Anonymous wrote:Again, I don’t see anyone denying that impacted majors exist, that housing is a big issue at nearly all of the UC’s (apart from UCLA’s triples), that there are in fact some classes with more than 1000 kids enrolled, etc. . . We are just being told it doesn’t matter, which of course is personal opinion. To me, it matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of them, including Cornell, are lower rated than Berkeley and UCLA .. ?

Are people seriously choosing schools that are lower rated, and in places like Ithaca, NY, over higher rated schools in California?

USC is fine as a proxy (but without the NM pricing, more than 2x the cost), but anybody choosing NYU or especially BU over Berkeley or UCLA really isn't suitable for either of the latter schools anyway.

Consider that decision a test-out ...

Many people no longer care about the U.S. news rankings now that they are concerned mostly with first gen and Pell grant eligible students. UCLA does some important research but I have zero doubt that the quality of the undergraduate experience (size of classes, degrees held by professors, percentage of classes taught by TAs, and housing) is better at Cornell.

FWIW, no connection to either of these schools.

DP - also no connection to either of those schools. Just wanted to say, other than here in DCUM-land, most people care very much about USNWR rankings. It's only here that certain posters (obviously those whose favored schools went down in the rankings) parse and dismiss them. The vast majority of Americans use those rankings to help them choose colleges.

The vast majority of people don’t use U.S. news rankings, they send their kids to the in state school that accepts them. Nice try though.

It really bothers you that people use USNWR and that your favored school has sunk in the rankings. I'm sorry.

It really bothers you that people know the truth about UCs. And they are speaking it. Not sorry 😝

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a public school problem.

Well, to be more accurate: this is sometimes a problem at schools which are very much in demand.

Nope. It’s a problem at schools big and small, mostly big, that are under resourced and underfunded.

So, Brown? Wesleyan? CM? All of the other privates mentioned here which have crammed freshmen into triples and hotels? Interesting. Didn't realize they were under resourced and underfunded.

Yes! And!
You probably also don’t know that they never have 500 kids in one class.

Can't think of many publics that have 500 kids in one class either. The misinformation being thrown around on this thread is really quite something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of them, including Cornell, are lower rated than Berkeley and UCLA .. ?

Are people seriously choosing schools that are lower rated, and in places like Ithaca, NY, over higher rated schools in California?

USC is fine as a proxy (but without the NM pricing, more than 2x the cost), but anybody choosing NYU or especially BU over Berkeley or UCLA really isn't suitable for either of the latter schools anyway.

Consider that decision a test-out ...

Many people no longer care about the U.S. news rankings now that they are concerned mostly with first gen and Pell grant eligible students. UCLA does some important research but I have zero doubt that the quality of the undergraduate experience (size of classes, degrees held by professors, percentage of classes taught by TAs, and housing) is better at Cornell.

FWIW, no connection to either of these schools.

DP - also no connection to either of those schools. Just wanted to say, other than here in DCUM-land, most people care very much about USNWR rankings. It's only here that certain posters (obviously those whose favored schools went down in the rankings) parse and dismiss them. The vast majority of Americans use those rankings to help them choose colleges.

The vast majority of people don’t use U.S. news rankings, they send their kids to the in state school that accepts them. Nice try though.

It really bothers you that people use USNWR and that your favored school has sunk in the rankings. I'm sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a public school problem.

Well, to be more accurate: this is sometimes a problem at schools which are very much in demand.

Nope. It’s a problem at schools big and small, mostly big, that are under resourced and underfunded.

So, Brown? Wesleyan? CM? All of the other privates mentioned here which have crammed freshmen into triples and hotels? Interesting. Didn't realize they were under resourced and underfunded.

Yes! And!
You probably also don’t know that they never have 500 kids in one class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have a DD graduating from UCLA this year, and her experience is aligned with the reports of other actual UCLA parents in this thread. She's graduating in 4 years, in one of the typical pre-med majors, with a foreign language minor, and has completed additional courses to fulfill the college honors program requirements. It absolutely took careful planning and flexibility, but it wasn't as daunting as has been presented here (and, yes, that includes the chem 20/30 series).

The largest lecture hall at UCLA holds 442 kids. So, tales of 1000+ classes there are simply untrue. However, I agree with the PP (19:14) who noted that after a certain point, it just doesn't matter. The nature of the lecture doesn't change beyond about 50-100, and there are simply more discussion sections available.

I haven't seen this myth in this particular thread yet, but to head it off, there seems to be a belief that the top public universities primarily use graduate teaching assistants to lead classes. In my daughter's experience, this simply was not true. All of her seminars and lectures were professor-led, often with associated TA-led discussions and labs. She took a class taught by a Pulitzer Prize winner, and another by a Booker Prize winner. She worked in the lab of a National Academy of Sciences member.

Did she have to advocate for herself? Yes, strongly and repeatedly. Did she learn how to politely decline to take "no" for an answer in doing so? You bet. These are skills she never had to acquire in her private high school, and they will serve her well.

My biggest complaint (consistent with PP 19:54) is the serious lack of advisement. This is a legitimate issue, and not easily circumvented (although being in the College Honors program does provide students with staff advisors, which can help a bit).

As for housing, yep, most freshmen and many sophomores are in tiny triples. There are larger, double rooms available as students gain seniority, but the first year is very tight. This is the trade-off for having 4 years of guaranteed housing, something that is not available anywhere else in the UC system, nor at many elite private colleges. I must say, though, I have not heard the horror stories about rats, mold, etc., that are frequent in discussions of private colleges on this board.

Whether it's worth the cost OOS is a personal question. I do know that my daughter's OOS friends are glad they made the choice. Given the below 10% rate of freshmen admission, few will have to entertain the question.

Four years of guaranteed housing is common at private colleges.

Not at Cal Tech, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Duke, JHU, or Brown, at least in my experience.

Duke is guaranteed all 4, always has been since I graduated, and have a kid there now

So does Princeton so pp clearly is clueless.

DP. You and the Duke parent should consider marshaling your ample resources and assisting these fine schools in correcting the false information they are apparently promoting through their own websites.

You picked a number of schools known for their commitment to four years of on campus residential living and tried to claim they don’t “guarantee” four years of housing. Just admit you know nothing about these schools and move on.

I made the grave mistake of relying on information propagated by the schools themselves on the housing sections of their own websites.

What a fool! I’ll be in the corner self-immolating, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of them, including Cornell, are lower rated than Berkeley and UCLA .. ?

Are people seriously choosing schools that are lower rated, and in places like Ithaca, NY, over higher rated schools in California?

USC is fine as a proxy (but without the NM pricing, more than 2x the cost), but anybody choosing NYU or especially BU over Berkeley or UCLA really isn't suitable for either of the latter schools anyway.

Consider that decision a test-out ...

Many people no longer care about the U.S. news rankings now that they are concerned mostly with first gen and Pell grant eligible students. UCLA does some important research but I have zero doubt that the quality of the undergraduate experience (size of classes, degrees held by professors, percentage of classes taught by TAs, and housing) is better at Cornell.

FWIW, no connection to either of these schools.

DP - also no connection to either of those schools. Just wanted to say, other than here in DCUM-land, most people care very much about USNWR rankings. It's only here that certain posters (obviously those whose favored schools went down in the rankings) parse and dismiss them. The vast majority of Americans use those rankings to help them choose colleges.

The vast majority of people don’t use U.S. news rankings, they send their kids to the in state school that accepts them. Nice try though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a public school problem.

Well, to be more accurate: this is sometimes a problem at schools which are very much in demand.

Nope. It’s a problem at schools big and small, mostly big, that are under resourced and underfunded.

So, Brown? Wesleyan? CM? All of the other privates mentioned here which have crammed freshmen into triples and hotels? Interesting. Didn't realize they were under resourced and underfunded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also have a DD graduating from UCLA this year, and her experience is aligned with the reports of other actual UCLA parents in this thread. She's graduating in 4 years, in one of the typical pre-med majors, with a foreign language minor, and has completed additional courses to fulfill the college honors program requirements. It absolutely took careful planning and flexibility, but it wasn't as daunting as has been presented here (and, yes, that includes the chem 20/30 series).

The largest lecture hall at UCLA holds 442 kids. So, tales of 1000+ classes there are simply untrue. However, I agree with the PP (19:14) who noted that after a certain point, it just doesn't matter. The nature of the lecture doesn't change beyond about 50-100, and there are simply more discussion sections available.

I haven't seen this myth in this particular thread yet, but to head it off, there seems to be a belief that the top public universities primarily use graduate teaching assistants to lead classes. In my daughter's experience, this simply was not true. All of her seminars and lectures were professor-led, often with associated TA-led discussions and labs. She took a class taught by a Pulitzer Prize winner, and another by a Booker Prize winner. She worked in the lab of a National Academy of Sciences member.

Did she have to advocate for herself? Yes, strongly and repeatedly. Did she learn how to politely decline to take "no" for an answer in doing so? You bet. These are skills she never had to acquire in her private high school, and they will serve her well.

My biggest complaint (consistent with PP 19:54) is the serious lack of advisement. This is a legitimate issue, and not easily circumvented (although being in the College Honors program does provide students with staff advisors, which can help a bit).

As for housing, yep, most freshmen and many sophomores are in tiny triples. There are larger, double rooms available as students gain seniority, but the first year is very tight. This is the trade-off for having 4 years of guaranteed housing, something that is not available anywhere else in the UC system, nor at many elite private colleges. I must say, though, I have not heard the horror stories about rats, mold, etc., that are frequent in discussions of private colleges on this board.

Whether it's worth the cost OOS is a personal question. I do know that my daughter's OOS friends are glad they made the choice. Given the below 10% rate of freshmen admission, few will have to entertain the question.

Four years of guaranteed housing is common at private colleges.

Not at Cal Tech, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Duke, JHU, or Brown, at least in my experience.

Duke is guaranteed all 4, always has been since I graduated, and have a kid there now

So does Princeton so pp clearly is clueless.

DP. You and the Duke parent should consider marshaling your ample resources and assisting these fine schools in correcting the false information they are apparently promoting through their own websites.

You picked a number of schools known for their commitment to four years of on campus residential living and tried to claim they don’t “guarantee” four years of housing. Just admit you know nothing about these schools and move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a public school problem.

Well, to be more accurate: this is sometimes a problem at schools which are very much in demand.

Nope. It’s a problem at schools big and small, mostly big, that are under resourced and underfunded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornell, USC, NYU, BU (larger privates)
Vs
UCLA, Michigan, Berkeley (extremely large, but highly ranked Publix that are comparable in cost)

Hmmm. I don’t think I would go to any of the California schools to be honest

DP

The cross-admit data that I’ve seen doesn’t seem to align at all with any of the anecdotal noise here …

UCLA 63% vs. Cornell 37%

UCLA 56% vs. USC 44%

UCLA 83% vs. NYU 17%

UCLA 93% vs. BU 7%

Due to instate price

The data isn’t confined to CA applicants. Cross-admitted applicants simply choose UCLA by a significant margin.

Head in palm. You’re a moron bc you do not understand the raw data behind the numbers you’re throwing out.

Really? Let’s use the last one: 93% of applicants admitted to both UCLA and BU, regardless of their residency status, choose to attend UCLA. Go ahead and read the methodology on your own time when you come down off your high of calling others moron in an anonymous forum like DCUM.

But rather than prolong this and pretend you know anything about some imagined insight arising from the raw data, let’s just agree that any kid choosing BU over UCLA - regardless their home state - is an anomaly anyway because they somehow managed a UCLA acceptance, yet couldn’t even secure an acceptance to the 12-15 colleges and universities in the greater New England area that are superior to BU.

You mean the methodology that is pasted at the bottom of the website? This one??
the denominator includes all members who were admitted to both of these schools. The numerator includes those students who chose a given school. In other words, students who were admitted to both schools reveal their preference for one over the other by attending that school.

And you do not recognize nor understand the importance of California residency in this number? Maybe you were student #2001 in your stats class at ucla, and couldn’t see the screen from the doorway. Residency and thus cost of attendance absolutely matters in the calculation. The only way to represent the data you are spewing is to correct for it. But I bet you don’t know how to do that, huh.

Controlling for residency is going to result in a material difference? 😂😭

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornell, USC, NYU, BU (larger privates)
Vs
UCLA, Michigan, Berkeley (extremely large, but highly ranked Publix that are comparable in cost)

Hmmm. I don’t think I would go to any of the California schools to be honest

DP

The cross-admit data that I’ve seen doesn’t seem to align at all with any of the anecdotal noise here …

UCLA 63% vs. Cornell 37%

UCLA 56% vs. USC 44%

UCLA 83% vs. NYU 17%

UCLA 93% vs. BU 7%

Due to instate price

The data isn’t confined to CA applicants. Cross-admitted applicants simply choose UCLA by a significant margin.

Head in palm. You’re a moron bc you do not understand the raw data behind the numbers you’re throwing out.

Really? Let’s use the last one: 93% of applicants admitted to both UCLA and BU, regardless of their residency status, choose to attend UCLA. Go ahead and read the methodology on your own time when you come down off your high of calling others moron in an anonymous forum like DCUM.

But rather than prolong this and pretend you know anything about some imagined insight arising from the raw data, let’s just agree that any kid choosing BU over UCLA - regardless their home state - is an anomaly anyway because they somehow managed a UCLA acceptance, yet couldn’t even secure an acceptance to the 12-15 colleges and universities in the greater New England area that are superior to BU.

You mean the methodology that is pasted at the bottom of the website? This one??
the denominator includes all members who were admitted to both of these schools. The numerator includes those students who chose a given school. In other words, students who were admitted to both schools reveal their preference for one over the other by attending that school.

And you do not recognize nor understand the importance of California residency in this number? Maybe you were student #2001 in your stats class at ucla, and couldn’t see the screen from the doorway. Residency and thus cost of attendance absolutely matters in the calculation. The only way to represent the data you are spewing is to correct for it. But I bet you don’t know how to do that, huh.

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:Omg this sounds awful.

I now understand why no kids from our private go to UCLA or Berkeley

They are great if you are In-state. But definately not worth OOS prices. If I'm paying $60K+, my kid will have smaller class and the ability to get the courses they need when they need them.

Let's be honest. They are not great in-state. The price is right for in-state. And the name is great on the diploma. But the student experience sux.

Except UCLA is an absolute monster when it comes to outlasting literally every other university in the country when it comes to the core student rankings, including quality of life and overall experience.

But yeah, other than that …

Oh for sure. Other than the 5 pages on this thread of complaints. No, definitely.

https://www.niche.com/colleges/university-of-california-los-angeles/

Now show us the schools that are so much better!!!

BHAHAHAHHA!! You're citing Niche?! Hahahahahah!!!!!!!

Cool! Show us the “real” rankings that count now! Niche is trash, so looking forward to seeing the treasure you bring forth to settle this!

Oh, wait - what’s that? The “real” rankings are the ones you see in this thread, comprised of parents whose kids were rejected by UCLA and some fugazi pre-med lecturer who claims that 1,200 student classes are commonplace?

Just curious what you are claiming is not true. Which of the following do you dispute

--UCLA regularly puts three freshmen and/or sophomores in dorm rooms built as doubles

-- There is an even greater housing shortage at the other UCs

-- The list of impacted majors at most UCs include popular majors like computer science, engineering, psychology. . . .

--It is very difficult to transfer into an impacted major

--There are some classes in certain majors with other 1000 students enrolled, at least at Berkeley

--It can be difficult to register for required classes

What about incoming freshman with 50+ units already banked via AP testing and matriculating into a major that’s not impacted? Do they have a chance of graduating in less than six years?

I don’t know, where above did I mention graduating in six years?

The only undergrads that I knew who took 6 years to graduate from UCLA had changed majors fairly late in the game. But it was really common for pre-meds to need more than 4 years to fit in the impacted labs and pre-med requirements. Some managed by taking a summer session, but others extended into a subsequent school year.

This is really concerning. An extra semester almost never happens for premeds or anyone at my kid's ivy and their bestie's T10 private. Heck at William and Mary , a public uni, it does not happen either. This is a size and resources issue. Huge red flag to me and glad mine never applied to the big publics.