<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a huge ucla fan, but I’d have to say ucla won’t be able to catch up with cal… at least not during our generation… better to say never cuz as far as I’m concerned I’ve never seen a case where a branch school beats the original.</p>
<p>It’s quite simple. UCLA just needs to tighten up on its acceptance rate a bit. Not only that would lower the number of students in each class and help with the housing problem, it would also increase the average sat of the incoming class. Exactly what Berkeley does. They accept a lower percentage and that thus boosts their school’s sat, gpa statistics and thus boosts their rankings. </p>
<p>It is quite feasible really. It is just that there is some internal resistance in the admissions office with being ranked more highly than Berkeley from what I heard.</p>
<p>i completely agree.</p>
<p>uh…life isn’t one big us news college ranking competition.</p>
<p>people’s lives and education depend on the UC system. </p>
<p>i see no reason for ‘tightening up’ an acceptance rate in order to boost the average SAT score.</p>
<p>“does Cal really churn out superior graduates to LA because of that?”
^No, I don’t remember ever writing that, so I’m not sure where it came from. I know many UCLA grads who were more successful than Cal grads, and visa versa. I was simply explaining one reason why UCLA won’t catch up with Berkeley in the near future. And, I think Nobel Laureates do have to do with the quality of the school. NP=Research=money=faculty/student support. Both UCLA and Berkeley are excellent institutions, equal on many levels. I just think Cal is more prestigious, that’s all.</p>
<p>UCLA needs to get around to finally inventing that cure for cancer, quick. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^^^haha, ok, I changed my mind. If they can do that, it WILL become as prestigious as Cal lol.</p>
<p>Agreed. asd</p>
<p>oh moldau agrees with me on something?</p>
<p>who cares? the ranking includes the college as a whole, not JUST undergraduate (i think). Whether you do ur undergraduate studies at UCLA or Cal DOESN’T MATTER, because they are on par (academically) for undergraduate studies. Graduate school is a whole different beasts. There are graduate departments (like chem) which have a much higher rating at Cal than at LA, and vice versa.</p>
<p>The odds of UCLA become the same as Cal are very low.</p>
<p>Look, everyone… it’s crowded at the top. If you go back and look at perceptions of schools in the 1960s, the same schools were up there as now, with UCLA bringing up the “tail end of the top.” That’s just how it is. Who is UCLA going to displace? The fact is that most of these things are based on momentum, and it takes a long… long time for any of this to change. UCLA will probably spend its entire existence in the shadow of Berkeley. So what? Every school is in the shadow of Harvard to an extent. So what? Every country is in the shadow of the United States. So what? Be happy with what you have. In the end, you can be a very successful and happy person with it anyway.</p>
<p>Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. I love UCLA for what it is, not what it could be. With respect to Berkeley I prefer UCLA’s athletics, surroundings, and student life much more. UCLA’s got such a perfect balance, I wouldn’t change anything…</p>
<p>Yes, it is possible that UCLA will catch up to Cal in 20 years. Last year, UCLA had more applicants applied than any other college in the UC system. Yes, more than Berkeley. Many Berkeley acceptances turn their SIR down for UCLA. In addition, UCLA’s academics and sports reputation are strong.</p>
<p>obviously a lot of people cause it does affect our livelihoods, potential job prospects, etc</p>
<p>yes, yes, there is that ******** people like to spout about being able to go anywhere, but you can feel free to believe that rankings don’t matter.</p>
<p>fastMEd,</p>
<p>It’s not that rankings don’t matter. It’s that the century has demonstrated to us that they’re largely… stagnant. In the 1960s, the same schools were at the top as today. What’s going to change?</p>
<p>“Yes, more than Berkeley. Many Berkeley acceptances turn their SIR down for UCLA.”
^^^true, but also definitely visa versa as well.</p>
<p>UCLAri: I agree. Both schools are excellent, and very few students choose Cal over UCLA only because it is ranked a few spots higher in the US News poll. They choose it because most of its programs are slightly better. However, some prefer LA to SF, and visa versa. It all depends on what environment you are looking for, IMO.</p>
<p>vc08,</p>
<p>Last I saw, it was about 60/40 in favor of Cal for cross-admits. Whatever. Maybe one day it’ll be 50/50, but in the end, I think it demonstrates that UCLA has significant pull. </p>
<p>I’m not too worried about UCLA, especially with the bulge that is happening in the top-25-- as it becomes harder to get into a top 25, people will start applying down the line, making UCLA seem even better.</p>
<p>Ok, well I don’t know the exact numbers. I think Stanford and Cal have the biggest overlaps with each other, actually (though Harvard might have an edge in it with Stanford as well). Yup, UCLA is definitely inviting. I think it has a more “well-rounded” name (as in powerful sports, arts, academics, etc), while Cal has a bigger “wow” factor, in that most would agree it is more selective, prestigious, and arguably more advanced (probably due to its age) academically. Again, it all depends on what experience you are after.</p>
<p>I’m surprised w/ san jose mercury news article by lisa m. krieger. can’t find the link anymore :(</p>
<p>“UCLA accepted 20.6 percent of applicants, down from 22.2 percent last year. At Berkeley - where the class size grew slightly but the number of applications grew even more - 20.2 percent were accepted, down slightly from 20.7 percent in 2006.”</p>
<p>they’re only .4% of a difference in acceptance rate. interesting.</p>
<p>i hope ucla maintains the top 25…what do u guys predict for the rankings the next years?</p>
<p>Pretty much the same rankings as this year’s.</p>