Be sure to ask UCLA about the travel implications since UCLA is switching to the Big Ten Conference starting this year. Most of the members are nowhere near CA so she’ll want to understand what travel might look like when her sport is in season.
edit: I see @Mwfan1921 already pointed this out.
At UCLA some majors are popular and even most upper-division classes have 75-100 students or more. Econ, Psych, Comm Studies would be examples. Other majors such as English may have small classes even lower-division with only around 25-30 students. The OP can look at class size on the Schedule of Classes | UCLA Registrar’s Office by picking a regular term and classes in majors her D may be considering. Many majors (at UCLA and elsewhere) also put sample 4-year programs on the web to get an idea of what classes are involved.
Agree that the team (to include coach, teammates, travel, etc.) should be an important part of the equation for a recruited athlete.
Congrats to your D!
Both BC and UCLA are in conferences that guarantee the athletic scholarship for 4 years, even if the athlete performs poorly and/or gets cut. A student can only lose the scholly if they enter the Transfer Portal, or quit the team.
Sorry, I typed that hastily between meetings and didn’t mean offense. And I didn’t take your comment to imply that UCLA offers a garbage academic experience. But your elaboration certainly indicates a kind of “preference” (an admittedly nicer word than “bias”) for private schools over public schools. That’s helpful to know in understanding your opinion that BC is better than UCLA academically.
As to that opinion and as an epistemological matter, I have no idea how to compare these two schools academically. UCLA ranks higher, particularly in the quality of its amazing grad programs; BC generally provides a more individualized education for undergrads. To paraphrase someone with whom I rarely agree, it’s like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy. But I don’t agree with the proposition that more money equals better academics. Nor am I sure about the claim that “most people” agree that BC is a better school academically. I’d assume otherwise given the popularity of USNWR rankings (for better or worse). And I would also question whether your limited family experience with a few other big publics and one private represents an adequate basis from which to draw a conclusion on these two particular schools. Last, to be sure, there is often a benefit to small classes, but I think it’s an open question as to how much benefit. Does Rhodes College’s smaller class size and superior endowment-per-student mean that it offers better academics than Berkeley?
That all said, the considerations above aren’t really about UCLA or BC specifically as much as they are about large publics vs. privates. There’s a lot to debate and unpack on that particular topic, and I agree that this thread isn’t the right place.
FWIW, I’m a UCLA alumnus. I mostly agree with Twoin18. It takes a certain about of gumption to make the most out of a school like UCLA, which has a huge amount of resources given its sheer size. While I’m only a sample size of one, I developed great relationships with multiple professors, did two independent study projects (meeting individually with professors twice a week), studied abroad, and got a competitive job abroad before graduation. When I studied in the UK, most of my classes were five or six students to one professor, which was great, but I didn’t come away from my year abroad believing that my UCLA classes were inferior. It was just different.
I’ve also noticed that there is often hand wringing over things like auditorium classes and registration issues that may not negatively affect actual UCLA students as much as online parents believe. For example, despite having twice the percentage of Pell Grant recipients and a quarter of the 1%’ers, UCLA beats BC (and most elite privates) in freshman retention and student satisfaction. In other words, regardless of its perceived warts in online forums, UCLA students themselves are generally a pretty content bunch.
Last note: Assuming that OP pays full freight at both schools, BC would cost about $89,000 per year and UCLA would cost about $76,000. So BC would cost an extra $50,000 for a degree. That seems like a relevant consideration.
The caliber of kids in STEM classes, especially in honors versions, is extraordinary at UCLA. I don’t think academics will be better at BC. Again, what major?
Chiming in to add a slightly different angle: many people have an opinion on which school is better, but what really matters is what will be better for this student. I think I would have found a large public school overwhelming as an 18-year old, and I did take advantage of a lot of the things that a smaller private provides or makes more obviously-available (potentially easier access to office hours and academic counseling, more hand-holding, etc.). My S23 is thriving at a large public, and likely would not have needed or appreciated the extra guidance/attention you get at a smaller school. Best of luck with this decision.
My oldest is at BC. We have been so impressed with the professors and classes. He has found them very accessible and helpful, especially when students stop by office hours and reach out. Great resources and dedicated to BC.
My student is not a D1 athlete but LOVES being a sports fan and there is great support and school spirit for the BC teams. We love that the social scene is not based on Greek life and instead, going to a games.
Yes, there are lots of kids who were raised catholic, went to catholic high school etc, but that doesn’t mean they are personally hard core catholics themselves as young adults. There are definitely students going to mass on Sunday nights, but I’d say it’s pretty low key.
Good luck!
One more thing to consider is that Jesuit colleges typically have an extensive core curriculum (including but not limited to coursework in theology and philosophy). It would be worth a few minutes of your D’s time to look up BC’s core curriculum online to be sure she is OK with all of the requirements.
Academically, UCLA is viewed as superior by rating guides such as the Fiske Guide To Colleges & US News (#15 versus #39)–although this could depend upon one’s major. Certainly, the qualifications of students admitted to UCLA are outstanding.
Socio-economic diversity will be far greater at UCLA than at BC.
Breadth of classes offered and number of majors offered will be greater at UCLA than at BC.
Boston or Los Angeles ?
At this stage of your daughter’s life and as a Division 1 scholarship athlete, relations with the coach and team are likely to be the most important factors to her.
Any career goal or intended major ?
P.S. Visit both schools while class is in session. The campus cultures are quite different and this is reflected in part by the most common overlap schools.
BC’s application overlap schools are Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame, N’eastern, & U Virginia.
UCLA’s overlap schools are UC-Berkeley, Stanford, other UCs, and Harvard.
But you went ahead and did it anyway, which is fine. Though trust me, this has been passionately debated on other threads, many times, and nobody won those wars.
I also attended a large public flagship that is a research powerhouse and am well acquainted with what they have to offer. To me, what winds up making these discussions and comparisons useless is the tendency of those on each side of the debate to refuse acknowledgement of any drawbacks to either model of higher ed. You mentioned class size. Parents engage in “handwringing” over class size from the time their kids are in pre-K, and frankly it’s the single greatest focus all through secondary school. People send their kids to very expensive private schools for that very reason. Then, all of a sudden, from one year to the next, we magically don’t care about that factor? I love my alma mater, but I am the first one to admit that one of its drawbacks are the freshman and sophomore survey courses taught in Kane Hall, where 850 seat auditoriums are overflowing out into the hall where kids who didn’t get there early enough are watching on monitors. It’s not impossible to learn that way, but it’s certainly not ideal.
So, sure, UCLA has some advantages over BC, but BC has some advantages over UCLA. One of them is operating a college campus on something closer to a human scale.
Look at this way. If the things people value about small[er ]privates aren’t important, then what does a Pomona offer, especially relative to a UCLA or other large public flagship? Certainly Pomona isn’t in UCLA’s galaxy when it comes to research activity, course selection, major selection and the many other variables that fans of large flagships tend to cite. UCLA has just as nice a campus, arguably even more impressive. And for this comparison, UCLA is in a better location. Why would anyone ever choose Pomona over UCLA if those issues about schools like UCLA to which you allude aren’t really issues?
Nothing wrong with Linda’s bias. For undergrad, I share in it.
Not to mention most Frosh/Soph ‘advising’ at UCLA is conducted by upper class undergraduate students. Low cost, and probably effective for ~80% of the students.
In contrast, every student at BC needs to meet with a faculty member in their intended major to get their class schedule approved prior to course registration. (need a really good reason to get off of the 4-year graduation track.) But one pays a tuition premium for such services.
That said, D1 athletes get their own advising assistance, so perhaps not an issue.
So I think this is why it’s important to know what the kid is studying and what sort of package the kid has while entering. Mine had all the lower divisions done in high school, so he is thriving with small class sizes in a major that isn’t popular (physics) with tremendous options for labs and research and ability to take graduate level coursework and he knows all the professors he has had by going to office hours. It’s been a small school experience with all the advantages of a larger school. He has an amazing advisor always accessible in the department. He simply would have run out of classes at a place like Pomona within a year. Having said that, if you are premed, need lower division, require handholding…… go to a small private. Surviving courses on a brutal curve at UCLA isn’t easy either. Some of the honors courses are absolutely brutal. Nobody will hold your hand.
And as I’ve pointed out before- the seminar on Herodotus is likely to have the same enrollment at a tiny LAC, a mid-sized university, and a gigantic Big Ten flagship- 10 kids tops. Often team taught by TWO professors! It’s hard to generalize since some departments (psych, CS, Bio) are going to run large, and others (Classics, Ethnomusicology, History of Science) are likely to run small.
Although not quite true for athletes. Tutoring for athletes is a sought after and well paid job for UCLA undergraduates. And another example of the high level of competition for such opportunities on campus!
That’s fantastic for your kid. Good for him. But the vast majority of students will have to take intro and survey courses, and at large flagships, many / most of those will be in huge classes. I, too, majored in an area that was not heavily subscribed. I had plenty of small classes. But I never experienced the “making a big school small” magic. Even my advanced logic classes in the Philo department were big because people from other majors took the classes. And, unlike your son, I had to take history, poli sci, econ and other closest at the survey level and, for some, shared an auditorium with 1,000 of my closest friends. For others, merely a few hundred. But, yes, my 400 level courses on metaphysics, epistemology, etc. were on the smaller end.
I’m not sure what you mean by “hand holding.” Two of mine went to small LACs, and one of them went to a T5 grad school (in STEM, in case that’s important, and on CC it seems to usually be). Private, private, private, small, small and small’ish.
Nobody ever held their hands, and their educations were quite rigorous. That’s another myth of the large public flagship: academics are tougher because there’s no “hand holding”.
OTOH, the intro or next-level course on “the Classics” will not be the same size at those three schools, and that could matter. Not everyone is ready to dive hard into Herodotus or Spinoza or Kant or the British Empiricists, and even if they [think they] are, they might well benefit from having had a more basic course in Philosophy so as to provide some context. Sometimes you need a more basic course to even become interested in the first place.
I took an intro to Classics course at my flagship. Super fun, the professor was great, and I learned about the Greek Pantheon. A lot about the Greek Pantheon. Probably 300 to 350 kids. Would it have been better if the class had been capped at 50? Probably.
Hand holding means a lot more access to resources (tutoring, fewer kids in office hours hence more opportunity for getting help, more advising…). A friend’s kid had a hard time with calculus at high school but thrived at a top LAC where he got a lot of help from teachers. Those are harder to land in larger schools. More kids can get lost in a shuffle.
I also went to a small LAC and thrived. Those are very different experiences and one needs to know what one wants. There is no question that upper division course options and labs and research is unparalleled at a larger institution. Plus availability of honors version of courses that aren’t a given everywhere. But my kid, who went to a tiny private school and formed close ties with his teachers there, will certainly not have that replicated at a larger place. Small classes give more opportunities to ask questions if you are lost. Again, it’s harder to do that at a larger school.
I am not aware of 1,000 kid classrooms. I think the largest class my kid had last year was CS with 200.
I think we need a better term. “Hand holding” makes the student sound dependent, weak, lame, immature and needy. I don’t like it and I know I’m not alone. One of mine, too, majored in physics. It was rigorous and nobody gave her anything. The things you’re describing are resources, which bears no relationship to the idea conveyed in the use of the colloquial term “hand holding.” There’s no hand holding at MIT or Pomona.
As to your friend, I’m guessing the reason they thrived in LAC calculus is because the person teaching at the college was better at teaching it than the one teaching it in high school. As a general matter, I would not hold out to people the idea that if you struggle in math in high school just go to a small private, where you can expect to then thrive. I’m sure your friend’s kid’s case has its own very specific circumstances.
Again, you mentioned that your kid was able to bypass all the intro and survey courses.
Here is a picture of a classroom in Kane Hall at UW, and frankly the angle doesn’t do it justice (it is HUGE and yes, that’s a upper deck):
Without researching it myself, I’m quite sure UCLA has similar facilities.
And they fill them and then some. I’m quite sure of it.
I gave an example upthread (those private colleges included Harvard, Yale, Chicago and yes MIT). Some may call that “resources” but I wouldn’t.
