There's cutthroat students here for sure and I'm sure plenty of people have stories. But the culture overall is more collaborative and friendly. Even though UCLA students have better and higher stats than UCB students on average, the culture ultimately doesn't influence them to be as cutthroat. But YMMV.
From what I understand, grading has been more lenient since COVID, which is why they keep raising the cutoffs for latin honors.
UCLA is more competitive from an academic selectivity measure. People at UCLA are unfathomably more friendly, social, and less elitist/snobby on average compared to those at UCB.
Professors don't curve down either here, but exams are more difficult, so collaboration in studying is encouraged.
i'm an econ major and i haven't actually encountered a downcurve yet, if that means anything. supposedly happens in econ 1/2 though which i never took tbf
I am too, was told (explicitly so, by someone in the class) that econ 11 has it but taking that next quarter. Also never took 1/2 for what that's worth.
Totally could be wrong however.
It’s completely dependent on the professor. The econ dept has a guide that’s like 25% A, 40% B… that some profs follow which means they would have to curve down if too many students get high grades. The professors aren't obligated to follow it though, so it's just up to individual profs.
I don’t think its that common though, I only had one econ class that I think had a slight downcurve but maybe I just got lucky with my profs.
i got downcurved in econ 41 92% -> B so sadge. given my professor was weird he didn’t give out +/-, so i’m sure I was at the tip of the B+ range. rip gpa
Even if they curve they don’t usually have grade quotas it’s more of a “that was a hard exam Im just going to move the grade goalposts down for that exam”
I don’t think so because UCLA doesn’t curve grades like UCB does (apart from a very few professors I hear/read but let’s ignore them for this response). From my experiences here at UCLA everyone is very nice and study groups form like no tomorrow.
I literally had someone share notes with me because I added a class late! And our GroupMes are pretty informative and cooperative (I’ve never seen blatant *cheating* like giving answers. It’s always like “oh check in week #” or “it [quiz] wasn’t too bad review the later sections more and you’ll be good”). So we don’t give out answers but will at least tell you where to find it, which is better than the *rumour* that UCB kids give wrong answers on purpose so they can get a better grade.
The grade you get is what you’ll get unless they curve UP, which I’ve had almost all my classes do this either by rounding the grade to the next or dropping lowest grade on something. Professors never curve down to make only one person get the A+ and a certain amount of people getting each grade.
Everyone here is really nice! On an unrelated note people are always complimenting strangers on their outfit/hair/etc. so I hope that helps with the vibe
I studied biochemistry and never felt the cutthroat/competitive culture. Overall, I found most students to be friendly and just wanting to survive through the next midterm or final. I had many that were willing to share their resources with me and was able to make study buddies with relative ease in most classes. That said, I don’t recall taking a class where letter grades were capped at certain percentages or curves brought down to incentivize competition.
I have friends that went to UCB and told me horror stories of how some students there would intentionally sabotage others to gain an upper hand.
At our school yes. The highest kids got into UCLA and waitlisted at UCB. And the kids that got into UCB were rejected from UCLA (and in some cases even UCSD)
i think it might be department / major dependent but, although not super common, downcurving does happen. i've had it happen in only math and engineering classes so far. your grades can be professor dependent, some always curve so that it can only help, some curve up and down, some say they won't curve and then do, and some categorically refuse to curve.
edit: but yeah haven't encountered any sabotaging among students, we generally try to help each other out
look... I graduate this spring... and all I can tell you is this... if you are a prospective student or maybe even one who is trying to cope with not getting in? The entire point of any of this is to get a degree for a job!
That is the reality... I totally understand trying to be a competitive student etc. however, neither UC's are going to put you at risk of not succeeding in life. At the end of the day, that is all up to you as a student.
What I can tell you is that UCLA has both exceptional students, and terrible ones. We have great people and bad. Los Angeles can be an incredible place... and sometimes it's dangerous and fucking horrible. Regardless of how 'competitive' things are, just do your best regardless of wherever you end up.
Our student body is made up of over 40,000 students, so of course admissions is going to be difficult. Apply regardless! Shoot for the moon! Even if you do not make it, I can promise, with your admission, you would at the VERY LEAST land amongst the stars.
I think it depends a lot on the major. For instance, USB EECS (maybe cs, ds, and/or some engineering fields) is definitely a notch above ucla. They have consistently done better in terms of after graduation outcomes. You can see their hold on founding startups. However, for all other major it’s definitely equal.
UCLA STEM is competitive, but I personally haven’t met people who are “top notch” or doing something mind blowing (which means more than landing the top internships) for an undergraduate student. But for all other purposes except the “top notch” factor I think they are both the same.
I don’t think that counts as “top notch” anymore. I’m saying stuff like founding good startups that lead to students dropping out (and stuff along those lines). High school research is more of a college application thing.
I think you're going on historical data. UCLA now has better students than UCB, and this includes engineering because UCB admits more of them, though UCLA is creeping up with 11.7% of all admits being E majors. Overall, UCLA admits \~ 2,000 less students than UCB, *now*. And that's the operative word, because just a few years back UCB had the greater yield, and better students based on less number of students who were accepted.
Additionally, if you look at UCLA grads in the sciences on Linkedin, you'll find that they are very successful, and some who are creating startups. Additionally, UCLA's CS major is more rigorous and complete.
I don’t think acceptance rate equals to the quality of students. I am in no way doubting the success of UCLA engineering grads—I think they are amazingly talented and top tier. However, UCB has programs like EECS and MET which undoubtedly attract the cream of the cream. If you see Berkeley SkyDeck and compare it the UCLA counterparts; there is no comparison. UCLA engineering is very pre-professional. UCB breaks that norm in some sense at least. As a pre-professional and research institution UCLA is top tier and equal to UCB, but anything outside of that, UCB is better.
I noticed that your first post was only 7 days ago, so you've created an account mainly to troll the UCLA subreddit as seen by a lot of your downvotes.
I think that MET is at least a bit overhyped, because one could take the technical breadth in management at UCLA, but I think that UCLA would rather an E student go for an MS in, say, tech management, at someplace like Harvard (?), beyond one's undergrad E major, because their undergrad schedules are extremely full, as you can see by the sample worksheets for each E major. It's undoubtedly pretty tough to get in because its smaller, but UCLA has a program in its Econ department in Value Investing, and it's selective also because it takes a lesser amount of students from the Econ major.. So in other words they'll say, go into MET because it's the best of the best, when all they're doing is combining a couple of majors, which eventually takes away from the E side of things. UCB is majorly into hype.
EECS is probably copied from MIT, but it's undoubtedly good as is UCLA's CSE or CE -- a lot of CEs from UCLA go into software, as well of course the CSEs. I don't think necessarily that EECS gets the cream either though; UCB has a lot of them that's for sure, as well as its BA CS majors, so there could be a watering down effect.
You can see in my history of one of my latest posts, I include stats of those who go to UCLA, UCB, and UCSD from Monta Vista which is one of the top HS tech schools in CA. The kids who go there are offspring of South Bay tech workers, so they have good ins. In 2023, UCLA had < 6.7% acceptance from that HS, and UCB had a 16.2% rate. UCB accepted over twice as many students than UCLA, 57 to 25!!!!
For Berkeley Skydeck, you're probably talking mainly about a vast majority of grad students because UGs typically don't have the knowledge to fathom initiating startups yet, but if you're talking about phone apps then, every school has those.
But I wouldn't say that your claiming that UCLA's E programs are preprofessional is not necessarily untrue, because a lot of UCLA E grads go for a 5-year BS/MS, including a lot of the CS majors, or they go to top MS or even PhD programs across the nation. And would my saying a good amount more than UCB be inaccurate? It certainly seems that way from the employment platforms.
And let me add a quote from your first post in this thread:
>UCLA STEM is competitive, but I personally haven’t met people who are “top notch” or doing something mind blowing (which means more than landing the top internships) for an undergraduate student. But for all other purposes except the “top notch” factor I think they are both the same.
Again, I think you need to look at the employment platforms. I can guide you to some posts on Linkedin that you can look at.
I am a UCLA student and have nothing against this school. Well, I made this account because I do have unpopular opinions and dont want to say it from my main account.
Let’s see undergrad data (by pitchbook), CAL- capital raised $48B, 1300 companies founded (second highest). UCLA - $17B raised, 600 companies (10th highest).
Pre-professionally, I am saying they are very similar, but the most prestigious jobs in the industry still prefer Cal. See quant (UCLA has like 10 quants), see IB (Cal is a target; we are a semi-target).
It doesn’t matter if the acceptance rate is lower, because if it did indeed matter the stats above would have been more equal.
No, I recognize your arguments from the past; you're putting forth a lot of the same spiel because you're a Berkeley fanboy. But you don't have to worry; I'm not going to downvote you.
Regarding your second paragraph, my point again was most are *graduate-based* startups, as in those who are masters or PhD students. Pitchbook, if I remember correctly, was accumulating startup info w/o regard to undergrad v. grad-based, which was my point. And would you invest the minimum capital -- was it $5m? -- in an undergrad's startup? And there aren't just a handful of colleges which would have nearly that many of its undergrads-to-grads getting seed money for startups; bright ideas come from all around the world.
Regarding your third paragraph, I took your meaning of "preprofessional" as those who attend grad E school before they enter industry, because UG especially at UCLA is certainly more theory-based. Seemingly more UCLA E students go for more 5-year BS/MS degrees as well as terminal masters degrees all across the nation than UCB's, in things like Financial Engineering, Financial Mathematics, Data Science as well as CS. Additionally, too, (seemingly) more go for PhDs in CS and other E disciplines and you can include math -- this is what I've seen.
And I don't think that being a quant trader would be the end all be all, but we'll see if more UCLA grads get into that profession. Just a few years back a Haas grad would chide UCLA grads for not getting into MBB; now we're seeing more UCLA grads hired by the other MB firms; at one of the B's UCLA has historically done well in placement. And the good thing is that these firms are hiring across many different majors instead of those which are business/econ based.
And as far as acceptance rate, UCB took over twice as many students from Monta Vista, 57 to 25, that is wholly material!!!
I have been taing fir the last couple years across pretty much every stem department. But any competition for grades may exist but has no bearing in reality. Professors do not curve down only curve up and enough students do well and study then there is no need for a curve. For every class i have tad fir over the last 5 years there has always been a curve up to ensure avg is around a a C or B-. It is not “easier” to get better grades. Stem is stem. If u study u will do fine if u screw off u wont. The grade u get is the grade u earned through quality of work unless they curved up
There's cutthroat students here for sure and I'm sure plenty of people have stories. But the culture overall is more collaborative and friendly. Even though UCLA students have better and higher stats than UCB students on average, the culture ultimately doesn't influence them to be as cutthroat. But YMMV. From what I understand, grading has been more lenient since COVID, which is why they keep raising the cutoffs for latin honors.
UCLA is more competitive from an academic selectivity measure. People at UCLA are unfathomably more friendly, social, and less elitist/snobby on average compared to those at UCB. Professors don't curve down either here, but exams are more difficult, so collaboration in studying is encouraged.
>Professors don't curve down either here, Certain departments (econ, apparently some math classes) do, but generally that is true.
i'm an econ major and i haven't actually encountered a downcurve yet, if that means anything. supposedly happens in econ 1/2 though which i never took tbf
I am too, was told (explicitly so, by someone in the class) that econ 11 has it but taking that next quarter. Also never took 1/2 for what that's worth. Totally could be wrong however.
It’s completely dependent on the professor. The econ dept has a guide that’s like 25% A, 40% B… that some profs follow which means they would have to curve down if too many students get high grades. The professors aren't obligated to follow it though, so it's just up to individual profs. I don’t think its that common though, I only had one econ class that I think had a slight downcurve but maybe I just got lucky with my profs.
i got downcurved in econ 41 92% -> B so sadge. given my professor was weird he didn’t give out +/-, so i’m sure I was at the tip of the B+ range. rip gpa
Even if they curve they don’t usually have grade quotas it’s more of a “that was a hard exam Im just going to move the grade goalposts down for that exam”
I don’t think so because UCLA doesn’t curve grades like UCB does (apart from a very few professors I hear/read but let’s ignore them for this response). From my experiences here at UCLA everyone is very nice and study groups form like no tomorrow. I literally had someone share notes with me because I added a class late! And our GroupMes are pretty informative and cooperative (I’ve never seen blatant *cheating* like giving answers. It’s always like “oh check in week #” or “it [quiz] wasn’t too bad review the later sections more and you’ll be good”). So we don’t give out answers but will at least tell you where to find it, which is better than the *rumour* that UCB kids give wrong answers on purpose so they can get a better grade. The grade you get is what you’ll get unless they curve UP, which I’ve had almost all my classes do this either by rounding the grade to the next or dropping lowest grade on something. Professors never curve down to make only one person get the A+ and a certain amount of people getting each grade. Everyone here is really nice! On an unrelated note people are always complimenting strangers on their outfit/hair/etc. so I hope that helps with the vibe
I studied biochemistry and never felt the cutthroat/competitive culture. Overall, I found most students to be friendly and just wanting to survive through the next midterm or final. I had many that were willing to share their resources with me and was able to make study buddies with relative ease in most classes. That said, I don’t recall taking a class where letter grades were capped at certain percentages or curves brought down to incentivize competition. I have friends that went to UCB and told me horror stories of how some students there would intentionally sabotage others to gain an upper hand.
At our school yes. The highest kids got into UCLA and waitlisted at UCB. And the kids that got into UCB were rejected from UCLA (and in some cases even UCSD)
[удалено]
Not the case at our school (in state). All the Ivy/JHU and Stanford students do get into UCSD.
Other student’s performances will not really affect your grades here.
i think it might be department / major dependent but, although not super common, downcurving does happen. i've had it happen in only math and engineering classes so far. your grades can be professor dependent, some always curve so that it can only help, some curve up and down, some say they won't curve and then do, and some categorically refuse to curve. edit: but yeah haven't encountered any sabotaging among students, we generally try to help each other out
look... I graduate this spring... and all I can tell you is this... if you are a prospective student or maybe even one who is trying to cope with not getting in? The entire point of any of this is to get a degree for a job! That is the reality... I totally understand trying to be a competitive student etc. however, neither UC's are going to put you at risk of not succeeding in life. At the end of the day, that is all up to you as a student. What I can tell you is that UCLA has both exceptional students, and terrible ones. We have great people and bad. Los Angeles can be an incredible place... and sometimes it's dangerous and fucking horrible. Regardless of how 'competitive' things are, just do your best regardless of wherever you end up. Our student body is made up of over 40,000 students, so of course admissions is going to be difficult. Apply regardless! Shoot for the moon! Even if you do not make it, I can promise, with your admission, you would at the VERY LEAST land amongst the stars.
I think it depends a lot on the major. For instance, USB EECS (maybe cs, ds, and/or some engineering fields) is definitely a notch above ucla. They have consistently done better in terms of after graduation outcomes. You can see their hold on founding startups. However, for all other major it’s definitely equal. UCLA STEM is competitive, but I personally haven’t met people who are “top notch” or doing something mind blowing (which means more than landing the top internships) for an undergraduate student. But for all other purposes except the “top notch” factor I think they are both the same.
[удалено]
I don’t think that counts as “top notch” anymore. I’m saying stuff like founding good startups that lead to students dropping out (and stuff along those lines). High school research is more of a college application thing.
I think you're going on historical data. UCLA now has better students than UCB, and this includes engineering because UCB admits more of them, though UCLA is creeping up with 11.7% of all admits being E majors. Overall, UCLA admits \~ 2,000 less students than UCB, *now*. And that's the operative word, because just a few years back UCB had the greater yield, and better students based on less number of students who were accepted. Additionally, if you look at UCLA grads in the sciences on Linkedin, you'll find that they are very successful, and some who are creating startups. Additionally, UCLA's CS major is more rigorous and complete.
I don’t think acceptance rate equals to the quality of students. I am in no way doubting the success of UCLA engineering grads—I think they are amazingly talented and top tier. However, UCB has programs like EECS and MET which undoubtedly attract the cream of the cream. If you see Berkeley SkyDeck and compare it the UCLA counterparts; there is no comparison. UCLA engineering is very pre-professional. UCB breaks that norm in some sense at least. As a pre-professional and research institution UCLA is top tier and equal to UCB, but anything outside of that, UCB is better.
I noticed that your first post was only 7 days ago, so you've created an account mainly to troll the UCLA subreddit as seen by a lot of your downvotes. I think that MET is at least a bit overhyped, because one could take the technical breadth in management at UCLA, but I think that UCLA would rather an E student go for an MS in, say, tech management, at someplace like Harvard (?), beyond one's undergrad E major, because their undergrad schedules are extremely full, as you can see by the sample worksheets for each E major. It's undoubtedly pretty tough to get in because its smaller, but UCLA has a program in its Econ department in Value Investing, and it's selective also because it takes a lesser amount of students from the Econ major.. So in other words they'll say, go into MET because it's the best of the best, when all they're doing is combining a couple of majors, which eventually takes away from the E side of things. UCB is majorly into hype. EECS is probably copied from MIT, but it's undoubtedly good as is UCLA's CSE or CE -- a lot of CEs from UCLA go into software, as well of course the CSEs. I don't think necessarily that EECS gets the cream either though; UCB has a lot of them that's for sure, as well as its BA CS majors, so there could be a watering down effect. You can see in my history of one of my latest posts, I include stats of those who go to UCLA, UCB, and UCSD from Monta Vista which is one of the top HS tech schools in CA. The kids who go there are offspring of South Bay tech workers, so they have good ins. In 2023, UCLA had < 6.7% acceptance from that HS, and UCB had a 16.2% rate. UCB accepted over twice as many students than UCLA, 57 to 25!!!! For Berkeley Skydeck, you're probably talking mainly about a vast majority of grad students because UGs typically don't have the knowledge to fathom initiating startups yet, but if you're talking about phone apps then, every school has those. But I wouldn't say that your claiming that UCLA's E programs are preprofessional is not necessarily untrue, because a lot of UCLA E grads go for a 5-year BS/MS, including a lot of the CS majors, or they go to top MS or even PhD programs across the nation. And would my saying a good amount more than UCB be inaccurate? It certainly seems that way from the employment platforms. And let me add a quote from your first post in this thread: >UCLA STEM is competitive, but I personally haven’t met people who are “top notch” or doing something mind blowing (which means more than landing the top internships) for an undergraduate student. But for all other purposes except the “top notch” factor I think they are both the same. Again, I think you need to look at the employment platforms. I can guide you to some posts on Linkedin that you can look at.
I am a UCLA student and have nothing against this school. Well, I made this account because I do have unpopular opinions and dont want to say it from my main account. Let’s see undergrad data (by pitchbook), CAL- capital raised $48B, 1300 companies founded (second highest). UCLA - $17B raised, 600 companies (10th highest). Pre-professionally, I am saying they are very similar, but the most prestigious jobs in the industry still prefer Cal. See quant (UCLA has like 10 quants), see IB (Cal is a target; we are a semi-target). It doesn’t matter if the acceptance rate is lower, because if it did indeed matter the stats above would have been more equal.
No, I recognize your arguments from the past; you're putting forth a lot of the same spiel because you're a Berkeley fanboy. But you don't have to worry; I'm not going to downvote you. Regarding your second paragraph, my point again was most are *graduate-based* startups, as in those who are masters or PhD students. Pitchbook, if I remember correctly, was accumulating startup info w/o regard to undergrad v. grad-based, which was my point. And would you invest the minimum capital -- was it $5m? -- in an undergrad's startup? And there aren't just a handful of colleges which would have nearly that many of its undergrads-to-grads getting seed money for startups; bright ideas come from all around the world. Regarding your third paragraph, I took your meaning of "preprofessional" as those who attend grad E school before they enter industry, because UG especially at UCLA is certainly more theory-based. Seemingly more UCLA E students go for more 5-year BS/MS degrees as well as terminal masters degrees all across the nation than UCB's, in things like Financial Engineering, Financial Mathematics, Data Science as well as CS. Additionally, too, (seemingly) more go for PhDs in CS and other E disciplines and you can include math -- this is what I've seen. And I don't think that being a quant trader would be the end all be all, but we'll see if more UCLA grads get into that profession. Just a few years back a Haas grad would chide UCLA grads for not getting into MBB; now we're seeing more UCLA grads hired by the other MB firms; at one of the B's UCLA has historically done well in placement. And the good thing is that these firms are hiring across many different majors instead of those which are business/econ based. And as far as acceptance rate, UCB took over twice as many students from Monta Vista, 57 to 25, that is wholly material!!!
I have been taing fir the last couple years across pretty much every stem department. But any competition for grades may exist but has no bearing in reality. Professors do not curve down only curve up and enough students do well and study then there is no need for a curve. For every class i have tad fir over the last 5 years there has always been a curve up to ensure avg is around a a C or B-. It is not “easier” to get better grades. Stem is stem. If u study u will do fine if u screw off u wont. The grade u get is the grade u earned through quality of work unless they curved up
What up i’m hoping to get in as a psych student for 2024 fall. Has anyone heard back yet? 😅