Finishing Up Post-Bacc - CSU or UCLA? Does "name" matter?

[Python Forever]

Hi everyone. I’m currently finishing a postbacc, and I have about 12-15 semester units left to go, which I should be able to knock out in a year. I’m not applying 2019-2020, so I figured might as well take some more classes and do a few extra hundred hours of volunteering.

The classes I’m looking to take are upper division science courses.

I have 2 options.

Option 1: Go to a CSU.

Pros:

- Cheaper classes. I can save a couple to a few thousand dollars.

- Closer commute. Not a big deal for me though.

- “Easier” classes compared to option 2? I don’t know how accurate this is though, since I have almost no experience with CSU’s. I’m purely going off the whole UC vs. CSU bias, so I could be wildly wrong. No offense to those who went to CSU.

Cons:

- Smaller class sizes. Looking through past enrollment data, there’s no way I’m getting into the more popular upper div. bio’s.

- I have to take “easier” classes, like Atmospheric and Nutritional chemistry (non-biochem), Zoology, Ecology, etc. It could definitely look like I’m GPA padding.

My second option is to use UCLA concurrent enrollment.

Pros:

- Surprisingly easier to get into “harder” classes, due to class size and # of drops.

- Better support from professors. More office hours. UCLA infrastructure (libraries, etc.)

- Almost twice as expensive on a price-per-unit basis. Will cost me 3-4k extra minimum.

- I would be able to take more difficult classes, such as parasitology, immunology, human genetics, and cell nucleus biology.

- Familiar with difficult UC’s; studied CS at Cal, so I have a feel for what I’m getting into.

Cons:

- Competition, if class is curved.

- May have to utilize summers (non pre-reqs).

I’ve maintained a 4.0 so far in my post-bacc over 60+ units, so I’m going in with the mindset that I should be able to do equally well between the 2 options with enough effort.

Does UCLA rigor and “brand name” make it worth spending a few extra thousand dollars for more difficult classes? I have money saved up from when I was working full-time in tech, so money isn’t an issue, but if there’s no difference between the options, I’ll go with the cheaper ones.

I’m leaning towards UCLA, since I want to demonstrate that I can handle the difficult curriculum. Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Funny_Current]

Some will tell you yes, some will tell you no. The consensus, I believe, is grades > brand name. Personally, I wouldn't risk a 4.0 for a brand name. I would rather focus my time on unique things to add to my application like research, student government, unique volunteering, etc.

 

[Goro]

It doesn't matter .

 

[965978]

Here’s how I think about it. If an ADCOM reviewing your application were to care enough to give you extra points for going to UCLA, then the same reviewer would likely also be turned off by the fact that you only took 15 semester units over the course of a year. So might as well save the money and go to CSU.

 

[enalli]

I'm not an admissions person, but you're talking about 15 units at your leisure, not a diploma; I don't see anyone caring about where you got them (assuming it's a four-year university).

 

[Walter Raleigh]

For a DIY postbacc? Grades > name. Go to the CSU: unless you really have your heart set on UCLA, it sounds like a better deal. If you wanted to take those "harder" classes at UCLA you could do so. I don't think adcoms would really care if you did that. Good luck! Brand name doesn't mean anything here.