Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Everybody knows this! Except, apparently, the nearly 2/3 of applicants who are accepted to both Cal and UCLA and who consistently choose to attend UCLA over Cal.

Incidentally, roughly same preference rate for UCLA over Cornell.

🤣🤣🤣

A lot of in state residents need to live close to home. For the same reasons they cannot leave the state. A combination of lacking independence and also needing to save money through in state tuition and being close to home.

Oh, that’s your explanation now for the fact that nearly twice as many cross-admitted applicants choose UCLA over Cal every year? Despite the fact that Cal is “miles ahead”?

Respectfully, GTFOH …

LA is popular with the TikTok generation. All the serious students are at Berkeley while UCLA gets these non-academic types.

+100 this student with 25 APs is a great example of the TikTok generation. No depth in knowledge. Just superficial and basic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with everyone above. 25 APs is INCREDIBLY impressive. Very few kids can take that many APs and do well starting freshman year.

I am guessing the kid was weak in other areas. For top 10, we already know you need something very special and more individually driven.

This isn't surprising. Kid got into top 20 schools that are ok with more one-dimensional students like UCLA.

Shame on the many posters who just reflexively dump on something they don't understand.

My gifted child, who is not straining herself in any way, will take 14 APs when all is said and done. She has no desire to take any other APs than the 14 she has specifically chosen. In the high-achieving cohort of kids looking at top tier colleges, 14 is not an out-of-the-way number. She has an unusual and selective internship tied to a niche hobby (as well as more conventional activities taken to a high level), so I think she's well set for college admissions purposes. All of it happened organically. I'm not sure she could do 25 APs, to be honest.

If this story is true, it probably indicates a kid whose entire focus was taking as many APs as possible, regardless of crafting a narrative or doing anything else, which admissions officers tend to not appreciate. But maybe this kid is on the spectrum and they really enjoyed the idea of doing 25 APs! I'm not going to rain on their parade. And UCLA is a great university! Congratulations are in order, instead of criticisms. Seriously. Some of your guys are messed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Everybody knows this! Except, apparently, the nearly 2/3 of applicants who are accepted to both Cal and UCLA and who consistently choose to attend UCLA over Cal.

Incidentally, roughly same preference rate for UCLA over Cornell.

🤣🤣🤣

A lot of in state residents need to live close to home. For the same reasons they cannot leave the state. A combination of lacking independence and also needing to save money through in state tuition and being close to home.

Oh, that’s your explanation now for the fact that nearly twice as many cross-admitted applicants choose UCLA over Cal every year? Despite the fact that Cal is “miles ahead”?

Respectfully, GTFOH …

LA is popular with the TikTok generation. All the serious students are at Berkeley while UCLA gets these non-academic types.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says right in the video that he took major risks with his essays and at one point, he says he didn’t even answer Northwestern‘s prompt.

Why are people skipping over this? If you don't answer the college's essay question and submit your own "edgy" essay, you didn't do it right.

They weren’t “edgy”, but “risky”, and “high risk high reward”.

My guess is that if someone would have edited and advised him on how to write a good essay, he would have gotten him into a top 10.

For most people dumping on the kid, how many of your own take AP calculus in 9th and have the drive to self study for AP Physics C because the school offers only algebra based physics? The kid has grit, while the downers see grind.

He will do fine at UCLA, and from what I’ve seen it’s a better fit for him than the other colleges he applied to.

His accomplishments that you mention are yawn. Not real accomplishments. What has he been able to achieve by taking Calculus slightly earlier, or by extending physics to include Calculus? He squandered it by doing nothing with it. Huge yawn.

Sure huge yawn, he should have started a nonprofit with mom’s help or compete in science fair with a topic closely aligned with dads PhD.

Taking calculus in 9th is 2-3 years ahead of the vast majority of students, considering the high school is 4 years it doesn’t make it slightly earlier. What should the kid have done with his Calculus Physics knowledge while in high school?

If you take it before college, what is the difference between taking it in 9th vs 11th? Zero difference.

Now if you could list off advanced math classes that he took, far beyond that, it would be a different situation.

The difference is that it allows taking all of the advanced core classes in high school. How many kids do you know that took all of Calculus BC, Statistics, Physics C, Chemistry, Biology, English (Language and Literature), History (US, European, World), Computer Science A, Foreign Language. These are top rigor courses and he got all As and 5s. I’d even add to this Micro and Macro economics.

That’s a real academic accomplishment. He could have done better with support on the college application process, but UCLA is still very good.

That sounds pretty normal. Again, not an accomplishment. These are just AP classes.

That’s not normal or ordinary. How many of these classes did yours take? The kid checked the box on rigor and grades with all these “just AP” classes. Obviously he had some shortcomings, phoning in the application last minute, weak essays, likely weak LOR since he went to three different high schools, but still has a strong high school record especially in academics.

Still I’d think UCLA is comparable with Cornell Ivy where his brother went and he’ll enter college as a Junior. How’s not graduating UCLA in two years an accomplishment? You really need to get out of your bubble.

I personally took every single one of those APs you mentioned and never considered it an accomplishment. It was normal. My accomplishments were other things that I did

Furthermore, the kid has not graduated college in 2 years. You are making that part up. Graduating college early only makes sense if you have something great lined up afterwards. Otherwise you are just unemployed.

lol. Sure you took every single one of them, honey, it was just normal for you. Online everyone is top rigor with national level awards and recognition. Care you share what major and at what college you ended up?

While he didn’t graduate in 2 years, the kid said he’s entering UCLA as a Junior, putting him solidly on that path.

You sound so silly, you’re likely still in high school, if not middle school. Graduating early will save him about $100k. Dumb kids with useless majors will be unemployed after college, but I guarantee he’s not one of them. You on the other hand, I’m not so sure.

Why is taking a normal AP course load so hard to believe? All of my peers during high school did the same. I ended up double majoring in college since it was pretty easy to do and going directly into grad school.

Do you have any evidence that taking 15 of the hardest APs is normal, besides the claim that “you and your peers took every single one of them”? College Board statistics show that about 0.2% of all students manage that feat, so it’s hardly “normal”.

What undergrad and grad school did you go to? Were they “better” than UCLA? What major and what field?

Was the kid misguided to take 25 APs? Yes, and to some degree a waste of time, but he set himself this goal, however imperfect and managed to accomplish it by working hard over 4 years of high school. That’s better than the vast majority of fabricated passion projects, nepotism internships, and fake impact metrics.

People that have some life experience realize that UCLA won’t hold this kid back in the least. If grad school is his interest, he can get in anywhere from UCLA, including HYPSM or whatever people consider elite. Nobody will deny him a job interview because he went to UCLA instead of Cornell.

If anything, he did a lot in high school and managed to get into one of the top universities in the world. Understandable he is disappointed, but honestly he has no reason to be. At 18 he lacks some perspective and that’s ok, he’ll do fine.

There may have been some slight variation across the specific APs of my cohort but roughly equivalent.

My college and grad schools are well liked on this board. Without getting into specifics, I have two doctorates and am well compensated.

UCLA is a fine college though.

Did you also win the Nobel prize and Fields medal? Just so you make it slightly more believable.

No but I have met a few people who have Nobels. Not everyone on here is a troll. I am a real person.

Is that supposed to be impressive?

You sound like a dumb troll jerk dumping your own frustration in life on an 18 year old.

I have met lots of interesting people, and a few have had Nobels.

You might want to reflect why you react the way you do here. My life is great and we could have had a more productive interaction here.

AP coursework is just very basic and doing 15, 20, or 25 of them doesn’t change that it is all introductory material.

I’m exiting this thread now.

The thing is, if one goes to a good enough college like UCLA, the intro classes are much harder and cover much more than those corresponding AP classes. I personally would retake some of the core required classes even if the school let your AP classes fulfill the requirements.

This.
My daughter just finished her first year at a "good" college and the AP super jocks from public high schools who skipped the intro courses are getting TANKED in the classes they "placed" into.

Not true, APs are on par with introductory classes at even top colleges. If a 5 on AP Calculus BC is good enough for MIT and Stanford, then it’s fine for lower ranked universities as well.

In what sense is a 5 on Calc BC good enough for MIT? I bet most planning to do STEM at MIT have much more math preparation than Calc BC.

A 5 in AP Calculus BC gets credit for MIT’s 18.01 Single variable calculus.

That means a 5 in BC barely passes their elementary calculus!

No, it means that for a score of 5 in AP Calculus BC you get the same credit towards a degree as passing MITs 18.01 Single Variable Calculus.

Not barely, and not elementary calculus, whatever you think that means. If MIT is saying they are equivalent, it really doesn’t matter what your personal opinion is on this matter.

That doesn't make them equivalent. It just lets you skip 18.01 if you want to try the next class in the sequence. These classes are much harder than AP so doing so is challenging and most kids will repeat 18.01 at college rather than try to skip.

Curious about this, are you dumb?

From the MIT website:
“A score of 5 on the Calculus BC exam will grant you credit for 18.01.”

Not that it lets you skip, not that 18.01 is much harder, or that it’s recommended you repeat 18.01. You get the same credit towards an MIT degree as taking 18.01.

From the sample of kids I personally knew, not a single one would repeat 18.01, because they have better use of their time than reviewing material that’s already mastered.

You obviously don't know anyone there. Full stop. You can read a website but don't actually know anything. Please shut up. These kids need to continue math beyond 18.01 and the everybody has already taken BC Calc. Everybody. Skipping 18.01 is not going to be fun.

NP - If a poster has to resort to name calling, I'm going to assume they are bored teenagers, probably younger than 15. So yeah, they probably have access to the MIT website, but no, they don't have a child who has gone through APs and college. And have little to know idea about what "prepared" really means in post-secondary institutions.
I wish Jeff would shut down these horrible trolls. It's really getting annoying.

Anonymous wrote:There can only be one flagship university in the UC system. That university is UC Berkeley. Everything else is second tier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Everybody knows this! Except, apparently, the nearly 2/3 of applicants who are accepted to both Cal and UCLA and who consistently choose to attend UCLA over Cal.

Incidentally, roughly same preference rate for UCLA over Cornell.

🤣🤣🤣

A lot of in state residents need to live close to home. For the same reasons they cannot leave the state. A combination of lacking independence and also needing to save money through in state tuition and being close to home.

Oh, that’s your explanation now for the fact that nearly twice as many cross-admitted applicants choose UCLA over Cal every year? Despite the fact that Cal is “miles ahead”?

Respectfully, GTFOH …

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spending too much time on your own academics is a sign of arrogance and self-centeredness. Schools do not care if you are top .1% intelligence if you are solely focused on racking up stats. I'm not speaking to this kid in particular, but there are plenty of brilliant maladjusted geniuses that will spend all day in their room studying, masturbating and playing shooter games, rather than contributing to the campus community. Schools would rather take to 5% intelligence and community impact than the .1% top student who is glorying in their own intelligence all day.

Wow. You need to spend some time on your own issues.

I think you're missing the point. The world is not a better place because a kid takes a 25th AP, or gets a 98 on a test instead of a 96. Studying that much is a self-centered, ego-gratifying endeavor. If the kid spent 3 hours a week bagging groceries and paying compliments to senior citizens at the supermarket instead of studying for the 25th AP, they will have done more good for universe than going from 24 to 25 APs. At least the old ladies will smile and reflect on their "lovely blouse" at home for a day or two. Parents are prioritizing the wrong values and colleges are showing this through holistic admissions. Great stats on their own are just not that valuable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Everybody knows this! Except, apparently, the nearly 2/3 of applicants who are accepted to both Cal and UCLA and who consistently choose to attend UCLA over Cal.

Incidentally, roughly same preference rate for UCLA over Cornell.

🤣🤣🤣

A lot of in state residents need to live close to home. For the same reasons they cannot leave the state. A combination of lacking independence and also needing to save money through in state tuition and being close to home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

Cornell is hanging on by a thread - fourth tier Ivy, at best, and borderline Top 25 overall.

Despite that it is a much better university than any of the UCs. On a different level.

For colleges within 5 spots in the rankings, it doesn’t really matter. They are not on a different level, it’s the same level.

At that point, base the school choice on other factors like fit, finances, location, major, clubs, internships, vibe, connecting with a professor during visits, industry you’re targeting after college etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Everybody knows this! Except, apparently, the nearly 2/3 of applicants who are accepted to both Cal and UCLA and who consistently choose to attend UCLA over Cal.

Incidentally, roughly same preference rate for UCLA over Cornell.

🤣🤣🤣

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

Cornell is hanging on by a thread - fourth tier Ivy, at best, and borderline Top 25 overall.

Despite that it is a much better university than any of the UCs. On a different level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There can only be one flagship university in the UC system. That university is UC Berkeley. Everything else is second tier.

Correct. This is like getting rejected from University of Maryland College Park and going to UMBC. Every state has a flagship university. UMBC is great too though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

The gap is huge? You really are clueless.

US News rankings: Berkeley 15, UCLA 17
Admission rates: Berkeley 11%, UCLA 9.4%

Their rankings are comparable to Dartmouth (13) and Cornell (12). Berkeley would be better for engineering, UCLA for health and life sciences, but you’re splitting hairs here, the individual qualities will matter more. For many families depending on finances and post undergrad plans, UCLA or Cal in state would make more sense. It doesn’t mean those kids are not Ivy+ material, just that they need to consider a multitude of factors.

Nope. This thread already discusses at length why the US News rankings are wrong, so I’m not going to repeat that here.

UCLA is second tier after UC Berkeley and everybody knows this. Denying it is like trying to convince yourself that your second place consolation prize is just as good as first place. UCLA is just a satellite campus within the UC system. The flagship is Berkeley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let's just be honest here. This kid was not ivy+ material. He also didn't get into his flagship university, UC Berkeley. Where he landed makes a lot of sense.

Berkeley and UCLA are considered equally prestigious. Rankings and admissions rates are about the same. For Neuroscience I’d give the edge to UCLA because of the medical school.

What’s Ivy+ material? Berkeley and UCLA kids are not below Ivy, you’re just being ridiculous. I’d take in state UCLA over Dartmouth or Cornell any day.

Not true at all. The gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA is huge. UC Berkeley is miles ahead.

It also doesn’t come close to any of the Ivy+ schools. Comparing any of the UCs to Dartmouth or Cornell is just delusional.

Cornell is hanging on by a thread - fourth tier Ivy, at best, and borderline Top 25 overall.