UCLA projected to beat Cal for fall 2006

<p>UCLA has had the superior student body for several years now. </p>

<p>Not the professors. Not the programs (many of them, anyway). But the students. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.ophs.opusd.k12.ca.us/uc_admissions_statistics.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ophs.opusd.k12.ca.us/uc_admissions_statistics.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>More applications simply means that UCLA, and possibly the environment around UCLA, are more popular than Berkeley. Westwood, Hollywood, Santa Monica and L.A. beaches are more attractive to potential students than the negative urban reputation of Berkeley and Oakland.</p>

<p>There is absolutely no evidence that more applications mean that UCLA is somehow a better school...or a worse school than Berkeley. It's simply a popularity contest.</p>

<p>It's the uncanny return of CotoDeCasa! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Cotodecasa, did you really spell your hometown's name wrong? Please, please tell me you didn't mean Bellevue, wa, because that would be rather embarassing.</p>

<p><a href="http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature...l_for_theU.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature...l_for_theU.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Also of concern was an NSF ranking of schools by amount of research funding. The University ranked 6th in 1995, 9th in 2000 and 8th in 2003. </p>

<p>UCLA shot from 9th to 1st in the same eight-year period, while several other universities moved up two or three notches. Further, during the period 1998-2003, Congress doubled the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget but the University increased its NIH funding by only 75 percent. NIH is the biggest funder of University research, accounting for 43.7 percent of the U's research expenditures.</p>

<p>...and how does that concern the misspelling of your hometown?</p>

<p><a href="http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/metricsData.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/metricsData.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This is from Berkeley </p>

<p>Research Programs - Total Research and Development Expenditures - Peer Comparison 2003-2004</p>

<p>The Federal expenditures do not include R&D for medical schools</p>


<p>The Federal expenditures do not include R&D for medical schools</p>

<p>UCLA 849,357K
Michigan 780,054K
Stanford 603,227K
Berkeley 507,186K
MIT 485,764K
Harvard 408,707K
Yale 387,644K</p>

<p>Well, I see you've mastered the skill of copy and paste, so you're obviously UCLA material. Seriously though, this is bugging me, what's the deal with your hometown? Did you spell it wrong or is there some tiny town in washington that is so small that it doesn't even come up on google?</p>

<p><a href="http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/A_wake-up_call_for_theU.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/A_wake-up_call_for_theU.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here's a working link of the dead one above, if anyone cares.</p>

<p>4.31! Why is the gpa of UCLA more than UCB? Doesn't UCB have a bettering ranking?</p>

<p>Yes! It does!! I'm screaming right now!</p>

<p>I guess you don't understand that the whole ranking system is pretty random, 2400... based on a loose compilation of a bunch of random stats. UCLA accepts a smaller percentage of students, as well.</p>

<p>How small? And where are you getting your numbers, because as far as I know official numbers haven't been released yet.</p>

<p>Oh, I was just thinking of last year's numbers. I think it was, like, 23% to UCLA and 25% at UCB. Maybe I'm wrong. But historically I believe that UCLA receives a few thousand more applications each year, and thus has a lower admit rate.</p>

<p>Yeah, the percentage number is a few points off, and the number applied is a few thousand more. 7-10?</p>

<p>and money talks</p>

<p><a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6819%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6819&lt;/a>
More Than $3 Billion to Help Ensure Its Long-term Future
Among World’s Leading Research Universities
No other single fund-raising campaign by a college or university has generated as much support. Other top research universities in recent years have launched fund-raising campaigns with similar monetary goals, but UCLA was the first to reach the $3 billion milestone.
" Carnesale said. "Private giving is critical if we are to continue to attract the best and the brightest."</p>

<p>and this rankings</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Just my thought</p>


<p>Berkeley(even better than Harvard) >>Stanford >>>>>>UCLA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>USC</p>






<p>Stanford>>>>Berkeley>>>>>UCLA(Young was bad)>>>>USC(New President)</p>


<p>Stanford >>>>>Berkeley(Berdahl was bad)>>UCLA(New Chancellor)>>USC( buy Students & Profs)</p>


<p>Stanford>>>Berkeley>UCLA>UCSD(Dynes was super)>USC(fund raising)</p>



<p>I find this completely random, but the first link of the stats is linked from the high school I graduated from 2 years ago. Oak Park represent!</p>

<p>I'd also like to add that the fact that UCLA admits a smaller percentage of applicants does not necessarily make it more selective. The fact that it receives MORE applications and only has so many spots, automatically makes it appear more selective. It's misleading.</p>