What is UCLA really like...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reality: Most UCLA students and parents are very happy with their experience and have great outcomes. They recognize the disadvantages of going to a massive public school but conclude that those disadvantages are largely overstated and certainly don't outweigh the abundant advantages. Like all schools, UCLA is not for everyone--some kids don't jive with it and transfer out. But, for such a massive school, those kids are extremely rare.

The Internet: It's overcrowded, most majors are impacted, classes are hard to get, it's 90% auditorium classes, no advising, little undergraduate focus, kids only go there for the weather.

Yes! Exact same is true for every single school brought up on here. No school is perfect. People have decided the pros outweigh any cons. The vast majority will be happy, the ones that aren’t will transfer. It’s not complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA is one of the few places where there is a genuine black market for class spots

I’ve heard this too, but didn’t know if true. I try not to believe everything I read as so many false statements made on here on my own kids school.

https://stack.dailybruin.com/2024/02/04/course-selling/

It was on the first page of this thread..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA is one of the few places where there is a genuine black market for class spots

I’ve heard this too, but didn’t know if true. I try not to believe everything I read as so many false statements made on here on my own kids school.

https://stack.dailybruin.com/2024/02/04/course-selling/

It was on the first page of this thread..

I really would not trust these sources - Reddit and Snapchat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

I’ll even admit there are areas that aren’t as good. Mid-50s% for satisfaction with small class sizes, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

Who said I don't believe anything positive about the school? That's certainly not what I said. That also doesn't mean I didn't see major issues with UCLA, but I do agree undergrads are generally happy. I still wouldn't ever send my kid there, but you do you.

Why are you so determined to believe all the shiny marketing? It's basically an underfunded state school behind that shiny exterior and it has no pressure to do better because it can rest on its historic reputation, sports legacy, pretty campus, excellent weather and laid back student body. All good things, but not why you go to college IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

Why would I depend on a survey when I have first had experience? That seems crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

Who said I don't believe anything positive about the school? That's certainly not what I said. That also doesn't mean I didn't see major issues with UCLA, but I do agree undergrads are generally happy. I still wouldn't ever send my kid there, but you do you.

Why are you so determined to believe all the shiny marketing? It's basically an underfunded state school behind that shiny exterior and it has no pressure to do better because it can rest on its historic reputation, sports legacy, pretty campus, excellent weather and laid back student body. All good things, but not why you go to college IMO.

I don’t care about shiny marketing. Kids who attend are satisfied with the school across a whole range of different issues and metrics. It’s weird you keep trying to imply it’s all marketing, reputation, etc. versus accepting the views of the kids who actually attend. That’s the ostrich approach right there. But clearly UCLA lives rent free in your head for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

Why would I depend on a survey when I have first had experience? That seems crazy.

Lol and this comment right here is a reminder of why DCUM is almost completely useless. Why listen to the views of thousands of current students when there is one anonymous person on the internet claiming something?

If it’s not for you, that’s fine. It’s clearly a great option for most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

Why would I depend on a survey when I have first had experience? That seems crazy.

The cognitive dissonance runs strong in this o e.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is that the study body segregates based on identity so people hang out with people like themselves. It's not a cohesive community.

I think this is a weird comment to make about UCLA specifically because I've never been in a community where this isn't the case (my college, my jobs, church, my kids' schools, etc). It's human nature for people to segregate based on identity. It is very hard if not impossible to get authentic mixing of cultures and races on any sort of large scale.

I'd attended a smaller university before UCLA and students of all backgrounds joined groups and socialized based on interests. There were dance groups, outdoors clubs, chess clubs, triathlon clubs, etc. At UCLA, every group started with identity and not interests. Even lab partners wouldn't speak with each other if they weren't of the same background. I found it super weird.

Even student elections were all about getting other students of your religion/culture/race/heritage to turn out to vote for the candidate of the same background to push resources towards those students groups. It was super divisive.

Were you a transfer to UCLA? How recently did you attend?

I was a graduate student. My experience is that UCLA undergrads had never had another college experience and would accept everything as normal. They didn't question that professors were unavailable, there was zero advising or that many classes were impossible to get into. They also didn't question things like shortages of lab supplies. I had another college experience to compare to and I was routinely astounded what UCLA students accepted as normal.

UCLA consistently rates extremely high in student satisfaction, retention, etc. compared to the kind of schools that PP seemingly believes provide more resources. And many Bruins, myself included, study abroad or were transfers and thus do have some basis for comparison. There's a large discrepancy between the online kvetching about UCLA (large classes, scheduling, etc.) and the actual student experience, which is generally very positive.

That said, the UCLA grad students in my department seemed miserable. They convinced me not to seek a career in academia. Speaking of which, in the history of DCUM, has a grad student ever given a favorable review of the undergraduate experience at their school? It doesn't seem like it.

That's some strong Kool aid. Study abroad really provides no perspective and transfers are mostly from the California CC system with its own issues. California weather and the UCLA campus are absolutely beautiful, so I'm not surprised that students are happy. They also are mostly from California and tend to be less critical than their East Coast counterparts.

I had a pretty broad group of friends at UCLA, including my now husband in a different department, and we were all pretty astounded at a lot of the stuff that seemed normal to UCLA undergrads. We were from RPI, Rice, Carnegie Melon, MIT, William and Mary, NYU, Berkeley, BYU, U of Arizona, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount , etc. A pretty broad cross section, but all really surprised with what we saw at UCLA with poor teaching and poor treatment of undergrads.

Check your own kool-aid consumption, sister. Do you really believe that your observations of the UCLA undergrad experience as a grad student are superior to that of actual UCLA undergrads? (Don't those happy, satisfied undergrads know that they should be unhappy and dissatisfied!) Why does study abroad not provide perspective? And what about transfer students? At least those students are comparing apples to apples--two sets of undergraduate experiences. And did you really poll all the grad students at the schools you mentioned about the undergrad experience? Because that doesn't sound credible. (It's not like Berkeley, Texas, or UA offer a superior undergrad experience.) At a minimum, it sounds like a bizarre use of your time.

Again, grad student observations of the undergraduate experience are pretty much never favorable on DCUM and shouldn't be given credence above that of actual undergrads.

+1. I could not tell you the first thing about the undergrad experience at the place I went to grad school.

PP sounds like the former UCLA TA troll that’s been hanging around here for awhile.

The former UCLA TA only ever commented on one pre-med thread. You are just trying to dismiss them.

No, that person commented on multiple UCLA threads. They became a regular here.

But you’re right, I am dismissing the views of a former grad student (probably 20+ years ago) opining on the undergraduate experience. Absolutely.

You shouldn’t dismiss them, it’s become worse, not better.

Oh okay, well with such a compelling case you just made, I guess I’ll believe them instead.

Weirdly, I also stumbled upon the UC undergraduate experience survey results for 2024, where 90% of UCLA respondents said they were satisfied with their academic experience, 85% said they were satisfied with their social experience, 87% agreed that UCLA has a strong commitment to undergrad education, 88% were satisfied with their ability to get their first choice of major, and 85% were satisfied with the quality of faculty instruction. But you’re right, I’ll listen to a former grad student (or so they claim) with no undergrad experience from decades ago instead.

Go ahead and be an ostrich. Totally your choice. Others can read what people actually say and do their own research.

Literally a survey of current students, which is repeated every two years so there is other recent data available too. Maybe ask yourself why you are so determined to not believe anything positive?

Why would I depend on a survey when I have first had experience? That seems crazy.

Lol and this comment right here is a reminder of why DCUM is almost completely useless. Why listen to the views of thousands of current students when there is one anonymous person on the internet claiming something?

If it’s not for you, that’s fine. It’s clearly a great option for most.

Are you on the payroll or something? It's not one person. Several have mentioned issues from people paying for classes to zero advising to overcrowding, etc.

[Anonymous]

I kid looking at large publics is going to love UCLA. A kid who wants a SLAC not so much. It’s apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality: Most UCLA students and parents are very happy with their experience and have great outcomes. They recognize the disadvantages of going to a massive public school but conclude that those disadvantages are largely overstated and certainly don't outweigh the abundant advantages. Like all schools, UCLA is not for everyone--some kids don't jive with it and transfer out. But, for such a massive school, those kids are extremely rare.

The Internet: It's overcrowded, most majors are impacted, classes are hard to get, it's 90% auditorium classes, no advising, little undergraduate focus, kids only go there for the weather.

Yes! Exact same is true for every single school brought up on here. No school is perfect. People have decided the pros outweigh any cons. The vast majority will be happy, the ones that aren’t will transfer. It’s not complicated.

Disagree. It is complicated. Many unhappy students do not transfer for a variety of reasons. (Ask me how I know.)