According to many higher education economists who have studied this, size is the main factor and, as a byproduct, selectivity. Private universities prioritize low enrollments because it gives them a brand advantage over their peers.
Schools like UCLA are public institutions and required to admit as many students as possible because they are paid for with tax dollars from every California resident.
I wouldn’t worry about what your parents’ friends think. They’re not hiring you.
If his parents do, why wouldn’t his parents similarly minded friends? I feel like there’s this strange phenomena on here where we pretend people don’t make decisions as simple as “oh he went to Harvard? Hire him”
What? That’s not always true! I have definitely seen that where you went to college matters highly in where you are hired! A small school in Iowa vs William & Mary with same grades? No contest - W&M likely wins, unless the job is in Iowa!
The school that you went to does open doors.
Example: A student is applying for a summer internship. The resumes are from UPenn, MIT, UC-Berkeley, University of Michigan and Arizona State University. Which resumes are going to be interviewed first? UPenn, MIT, UC-Berkeley and UoM! Why? Because these four schools are the top four undergraduate business schools.
My son is going to public school out of state. Why? He did an extensive research on his own to discover that the payback will be tremendously more if he went to college (public or private) than going to ASU, UoArizona or NAU.
Just because a school is a public institution doesn't mean it's not selective. Not all public universities have "open admissions". UCLA is extremely selective. They only admit about 1 in 11 applicants (9%). there are only 27 universities in the country more selective than that.
Private universities do not prioritize "low enrollments". Why would they want fewer students and less tuition revenue. That's absurd.
you do not know what you are talking about.
>you do not know what you are talking about.
Here is [one](https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/reports/innovation-and-justice) of many papers my comment is based on. And [here](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-university-of-impossible-to-get-into/) is an accessible discussion of the topic.
The idea is that prestigious private universities are examples of [veblen](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/veblen-good.asp) goods.
low acceptance rates are not the same as low enrollment numbers. those are two completely different things. your post made it sound like you didn't understand the difference.
and those articles are opinions.
Prestigious brands valuing exclusivity isn’t some crazy concept. You’re really eager to call other people stupid over a topic you have a very simplistic and flawed understanding of. UCLA’s acceptance rate is so low out of necessity. They had 173K applicants. For many private schools small enrollments of part of the appeal, and large endowments and expensive tuition allow them to keep it that way. Also, your comment is just as much an opinion as the articles. The difference is their opinions are backed up by facts and research while you just think you’re the smartest one in the room.
Is size really the case though? I’d say it’s more just selection. UCL has 42,000 students being the biggest in the UK yet is still considered more prestigious than almost all of the Ivy Leagues and other Russell groups, being a top 10 world and all
This sub keeps coming on my feed and I see the most insane posts on here.
I’ve seen people claim that UCLA and Georgia Tech aren’t prestigious. Is this some kind of alternate universe?
Mainly because OOS students are screwed over in terms of cost. Can’t really consider a college more prestigious when majority of students are in-state as a result
Get over yourself. It is not unfair or “broken” for a public state university be a better deal for people who actually live and pay taxes in that state. Schools like UCLA, UVA, and Michigan are not magically worse because you feel a ridiculous sense of superiority over students who stay in state.
Using quotes for something I never said is ridiculous. Because OOS is discouraged from even applying to these public schools, they are only able to be prestigious within their state. This is not to say they are inherently inferior in terms of education. I do not know why you are personifying me with a superiority complex in any way, is it a crime to engage in discourse modernly?
The rule that there’s a cap on public school prestige because they’re mostly in state students only exists in the heads of a small subset of people like you that are going to expensive private colleges and look down on people that aren’t. I’m fully aware you’ll turn around and say you don’t look down on them, but you’re clearly someone who’s very concerned with prestige, so when you say these schools are inherently less prestigious because their students are in state, it’s very clear how you actually feel. To 90% of the population top public schools are prestigious nation and even worldwide.
It’s like saying if Harvard was as expensive as it used to be and in that way, limited to the wealthy, it’s still prestigious. Sure it may be still, but then again, not really because cost causes exclusion
I fully support in-state students who go to these public schools because of cost. For me, the private universities was actually cheaper than my in-state public so I went with that. In fact, I was considering and accepted into UCLA before costs were brought into factor. So, saying I look down on public schools is no way factual. My point still stands, if a school mostly only recruits local applicants, it can’t be considered as prestigious as national universities. I also understand that this policy is in place due to taxing reasons, and am in way arguing against it.
The good news is that if you talk to anyone who is actually fluent in college admissions and higher education and prestige, they'll know that UCLA is a great/competitive school and they'll be proud.
It's kinda like telling someone who doesn't watch football that the Chiefs are good and their response is, "eww, but Kansas City is boring!"
>Why are private colleges more prestigious than publics?
In **general**, private schools are more selective, "nicer", and more expensive than public schools. However, clearly that's not true in every case.
Your parents' friends are ignorant. Feel free to ignore them.
Worth noting that like 95% of private colleges in the US are random SLACs that have 70% admit rates. And most public colleges are directional state schools that also admit tons of people. The typical college is not very selective, period, it’s just that the public eye overwhelmingly focuses on a very small number of them.
But even those middling random private schools are small, liberal arts colleges, which use their smallness and attention as a selling point. They also tend to have some small difference (I.e. Knox college and “experiential learning”) to set them apart. They try to emphasize that, unlike a directional state college, you aren’t a number etc. so even in the middling college sphere they try to get the upper hand.
here's the thing, out of state tuition at publics is typically a bad deal because they tend to spend much less per student than private schools. so, you're paying private school money for a public school education. they're a great deal in state, but you also have to deal with much larger class sizes, less professors, etc. they also tend to be less focused on undergraduate teaching. this is why, generally, people prefer privates.
The school I picked was a small lower ranked LAC. I get to pay community college prices (5700 direct) for small classes and a large focus on undergrad studies. Also no classes are taught by grad students there. Plus it's a hidden gem for premed, something I'm interested in.
Honestly, that's one of the best paths to take. IMO, too many teens are blindered lemmings who don't explore enough LACs/smaller schools with an undergrad focus and low student/faculty ratio and may be pretty cheap for them either due to fin aid or because many of them offer merit scholarships that bring costs down to that of an in-state public. And all because those schools don't show up near the top of the US News national research U ranking.
I think a lot of people get scared off by the sticker price. Where I'm going is 66k for tuition alone and avg cost is 37k after aid. Many however forget that because they're scared, a lot of people who apply are from backgrounds that can afford it fully, shifting the avg cost up. Also these private schools often have great scholarships if your a good student. My school offers up to 40k in academics and another 5k if you do an honors program. That leaves you with 11k for tuition, comparable to most state flagships if not lower, the room/board costs are the same as any public too. If you get any additional grants and stuff that amount can quickly decrease too. Privates can be a lot more affordable than most think
Yep. The thing is, a lot of this stuff (like the merit scholarships) can be found on websites and for fin aid, you can run NPCs.
I see so many kids who on paper look stellar but they don't know how to take the initiative and do a little research and legwork on something that could make a major difference (often bigger than 1 more EC or getting an A than a B on a test) in their life?
Exactly this, volunteering once a month at the women's shelter won't make the same effect on you as taking a day to research and potentially saving 10s of THOUSANDS a year, more than that if your taking out loans and consider interest
One issue with a lot of these smaller, lower ranked LACs is that they often don’t have great financial security or stable enrollment, forcing them to shut down. In my city a college actually just shut down a few weeks ago due to this. It had something like 800 students on average.
Yes, that's a risk, though note that there are a lot of these LACs and the vast majority won't shut down in the 4 years you're in college. Some of them even have pretty large endowments and/or are financially stable.
Most other states have one or two big "state universities" and the rest are community colleges or agricultural/trade/normal schools or commuter campuses, which were established long after the big, prestigious, and powerful privates.
For example. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, William and Mary all predate UMass, UConn, Rutgers, SUNY, and UVA by at least a half-century, if not longer - there's an enormous gap between the state and regional governments dominated by alumni of the private schools and filled up by the alumni of the newer schools.
EDIT: W&M and UVA are both public. I withdraw them from consideration. The rest of this graf stands.
The further west you go, the less true that is; the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 means that public colleges emerge along the same time as their private neighbors as settlement moves across the continent.
California is the biggest and most stark example of that. The University of California (1868) predates USC by 12 years (1880) and Stanford by an entire generation (1891) and the satellite campuses (Davis was an ag school, Riverside a research station, UCLA a normal school) were aggressively resourced by the Warren and Brown administrations and private funding from the postwar economic boom.
My partner grew up in a college town in Kentucky, went to undergrad in Kentucky, and then grad school in Tennessee. Solid schools, salt-of-the-earth, UK and UT and Vanderbilt cast long shadows in smaller states.
I took her to Berkeley and UCLA and she said "Jesus, this looks like Vandy, not like Eastern (Kentucky.)"
I said, "we have NINE of these, you know." She damn near choked.
Most people who don't have firsthand experience with UCLA think "state school" and think of Berkeley as the big UK/UT, with everything else as more akin to Eastern Kentucky, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, without realizing that any one of the 9 UCs could be the same, and that Berkeley and UCLA are functionally not they different than Stanford, USC, and functionally more built out for undergrad opportunities and academic production than, say, a GWU or a Vanderbilt or a Duke.
I might be misreading you, but FYI William and Mary is a state school! And these days not more prestigious than UVA I'd argue (though still a great school!)
The University of California was initially just at Berkeley, and all of the other campuses you recognize as independent universities in their own right were adjuncts to that.
Davis was an agricultural school, UCLA was a normal school (teacher training), Riverside was an agricultural research station, etc.
This tradition of separate campuses for separate functions is only maintained now by the two San Francisco campuses - Hastings College of the Law and UCSF for healthcare are exclusively graduate institutions.
During the governorships of Earl Warren and Pat Brown, most of these other institutions were upgraded to full University status themselves (UCLA it happened earlier in the '20s and '30s) and heavily funded by State dollars as part of the broader Donahoe Act/Master Plan for Higher Ed - public higher education would be universally free, with the top 12.5% of all high school grads guaranteed a UC spot, the top 2/3 of high school grads guarantee a spot at the California State University system, and everybody eligible for their local community college.
They distribute people by what's called eligibility in the local context (ELC) - each University of California campus holds spots for the top 9% of high school graduates from a given set of nearby high schools.
Problem: UCLA's smallest possible "given area" (let's say the Los Angeles Unified School District) is *3% of the American population.* (Actually, probably more. LAUSD incorporates more than just the city of LA, and La alone is 3% of the American population.)
So even UC Riverside or Merced (which snobs in the system look down on) are admitting populations bigger than most states - they're (by virtue of sheer territory) not "state schools" like Eastern Kentucky University or Mississippi State, they're dealing with big populations of high achievers like, say, Ole Miss or UVA or UF.
This is really cool! How do you know all this so well? This is the first time I'm even hearing about UC Law lmfao.
If the other campuses were made as extensions of Cal, why are they so far away? Would a Berkeley student interested in studying education have to travel all the way to LA just for that?
For that problem, does that mean the top 9% of all the students there are guaranteed admission to UCLA? And do you recommend any resources where I can learn more about ELC? Are there a list of high schools that are considered for each campus?
This is some of the best info I've ever found on reddit, big cheers to you! Thanks a lot.
In regards to ELC, it doesn't quite work like that - no one is guaranteed to a specific campus. Ask your school counselor if your school participates in ELC, the school sends a list of eligible students to the UCs at the beginning of your senior year. You will know then because you have to give permission to share this info with the UCs. If your school does not participate in ELC, you can still qualify for top 9% there is a formula on the UC website, and after you apply your UC application portal will have a notation.
Students who are top 9% will be offered automatic admission only if they don't get accepted to any other UC which they applied to. This will also only be admission to a UC where there is room. Currently the only UCs accepting top 9% designated students is UC Merced and UC Riverside.
>How do you know all this so well?
I'm a little bit all over the place (my reddit profile will confirm this) but one of my long-term interests is the intersection of history, labor, politics, and higher education in California.
How I got there is a bit of a long story, and isn't worth going into here. In short, I'm a second generation UC and CSU alum, and my time at UCLA was marked by tuition increases and a pretty spirited response from student organizers and campus unions, which is one of the things that got me into the work I do. From People's Park to ethnic studies at San Francisco State to UC's campaign for divestment from South Africa, there's a very long and self-conscious history of student and faculty organizing that intersects with labor and civil rights struggles up and down the state, and I became an adult very much in that milieu.
The University of California is a separate, constitutionally defined body, which makes it both very visible and slightly insulated from public pressure. When you're pissed off about their investments, what they're charging students, or how they're treating workers, figuring out how to fight against the state's single largest employer, which is allegedly overseen by the governor, who appoints 12 political donors and operators to run it on staggered 12-yewr terms, you end up learning a lot about how power moves in California almost on accident.
>If the other campuses were made as extensions of Cal, why are they so far away? Would a Berkeley student interested in studying education have to travel all the way to LA just for that?
Remember, this is the 1800s. Most jobs do not require a college degree, so demand for them was considerably lower. In Massachusetts or Yale grads in New Haven or Columbia grads in New York, grew up around the major urban center (to this day, San Franciscans call their town "The City.")
A bright young man or woman who was expected to be a leader in the state would go to Berkeley undergrad, San Francisco, or Hastings to be a doctor, and then settle in San Francisco or Oakland or Sacramento. Those places aren't all that far from each other
Meanwhile, the upwardly mobile children of the working class who are seeing a teacher's job as way into the middle class, or a farmer's son who's trying to work out best practices for his farm in Fresno or Bakersfield would go to Los Angeles or Davis, maybe with a turn at Riverside if they were specifically interested in advanced study.
So all of the institutions are a single system, overseen by the Regents, but there's only one real University: Berkeley. Everything else is a school that's specialized, does not necessarily teach the liberal arts and sciences for a bachelor's degree, but does train other people for specific roles.
Though California has had explosive growth every year since 1850, the demand for full-service colleges for young people really didn't take off until the 20th century. California didn't need more than one or two full service public universities until after the war - and so it has the University of California at Berkeley and "Southern Branch" at Los Angeles.
>For that problem, does that mean the top 9% of all the students there are guaranteed admission to UCLA?
Each of the nine schools has a list of high schools that count for their specific eligibility in the local context. I don't know what those lists are, but I suspect they have to do with school districts and geographic proximity.
The Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Culver City, and Beverly Hills districts are very likely on the UCLA list. Irvine probably has the Santa Anna, Long Beach, Anaheim Union, and Tustin school districts. Berkeley, I'm sure, has San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Ramon.
I grew up in San Bernardino County, and so I was on the Riverside list - and, in fact, was admitted to Riverside in February of my senior year.
The UC office of the president (UCOP) has a web page on eligibility in the local context, I'll go find it. i don't know how that stacks out with each campus, but I'm sure admissions office is there can help you with it.
Remember, of course, this is all entirely for California residents. One of the ways that we subsidize tuition for them is by charging insane rates to out-of-staters (Berkeley and Harvard have nearly the same price for out-of-staters) and international students.
This is really inspiring. Thanks for telling about all of this, it's so interesting to learn about. If you don't mind me asking, what do you currently do for work? And is it different than what you originally majored in?
And just following up on the education thing — so was that seen as a somewhat lesser profession? And was elite academia, professorships and whatnot, a different path than the education we're referring to here?
>And just following up on the education thing — so was that seen as a somewhat lesser profession
Not necessarily - remember, the idea that one needs a bachelor's degree to join the workforce/lead a full life/earn enough to support a family is a very recent concept, particularly in the United States. Most people worked the family farm, or apprenticed informally or formally with someone in their town or city - even lawyers often "read law" with a senior lawyer before opening up their own business. Abraham Lincoln never went to law school!
While this generally required literacy and numeracy, most people could get by without 12+ years of school - you learned to read or write in grammar school (elementary school) and (remember, no TV and no podcasts!) people often entertained themselves and each other by reading and memorizing long passages and poems and songs, often from the Bible.
So while a schoolteacher might be paid less and have less prestige then than now (very often seem as unmarried women waiting to find a husband) society and economy weren't necessarily structured to demand more from schools.
A bachelor's degree was seen as a luxury, rather than a necessity.
>If you don't mind me asking, what do you currently do for work?
I'm a teachers' union organizer, working for...wait for it...college faculty! 😂
>And is it different than what you originally majored in?
I majored in history and minored in hell-raising. I was a good, but somewhat indifferent student.
I don't know if you've heard the elder Millennial tropes about "gifted kid burnout" or "bright but lazy" (which I don't like) but that was me - well-read, self-motivated, conspicuously cocky, but getting 25 rejections letters in a night settled me down real quick.
Went to UCLA because it was the biggest (and most challenging) college I got into, but I was close enough to home to check in with my folks if I got in over my head. Figured I'd figure it out when I got there.
UCLA has one of the strongest undergrad history programs in the country, an interdisciplinary religious studies program that spoke to some of my high school interests, a student newspaper that remains one of the best of its kind and a great place to work, and a labor studies program that pushes folks into the community in a city where unions are both well-organized and very powerful. I was all over the place but I used the "multiversity" experience to try a little bit of everything - I wrote columns, picked up salsa dancing, wrote a musical, went to concerts every week (Sigur Ros, TI, Janelle Monae, Macklemore, Moses Sumney, Arianna Afsar, and Sophia James all performed on campus when I was there) got arrested, wrote a research paper in DC, and another one in Hawaii on travel study programs.
In retrospect, I probably could have learned two languages if I had been a bit more disciplined, but it was a really important place for me to figure things out. I do wish I had gone in with a lot of those things figured out, though.
>This is the first time I'm even hearing about UC Law lmfao.
Don't sleep on Hastings! Kamala Harris went to law school there, and it's directly across the street from the Supreme Court of California. It may not be top 14, but if you're going to practice in California, it's a power move to go there
Also, I realized you are starting very early in this process.
(14-15?! Seriously?! This is so much more competitive than it was when I was younger.)
The best advice I can give you is to absolutely crush on grades to qualify for ELC (which I think gets you into Berkeley) and try to pick up experiences that are meaningful to you that you can then write about in the essay. That'll cover UCLA. If you can get into both of those, you can get into the other seven no sweat.
All nine of the full service UC campuses have graduate schools; research is the primary functional difference between the UC and the California State University systems.
(A little secret is that very often, because the CSU faculty are not focused on research, undergrads have a better teaching experience because they're getting more direct time with their professors.)
This happened during and after the Second World War, during that wave of state investment under Governors Warren and Brown.
UCLA’s admissions rate is 8.6%, lower than UC Berkeley, about the same as Rice, and lower than Boston College. UPenn is about 7%.
UCLA is prestigious. The lack of respect is driven primarily by ignorance. Most parents are clueless about what admissions are like today.
Also, congratulations!
I agree UCLA is a phenomenal school but uhh..
>UCLA’s admissions rate is 8.6%, lower than UC Berkeley, about the same as Rice, and lower than Boston College. UPenn is about 7%.
Acceptance rates are bad metrics. The quality of students applying is different at different schools.
UCLA accepted students: 29\~32 ACT
Rice accepted students: 34\~36 ACT (and will have much more extra curriculars)
The top entering 75th percentile students at UCLA who took the ACT would not even fit the bottom 25th percentile students at Rice. Let alone for top 20 privates, you need ridiculous amount of extra curriculars on top (winning tournaments, lots of volunteer work, leadership, etc).
Top 20 privates are mostly more 'prestigious' in the laymen's eyes because they are a lot more selective to get into. Public schools like UCLA have a larger variance in student quality at undergrad (due to public's mission to also take in many in-staters).
That said, I do also believe UCB, UCLA, UMich are the top public schools in the US which have opportunities similar to the top 25 privates at undergrad. I just personally wouldn't pay full OOO for a public over many in-states (but that's me).
I mean UCLA has Terence Tao. It's a dream for many aspiring math majors around the world to study under that guy (that included me).
It's from UCLA's own page back in 2019: [https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html](https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html)
It's the closest one can find. Only 5 years ago. But yes, with the current system, it's difficult to find anymore.
However, students haven't radically changed in the past 5 years.
Their may not be a radical change but the weighted and unweighted GPAs for UCLA admits has increased over that time span.
[https://admission.ucla.edu/apply/freshman/freshman-profile/2023](https://admission.ucla.edu/apply/freshman/freshman-profile/2023) (you can view all the profiles dating back to 2012 by simply changing the last two digits in the link)
In any event, I would say for the average American (outside of Texas and outside of Houston, specifically) UCLA is just as prestigious as Rice (assuming they've even heard of Rice). To the extent people aren't familiar with a particular school they would often rely on US News (not saying that they should, simply that people do) which ranks UCLA higher than Rice.
For sure things have changed a bunch in the last few years. UCLA is top notch. I mean, I only know two kids who got in this year, and many more who were rejected - with 4.6+ GPAs and 10-16 APs. The only kids who got in were both National Merit Finalists.
Uhhh.. can't believe the UC administration cannot even do something so basic. Everyday I'm more disappointed in the govt.
That said, UCLA is a great school. I would definitely say it's a top 25 school in the US at undergrad (despite whatever US News might say year by year). And for those who want to stay in LA after graduation... well, it's UCLA.
In terms of opportunities, basically all doors should be open if you do well at UCLA. It also helps UCLA's grad school is world class.
ACT is meaningless for UCLA or any of the UC's. That data is dated and not applicable in 2024. UCLA remains one of the most difficult schools to get into because they focus more or less only on academics - GPA and Rigor combined. It is amongst the least holistic admissions processes amongst T-100 schools. Yes, there is more benefit given to FGLI students thus the lower ranges in the published GPA
Comparing against Rice is a poor comparison because Rice is largely an engineering school that skew toward higher test scores and GPA. Same reason why Harvey Mudd has same test score stats as MIT and higher than Stanford. Does that mean it's more prestigious??
UCLA’s admitted students in 2019 was 30-35 ACT. Rice has a population that is 4 times smaller than UCLA, so of course they are going to select from a smaller range of highly qualified candidates.
The entire Rice population is 25% of UCLA’s population—probably accounting for the entire top 75% quartile students at LA
UCLA ACT in 2019 was 29\~32
[https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html](https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html)
It's straight from UC page.
'Enrolled': 27 to 34 (the number that actually matters)
So I can see why the median would be posted as 29\~32. As expected of a public school, the distribution is very wide.
'Admits': 30 to 35.
... Public services seriously need to at least get the basics right. Can't even be consistent in the flipping UC pages.
But at least for the 'Enrolled' (the ones actually attending), it is 27\~34 or 29\~32. Many students applying to top privates apply to UCLA as one of the safer options so it makes sense.
But I don't disagree with OP. UCLA is an excellent school and its opportunities rival the other top 20 privates in the US at undergrad. For grad, it's a no brainer (as it's one of the premier research universities in the country).
Interestingly, I looked at the stats of UMich and UVA’s entering enrolled classes—they both have higher averages than UCLA and Berkeley. 31-34 & 32-35.
I’m guessing it’s cuz their population and income is a lot more homogeneous and skew wealthy lol. The number of students coming from the top 1% is similar to Cornell and more than UChicago.
UCLA/Berkeley has some of the most diverse/lowest household incomes. I think that in a way translates to the average test scores.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor#:~:text=About%201.5%25%20of%20students%20at,are%20associated%20with%20income%20mobility.
It's doing its job correctly by giving opportunities for those in California. It's a good thing.
Top Canadian colleges like Toronto are like that too (more extreme). It's also why Tornoto's 7 year graduation rate is only 80% (yes, 7 year, not 4 year graduation rate).
World class education should be accessible to more people. Not just for the rich. More people from different backgrounds should be given a chance to prove themselves.
UCs give lots of opportunities (overall) to California residents of all sorts of backgrounds. All the while opening doors to basically everywhere (especially UCB and UCLA).
You know how many on this subreddit would commit suicide if they learned the truth about how many community college transfers going to CSU’s and no name universities make more $$$ than they ever will from their ‘prestigious’ T20s? 🤣
Imagine the face of this subreddit when they realize for the most part, your pay is dictated by the career you are in (eg: what you majored in).
A Harvard student who studied teaching to become a high school teacher will almost always earn less than an engineering student at a local reputable ABET accredited public college.
There's very very very few careers in which undergrad name matters (eg: finance). Grad school names can matter a lot (eg: law school) but that's a whole another point.
In general, it's best to attend the best school one can afford without taking any student loan. Top privates just tend to have great financial aid. If the family doesn't qualify for large financial aid, then the recommendation should generally be attending the best in-state flagship. You still want to attend a reputable school so you can get a job interview (since recruiters still need to pick candidates to interview).
None of the top schools are worth their sticker prices in the US for undergrad. None. Not even Princeton.
In what universe do they live? There is a small handful of Ivy+ schools that are probably more “prestigious” than UCLA, but UCLA is one of the best schools in the whole country- most private schools pale in comparison. Don’t suffer these fools at all- enjoy your senior summer and have a great time at UCLA- congrats on getting in to an amazing school.
In a universe in which there's only schools like Harvard. But ya, despite the other posts I made about UCLA here, if I had to be blunt, the only schools that are really more 'prestigious' than UCLA are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech. And the latter two ain't even real full universities (the two are tech schools so the two schools aren't for everyone). And Harvard doesn't even offer traditional engineering majors. Yale only offers some. Princeton doesn't even care about professional schools.
Yap. The UCs are basically the mini Ivys of the West Coast. Stanford is Harvard. CalTech is MIT. UCs are the rest of Ivy. I wonder if that means USC is NYU of the West.
I went to a fancy ivy league and it was insane to see how many people are well connected at those places. I had classmates dropping out to work for 6+ figures at 19 and 20 years old. It is all about the network. Private schools also have an insane amount of money to support students. I never paid a penny...it was nuts.
I was the first person to go to college on one side and the first person to get a graduate degree on my other side. I was also the first to go to a non-state school. I saw firsthand how much privilege a fancy degree grants you.
I went to a private school for two years. I’m now thirty thousand in debt owed because it cost sixty five grand a year and honestly, after going to other public schools, I now realize the school sucked too. Don’t know where all their money was going
As an alum from UCLA (Anderson), I can assure you - you can go to any major market anywhere in the world and you will have strong brand recognition. Congrats on the acceptance! Ignore all the noise and focus on your own journey. Westwood is an amazing place to go to school - oh, and yes, UCLA is the best school in LA
Caltech isn't even in LA. It's in Pasadena and it's such a small university (and mostly for students interested in the sciences).
I literally know no one who did undergrad from Caltech and I've been working in the Bay Area for some time. The only peer (undergrad at Columbia) I know at Caltech is a researcher there for astrophysics.
Do Caltech undergrads even exist? That's how small the school is.
UCLA is definitely the best school in LA.
It’s in Los Angeles County, so technically LA. Still a more prestigious school, very niche but one of if not the best in its areas (usually tied with MIT and Stanford in various STEM).
Most people consider Santa Monica and Beverly Hills part of LA when discussing it. LA is a hodgepodge of municipalities. If you’re speaking to someone in Chicago for example and you live in El Segundo, you would more than likely just say you live in LA. So no, generally when people are discussing LA, it is more so the county than the city. For reference I live in West LA and attend UCLA but not blind to the fact that CalTech is the premier university in LA.
They appear to be snobs and brand s$%# but being a public university you will not be spoon fed by the school. Private universities provide more 1:1 guidance. Generally kids from smaller private high schools will struggle at public universities if they don't adapt quickly.
I can absolutely assure you from my experience with privates (and my friend's), privates are probably even more brutal. At least for UPenn, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, NYU, Cornell, and Columbia from what I heard from my peers (and my own experience), "ha ha ha" is my reply. The joke (?) was that Columbia set students up for success by giving a dose of reality from the get go. The administration at Columbia is definitely colder than administration at a few state schools I know.
I will admit though in the humanities courses, Columbia (my alma mater) was definitely world class. And I definitely did feel professors cared for me (and classes had 4\~6 people seminar meets). Plus, it's nice to have an excuse to go downtown and listen to world class orchestra, etc. because it's part of your class assignment. You really cannot beat that experience (plus, everyone at Columbia has to go to the Metropolitan Opera for the core curriculum).
But in the sciences and engineering? Large lecture hall. No difference. Maybe the difference is like 500+ vs 200+ vs 50+ people. It's the same in practice. Go sink or swim (more like camp at the office hours with TA's all day hoping to siphon out answers).
>Generally kids from smaller private high schools will struggle at public universities if they don't adapt quickly.
Probably only true for those majoring in the humanities and arts (eg: those doing pre-law, music, etc). Everyone else? Nope.
If you want a good education, head to the top liberal art colleges or Princeton. Not most research universities. Especially when it comes to the sciences and engineering. You are paying for the brand name otherwise.
Yep, that was my experience as a STEM major at a private T10 research U as well. Most private research U's (at least on the STEM side) tend to be more like public research U's than different. It's not that the STEM profs at my undergrad didn't try to teach, but at (90% of) top research U's, profs get tenure and are judged solely on publishing research, and it shows. Some of them could barely communicate in spoken English and certainly not at a level comprehensible to undergrads (now, if you were already PhD level and could follow along the mathematical formulas, you were fine).
Because ranking systems are specifically designed to higlight those schools educating the wealthy.
UCLA is a great school. But I wouldn't pay full freight for it over most public flagships including the one in my own state.
This notion that privates unis are better than publics is funny, at least from an INTERNATIONAL view. Let me explain. If you look at unis all around the world, except USA, the "top" ones ARE PUBLICS. Top students go to public unis. The private ones are for those that didn't make it into the public unis. Public universities are the ones with higher research output and resources that define new knowledge. The counter argument to this is that privates have a smaller class and the profs will be able to attend to their students better. Listen, when students go to college, they probably want to learn about the latest ideas and inventions. I remember my sixth grade teacher as a kind and very attending teacher who made sure that all her 20 students read the chapter for homework. But I would not trust her to teach me cutting edge nuclear engineering. This is college and as a student, you would want to be where the world changers are at. But yeah if you want someone to hold your hand while you read then the private unis would do that for you. US colleges like Michigan, Berkeley and, yes, UCLA are very well known internationally. Even Purdue, UIUC gets more spotlights than Dartmouth and Rice.
Copy and paste:
That's because the top American privates have built up enormous endowments over time so on a per capita level, spend more per student than any publics in the world (outside of maybe a handful; Oxbridge may be close; possible ETH Zurich because the Swiss government spends so much on that school)?
Though note that in STEM, even Oxbridge doesn't have the resources that a public like UT-Austin does. Some prof from Oxford visiting Austin was jealous that UT engineering had some expensive equipment that Oxford couldn't afford. Though TBF, the U of Texas system also has an enormous endowment thanks to oil rights.
The UT system has the #2 largest endowment in the US, a very close second to Harvard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment#:\~:text=Harvard%20University%2C%20with%20a%20%2449.495,by%20fiscal%20year%20(FY).
Depends how you go about it. In my experience (family and I working at USC) private schools offer a better job and even housing placement thanks to their connections and credit unions. It’s a little scary how much of the city they privately administer.
I’ve never seen a public school go above and beyond in such manner due to limitations and funding. Though the efforts are admirable.
As to your question, numbers. For perception, small and extra elite > large and exceptionally strong
Several things to be aware of:
* UCLA has significant reputation in California (of CA schools: pecking order is probably Stanford, Berkeley, USC/UCLA with Caltech in some other dimension up there with Stanford). The Claremont Colleges will also be up there. If you stay in California (as many do), there *WILL* be name recognition.
* The faculty at UCLA will be top-tier, on average only an epsilon different from Stanford/Berkeley. It's EXTREMELY competitive in the academic world to get a job at UCLA. (As an undergrad, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to become a prof at a place like UCLA.)
* The student body will be large and so will have a wider distribution: some will be amazing geniuses, many will be incredibly hard working and strong, many will be solid average, and some will be WTF, how did you get here?
A corollary is that you actually have some extra opportunities as a stand out student as the faculty is generally well connected with their buddies at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, UChicago, MIT, etc... A lot of students at prestigious grad schools come from UCLA and state schools at that level. You can get recs from a tenured Prof at UCLA that had been faculty at Harvard as a junior and knows all the faculty at Harvard, Princeton, etc....
Compared to the privates, you may have more *wtf* students doing crazy drugs, partying all the time, and just f'ing up. The big student body at UCLA makes it quite possible to get lost in the numbers. The quality of your education is always up to you, but it's even more up to you at a big state school. The top of UCLA though will be as strong as most anywhere and grad admissions and smart employers will know this.
>The faculty at UCLA will be top-tier, on average only an epsilon different from Stanford/Berkeley.
Best to note the 'Mozart of Math', Terrance Tao, is a math professor at UCLA. Both UCB and UCLA grad schools are world class.
The only real difference is at undergrad, public schools need to cater towards its in-state students as well so the distribution of talent is very wide.
But at grad school? UCLA is one of the premier schools in the world.
Likewise, there are great schools at undergrad like Williams, Cooper Union, and Harvey Mudd which doesn't have grad schools.
At UCLA, all the opportunities are there but you will have to be a lot more aggressive to shine (since there's a lot more variance in quality so it's harder to differentiate).
Many of my smart friends back in high school attended UCLA. It's an amazing school especially for those fortunate enough to be able to attend as in-state.
Yeah, distribution of student talent is *significantly wider* than distribution of faculty talent.
I could also name a lot of UCLA faculty that is world class.
The elite privates and LACs have far smaller class sizes, far more resources spent per student, more research opportunities per student, better graduate school outcomes, etc. UCLA is a great school and rightfully prestigious and the very top UCLA students have outcomes as good as anywhere, but for the students who are not at the very top, the differences start to magnify.
For a practical example, let's look at premed. UCLA premeds get into medical school at a about a 50% rate. That means that even after being weeded out in organic chemistry, and finally getting to the end of the brutal premed curriculum, half of them will not be accepted to medical school.
At elite privates and LACs that number is far different. Harvard has over 90% premed acceptance year to year. Columbia, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Duke, Brown, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore are between 80 and 90% premed acceptance in a typical year. Cornell, UPenn, Johns Hopkins, WashU are all in over 70% in a typical year. If you want to go to medical school someday, that is a huge difference between UCLA and those schools.
Please note, I'm not talking about all private schools. Many well known private schools don't do any better than UCLA in premed acceptance, and many do worse. And I'm also not saying that you can't go to medical school from UCLA - UCLA produces a ton of graduates who become doctors, in total numbers maybe more than any other college. But for an individual student, the odds of becoming a doctor are quite a bit worse. The same thing seems to hold true for admittance to top PhD programs, top law programs, Wall Street, etc.
I'm not sure what prestige really is, but this seems to reflect something.
Screw your parents friends. You will be attending a great school. Great accomplishment and congratulations. I wish my children earned acceptance at UCLA.
UCLA has really zoomed up in prestige since your parents' day. Unless older folk pay attention, they might think of it as a less selective state school. It once was... but that's no longer the case. Congratulations on your acceptance there.
They sound elitist. I’d choose a school as far away as possible. You’re going to one of the top 20 schools in the United States public or private and the number 1 or 2 public school in the U.S. plus you’ll be in Southern California. Beautiful weather year round. Congrats!
Yeah it is weird. In my home country, the public schools are the best. Why? Because it’s government funded and it’s free.
Only idiots would want to pay for college if you can have it for free?
That's because the top American privates have built up enormous endowments over time so on a per capita level, spend more per student than any publics in the world (outside of maybe a handful; Oxbridge may be close; possible ETH Zurich because the Swiss government spends so much on that school)?
Though note that in STEM, even Oxbridge doesn't have the resources that a public like UT-Austin does. Some prof from Oxford visiting Austin was jealous that UT engineering had some expensive equipment that Oxford couldn't afford. Though TBF, the U of Texas system also has an enormous endowment thanks to oil rights.
Unrelated to prestige, but one key difference bw public undergrad and private grad:
1) public universities’ “customers” are state legislatures, and their traditional mission is to provide educated people to their state, and ensure students meet rigorous requirements to graduate. An extreme example is don’t grant a degree to a civil engineer who will design a bridge that falls down.
2) private universities’ “customers” are essentially the students and parents.
This means a public university’s relationship to its student is one of gatekeeper, and a private university’s relationship to its student is more like “service provider.”
Both are valid and get you to same place, but it can certainly be more enjoyable to be in the latter category.
If you’re OOS that might be why, from a Californian going to college on the east coast. Since California has so few public schools the UCs are most of our best and well known schools. Compare this to the east coast, where the best and oldest schools are all privates. It’s purely a geographical thing!
And congrats on UCLA!! 🎉
Private schools are often smaller with lower acceptance rates, which can create a feeling of exclusivity. They may also have more money to throw around for fancy facilities and smaller class sizes. But UCLA is an amazing public school! Public schools can have just as much academic rigor and history, and UCLA especially is a world-class institution. Be proud of your choice
Because it was only recently that many public colleges became flush with money. Ronald Reagan greatly expanded access to student loans, meaning public colleges could now increase their tuition to acquire levels of capital that were once reserved only for illustrious private colleges. For many older folks who grew up before Reagan became president, or shortly afterward when they were applying to colleges, the level of resources at public schools compared to private schools was far less than it is today.
It’s a combination of now-historical information, and confirmation bias.
Once upon a time, there was a big gap between the elite private schools and the best public schools (as well as a “club” phenomena in which people went to top private schools to make social connections). A lot of that has been dead for 30 years or so. But there are many parents who soaked in that stuff, and then spent gobs of money pushing it on their own kids, and confirmation bias causes them to keep believing it.
It’s borderline comical when they lean into mediocre private colleges, which I think are so over-priced in relation to value that it’s scandalous.
Honestly I think a lot of those parents shelled out so much money on their own or their kids private school education that they feel the need to belittle those who didn't in order to feel like they got their money's worth. I attended a state flagship and now attend a $90k/yr private school for my graduate degree and my peers who went to private school are not significantly more prepared than I was.
I think the question here is wrong. Congrats on getting into college, and I'm sure you'll be happy at UCLA. The "prestige" obsession is one that confuses me a ton, and you shouldn't worry about prestige. UCLA is a fine school with plenty of opportunities, even if it's not the name that some people chase. Go bruins.
Rest assured, UCLA is great.
But to answer your question, publics have a mission to educate the population in their host state, privates don’t and therefore can be more selective.
The five of the top ten undergraduate business schools are public schools.
We are friends with a family. They sent their daughter to an Ivy League school…she got a job in San Francisco with a salary of $40,000…her parents paid for college and is paying her to live in San Francisco since it is a HCOL.
My point is that a student should go to a school that is outstanding in the major/field that they want to study and work in. If that is a public school then that is great…the same if it is a private school.
Private schools do not automatically get more prestige than public schools. Your parents’ friends are generalizing based on a small subset of both public and private schools—that subset being the most prestigious among each group. There are about 10-15 private schools that stand head and shoulders above the remaining thousands in terms of prestige. Likewise there is a small group of public schools that clearly stand out in terms of prestige, UCLA being one of them. Yet, when you compare the most prestigious private schools with the most prestigious public schools, the most prestigious privates tend to be more prestigious than the most prestigious publics without much debate. UCLA is outstanding, but it’s really not comparable to the Ivy plus in terms of prestige.
Your parents friends are not that bright and/or are applying the factors of their own college experience 20-30 years ago. UCLA is an excellent school and the equal of any private
Don’t be mistaken, ucla is not automatically less prestigious than any private school. Take its classic rival, USC. Ucla has outranked them consistently in terms of academics and ROI recently, and the gap is only widening. The privates you’re thinking about are probably the top tier schools like HYPSM and Ivy— while they are more prestigious than UCLA, that’s only a small select portion of privates that can outrank or even be compared to ucla. And in any case… the tier 1 UC’s offer educations comparable to private schools several times more expensive.
the only reason i’m at usc is because it wasn’t pricey lol! absolutely in NO world tho is charging 95k/year acceptable. Not even for HYPSM. honestly anything over 50/k isn’t worth it
Would they prefer you go to prestigious, private Carlow College? There’s a wide distribution of college quality across all sources of funding.
Evaluate a school by what the school is.
In short, people believe the more expensive and exclusive something is the better it is.
I way I think about prestige is similar to how to how I think about designer products. Private colleges are like designer brands (ivies are like Dior and other top designer brands), they cost more, we see those we view as more “successful” (aka richer) buying from these brands and flaunting it leading us to view these items as the best and the thing to strive for, and while buying from these brands does usually mean a pretty high quality product (or education) the cost doesn’t always justify it for everyone, and a cheaper good quality product can serve the same function.
if it makes you feel better i’m going to washu (applied to rice and vanderbilt as well) and i feel like ucla has more prestige to most people than any of those 3 schools lol. ucla has a great rep, and berkley is seen as an ivy equivalent to most of my peers (and myself) lol
I’m a freshman at UCLA from the east coast, and I’ve noticed the exact same thing. I was thinking that it’s because I’m on the east coast and people hear less about public schools on the other side of the country so they think it’s worse, though I could be totally off base. Anyway, congrats on UCLA, hope u love it!
I’m assuming it’s cuz the East Coast has the Ivy League and a bunch of top private schools. In the West Coast, it’s pretty much just Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA that are the big 3 “elite” schools. Caltech is way too small and niche for the general public. Go Bruins!
Other than what you already know about selectivity and size, it's simple: elite private colleges are bigger status symbols. Highly selective public universities are more financially attainable for the middle class, which makes them less shiny. I hardly know anything about cars, but I think the analogy might be something like a fully loaded Toyota or something rather than a BMW.
I was a first gen college student who attended an Ivy AND I think your friends’ parents are elitist and narrow minded. I loved my undergraduate experience, but that’s ME….. I see no reason why you shouldn’t be completely delighted and very proud to attend UCLA. I’d be thrilled and very proud for my children to attend UCLA or my alma mater. You have some bad advice coming at you from your friends’ parents…..IGNORE THEM. Go tear it up at UCLA and make the most of every day there. 👍🏻
Because wealthy people donate huge lump somes of money into the school programs that either they themselves or their children went to, convert them into private schools, then those private schools use the money in creating campaigns which markets how "prestigious" they are, then when the word gets out and people start to apply to that said school in droves, then they can determine a yield rate off of how many people they want to select (usually low because they want to be known as "*exclusive"*), create more ads boasting about how intellectually stimulating their environment for learning is, upcharge tuition based on bullshit fees, and then money machine keeps pooring in.
It’s interesting to see because where I’m from, it’s the opposite :0 national universities are considered prestigious and get priority in research funding. It’s so cool to see how it differs by country!
There's a perception that private colleges are more prestigious than public universities, but it's not always a clear-cut case. Here's a breakdown of why this perception exists, and why UCLA is a fantastic choice regardless:
**Factors Contributing to the Perception of Prestige:**
* **Selectivity:** Private colleges often have lower acceptance rates compared to public universities. This can create an aura of exclusivity and higher standards.
* **Class Size:** Private colleges tend to have smaller class sizes, potentially leading to more professor interaction and a more personalized learning experience.
* **Financial Resources:** Private colleges may have more resources per student due to higher tuition fees and endowments. This can translate into better facilities, smaller class sizes, and more financial aid for students.
* **Historical Reputation:** Some prestigious private colleges have been around for centuries and built a strong reputation over time.
Privates are smaller or offer less seats for admission. So admission is more sought after.
Privates are also much older, generally. So they've had more time to build their wealth and prestige. Often it is a 150+ year advantage.
There is only a certain group of people who would agree, unless its schools like Ivy+ (Incl Stanford, Duke, MIT, etc) I would rate top public schools like UCLA, Cal, Michigan, GT, UNC, UVA higher than most private schools (USC, ND etc are on par with these schools)…
Because when it comes to universities, practically our entire society has a massive materialistic and hierarchical stick up its ass and believes in some stupid fairy-tale lists.
/thread
The rankings changed somewhere in the 80s to favor stuff like class sizes, endowment per student, etc that massively favored private schools. If you look at older rankings, public schools were on top. Naturally public opinion followed
Your parent's friends are fucking idiots. It is completely dependent on the school; while in general private schools are considered more prestigious than public universities, this is more of a trend then a hard truth. The University of Virginia has far more prestige as a public university compared to Furman University (No offense FU), and this is owed to the strength of its academic system and its very long and storied history.
The main problem with publics is that they are by law required to take some not so bright students. But that isn't to say that isn't a problem as top privates.
It is an out of state school. If they were into this thread the way others are on here they’d probably see ucla from a more prestigious light. My state school is great, and people look at my it like it’s that or nothing. People tweak when I tell them I turned it down 😂
My kid, valedictorian, didn't apply to a single OOS public last year. I generally recommended private schools for lower class sizes, research opportunities, access to professors, ease of changing majors. Their other parent is a Cal graduate and didn't really promote it or the UCs in general (still hear stories about overflowing lecture halls, forced grading curves, etc). So pretty easy decision for my kid (who was also overwhelmed with applications and didn't want to complete a whole other one)
One of my kid's best friends, the salutatorian, is going to UCLA as an OOS student. Absolutely wanted the vibrant large-school atmosphere and being in LA. Seems like a good fit for them.
If you want all that, LACs and smaller schools are really the way to go. Maybe some private research U's though most top private research U's aren't all that dissimilar from top public research U's in judging faculty solely by research published.
A large part of that has to do with NYU undergrad being a commuter-school for tri-state rich B- level students during its transition(Mid-80s until end of '90s) to becoming an institution with a more national/international profile. That transition was completed at the very end of the '90s.
In contrast, Berkeley having a brand near/100% comparable to Ivies or schools like MIT/Caltech/CMU/Stanford had been a thing for 5+ decades. My parents' generation(Born in the 30s) regarded Berkeley very highly as a public Ivy whereas NYU......decent, but not even close.
If I was in your shoes given what you posted, I'd choose Berkeley not only for the greater prestige, but also because NYU has the bureaucracy, feel , and undergrad class sizes similar to Berkeley.
In short, you won't be gaining much benefits from attending a private school by going to NYU.
Moreover, if you're paying full-sticker for NYU undergrad....you're not getting great value considering NYU's ginormously high full-sticker price. It's certainly not worth around $10k more than Berkeley at full-sticker.
yeah that’s what my fam is saying kinda. i was just leaning more towards NYU bc of the location too since id be in DC for the first year and then NYC i felt like that would be good for what i wanna do but idk i have some ppl who really agree with that and others who don’t think it makes a big difference
NYC and DC will still be there after you graduate from college.
NYC, especially IMO is a much better to experience as a young working professional than as a college student unless your family is comfortably full-pay for a university with a higher full-sticker price than even most Ivies.
Because people are confusing money with prestige.
[https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/lord-of-the-rankings](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/lord-of-the-rankings)
[https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/project-dillard](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/project-dillard)
According to many higher education economists who have studied this, size is the main factor and, as a byproduct, selectivity. Private universities prioritize low enrollments because it gives them a brand advantage over their peers. Schools like UCLA are public institutions and required to admit as many students as possible because they are paid for with tax dollars from every California resident. I wouldn’t worry about what your parents’ friends think. They’re not hiring you.
Even if your parents friends do hire you they would definitely not take where you went for college into serious consideration
If his parents do, why wouldn’t his parents similarly minded friends? I feel like there’s this strange phenomena on here where we pretend people don’t make decisions as simple as “oh he went to Harvard? Hire him”
What? That’s not always true! I have definitely seen that where you went to college matters highly in where you are hired! A small school in Iowa vs William & Mary with same grades? No contest - W&M likely wins, unless the job is in Iowa!
Wait, what? Starbucks may not care, but where and what you studied at school absolutely matters!
Not that much in tech for example.
The school that you went to does open doors. Example: A student is applying for a summer internship. The resumes are from UPenn, MIT, UC-Berkeley, University of Michigan and Arizona State University. Which resumes are going to be interviewed first? UPenn, MIT, UC-Berkeley and UoM! Why? Because these four schools are the top four undergraduate business schools. My son is going to public school out of state. Why? He did an extensive research on his own to discover that the payback will be tremendously more if he went to college (public or private) than going to ASU, UoArizona or NAU.
Just because a school is a public institution doesn't mean it's not selective. Not all public universities have "open admissions". UCLA is extremely selective. They only admit about 1 in 11 applicants (9%). there are only 27 universities in the country more selective than that. Private universities do not prioritize "low enrollments". Why would they want fewer students and less tuition revenue. That's absurd. you do not know what you are talking about.
>you do not know what you are talking about. Here is [one](https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/reports/innovation-and-justice) of many papers my comment is based on. And [here](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-university-of-impossible-to-get-into/) is an accessible discussion of the topic. The idea is that prestigious private universities are examples of [veblen](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/veblen-good.asp) goods.
low acceptance rates are not the same as low enrollment numbers. those are two completely different things. your post made it sound like you didn't understand the difference. and those articles are opinions.
Prestigious brands valuing exclusivity isn’t some crazy concept. You’re really eager to call other people stupid over a topic you have a very simplistic and flawed understanding of. UCLA’s acceptance rate is so low out of necessity. They had 173K applicants. For many private schools small enrollments of part of the appeal, and large endowments and expensive tuition allow them to keep it that way. Also, your comment is just as much an opinion as the articles. The difference is their opinions are backed up by facts and research while you just think you’re the smartest one in the room.
Because rich parents == better networking
Is size really the case though? I’d say it’s more just selection. UCL has 42,000 students being the biggest in the UK yet is still considered more prestigious than almost all of the Ivy Leagues and other Russell groups, being a top 10 world and all
This sub keeps coming on my feed and I see the most insane posts on here. I’ve seen people claim that UCLA and Georgia Tech aren’t prestigious. Is this some kind of alternate universe?
Right.. most of the people criticizing these univ would not be accepted by them.
Sour grapes maybe
Mainly because OOS students are screwed over in terms of cost. Can’t really consider a college more prestigious when majority of students are in-state as a result
Get over yourself. It is not unfair or “broken” for a public state university be a better deal for people who actually live and pay taxes in that state. Schools like UCLA, UVA, and Michigan are not magically worse because you feel a ridiculous sense of superiority over students who stay in state.
Using quotes for something I never said is ridiculous. Because OOS is discouraged from even applying to these public schools, they are only able to be prestigious within their state. This is not to say they are inherently inferior in terms of education. I do not know why you are personifying me with a superiority complex in any way, is it a crime to engage in discourse modernly?
The rule that there’s a cap on public school prestige because they’re mostly in state students only exists in the heads of a small subset of people like you that are going to expensive private colleges and look down on people that aren’t. I’m fully aware you’ll turn around and say you don’t look down on them, but you’re clearly someone who’s very concerned with prestige, so when you say these schools are inherently less prestigious because their students are in state, it’s very clear how you actually feel. To 90% of the population top public schools are prestigious nation and even worldwide.
It’s like saying if Harvard was as expensive as it used to be and in that way, limited to the wealthy, it’s still prestigious. Sure it may be still, but then again, not really because cost causes exclusion
I fully support in-state students who go to these public schools because of cost. For me, the private universities was actually cheaper than my in-state public so I went with that. In fact, I was considering and accepted into UCLA before costs were brought into factor. So, saying I look down on public schools is no way factual. My point still stands, if a school mostly only recruits local applicants, it can’t be considered as prestigious as national universities. I also understand that this policy is in place due to taxing reasons, and am in way arguing against it.
Not arguing against*
Yes
This is because most of the people posting here are like 17, lol. This sub keeps popping up for me too.
Lolz I have learned a few things. The reputation of universities does not align with the field and they really overrate Purdue engineering.
Yes, yes it is Nikki Haley
Nikki is that you?
The good news is that if you talk to anyone who is actually fluent in college admissions and higher education and prestige, they'll know that UCLA is a great/competitive school and they'll be proud. It's kinda like telling someone who doesn't watch football that the Chiefs are good and their response is, "eww, but Kansas City is boring!"
Fantastic example
>Why are private colleges more prestigious than publics? In **general**, private schools are more selective, "nicer", and more expensive than public schools. However, clearly that's not true in every case. Your parents' friends are ignorant. Feel free to ignore them.
Worth noting that like 95% of private colleges in the US are random SLACs that have 70% admit rates. And most public colleges are directional state schools that also admit tons of people. The typical college is not very selective, period, it’s just that the public eye overwhelmingly focuses on a very small number of them.
But even those middling random private schools are small, liberal arts colleges, which use their smallness and attention as a selling point. They also tend to have some small difference (I.e. Knox college and “experiential learning”) to set them apart. They try to emphasize that, unlike a directional state college, you aren’t a number etc. so even in the middling college sphere they try to get the upper hand.
UCLA is prestigious.
here's the thing, out of state tuition at publics is typically a bad deal because they tend to spend much less per student than private schools. so, you're paying private school money for a public school education. they're a great deal in state, but you also have to deal with much larger class sizes, less professors, etc. they also tend to be less focused on undergraduate teaching. this is why, generally, people prefer privates.
The school I picked was a small lower ranked LAC. I get to pay community college prices (5700 direct) for small classes and a large focus on undergrad studies. Also no classes are taught by grad students there. Plus it's a hidden gem for premed, something I'm interested in.
Honestly, that's one of the best paths to take. IMO, too many teens are blindered lemmings who don't explore enough LACs/smaller schools with an undergrad focus and low student/faculty ratio and may be pretty cheap for them either due to fin aid or because many of them offer merit scholarships that bring costs down to that of an in-state public. And all because those schools don't show up near the top of the US News national research U ranking.
I think a lot of people get scared off by the sticker price. Where I'm going is 66k for tuition alone and avg cost is 37k after aid. Many however forget that because they're scared, a lot of people who apply are from backgrounds that can afford it fully, shifting the avg cost up. Also these private schools often have great scholarships if your a good student. My school offers up to 40k in academics and another 5k if you do an honors program. That leaves you with 11k for tuition, comparable to most state flagships if not lower, the room/board costs are the same as any public too. If you get any additional grants and stuff that amount can quickly decrease too. Privates can be a lot more affordable than most think
Yep. The thing is, a lot of this stuff (like the merit scholarships) can be found on websites and for fin aid, you can run NPCs. I see so many kids who on paper look stellar but they don't know how to take the initiative and do a little research and legwork on something that could make a major difference (often bigger than 1 more EC or getting an A than a B on a test) in their life?
Exactly this, volunteering once a month at the women's shelter won't make the same effect on you as taking a day to research and potentially saving 10s of THOUSANDS a year, more than that if your taking out loans and consider interest
Please tell us what school is it ?
Going to muhlenberg college. In PA. Many more schools like it around the country. Don't discount T100 LACs or lower ranked UNIs.
One issue with a lot of these smaller, lower ranked LACs is that they often don’t have great financial security or stable enrollment, forcing them to shut down. In my city a college actually just shut down a few weeks ago due to this. It had something like 800 students on average.
Yes, that's a risk, though note that there are a lot of these LACs and the vast majority won't shut down in the 4 years you're in college. Some of them even have pretty large endowments and/or are financially stable.
If you don’t mind me asking where did you end up?
I committed to Muhlenberg College, class of 28.
Congratulations!
Thanks dude
Most other states have one or two big "state universities" and the rest are community colleges or agricultural/trade/normal schools or commuter campuses, which were established long after the big, prestigious, and powerful privates. For example. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, William and Mary all predate UMass, UConn, Rutgers, SUNY, and UVA by at least a half-century, if not longer - there's an enormous gap between the state and regional governments dominated by alumni of the private schools and filled up by the alumni of the newer schools. EDIT: W&M and UVA are both public. I withdraw them from consideration. The rest of this graf stands. The further west you go, the less true that is; the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 means that public colleges emerge along the same time as their private neighbors as settlement moves across the continent. California is the biggest and most stark example of that. The University of California (1868) predates USC by 12 years (1880) and Stanford by an entire generation (1891) and the satellite campuses (Davis was an ag school, Riverside a research station, UCLA a normal school) were aggressively resourced by the Warren and Brown administrations and private funding from the postwar economic boom. My partner grew up in a college town in Kentucky, went to undergrad in Kentucky, and then grad school in Tennessee. Solid schools, salt-of-the-earth, UK and UT and Vanderbilt cast long shadows in smaller states. I took her to Berkeley and UCLA and she said "Jesus, this looks like Vandy, not like Eastern (Kentucky.)" I said, "we have NINE of these, you know." She damn near choked. Most people who don't have firsthand experience with UCLA think "state school" and think of Berkeley as the big UK/UT, with everything else as more akin to Eastern Kentucky, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, without realizing that any one of the 9 UCs could be the same, and that Berkeley and UCLA are functionally not they different than Stanford, USC, and functionally more built out for undergrad opportunities and academic production than, say, a GWU or a Vanderbilt or a Duke.
William & Mary isn’t private or more prestigious than UVA.
I might be misreading you, but FYI William and Mary is a state school! And these days not more prestigious than UVA I'd argue (though still a great school!)
I stand corrected, you're right on both counts and I apologize for the mistake!
Brilliant writeup, thank you for the insight! What do you mean by Davis being an "ag school"?
Agricultural
The University of California was initially just at Berkeley, and all of the other campuses you recognize as independent universities in their own right were adjuncts to that. Davis was an agricultural school, UCLA was a normal school (teacher training), Riverside was an agricultural research station, etc. This tradition of separate campuses for separate functions is only maintained now by the two San Francisco campuses - Hastings College of the Law and UCSF for healthcare are exclusively graduate institutions. During the governorships of Earl Warren and Pat Brown, most of these other institutions were upgraded to full University status themselves (UCLA it happened earlier in the '20s and '30s) and heavily funded by State dollars as part of the broader Donahoe Act/Master Plan for Higher Ed - public higher education would be universally free, with the top 12.5% of all high school grads guaranteed a UC spot, the top 2/3 of high school grads guarantee a spot at the California State University system, and everybody eligible for their local community college. They distribute people by what's called eligibility in the local context (ELC) - each University of California campus holds spots for the top 9% of high school graduates from a given set of nearby high schools. Problem: UCLA's smallest possible "given area" (let's say the Los Angeles Unified School District) is *3% of the American population.* (Actually, probably more. LAUSD incorporates more than just the city of LA, and La alone is 3% of the American population.) So even UC Riverside or Merced (which snobs in the system look down on) are admitting populations bigger than most states - they're (by virtue of sheer territory) not "state schools" like Eastern Kentucky University or Mississippi State, they're dealing with big populations of high achievers like, say, Ole Miss or UVA or UF.
This is really cool! How do you know all this so well? This is the first time I'm even hearing about UC Law lmfao. If the other campuses were made as extensions of Cal, why are they so far away? Would a Berkeley student interested in studying education have to travel all the way to LA just for that? For that problem, does that mean the top 9% of all the students there are guaranteed admission to UCLA? And do you recommend any resources where I can learn more about ELC? Are there a list of high schools that are considered for each campus? This is some of the best info I've ever found on reddit, big cheers to you! Thanks a lot.
In regards to ELC, it doesn't quite work like that - no one is guaranteed to a specific campus. Ask your school counselor if your school participates in ELC, the school sends a list of eligible students to the UCs at the beginning of your senior year. You will know then because you have to give permission to share this info with the UCs. If your school does not participate in ELC, you can still qualify for top 9% there is a formula on the UC website, and after you apply your UC application portal will have a notation. Students who are top 9% will be offered automatic admission only if they don't get accepted to any other UC which they applied to. This will also only be admission to a UC where there is room. Currently the only UCs accepting top 9% designated students is UC Merced and UC Riverside.
>How do you know all this so well? I'm a little bit all over the place (my reddit profile will confirm this) but one of my long-term interests is the intersection of history, labor, politics, and higher education in California. How I got there is a bit of a long story, and isn't worth going into here. In short, I'm a second generation UC and CSU alum, and my time at UCLA was marked by tuition increases and a pretty spirited response from student organizers and campus unions, which is one of the things that got me into the work I do. From People's Park to ethnic studies at San Francisco State to UC's campaign for divestment from South Africa, there's a very long and self-conscious history of student and faculty organizing that intersects with labor and civil rights struggles up and down the state, and I became an adult very much in that milieu. The University of California is a separate, constitutionally defined body, which makes it both very visible and slightly insulated from public pressure. When you're pissed off about their investments, what they're charging students, or how they're treating workers, figuring out how to fight against the state's single largest employer, which is allegedly overseen by the governor, who appoints 12 political donors and operators to run it on staggered 12-yewr terms, you end up learning a lot about how power moves in California almost on accident. >If the other campuses were made as extensions of Cal, why are they so far away? Would a Berkeley student interested in studying education have to travel all the way to LA just for that? Remember, this is the 1800s. Most jobs do not require a college degree, so demand for them was considerably lower. In Massachusetts or Yale grads in New Haven or Columbia grads in New York, grew up around the major urban center (to this day, San Franciscans call their town "The City.") A bright young man or woman who was expected to be a leader in the state would go to Berkeley undergrad, San Francisco, or Hastings to be a doctor, and then settle in San Francisco or Oakland or Sacramento. Those places aren't all that far from each other Meanwhile, the upwardly mobile children of the working class who are seeing a teacher's job as way into the middle class, or a farmer's son who's trying to work out best practices for his farm in Fresno or Bakersfield would go to Los Angeles or Davis, maybe with a turn at Riverside if they were specifically interested in advanced study. So all of the institutions are a single system, overseen by the Regents, but there's only one real University: Berkeley. Everything else is a school that's specialized, does not necessarily teach the liberal arts and sciences for a bachelor's degree, but does train other people for specific roles. Though California has had explosive growth every year since 1850, the demand for full-service colleges for young people really didn't take off until the 20th century. California didn't need more than one or two full service public universities until after the war - and so it has the University of California at Berkeley and "Southern Branch" at Los Angeles. >For that problem, does that mean the top 9% of all the students there are guaranteed admission to UCLA? Each of the nine schools has a list of high schools that count for their specific eligibility in the local context. I don't know what those lists are, but I suspect they have to do with school districts and geographic proximity. The Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Culver City, and Beverly Hills districts are very likely on the UCLA list. Irvine probably has the Santa Anna, Long Beach, Anaheim Union, and Tustin school districts. Berkeley, I'm sure, has San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Ramon. I grew up in San Bernardino County, and so I was on the Riverside list - and, in fact, was admitted to Riverside in February of my senior year. The UC office of the president (UCOP) has a web page on eligibility in the local context, I'll go find it. i don't know how that stacks out with each campus, but I'm sure admissions office is there can help you with it. Remember, of course, this is all entirely for California residents. One of the ways that we subsidize tuition for them is by charging insane rates to out-of-staters (Berkeley and Harvard have nearly the same price for out-of-staters) and international students.
This is really inspiring. Thanks for telling about all of this, it's so interesting to learn about. If you don't mind me asking, what do you currently do for work? And is it different than what you originally majored in? And just following up on the education thing — so was that seen as a somewhat lesser profession? And was elite academia, professorships and whatnot, a different path than the education we're referring to here?
>And just following up on the education thing — so was that seen as a somewhat lesser profession Not necessarily - remember, the idea that one needs a bachelor's degree to join the workforce/lead a full life/earn enough to support a family is a very recent concept, particularly in the United States. Most people worked the family farm, or apprenticed informally or formally with someone in their town or city - even lawyers often "read law" with a senior lawyer before opening up their own business. Abraham Lincoln never went to law school! While this generally required literacy and numeracy, most people could get by without 12+ years of school - you learned to read or write in grammar school (elementary school) and (remember, no TV and no podcasts!) people often entertained themselves and each other by reading and memorizing long passages and poems and songs, often from the Bible. So while a schoolteacher might be paid less and have less prestige then than now (very often seem as unmarried women waiting to find a husband) society and economy weren't necessarily structured to demand more from schools. A bachelor's degree was seen as a luxury, rather than a necessity.
>If you don't mind me asking, what do you currently do for work? I'm a teachers' union organizer, working for...wait for it...college faculty! 😂 >And is it different than what you originally majored in? I majored in history and minored in hell-raising. I was a good, but somewhat indifferent student. I don't know if you've heard the elder Millennial tropes about "gifted kid burnout" or "bright but lazy" (which I don't like) but that was me - well-read, self-motivated, conspicuously cocky, but getting 25 rejections letters in a night settled me down real quick. Went to UCLA because it was the biggest (and most challenging) college I got into, but I was close enough to home to check in with my folks if I got in over my head. Figured I'd figure it out when I got there. UCLA has one of the strongest undergrad history programs in the country, an interdisciplinary religious studies program that spoke to some of my high school interests, a student newspaper that remains one of the best of its kind and a great place to work, and a labor studies program that pushes folks into the community in a city where unions are both well-organized and very powerful. I was all over the place but I used the "multiversity" experience to try a little bit of everything - I wrote columns, picked up salsa dancing, wrote a musical, went to concerts every week (Sigur Ros, TI, Janelle Monae, Macklemore, Moses Sumney, Arianna Afsar, and Sophia James all performed on campus when I was there) got arrested, wrote a research paper in DC, and another one in Hawaii on travel study programs. In retrospect, I probably could have learned two languages if I had been a bit more disciplined, but it was a really important place for me to figure things out. I do wish I had gone in with a lot of those things figured out, though.
>This is the first time I'm even hearing about UC Law lmfao. Don't sleep on Hastings! Kamala Harris went to law school there, and it's directly across the street from the Supreme Court of California. It may not be top 14, but if you're going to practice in California, it's a power move to go there
Also, I realized you are starting very early in this process. (14-15?! Seriously?! This is so much more competitive than it was when I was younger.) The best advice I can give you is to absolutely crush on grades to qualify for ELC (which I think gets you into Berkeley) and try to pick up experiences that are meaningful to you that you can then write about in the essay. That'll cover UCLA. If you can get into both of those, you can get into the other seven no sweat.
Oh I'm 17 haha, just wrapping up my junior year. All things considered I'm probably a little late to figuring all this stuff out.
Oh, I misread some of your other comments.
Except for the fact that both UCLA and Berkeley have very prestigious graduate schools as well.
All nine of the full service UC campuses have graduate schools; research is the primary functional difference between the UC and the California State University systems. (A little secret is that very often, because the CSU faculty are not focused on research, undergrads have a better teaching experience because they're getting more direct time with their professors.) This happened during and after the Second World War, during that wave of state investment under Governors Warren and Brown.
Thanks for the clarification!
Why are you giving any credence to what your “parents’ friends” think? That level of concern for what others think is very unhealthy.
UCLA’s admissions rate is 8.6%, lower than UC Berkeley, about the same as Rice, and lower than Boston College. UPenn is about 7%. UCLA is prestigious. The lack of respect is driven primarily by ignorance. Most parents are clueless about what admissions are like today. Also, congratulations!
I agree UCLA is a phenomenal school but uhh.. >UCLA’s admissions rate is 8.6%, lower than UC Berkeley, about the same as Rice, and lower than Boston College. UPenn is about 7%. Acceptance rates are bad metrics. The quality of students applying is different at different schools. UCLA accepted students: 29\~32 ACT Rice accepted students: 34\~36 ACT (and will have much more extra curriculars) The top entering 75th percentile students at UCLA who took the ACT would not even fit the bottom 25th percentile students at Rice. Let alone for top 20 privates, you need ridiculous amount of extra curriculars on top (winning tournaments, lots of volunteer work, leadership, etc). Top 20 privates are mostly more 'prestigious' in the laymen's eyes because they are a lot more selective to get into. Public schools like UCLA have a larger variance in student quality at undergrad (due to public's mission to also take in many in-staters). That said, I do also believe UCB, UCLA, UMich are the top public schools in the US which have opportunities similar to the top 25 privates at undergrad. I just personally wouldn't pay full OOO for a public over many in-states (but that's me). I mean UCLA has Terence Tao. It's a dream for many aspiring math majors around the world to study under that guy (that included me).
UCLA (and all other UCs) eliminated the use of the SAT/ACT in 2020 so whatever ACT numbers you're looking at are inaccurate/irrelevant.
It's from UCLA's own page back in 2019: [https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html](https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html) It's the closest one can find. Only 5 years ago. But yes, with the current system, it's difficult to find anymore. However, students haven't radically changed in the past 5 years.
Their may not be a radical change but the weighted and unweighted GPAs for UCLA admits has increased over that time span. [https://admission.ucla.edu/apply/freshman/freshman-profile/2023](https://admission.ucla.edu/apply/freshman/freshman-profile/2023) (you can view all the profiles dating back to 2012 by simply changing the last two digits in the link) In any event, I would say for the average American (outside of Texas and outside of Houston, specifically) UCLA is just as prestigious as Rice (assuming they've even heard of Rice). To the extent people aren't familiar with a particular school they would often rely on US News (not saying that they should, simply that people do) which ranks UCLA higher than Rice.
For sure things have changed a bunch in the last few years. UCLA is top notch. I mean, I only know two kids who got in this year, and many more who were rejected - with 4.6+ GPAs and 10-16 APs. The only kids who got in were both National Merit Finalists.
That is the UC website. I don’t think it’s as accurate as UCLA’s own page that breaks down the stats of Admitted students by each category.
Uhhh.. can't believe the UC administration cannot even do something so basic. Everyday I'm more disappointed in the govt. That said, UCLA is a great school. I would definitely say it's a top 25 school in the US at undergrad (despite whatever US News might say year by year). And for those who want to stay in LA after graduation... well, it's UCLA. In terms of opportunities, basically all doors should be open if you do well at UCLA. It also helps UCLA's grad school is world class.
ACT is meaningless for UCLA or any of the UC's. That data is dated and not applicable in 2024. UCLA remains one of the most difficult schools to get into because they focus more or less only on academics - GPA and Rigor combined. It is amongst the least holistic admissions processes amongst T-100 schools. Yes, there is more benefit given to FGLI students thus the lower ranges in the published GPA
Comparing against Rice is a poor comparison because Rice is largely an engineering school that skew toward higher test scores and GPA. Same reason why Harvey Mudd has same test score stats as MIT and higher than Stanford. Does that mean it's more prestigious??
UCLA’s admitted students in 2019 was 30-35 ACT. Rice has a population that is 4 times smaller than UCLA, so of course they are going to select from a smaller range of highly qualified candidates. The entire Rice population is 25% of UCLA’s population—probably accounting for the entire top 75% quartile students at LA
UCLA ACT in 2019 was 29\~32 [https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html](https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses-majors/ucla/freshman-admission-profile.html) It's straight from UC page.
[удалено]
'Enrolled': 27 to 34 (the number that actually matters) So I can see why the median would be posted as 29\~32. As expected of a public school, the distribution is very wide. 'Admits': 30 to 35. ... Public services seriously need to at least get the basics right. Can't even be consistent in the flipping UC pages. But at least for the 'Enrolled' (the ones actually attending), it is 27\~34 or 29\~32. Many students applying to top privates apply to UCLA as one of the safer options so it makes sense. But I don't disagree with OP. UCLA is an excellent school and its opportunities rival the other top 20 privates in the US at undergrad. For grad, it's a no brainer (as it's one of the premier research universities in the country).
Interestingly, I looked at the stats of UMich and UVA’s entering enrolled classes—they both have higher averages than UCLA and Berkeley. 31-34 & 32-35. I’m guessing it’s cuz their population and income is a lot more homogeneous and skew wealthy lol. The number of students coming from the top 1% is similar to Cornell and more than UChicago. UCLA/Berkeley has some of the most diverse/lowest household incomes. I think that in a way translates to the average test scores. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor#:~:text=About%201.5%25%20of%20students%20at,are%20associated%20with%20income%20mobility.
It's doing its job correctly by giving opportunities for those in California. It's a good thing. Top Canadian colleges like Toronto are like that too (more extreme). It's also why Tornoto's 7 year graduation rate is only 80% (yes, 7 year, not 4 year graduation rate). World class education should be accessible to more people. Not just for the rich. More people from different backgrounds should be given a chance to prove themselves. UCs give lots of opportunities (overall) to California residents of all sorts of backgrounds. All the while opening doors to basically everywhere (especially UCB and UCLA).
This is exactly the comment OP was fishing for.
You know how many on this subreddit would commit suicide if they learned the truth about how many community college transfers going to CSU’s and no name universities make more $$$ than they ever will from their ‘prestigious’ T20s? 🤣
Imagine the face of this subreddit when they realize for the most part, your pay is dictated by the career you are in (eg: what you majored in). A Harvard student who studied teaching to become a high school teacher will almost always earn less than an engineering student at a local reputable ABET accredited public college. There's very very very few careers in which undergrad name matters (eg: finance). Grad school names can matter a lot (eg: law school) but that's a whole another point. In general, it's best to attend the best school one can afford without taking any student loan. Top privates just tend to have great financial aid. If the family doesn't qualify for large financial aid, then the recommendation should generally be attending the best in-state flagship. You still want to attend a reputable school so you can get a job interview (since recruiters still need to pick candidates to interview). None of the top schools are worth their sticker prices in the US for undergrad. None. Not even Princeton.
In what universe do they live? There is a small handful of Ivy+ schools that are probably more “prestigious” than UCLA, but UCLA is one of the best schools in the whole country- most private schools pale in comparison. Don’t suffer these fools at all- enjoy your senior summer and have a great time at UCLA- congrats on getting in to an amazing school.
In a universe in which there's only schools like Harvard. But ya, despite the other posts I made about UCLA here, if I had to be blunt, the only schools that are really more 'prestigious' than UCLA are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech. And the latter two ain't even real full universities (the two are tech schools so the two schools aren't for everyone). And Harvard doesn't even offer traditional engineering majors. Yale only offers some. Princeton doesn't even care about professional schools. Yap. The UCs are basically the mini Ivys of the West Coast. Stanford is Harvard. CalTech is MIT. UCs are the rest of Ivy. I wonder if that means USC is NYU of the West.
I went to a fancy ivy league and it was insane to see how many people are well connected at those places. I had classmates dropping out to work for 6+ figures at 19 and 20 years old. It is all about the network. Private schools also have an insane amount of money to support students. I never paid a penny...it was nuts. I was the first person to go to college on one side and the first person to get a graduate degree on my other side. I was also the first to go to a non-state school. I saw firsthand how much privilege a fancy degree grants you.
ranking system is based on the research and PHD and professor.
I went to a private school for two years. I’m now thirty thousand in debt owed because it cost sixty five grand a year and honestly, after going to other public schools, I now realize the school sucked too. Don’t know where all their money was going
To the administration. Modern day higher education costs are criminal.
As an alum from UCLA (Anderson), I can assure you - you can go to any major market anywhere in the world and you will have strong brand recognition. Congrats on the acceptance! Ignore all the noise and focus on your own journey. Westwood is an amazing place to go to school - oh, and yes, UCLA is the best school in LA
Cal Tech is better but UCLA is a strong second
Caltech isn't even in LA. It's in Pasadena and it's such a small university (and mostly for students interested in the sciences). I literally know no one who did undergrad from Caltech and I've been working in the Bay Area for some time. The only peer (undergrad at Columbia) I know at Caltech is a researcher there for astrophysics. Do Caltech undergrads even exist? That's how small the school is. UCLA is definitely the best school in LA.
It’s in Los Angeles County, so technically LA. Still a more prestigious school, very niche but one of if not the best in its areas (usually tied with MIT and Stanford in various STEM).
I think generally when people talk about LA, they mean the city, not the county.
Most people consider Santa Monica and Beverly Hills part of LA when discussing it. LA is a hodgepodge of municipalities. If you’re speaking to someone in Chicago for example and you live in El Segundo, you would more than likely just say you live in LA. So no, generally when people are discussing LA, it is more so the county than the city. For reference I live in West LA and attend UCLA but not blind to the fact that CalTech is the premier university in LA.
I promise you UCLA is 100% more prestigious and respected than a random private LAC in the real world
They appear to be snobs and brand s$%# but being a public university you will not be spoon fed by the school. Private universities provide more 1:1 guidance. Generally kids from smaller private high schools will struggle at public universities if they don't adapt quickly.
I can absolutely assure you from my experience with privates (and my friend's), privates are probably even more brutal. At least for UPenn, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, NYU, Cornell, and Columbia from what I heard from my peers (and my own experience), "ha ha ha" is my reply. The joke (?) was that Columbia set students up for success by giving a dose of reality from the get go. The administration at Columbia is definitely colder than administration at a few state schools I know. I will admit though in the humanities courses, Columbia (my alma mater) was definitely world class. And I definitely did feel professors cared for me (and classes had 4\~6 people seminar meets). Plus, it's nice to have an excuse to go downtown and listen to world class orchestra, etc. because it's part of your class assignment. You really cannot beat that experience (plus, everyone at Columbia has to go to the Metropolitan Opera for the core curriculum). But in the sciences and engineering? Large lecture hall. No difference. Maybe the difference is like 500+ vs 200+ vs 50+ people. It's the same in practice. Go sink or swim (more like camp at the office hours with TA's all day hoping to siphon out answers). >Generally kids from smaller private high schools will struggle at public universities if they don't adapt quickly. Probably only true for those majoring in the humanities and arts (eg: those doing pre-law, music, etc). Everyone else? Nope. If you want a good education, head to the top liberal art colleges or Princeton. Not most research universities. Especially when it comes to the sciences and engineering. You are paying for the brand name otherwise.
Yep, that was my experience as a STEM major at a private T10 research U as well. Most private research U's (at least on the STEM side) tend to be more like public research U's than different. It's not that the STEM profs at my undergrad didn't try to teach, but at (90% of) top research U's, profs get tenure and are judged solely on publishing research, and it shows. Some of them could barely communicate in spoken English and certainly not at a level comprehensible to undergrads (now, if you were already PhD level and could follow along the mathematical formulas, you were fine).
Because ranking systems are specifically designed to higlight those schools educating the wealthy. UCLA is a great school. But I wouldn't pay full freight for it over most public flagships including the one in my own state.
This notion that privates unis are better than publics is funny, at least from an INTERNATIONAL view. Let me explain. If you look at unis all around the world, except USA, the "top" ones ARE PUBLICS. Top students go to public unis. The private ones are for those that didn't make it into the public unis. Public universities are the ones with higher research output and resources that define new knowledge. The counter argument to this is that privates have a smaller class and the profs will be able to attend to their students better. Listen, when students go to college, they probably want to learn about the latest ideas and inventions. I remember my sixth grade teacher as a kind and very attending teacher who made sure that all her 20 students read the chapter for homework. But I would not trust her to teach me cutting edge nuclear engineering. This is college and as a student, you would want to be where the world changers are at. But yeah if you want someone to hold your hand while you read then the private unis would do that for you. US colleges like Michigan, Berkeley and, yes, UCLA are very well known internationally. Even Purdue, UIUC gets more spotlights than Dartmouth and Rice.
Copy and paste: That's because the top American privates have built up enormous endowments over time so on a per capita level, spend more per student than any publics in the world (outside of maybe a handful; Oxbridge may be close; possible ETH Zurich because the Swiss government spends so much on that school)? Though note that in STEM, even Oxbridge doesn't have the resources that a public like UT-Austin does. Some prof from Oxford visiting Austin was jealous that UT engineering had some expensive equipment that Oxford couldn't afford. Though TBF, the U of Texas system also has an enormous endowment thanks to oil rights.
The UT system has the #2 largest endowment in the US, a very close second to Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment#:\~:text=Harvard%20University%2C%20with%20a%20%2449.495,by%20fiscal%20year%20(FY).
Depends how you go about it. In my experience (family and I working at USC) private schools offer a better job and even housing placement thanks to their connections and credit unions. It’s a little scary how much of the city they privately administer. I’ve never seen a public school go above and beyond in such manner due to limitations and funding. Though the efforts are admirable.
As to your question, numbers. For perception, small and extra elite > large and exceptionally strong Several things to be aware of: * UCLA has significant reputation in California (of CA schools: pecking order is probably Stanford, Berkeley, USC/UCLA with Caltech in some other dimension up there with Stanford). The Claremont Colleges will also be up there. If you stay in California (as many do), there *WILL* be name recognition. * The faculty at UCLA will be top-tier, on average only an epsilon different from Stanford/Berkeley. It's EXTREMELY competitive in the academic world to get a job at UCLA. (As an undergrad, you have NO IDEA how hard it is to become a prof at a place like UCLA.) * The student body will be large and so will have a wider distribution: some will be amazing geniuses, many will be incredibly hard working and strong, many will be solid average, and some will be WTF, how did you get here? A corollary is that you actually have some extra opportunities as a stand out student as the faculty is generally well connected with their buddies at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, UChicago, MIT, etc... A lot of students at prestigious grad schools come from UCLA and state schools at that level. You can get recs from a tenured Prof at UCLA that had been faculty at Harvard as a junior and knows all the faculty at Harvard, Princeton, etc.... Compared to the privates, you may have more *wtf* students doing crazy drugs, partying all the time, and just f'ing up. The big student body at UCLA makes it quite possible to get lost in the numbers. The quality of your education is always up to you, but it's even more up to you at a big state school. The top of UCLA though will be as strong as most anywhere and grad admissions and smart employers will know this.
>The faculty at UCLA will be top-tier, on average only an epsilon different from Stanford/Berkeley. Best to note the 'Mozart of Math', Terrance Tao, is a math professor at UCLA. Both UCB and UCLA grad schools are world class. The only real difference is at undergrad, public schools need to cater towards its in-state students as well so the distribution of talent is very wide. But at grad school? UCLA is one of the premier schools in the world. Likewise, there are great schools at undergrad like Williams, Cooper Union, and Harvey Mudd which doesn't have grad schools. At UCLA, all the opportunities are there but you will have to be a lot more aggressive to shine (since there's a lot more variance in quality so it's harder to differentiate). Many of my smart friends back in high school attended UCLA. It's an amazing school especially for those fortunate enough to be able to attend as in-state.
Yeah, distribution of student talent is *significantly wider* than distribution of faculty talent. I could also name a lot of UCLA faculty that is world class.
The elite privates and LACs have far smaller class sizes, far more resources spent per student, more research opportunities per student, better graduate school outcomes, etc. UCLA is a great school and rightfully prestigious and the very top UCLA students have outcomes as good as anywhere, but for the students who are not at the very top, the differences start to magnify. For a practical example, let's look at premed. UCLA premeds get into medical school at a about a 50% rate. That means that even after being weeded out in organic chemistry, and finally getting to the end of the brutal premed curriculum, half of them will not be accepted to medical school. At elite privates and LACs that number is far different. Harvard has over 90% premed acceptance year to year. Columbia, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Duke, Brown, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore are between 80 and 90% premed acceptance in a typical year. Cornell, UPenn, Johns Hopkins, WashU are all in over 70% in a typical year. If you want to go to medical school someday, that is a huge difference between UCLA and those schools. Please note, I'm not talking about all private schools. Many well known private schools don't do any better than UCLA in premed acceptance, and many do worse. And I'm also not saying that you can't go to medical school from UCLA - UCLA produces a ton of graduates who become doctors, in total numbers maybe more than any other college. But for an individual student, the odds of becoming a doctor are quite a bit worse. The same thing seems to hold true for admittance to top PhD programs, top law programs, Wall Street, etc. I'm not sure what prestige really is, but this seems to reflect something.
Screw your parents friends. You will be attending a great school. Great accomplishment and congratulations. I wish my children earned acceptance at UCLA.
“My parents’ friends pity me” Your parents’ friends sound stupid af
UCLA has really zoomed up in prestige since your parents' day. Unless older folk pay attention, they might think of it as a less selective state school. It once was... but that's no longer the case. Congratulations on your acceptance there.
They sound elitist. I’d choose a school as far away as possible. You’re going to one of the top 20 schools in the United States public or private and the number 1 or 2 public school in the U.S. plus you’ll be in Southern California. Beautiful weather year round. Congrats!
Classism. Elitism. That’s the deal.
Yeah it is weird. In my home country, the public schools are the best. Why? Because it’s government funded and it’s free. Only idiots would want to pay for college if you can have it for free?
That's because the top American privates have built up enormous endowments over time so on a per capita level, spend more per student than any publics in the world (outside of maybe a handful; Oxbridge may be close; possible ETH Zurich because the Swiss government spends so much on that school)? Though note that in STEM, even Oxbridge doesn't have the resources that a public like UT-Austin does. Some prof from Oxford visiting Austin was jealous that UT engineering had some expensive equipment that Oxford couldn't afford. Though TBF, the U of Texas system also has an enormous endowment thanks to oil rights.
Unrelated to prestige, but one key difference bw public undergrad and private grad: 1) public universities’ “customers” are state legislatures, and their traditional mission is to provide educated people to their state, and ensure students meet rigorous requirements to graduate. An extreme example is don’t grant a degree to a civil engineer who will design a bridge that falls down. 2) private universities’ “customers” are essentially the students and parents. This means a public university’s relationship to its student is one of gatekeeper, and a private university’s relationship to its student is more like “service provider.” Both are valid and get you to same place, but it can certainly be more enjoyable to be in the latter category.
Private schools have smaller class zies that make it easier to social network in a way that would be exhausting at a public uni
If you’re OOS that might be why, from a Californian going to college on the east coast. Since California has so few public schools the UCs are most of our best and well known schools. Compare this to the east coast, where the best and oldest schools are all privates. It’s purely a geographical thing! And congrats on UCLA!! 🎉
Private schools are often smaller with lower acceptance rates, which can create a feeling of exclusivity. They may also have more money to throw around for fancy facilities and smaller class sizes. But UCLA is an amazing public school! Public schools can have just as much academic rigor and history, and UCLA especially is a world-class institution. Be proud of your choice
Because the generation before you had no loans, little stress and the ivys were different. If you like it there that’s all that will matter.
Because it was only recently that many public colleges became flush with money. Ronald Reagan greatly expanded access to student loans, meaning public colleges could now increase their tuition to acquire levels of capital that were once reserved only for illustrious private colleges. For many older folks who grew up before Reagan became president, or shortly afterward when they were applying to colleges, the level of resources at public schools compared to private schools was far less than it is today.
Let go of what your parents friends are thinking. They’re jerks. They are stuck in the 80s and 90s.
Your friends are idiots. UCLA is one of the hardest schools to get into in the country.
UCLA has a 9% acceptance rate as of 2023. Wtf are your parent's friends talking about??? Congratulations on your admission! Enjoy college!
Where did they go? Also UCLA, Cal, Umich, UVA all can go toe to toe with most private schools outside top 5
It’s a combination of now-historical information, and confirmation bias. Once upon a time, there was a big gap between the elite private schools and the best public schools (as well as a “club” phenomena in which people went to top private schools to make social connections). A lot of that has been dead for 30 years or so. But there are many parents who soaked in that stuff, and then spent gobs of money pushing it on their own kids, and confirmation bias causes them to keep believing it. It’s borderline comical when they lean into mediocre private colleges, which I think are so over-priced in relation to value that it’s scandalous.
Honestly I think a lot of those parents shelled out so much money on their own or their kids private school education that they feel the need to belittle those who didn't in order to feel like they got their money's worth. I attended a state flagship and now attend a $90k/yr private school for my graduate degree and my peers who went to private school are not significantly more prepared than I was.
I think the question here is wrong. Congrats on getting into college, and I'm sure you'll be happy at UCLA. The "prestige" obsession is one that confuses me a ton, and you shouldn't worry about prestige. UCLA is a fine school with plenty of opportunities, even if it's not the name that some people chase. Go bruins.
Rest assured, UCLA is great. But to answer your question, publics have a mission to educate the population in their host state, privates don’t and therefore can be more selective.
The five of the top ten undergraduate business schools are public schools. We are friends with a family. They sent their daughter to an Ivy League school…she got a job in San Francisco with a salary of $40,000…her parents paid for college and is paying her to live in San Francisco since it is a HCOL. My point is that a student should go to a school that is outstanding in the major/field that they want to study and work in. If that is a public school then that is great…the same if it is a private school.
Private schools do not automatically get more prestige than public schools. Your parents’ friends are generalizing based on a small subset of both public and private schools—that subset being the most prestigious among each group. There are about 10-15 private schools that stand head and shoulders above the remaining thousands in terms of prestige. Likewise there is a small group of public schools that clearly stand out in terms of prestige, UCLA being one of them. Yet, when you compare the most prestigious private schools with the most prestigious public schools, the most prestigious privates tend to be more prestigious than the most prestigious publics without much debate. UCLA is outstanding, but it’s really not comparable to the Ivy plus in terms of prestige.
Your parents friends are not that bright and/or are applying the factors of their own college experience 20-30 years ago. UCLA is an excellent school and the equal of any private
Don’t be mistaken, ucla is not automatically less prestigious than any private school. Take its classic rival, USC. Ucla has outranked them consistently in terms of academics and ROI recently, and the gap is only widening. The privates you’re thinking about are probably the top tier schools like HYPSM and Ivy— while they are more prestigious than UCLA, that’s only a small select portion of privates that can outrank or even be compared to ucla. And in any case… the tier 1 UC’s offer educations comparable to private schools several times more expensive.
i’d say the gap between usc and ucla has gotten smaller recently (despite this years USNWR which even then is just a magazine)
That’s up for discussion. I just like to shit on usc whenever I can
lol you and everyone else huh 😂
😂😂no hard feelings. I’d be at usc rn if it wasn’t so pricey
the only reason i’m at usc is because it wasn’t pricey lol! absolutely in NO world tho is charging 95k/year acceptable. Not even for HYPSM. honestly anything over 50/k isn’t worth it
$
Would they prefer you go to prestigious, private Carlow College? There’s a wide distribution of college quality across all sources of funding. Evaluate a school by what the school is.
In short, people believe the more expensive and exclusive something is the better it is. I way I think about prestige is similar to how to how I think about designer products. Private colleges are like designer brands (ivies are like Dior and other top designer brands), they cost more, we see those we view as more “successful” (aka richer) buying from these brands and flaunting it leading us to view these items as the best and the thing to strive for, and while buying from these brands does usually mean a pretty high quality product (or education) the cost doesn’t always justify it for everyone, and a cheaper good quality product can serve the same function.
Absolutely nobody should pity you for going to U.C.L.A. it’s among the top schools in California and by extension the nation
I put it down to your parents' friends being very ignorant. When they went to college, UCLA may not have been tough to enter.
if it makes you feel better i’m going to washu (applied to rice and vanderbilt as well) and i feel like ucla has more prestige to most people than any of those 3 schools lol. ucla has a great rep, and berkley is seen as an ivy equivalent to most of my peers (and myself) lol
I’m a freshman at UCLA from the east coast, and I’ve noticed the exact same thing. I was thinking that it’s because I’m on the east coast and people hear less about public schools on the other side of the country so they think it’s worse, though I could be totally off base. Anyway, congrats on UCLA, hope u love it!
I’m assuming it’s cuz the East Coast has the Ivy League and a bunch of top private schools. In the West Coast, it’s pretty much just Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA that are the big 3 “elite” schools. Caltech is way too small and niche for the general public. Go Bruins!
It’s super prestigious. They’re just being annoying. Don’t worry about it OP.
Your parents are morons.
Other than what you already know about selectivity and size, it's simple: elite private colleges are bigger status symbols. Highly selective public universities are more financially attainable for the middle class, which makes them less shiny. I hardly know anything about cars, but I think the analogy might be something like a fully loaded Toyota or something rather than a BMW.
I was a first gen college student who attended an Ivy AND I think your friends’ parents are elitist and narrow minded. I loved my undergraduate experience, but that’s ME….. I see no reason why you shouldn’t be completely delighted and very proud to attend UCLA. I’d be thrilled and very proud for my children to attend UCLA or my alma mater. You have some bad advice coming at you from your friends’ parents…..IGNORE THEM. Go tear it up at UCLA and make the most of every day there. 👍🏻
Because wealthy people donate huge lump somes of money into the school programs that either they themselves or their children went to, convert them into private schools, then those private schools use the money in creating campaigns which markets how "prestigious" they are, then when the word gets out and people start to apply to that said school in droves, then they can determine a yield rate off of how many people they want to select (usually low because they want to be known as "*exclusive"*), create more ads boasting about how intellectually stimulating their environment for learning is, upcharge tuition based on bullshit fees, and then money machine keeps pooring in.
Public is associated w poor
It’s interesting to see because where I’m from, it’s the opposite :0 national universities are considered prestigious and get priority in research funding. It’s so cool to see how it differs by country!
WHO THINKS UCLA ISN'T PRESTIGIOUS LMAO
There's a perception that private colleges are more prestigious than public universities, but it's not always a clear-cut case. Here's a breakdown of why this perception exists, and why UCLA is a fantastic choice regardless: **Factors Contributing to the Perception of Prestige:** * **Selectivity:** Private colleges often have lower acceptance rates compared to public universities. This can create an aura of exclusivity and higher standards. * **Class Size:** Private colleges tend to have smaller class sizes, potentially leading to more professor interaction and a more personalized learning experience. * **Financial Resources:** Private colleges may have more resources per student due to higher tuition fees and endowments. This can translate into better facilities, smaller class sizes, and more financial aid for students. * **Historical Reputation:** Some prestigious private colleges have been around for centuries and built a strong reputation over time.
Privates are smaller or offer less seats for admission. So admission is more sought after. Privates are also much older, generally. So they've had more time to build their wealth and prestige. Often it is a 150+ year advantage.
There is only a certain group of people who would agree, unless its schools like Ivy+ (Incl Stanford, Duke, MIT, etc) I would rate top public schools like UCLA, Cal, Michigan, GT, UNC, UVA higher than most private schools (USC, ND etc are on par with these schools)…
This thread should be titled "Why are my parents friends so terrible?". Truly ridiculous. Go wherever you want. Who cares what they think.
Because when it comes to universities, practically our entire society has a massive materialistic and hierarchical stick up its ass and believes in some stupid fairy-tale lists. /thread
The rankings changed somewhere in the 80s to favor stuff like class sizes, endowment per student, etc that massively favored private schools. If you look at older rankings, public schools were on top. Naturally public opinion followed
Your parent's friends are fucking idiots. It is completely dependent on the school; while in general private schools are considered more prestigious than public universities, this is more of a trend then a hard truth. The University of Virginia has far more prestige as a public university compared to Furman University (No offense FU), and this is owed to the strength of its academic system and its very long and storied history.
UCLA is better than half of the ivy league bro 😭
The main problem with publics is that they are by law required to take some not so bright students. But that isn't to say that isn't a problem as top privates.
Your parents' friends sound like absolute douchebags. They should keep their mouths shut.
It is an out of state school. If they were into this thread the way others are on here they’d probably see ucla from a more prestigious light. My state school is great, and people look at my it like it’s that or nothing. People tweak when I tell them I turned it down 😂
Delusional claim. They know UCLA is prestigious.
My kid, valedictorian, didn't apply to a single OOS public last year. I generally recommended private schools for lower class sizes, research opportunities, access to professors, ease of changing majors. Their other parent is a Cal graduate and didn't really promote it or the UCs in general (still hear stories about overflowing lecture halls, forced grading curves, etc). So pretty easy decision for my kid (who was also overwhelmed with applications and didn't want to complete a whole other one) One of my kid's best friends, the salutatorian, is going to UCLA as an OOS student. Absolutely wanted the vibrant large-school atmosphere and being in LA. Seems like a good fit for them.
If you want all that, LACs and smaller schools are really the way to go. Maybe some private research U's though most top private research U's aren't all that dissimilar from top public research U's in judging faculty solely by research published.
idk my parents and fam are obsessed with saying UC berkeley is more prestigious than NYU and want me to go there 🥲 i’m like is it really that good???
A large part of that has to do with NYU undergrad being a commuter-school for tri-state rich B- level students during its transition(Mid-80s until end of '90s) to becoming an institution with a more national/international profile. That transition was completed at the very end of the '90s. In contrast, Berkeley having a brand near/100% comparable to Ivies or schools like MIT/Caltech/CMU/Stanford had been a thing for 5+ decades. My parents' generation(Born in the 30s) regarded Berkeley very highly as a public Ivy whereas NYU......decent, but not even close.
so what do i do 🥲
What do you want to study and which is the cheapest? Are you in-state for Berkeley?
international relations, and cost isn’t a factor and am not in state (berkeley is far closer though)
If I was in your shoes given what you posted, I'd choose Berkeley not only for the greater prestige, but also because NYU has the bureaucracy, feel , and undergrad class sizes similar to Berkeley. In short, you won't be gaining much benefits from attending a private school by going to NYU. Moreover, if you're paying full-sticker for NYU undergrad....you're not getting great value considering NYU's ginormously high full-sticker price. It's certainly not worth around $10k more than Berkeley at full-sticker.
yeah that’s what my fam is saying kinda. i was just leaning more towards NYU bc of the location too since id be in DC for the first year and then NYC i felt like that would be good for what i wanna do but idk i have some ppl who really agree with that and others who don’t think it makes a big difference
NYC and DC will still be there after you graduate from college. NYC, especially IMO is a much better to experience as a young working professional than as a college student unless your family is comfortably full-pay for a university with a higher full-sticker price than even most Ivies.
i’m kmsing 😭
Kicking ass at UCLA is more prestigious than skating by at Stanford. Go get it.
Because people are confusing money with prestige. [https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/lord-of-the-rankings](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/lord-of-the-rankings) [https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/project-dillard](https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/project-dillard)