<p>Undecided student, all schools would have the same cost, no weather preference. Which one has the best reputation, will help me succeed the best in life. Undecided Major</p>
<p>For academics Michigan=UCLA>Wake Forest.</p>
<p>Michigan and UCLA are almost carbon copies of each other academically with a very slight edge to U-M. Michigan has NO academic weaknesses. Virtually whatever you decide to major in, you will be in a highly ranked and nationally recognized program. You will also live in one of the best college towns that really caters to it’s students. Michigan = Ann Arbor. Michigan has also one of the largest and strongest alumni assocations in the world. There are Michigan graduates EVERYWHERE throughout the country, often in large numbers, who know the value of the degree. IMHO academically, socially, and athletically, Michigan offers the best all around experience of your three choices.</p>
<p>@rjkofnovi but wouldn’t UCLA provide the exact same great academics, alumni associations and basically all else? The social aspect, I might have to debate, considering that UCLA is in LA and … it’s freakin LA. Athletically i see your point. But what about wake? perhaps it doesn’t have the resources other schools do, but it’s academics MUST be outstanding based on all of its ratings, and the campus is simply perfect!</p>
<p>"@rjkofnovi but wouldn’t UCLA provide the exact same great academics, alumni associations and basically all else? The social aspect, I might have to debate, considering that UCLA is in LA and … it’s freakin LA"</p>
<p>If you want to live in LA or California, then UCLA would be the better choice. UCLA, like most California publics, is overwhelmingly made up of California residents who more than likely will stay instate or on the west coast. Michigan is over 1/3 out of state at the undergraduate level. The student body comes from all over the country, oftentimes in large numbers from states like NY for example. The graduates of the school consequently disperse all over the country much moreso that a school like UCLA. LA can be an exciting city, but for a college student, Ann Arbor has few peers. Spend a Saturday in Ann Arbor in the fall during a home football game and you’ll see what I mean. UCLA has nothing that can begin to compare. Heck, their football stadium is 25 miles away! I cannot speak much about Wake, except to say that you asked which school has the best reputation. Let’s be honest, most people know very little about Wake Forest, although I know it’s a fine school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it really depends on what point of view you’re looking at. In nearly every ranking where they compete (USNWR undergrad; THE reputation and overall, Forbes, NYtimes business leaders, etc.) UCLA is ranked higher than Michigan. So no, i don’t think Michigan has a ‘slight edge.’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve clearly never been to Westwood. It’s like 5 miles away from the nearest beach, actors come here, it’s in one of the most exciting and vibrant cities in the world, etc. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many students who come here from different parts of the state, different parts of the country and different parts of the world share this sentiment. I can’t remember the last time someone said of Michigan ‘it’s freaking Ann Arbor.’</p>
<p>Let’s get real, few people would choose spending four years at Ann Arbor as opposed to four years in Westwood all things being equal. Whatever slight edge Michigan might have on academics is negligible at best. Overall, UCLA reputation is significantly better than Michigan’s and will do a better job at helping you succeed in life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source, please?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of the most inconsistent statements that I have ever read on cc. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I agree with rjk. Ann Arbor is a wonderful college town and collegiate experience. LA’s west side is anything but…</p>
<p>OTOH, for the money I also like Wake in that it is a private school. (Personally, I’m not a fan of paying OOS prices to attend a public, unless its a special program such as Engineering.) Privates have sess bureaucracy, better advising (of course, anything is better than UC advising), and the like. But Winston-Salem is nothing to write home about.</p>
<p>“it really depends on what point of view you’re looking at. In nearly every ranking where they compete (USNWR undergrad; THE reputation and overall, Forbes, NYtimes business leaders, etc.) UCLA is ranked higher than Michigan. So no, i don’t think Michigan has a ‘slight edge.’”</p>
<p>I’m talking about ACADEMIC offerings. Michigan does indeed have a very slight edge. The PA scores at USNWR prove it. For example, Michigan engineering is quite a bit better than UCLA engineering.</p>
<p>"You’ve clearly never been to Westwood. It’s like 5 miles away from the nearest beach, actors come here, it’s in one of the most exciting and vibrant cities in the world, et</p>
<p>New York is exciting too, but I wouldn’t want to attend school there. I have a cousin who is a professor at UCLA and lives IN Westwood. yawn…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For one, the fact that UCLA has 2.5x as many freshman applicants as Michigan (that isn’t a source, but you already knew my statements weren’t meant to be taken literally…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps i shouldn’t have said ‘significantly,’ but i think the general consensus in the varied rankings is that UCLA has a better reputation than Michigan.</p>
<p>“For one, the fact that UCLA has 2.5x as many freshman applicants as Michigan (that isn’t a source, but you already knew my statements weren’t meant to be taken literally…)”</p>
<p>Beyphy, you are kidding right? First of all, I doubt UCLA receives 2.5X more applicants than Michigan. Michigan had 42,000 applicants this year. I doubt UCLA received 105,000 applications. Besides, California’s population (38,000,000) is four times larger than Michigan’s (10,000,000). That alone accounts for the significant difference in the size of the universities’ applicant pools. I am fairly certain that Michigan has as many, if not more, OOS applicants.</p>
<p>“Perhaps i shouldn’t have said ‘significantly,’ but i think the general consensus in the varied rankings is that UCLA has a better reputation than Michigan.”</p>
<p>Not really. According to the USNWR academic reputation rating, Michigan (89) and UCLA (84) have similar scores. All reputational ratings I have seen give Michigan and UCLA virtually equal reputation scores.</p>
<p>bluebayou, I am not familiar with advising at the UCs, but at Michigan, all undergraduate students are paired with a faculty advisor from their first day on campus. Adivsing was great. </p>
<p>As for bureaucracy, the internet age has pretty much leveled the playing field big time. Even back in my day (mid 1990s), I hardly felt the red tape associated with larger universities.</p>
<p>Academically, UCLA and Michigan are identical in the traditional disciplines while Michigan has a decided edge in the professional fields such as Architecture, Business (UCLA only offers Business Economics, which does not match well against Ross), Engineering, Music Performance, Nursing etc… Wake Forest is a smller school that offers a very different value proposition. </p>
<p>For the above reasons, I think the OP should go for fit. All three schools considered have very different campus cultures. </p>
<p>For example, UCLA arguably has more racial and socioeconomic diversity than any university in the US. 30% of undergrads at UCLA are white, 35% are Asian and 20% are Hispanic. 33% of UCLA undergrads qualify for pell grants. This sort of diversity will not be found at Michigan or Wake Forest, where 67% (Michigan) and 80% (Wake Forest) of the students are white and fewer than 10% of undergrads qualify for pell grants. On the other hand, 90% of UCLA students are CA residents, compared to 60% at Michigan and only 25% at Wake Forest.</p>
<p>As several posters have already pointed out, Ann Arbor and LA are very different. I do not think one is necessarily better than the other, but some prefer the traditional campus town while others prefer larger metropolitan centers, such as NYC, LA or Chicago. Beyphy, I would personally choose Ann Arbor over Westwood/LA for college any day, and I am not alone.</p>
<p>One of Michigan’s main strengths vis-a-vis UCLA is the financial stability of the two institutions. Michigan’s endowment is more than 3 times larger than UCLA’s and with a significantly larger OOS population, Michigan raises far more money from tuition than UCLA.</p>
<p>“For one, the fact that UCLA has 2.5x as many freshman applicants as Michigan (that isn’t a source, but you already knew my statements weren’t meant to be taken literally…)”</p>
<p>…and California has almost 4x the population of Michigan, not to mention the easy UC application that allows a simple check next to any UC one might be interested in.</p>
<p>Opinions are like…er…bellybuttons. Everyone has one. And while they may THINK they are unbiased, all opinions are viewed through rose colored glasses…in other words we hear what we want and see what we want and opine accordingly.</p>
<p>UCLA and Michigan are outstanding public universities. Enormous resources and deep departments. UCLA is in the Pac-12 and Michigan in the Big 10. Huge sports. </p>
<p>Wake is a small private non-sectarian ACC school, outstanding and rigorous academics and also known nationally…and increasingly internationally. </p>
<p>So it depends on the student, what they want out of life and where they want to go…grad school, law school, med school…and the kind of college experience they want.</p>
<p>What I like has no bearing and is irrelevant to what the student wants. </p>
<p>I do tend to favor small schools, but that is just me. I dont like large state schools. </p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>
Agreed. UCLA and Michigan are very similar in the liberal arts; Michigan has an edge in engineering, law, and (undergraduate) business.</p>
<p>
I agree with bluebayou; the red tape at UCLA is utterly obnoxious. I don’t think someone has a good comparison unless they’ve attended a much smaller school before or afterwards. </p>
<p>
I think people place too much emphasis on alumni networks. The alumni network at my alma mater is matched only by a few and arguably exceeded by none, but I know of very few people who actually got jobs that way. Most people networked through internships or on-campus recruiting. </p>
<p>UCLA is a well-known brand domestically and internationally. I sincerely doubt graduates would have a problem getting jobs OOS if they want. I think the trend for UCLA graduates staying in-state is that they simply don’t want to leave. With nice weather, fun cities, and beaches and mountains within easy driving distance, southern California is pretty tempting. I think I’ve met more young people here who fled NYC than I have LA natives.</p>
<p>
I’m very familiar with Wake Forest and am a third year student at UCLA. They are both fantastic institutions but very different. I came extremely close to choosing Wake Forest over Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and several other prestigious universities a few years ago.</p>
<p>UCLA is a much larger university than Wake Forest. The major advantage of this is diversity, both socially and academically. UCLA has a much more diverse student body than Wake Forest in terms of race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious leanings, etc. Wake Forest does have an edge in geographic diversity, though it still draws heavily from the south. UCLA likewise offers more diverse academic offerings – you can study everything from Indonesian to music education to marine geophysics here. That’s much less the case at Wake Forest, which by nature has a smaller faculty and consequently fewer courses. UCLA also has broader and deeper graduate course offerings for the motivated undergraduates who choose to take advantage of them.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Wake’s smaller size comes with distinct advantages of its own. It is much more residential than UCLA, which lends itself to a greater feeling of community. Professors are much more engaged in teaching, and most of them are genuinely interested in the welfare of their students. This is hit-or-miss at UCLA. In my own department, professors usually only teach one course a quarter, which is not a great deal in my opinion, and one of my supervising professors told me very bluntly that I was not doing my job as a TA if he received questions/visits from students. On the other hand, I met an undergrad math major the other day who absolutely raved about his experiences in the department, and he probably would have felt very stifled at Wake. </p>
<p>Some of what you may have heard about the difficulty of getting into classes at UCLA is true, but it very much depends on the department. The less popular departments have trouble filling up courses, and it’s not too difficult to find open classes. Some of the more popular courses, like geography and life science courses, fill up extremely fast and have large waitlists. My own course is intended for freshmen, but every student I had this quarter was a junior or senior who’s been trying to enroll for several years (it’s a GE course). Again, this is not as common at Wake Forest. </p>
<p>I both agree and disagree with rjk about athletic fervor at UCLA. Football isn’t extremely popular, although the rivalry with USC makes it more interesting than it would otherwise be, but basketball has a fair following. Several of my students came to discussion recently painted and decked out in blue for a game. Wake Forest, of course, has a ton of school spirit for a college its size. Football and basketball are both popular, though neither is as good as they were a few years ago. Students even TP their own quad in celebration of a victory.</p>
<p>The locations of UCLA and Wake Forest are radically different, of course. Winston-Salem is a fairly small but nice city. You need a car to get around, but there’s enough to do in the area. People are generally very friendly and laidback. LA is much larger, with all the amenities that entails – arts, museums, shopping, nightlife, etc. It’s also a great deal more expensive, a decided drawback for a student on a budget. It’s more hectic than most of the south, though still rather laidback compared to most parts of the country. Public transportation has an undeservedly bad reputation, and it is very feasible to get around using the bus, especially in west LA and Santa Monica.</p>
<p>I would first decide whether you want a small college (Wake) or a large one (UCLA, UM). Between UCLA and Michigan, I would focus on location (college town vs. large city), weather (mild and warm vs. cold winters), and academic schedule (quarters vs. semesters).</p>
<p>IMHO, for undergrads, smaller is better therefor I would put Wake above the other two. Esp, if you are undecided on careers and want a broader learning experience as well as residential campus. Wake has very little in common with the other two.</p>
<p>UCLA. Wake Forest is an unknown school</p>
<p>If you want smaller rather than larger, teaching over research, residential over urban, then go with WF. WF also has a hospital and so can offer fairly exotic science majors like biochem and biophys (like UM and UCLA). Also, undergrad business is very good at WF (UM too). </p>
<p>Potentially on the down side, Wake stresses the liberal arts and so expect a fairly large core curriculum. While WF gives AP credit for 4 and 5’s, they do not allow AP exemptions from most of the core (ie the AP credits go toward electives). I do not know, but suspect UCLA and UM are more flexible than this. </p>
<p>If you want a large school forget Wake and I would choose UM over UCLA. Both have great reputations, but Ann Arbor is truly one of the great college towns in America. </p>
<p>Of course its cold there and so if you want a large school but don’t want to wear a heavy coat six months of the year, then choose UCLA.</p>
<p>As for reputation, in my view this is pretty even between the three for undergrad (UCLA and UM are way ahead of Wake re grad except for divinity (lol)). </p>
<p>If you have the chance visit because they are all very different in terms of campus feel (UCLA – suburban, UM – big college town, Wake – enclave in medium sized town).</p>
<p>These are all good places and so you cannot go wrong with any of them. Good luck.</p>
<p>“I think people place too much emphasis on alumni networks. The alumni network at my alma mater is matched only by a few and arguably exceeded by none, but I know of very few people who actually got jobs that way. Most people networked through internships or on-campus recruiting.”</p>
<p>As always, I agree with Warblersrule 100% on this point. People overstate the benefits of a strong alumni network on CC. It is a nice bonus to be sure, but it does not dramatically improve one’s opportunities in life. </p>
<p>“I agree with bluebayou; the red tape at UCLA is utterly obnoxious. I don’t think someone has a good comparison unless they’ve attended a much smaller school before or afterwards.”</p>
<p>I do not think this is a function of size but of resources. Like I said, at Michigan, red tape is hardly ever felt. The only time a student may feel the bureaucratic pinch is during orientation. I attended Cornell for grad school and my experience there was similar to Michigan.</p>
<p>"“I think people place too much emphasis on alumni networks. The alumni network at my alma mater is matched only by a few and arguably exceeded by none, but I know of very few people who actually got jobs that way.”</p>
<p>There are more functions that a strong alumni network provides than just the posssibity of securing a job. For just one example, I know someone who met their future spouse through an alumni sponsored event in California.</p>
<p>^I know people that met their future spouses/partners at the bars. </p>
<p>^How do you measure alumni network anyway? Why do couple of you just assume WF doesn’t have comparable, if not better, alumni network? Because it’s significantly smaller? Size doesn’t translate to strength. Otherwise, by that logic, flagship state schools must have better alumni network than Princeton. But I don’t think so.</p>