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.

I'm not judging the undergrad experience or saying that UCLA undergrads are unhappy.

I taught undergrads for 5 years while there and I do very much judge the quality of instruction. You make a huge assumption that it's just as bad elsewhere, but we had many conversations about the stuff we saw and it isn't like that elsewhere. I didn't poll other grad students, but we did talk to each other daily for 5 years. UCLA was a hot mess for many reasons.

Friend: Is your lab section all 5th years?
Me: Yeah, apparently it's one of the impacted courses so they've been waiting to take it for years. I even have a couple of 6th years.
Friend: Yeah, they're all having trouble. I think it's because they took the class as first or second years and don't remember it.
Me: I don't think it's just that. The prof told me that they restructured the curriculum after they took 30B so many have never seen this content. We're supposed to teach the lab part, but the theory is taught in the class.
Friend: That can't be right. They have to have learned [important subject] to take this lab.
Me: Yeah, it used to be part of 30C, but they moved it to 30B, so students who'd already taken 30B just missed it.
Another Friend: I heard that they changed it because Prof X who usually teaches 30C was out one of those quarters so Prof Y taught it. But he'd never taught 30C before and don't want to bothered write a course, so he just taught 30B content to a 30C class. But those students took 30B twice and never took 30C. Then they made the swap official to try to cover the content.
Friend: That explains a lot. I keep getting completely blank stares when I mention [important subject] in my lab section.
Me: But that's a crazy order to teach those subjects. They need to learn [other things] before they're taught [important subject].
Another friend: Yeah, I TAd 30B last semester and they didn't understand it at all. It's totally taught out of order.
(Entire lunch table representing many undergrad schools agrees the UCLA curriculum is taught in a crazy order and students are not prepared for the lab class and have big holes in core content.)

Rinse and repeat for many, many topics over 5 years.

like a huge public school.

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.

What large public flagship DOESN’T have large lecture classes? Of course there’s no hand holding. Is there hand holding at University of Florida? Or Arizona? Or Michigan? Or Penn Stare? These are huge universities. Some of you are comparing a college with 50k students to small liberal arts colleges, sorry, you will be in for a surprise especially if you went to a private high school where everyone was held with kid gloves. If you are a self-starter and like to be in an exciting setting, you will thrive.

It’s a one of a kind university where opportunity abounds.

DD is a freshman OOS. Really loving it. Has twi roommates she is great friends with. Chose them. Does loads of fun things in LA. Hasn’t gotten all the classes she wanted but is expanding herself w things like Architecture and Urban Planning. There are lots of requirements in different areas. Got into a sorority but wasn’t her vibe, so dropped out. Hasn’t affected social life. Lots of ways to be there w/o being Greek. I went to small liberal arts college I liked, but this is much more expansive experience. She’s learned to navigate the world. It was a great choice for her.

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.

Do not attend if other viable options present themselves. The fight for resources is constant and the club culture is excruciatingly competitive. DC transferred out after one year and could not be happier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC uses proxy measures to achieve diversity of backgrounds which include race. I would not say though that UCs are overly Asian or that it would be shocking to someone from the DMV unless you live in area with no Asian students. If your kid is going for engineering or premed then he or she will be in classes with mostly Asian students at most top and mid schools.

It was shocking to my Hispanic kid from Texas…..Yes he is in Engineering, but 80% of his classmates are Asian….Not sure how is this is good for the state…..Please dont start with “that is how it is in Engineering”….no it is now….my other kid is a Junior at Michigan….same Engineering program….Asians in his program are less than 35%…

About 3.5% of Michigan’s population is Asian. About 18% of California’s population is Asian.

To population Michigan is about 10 million
The population of CA is about 40 million

350,000 Asians in Michigan
7.6 million Asians in California

Does it make more sense now?

Get where this is going?

I think it depends on your personality. My kid turned down Santa Barbara because he thought he wouldn’t be happy there. UCSB reports the highest student happiness but it’s insanely crowded like UCLA. If you thrive in a really crowded environment whether it’s the constant loud parties at UCSB or the hustle and competition of UCLA you’ll love it. If you are more introverted then UCSD or UCI is better but kids report being unhappy there.

UCSC reports the highest student happiness but it isn’t simply crowded, large numbers of students are technically homeless and couch surfing.

My daughter came very close to attending UCLA for this coming fall (from the DMV) and we spoke to quite a few current students about it (the children of friends and their friends). Honestly, the kids are almost universally very, very happy. They love the lifestyle, the campus , the melting pot of cultures, the proximity to the beach and mountains. Getting classes has not been an issue at all for the 2 kids I spent the most time talking to (one in communications and one in economics--both juniors). Perhaps it's different if you're trying to pursue computer science.

My child came very, very close to attending but decided on the last moment to stick with a university closer to home as she has two younger siblings that she is very close to.

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.

Because ultimately there is a large discrepancy between people online opining about things they know nothing about and the actual student experience.

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.

My nephew goes there and he has had a mixed experience with classes. Some have been good, but others have been terrible. He has had a few classes where there is a professor listed as the primary instructor, but they don’t show up all semester and just make their grad student give all the lectures.

We just visited UCLA and UCSD. UCSD seemed to have a much stronger Asian-dominant vibe.

UCLA will be majority hispanic in the next 5 years so I don't think diversity is a problem there.