Amherst vs UCLA (undergrad)
I am extremely interested in finance and pursuing IB after college. I was pretty set on committing to Amherst, but I've been hearing mixed reviews about Amherst on WSO. Some say that it's a legitimate target school, whereas others on here says it's a semi target at best.
Do you think going to UCLA or UC Berkeley (currently wait listed) would serve me better?
UC Berkeley over Amherst ? Yes. I am not in the industry; in fact, I am also applying to school but to MBA soon. I did some research on recruitment. I found out that almost all banks and major finance firms recruit on campuses of two schools in California. Stanford and Berkeley. This shows that finance firms consider Berkeley a target school. While I have never heard of Amherst. Though I know that students get hired from Amherst.
above poster is most likely a high school student you're a fool if you actually choose UCLA over amherst
Amherst, no question. It's arguably the best LAC in America.
According to my friend at UCLA, most who want a career in finance end up in accounting. Definitely go to Amherst - tighter alumni network, more prestige, and better recruiting. Unless there's a massive cost difference I can't see how you would justify UCLA over Amherst, that's just ridiculous.
More people end up in accounting than IB at Harvard and any other target as well... That's not a good metric to go by since we need more accountants than bankers, but Amherst is the better choice.
UCLA in a second, there are more things to consider when choosing a college than on campus recruiting. People on here have tunnel vision. How about the fact that you live in Westwood for four years at UCLA? Or you're a 15 minute drive from the beach? The weather? I've been to Amhert before, it's the pits.
California beaches are freezing cold.
Think about it this way - elite consulting firms recruit at a small school like Amherst, but they don't go a large school like UCLA.
Go to Amherst - this is a no brainer.
Do you only care about the your career goals? If so, the order goes Cal > Amherst > UCLA.
If you want the "college" experience (sports, girls, weather, large greek life, etc. etc), UCLA is better than Amherst for that. That said, please understand it will be hard - not unheard of - to get hired into a BB (you'll be okay with boutiques in the LA area) out of anywhere in CA besides Stanford/Cal.
I eventually want to work in New York, so I think Amherst would be better than LA. But, if I get off the waitlist at Cal, do you think I should go there?
If you really want to work in NY after graduation, Amherst is your best bet. Cal would be your best bet in getting into banking in general, but most likely on the west coast.
I don't get why everyone here compares UCLA to Amherst ? Actually, the person wants to hear about 3 schools not just UCLA vs Amherst. My first choice would be Berkeley, #2 Amherst, and #3 I would not even consider UCLA. Are you considering other schools, such as Brown or Williams College. I think Williams is very similar to Amherst (I could be wrong though).
Alright time to step in here and actually give some good information to the OP.
First of all if you're looking to go to the Absolute best college you can go to, Amherst is way ahead of UCLA or even Berkeley for that matter. Don't get me wrong, both are excellent schools, but Amherst is the top LAC in the nation and honestly probably one of the best higher education institutes in the country. It is easily on par with a HYPS and even though there might be less formalized recruiting, the Amherst name and alumni network will get you anywhere you want to go. With that being said, the college experience you have will be very different at Amherst than at a UCLA or Berkeley.
At Amherst you will probably work pretty hard, but the big benefit of a LAC is that it is a very tight knit community. You'll get to know professors and peers very well and the feel of the campus is somewhat like a family. It's also nice that Amherst is close to UMass and a few other big schools so you can always take classes at those places as well. It will be small, more quaint, and a different type of college experience. People also have fun and party a fair amount, but it tends to be more dorm parties and local bar scene vs clubs, going out in LA, big frat parties the way you might get at a UCLA. Only negative of Amherst is it can be a big cliquey and you need to make sure you like the feel of the campus and the student body. LACs have a tendency to skew towards preppy so if that's not your scene at all you might want to make sure you visit campus and feel it out.
UCLA will be an easier school to do well in with big classes, scantron tests, and will also be a lot more fun. You'll be in Southern California, have sporting events to go to, big parties, attractive girls etc. The big con in my opinion is that your college experience will be very impersonal as there are so many kids who go to UCLA and you'll basically just be another number. Competition will also be fierce for top jobs whereas at Amherst it will be relatively easy to do what you want as there is a much smaller concentration of kids who are looking to do banking/consulting than at UCLA. Lastly, and not to offend anyone, but if you're smart enough to get into Amherst, in my opinion you're not reaching your full academic potential by going to UCLA. Amherst is on a completely different level than UCLA and by picking Amherst over UCLA (unless significant money is involved) you're intellectually leaving a lot of achievement on the table if that makes sense.
Oh and now onto Berkeley...don't go to Berkeley. Berkeley is a huge grind, especially when you're competing with all the other Hassholes for jobs. Yes it's in California so you'll have opportunities for recruiting there, but it always plays second fiddle to Stanford and the Berkeley kids know it. It's a wonderful school, but at the end of the day it's still just a large public university. If you're going to stay in Cali, might as well go to UCLA and have an awesome time than go to Berkeley and have to work all the time.
So the TL:DR on this for me is it comes down to what type of experience you want. UCLA is enticing, but Amherst is on another level. If you're a California native, it might do you well to visit another part of the country and get some life experience away from home. If you're purely worried about jobs options out of college, Amherst is the strongest name, even if it doesn't have too much official recruiting on campus.
Feel free to PM if you want to chat more. I've faced similar decisions and have given questions like this a lot of thought.
it's an old topic alright.... but I failed to see why Berkeley is even a worse place than UCLA..........
To help other readers researching this school choice, and as a UCLA alumni whom did not apply to UC Berkeley, I agree and disagree with this poster. To put it mildly, both UCs are competitive places; UC Berkeley is more of a "grind" as the poster above described, however. That's why I didn't apply to UC Berkeley.
Anyhow, UCLA and UC Berkeley are both large, research-oriented universities with equal prestige outside of business. Earning a high GPA at UCLA is as hard to do as it as at UC Berkeley outside of a few majors UC Berkeley is known to be strong in, but its surrounding area is more cosmopolitan (Beverly Hills/Brentwood), and the experience of living there trumps living in Berkeley/Oakland. Classes are about the same in terms of testing and structure, and they attract the same students for the most part. So, in my opinion, you'll earn the same quality of education at UCLA as you will at UC Berkeley and have a better outside of college experience.
As far as scantron tests and limiting yourself intellectually goes, that's a joke. The only scrantron test I ever had was in an introductory life science course, and you have to work your ass off for a high GPA. And if you major in a rigorous subject, you'll get all the intellectual growth you want or need at that stage of your education. Not only that, but private colleges are known for grade inflation and UCLA & UC Berkeley are absolutely not. It will be harder to succeed academically at UCLA/UC Berkeley than at most every other private school except Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Princeton.
I can't really speak on Amherst, but going there may open more doors than either California university for a career in banking. So, I'll just say that there's a lot to be said for succeeding in large university settings. People I've known that attend colleges like Amherst come off as somewhat insular, and not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's the truth and perhaps expected as Amherst's student population is ~ 1700, UCLA's is ~ 43,000, and UC Berkeley's is ~ 37,000. There really is no comparison between the UC's and Amherst's environments nor their student demographics. I'm also attending Oxford in the Fall toward a prestigious MSc (this is what Rhodes Scholars do) and completing my field work/dissertation at UCSF & Stanford, and disagree strongly that my UCLA pedigree has held me back. In fact, the reception I've received to attending UCLA is that it's a stronger preparation for what I want to do over Cal (pharmaceutical & clinical trials-related management).
Your last paragraph really just sounds like you're trying too hard to justify UCLA is better than Amherst.
This is a finance forum, and OP asked about target schools. Please stop trying to shit on amazing schools and trying to justify your self-worth by comparing yourself to Rhodes Scholars (which it sounds like you are not). Additionally, please do not even talk about diversity-- have you never heard the saying: UCLA = U C Lots of Asians? This is an apples and oranges comparison that is tangential to OPs question, which is about target schools for banking. No one ever said UCLA was a bad school.
Hi. So I actually go to Amherst-PM me if you want to know more about recruitment on campus.
Btw, just to support my school a bit- UCLA has had 11 Rhodes scholars in its history. Amherst has had 20. Given you guys are like 25x our size, I think the numbers speak for themselves. The opportunities at Amherst vastly outweigh those at UCLA.
Did I not preface my original post with stating that I can't really comment on Amherst?
My post is toward the UCs, something I feel able to discuss. As far as Rhodes Scholars are concerned, I made the equivalence because they do what I will do; attend Oxford for a masters after earning a bachelors. My future department has hosted quite a few Rhodes Scholars, too, and my position there is arguably better.
Like I said, I'm happy to advocate for UCLA since the opinions toward it in this thread aren't what I'd call accurate. I happened to have gone there and know a bit about the UC system. If people can benefit from my opinion, I'll share it.
Should have applied to USC, baby. Why hedge between academics and socal finance opportunities? You won't get either at UCLA, whereas you MIGHT get the latter through network and OCR at USC. I mean, look at how far a UCLA alumnus has to go to try to put their school in the same class as Amherst, even Berkeley, using metrics irrelevant to the present discussion. Trying to equivilate onself to a Rhodes scholar just because theyre pursuing a Masters at Oxford is the biggest insult to Rhodes scholars everywhere. For real? Really poor reflection on the school.
Esse tempore qui impedit natus beatae. Sed repellendus dolorem facilis dolor repellat. Qui dolores numquam aut vero vel perspiciatis illo.
Itaque ea officia quibusdam sed repudiandae ut ut. Eos sunt cupiditate nemo numquam.
Corporis earum reiciendis libero facere. Ex hic aut fuga quibusdam nihil repudiandae neque veritatis. Deserunt totam laudantium explicabo assumenda dolore.
Ratione quia adipisci expedita sint vero odio quo. Natus voluptatem molestiae voluptas natus fugiat. Saepe voluptatem assumenda repudiandae quidem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et vero ducimus et consequuntur quo quis ut. Quasi autem et hic a dolorem a ex.