvard. In fact, if you compare Harvard with any other less prestigious college in the nation, Harvard probably will offer a better education 99% of the time.</p>

<p>What’s the point of all this? It’s that if a program is prestigious, it’s usually because it is very good, and it earned that prestige. Are there exceptions? Of course. For example, on a worldwide scale (or even national), Columbia holds more prestige than Olin. However, Olin probably offers a better education (in engineering, at least). But, this is due to the youth and esoteric nature of Olin, something which UCLA and UCSD do not possess.</p>

[DRab]

<p>

ucsd is ranked higher the LA for engineering by usnews…if thats of anyhelp

</p>

<p>I’m no worshipper of US News, but I ask, for what years did UCSD undergraduate engineering rank higher than UCLA undergraduate engineering overall in the past five or so years? I think UCSD, according to US News, is one of the top five best bio engineering programs, but outside of that, UCLA is considered better generally, although by a very slim margin. Now, since I don’t follow US News that closely, I could be wrong.</p>

<p>

I said that prestige does matter in terms of the first job, but that prestige is superficial at best, and has no bearing on the quality of undergraduate engineering education.

</p>

<p>As vicissitudes said, there is a high correlation between quality (which includes things like resources) and prestige. Certainly high prestige doesn’t lead necessarily to a high quality education, but it leads to things that do, and the prestige does tend to stem from something (perceived high quality stemming generally from actual quality). Sure, perhaps the prestige of Harvard’s engineering program isn’t primarily from Harvard enigneering itself, but rather from other aspects of Harvard, but 1) large parts of the UC’s prestige are results of their engineering programs, 2) general prestige helps with resources and fame, which can lead to many postive things.</p>

[Fionn]

<p>Don’t do UCSD. Just don’t.</p>

[Citan]

<p>

Well, my point is that more produced research certainly isn’t subjective. But as to your question, many undergrads participate in research, and more(and better) produced research can mean more opportunities for students to participate in meaningful research."

</p>

<p>Research != Undergraduate Engineering Education</p>

<p>

Well, I’m judging that because I think Berkeley has a better graduate school than UCLA or San Diego. What makes a graduate school great? Great professors and great students. The professors who teach grads often teach undergrads, and the grad students become TAs for the undergrads. So, logic tells us that Berkeley probably has better TAs and faculty.

</p>

<p>Where did grad school come into this? And better grad school = better TAs? Think that statement over.</p>

<p>

For some people the former is more important than the latter. But alright, say we are talking about quality of undergraduate engineering education. Prestige often correlates with quality of education. For example: let’s take a look at Harvard and the University of Massachusetts. Now, I doubt too many people have heard of the latter. Harvard is obviously more prestigious. Which one offers better education? Harvard probably does. It has more resources, better faculty, stronger students, higher graduation rates, etc. Let’s compare Harvard with…Virginia Western Community College. Which one is more prestigious? Harvard. Which one offers a better education? I would go with Harvard. In fact, if you compare Harvard with any other less prestigious college in the nation, Harvard probably will offer a better education 99% of the time.

</p>

<p>Yes because comparing UCSD, UCLA and Cal is like comparing a community college with a 4-year Uni…good logic. Again you equate prestige, a superficial thing, with better engineering education. What does a school’s prestige have to do with the engineering education received?</p>

<p>

What’s the point of all this? It’s that if a program is prestigious, it’s usually because it is very good, and it earned that prestige. Are there exceptions? Of course. For example, on a worldwide scale (or even national), Columbia holds more prestige than Olin. However, Olin probably offers a better education (in engineering, at least). But, this is due to the youth and esoteric nature of Olin, something which UCLA and UCSD do not possess.

</p>

<p>Means “it’s very good” on what level? What was this decision based on? The overall prestige? Then it doesn’t really mean anything.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

Research != Undergraduate Engineering Education

I don’t agree with this equation. A school with a lot of research can open up a lot of opportunities for undergrads to gain experience by working in labs, assisting researchers, etc.</p>

<p>

Don’t do UCSD. Just don’t.

Is there any value in this statement? I don’t see it.</p>

<p>

What does a school’s prestige have to do with the engineering education received?

If as a result of the prestige the school has higher-end students, more money available for resources (professors, facilities), and chooses to invest this in the engineering program, then I can see some benefit. Otherwise, I don’t. Schools other than H are ranked more highly in engineering and one can assume have stronger programs and produce higher-level engineers. It stands to reason that schools that invest more heavily in resources and emphasis in their engineering areas along with high selectivity in the admits will provide a better engineering education. This is why a state school such as UCB can rank higher than a ‘prestigous’ school such as H. As an employer hiring engineers, I’d certainly choose someone from UCB, Stanford, CMU, MIT, CalTech for example, over H or Y or D for example.</p>

[Fionn]

<p>Dad, I don’t expect you to. Unless you can tell me you’ve actually attended UCSD, you know little of the school from the words of your children and the information they regurgitate for you online. Sorry if this sounds snide (because it is), but people tend to react adversely when the “value” of their advice is questioned. Go figure.</p>

<p>And from MY experience, and considering the fact that this is a forum for advice and assistance from a diversity of people involved with various universities, I would advise the individual who posed the original question NOT to attend UCSD over Berkeley or UCLA. Simple as that. </p>

<p>Sorry if that conflicts with your own experience, but that tends to happen when not all people agree with you. Crazy, I know.</p>

[x3ucla]

<p>i am a bit confused. have you been accepted to these schools? or are you considering in applying to these schools?</p>

<p>if you are planning on applying, there is no harm in applying to all three schools because it’s giving you a chance to be accepted to the top-tier UC schools. however, if you only limit yourself to UCLA and Cal, but somehow ended up not being accepted to either of the two UCs, then that wouldn’t be good, right?</p>

<p>but right now, you are not accepted to Cal, UCLA & UCSD, so whether you want to attend or should not attend isn’t the question because you don’t even know if you MAY attend. but if you are considering these three schools, a visit to each would be recommended because you would not want to waste $60 applying to a school where you hate the environment. </p>

<p>good luck to you!</p>

[unlimitedx]

<p>According to my UCSD friends, the students there lack school spirit.
Also, if I remember correctly, you are conditionally accepted into the BioE program at UCSD, meaning you may not be studying BioE at all if you grades don’t cut it the first quarter.</p>

[vicissitudes]

<p>

Research != Undergraduate Engineering Education

</p>

<p>I didn’t say research = undergraduate engineering education did I? I said that good research can make your undergraduate engineering education better. Does it make undergrad engineering education better every time? No. But often. There is a correlation. So I don’t see how research != undergraduate engineering education is relevant.</p>

<p>

Where did grad school come into this? And better grad school = better TAs? Think that statement over.

</p>

<p>Grad school came into this when grad students affect your undergraduate engineering education, in the form of TAs. And better grad school doesn’t not automatically mean better TAs. Did I make that statement anywhere? No. I’ll think it over when you show me that I have actually made that statement.</p>

<p>What I do think, is that good grad schools TEND to have good grad students. Why is this so hard to believe? Harvard grad students and Berekely grad students tend to be better than Florida State grad students. Does that mean there can’t be a Florida State grad student who is better than a Berkeley grad student? No. But that’s the exception, not the rule.</p>

<p>

Yes because comparing UCSD, UCLA and Cal is like comparing a community college with a 4-year Uni…good logic. Again you equate prestige, a superficial thing, with better engineering education. What does a school’s prestige have to do with the engineering education received?

</p>

<p>Why not? I’m comparing two colleges. That seems fair to me. Harvard College and Virginia Western Community College. Both colleges. Both teach same intro classes. Both have professors. Sure one is 2-year and one is 4-year, and they offer different degrees, but is that really relevant when we are talking about quality of education?</p>

<p>But fine, let’s disregard that. What about my University of Massachusetts example? Now are you going to say that since they have different majors, it’s not a fair comparison? I don’t EQUATE prestige with quality. Quality TEND TO GO with prestige. The most prestigious colleges in the U.S. tend to be some of the best ones. Are there good colleges that aren’t prestigious? Sure. For example, Olin doesn’t have much prestige in that not many people have heard of it. Even on CC most people probably haven’t heard of it. Yet some students choose it over MIT or Harvard. Same goes for Deep Springs. But again, this is the exception, not the rule.</p>

<p>But remind me again why I am debating with you. You haven’t shown me anything that says UCLA or UCSD is better than Berkeley at engineering. In fact, you really haven’t done much except trying to debunk my reasoning by twisting my words. Just remember: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO CAUSATION.</p>

[flopsy]

<p>ABET Undergraduate Engineering Accreditation</p>

<p>Aerospace Engineering:
UCB: Unaccredited
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Accredited (until 2008)</p>

<p>Bioengineering:
UCB: Unaccredited
UCLA: Unaccredited
UCSD: Accredited (until 2008)</p>

<p>Chemical Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Accredited (until 2008)</p>

<p>Civil Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Unaccredited</p>

<p>Computer Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Unaccredited</p>

<p>Computer Science:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Unaccredited</p>

<p>Electrical Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Accredited (until 2008)</p>

<p>Industrial Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Unaccredited
UCSD: Unaccredited</p>

<p>Materials Engineering:
UCB: Unaccredited
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Unaccredited</p>

<p>Mechanical Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Accredited (until 2007)
UCSD: Accredited (until 2008)</p>

<p>Nuclear Engineering:
UCB: Accredited (until 2007)
UCLA: Unaccredited
UCSD: Unaccredited</p>

<p>Structural Engineering:
UCB: Unaccredited
UCLA: Unaccredited
UCSD: Accredited (until 2008)</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>fionn:</p>

<p>I stated what I did because your statement had no points to consider in it. It’d have some value if you stated your reasons for reaching your conclusion. It’s a more interesting post if it has some substantive perspectives to consider.</p>

<p>No, I don’t attend UCSD but have a D about to start her 4th year there and am familiar with some of the programs and opportunities in the area. I know a bit more than 'regurgitation.Did or do you attend UCSD since you have such strong opinions of it? If you don’t, according to your logic, you’re in the same boat as me I guess.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>fionn:</p>

<p>Okay, I read some of your earlier posts and can see that you attend UCSD. This means you have some reasons for your conclusions (boring La Jolla, no school spirit, and I’m sure some others). These might be of some value to those trying to decide which school to attend so listing them would at least indicate why you don’t like UCSD allowing people to consider the points. That was the only point of my retort to your post. </p>

<p>Keep in mind also that UCSD is a large campus (as you know) and depending on the major, the involvement of the student in various aspects of the school, and their own individual experiences, different students will reach entirely different conclusions. </p>

<p>I can see that you’re trying to get out of there and head to NY. I hope it works out well for you.</p>

[Fionn]

<p>Yeah, I pretty much agree with all you stated. I’m really just trying to supply the person doing the questioning with all perspectives. Mine, happens to be a negative one- if he/she gets the option of all Universities in question, then I advise the person to go with either LA or B. I planned to go into more detail, is more happened to be asked. Otherwise, I choose to keep my responses simple. But you seem to get it.</p>

[Fionn]

<p>Oh, and thanks. I hope it all works out, too. But either way, SD is an entirely respectable institution- that, I won’t deny.</p>