RE: UCLA made the list? Unbelievable!
4 of the University of California’s made the top 100.
Berekley, UCLA, San Diego and Davis. What’s wrong with UCLA anyway?
First let me lay everything on the table - I graduated from Cal Poly in 79 with a BSEE. So by definition I got a hands-on learn-by-doing education. I know for a fact that Poly still does things essentially the same way. I was accepted at Davis - so I would have made it into the top 100 ;-) but chose Poly instead. (Let’s face it - SLO has it all over Davis!)
So now to the point of the post - during my time at Poly we went through “Accreditation.” This was only the 2nd time the department HAD done this, and had only been accredited for 5 years previously. Yep - that means that all the BSEE grads from 1937 to the very early 70s didn’t attend an “Accredited” program. Why? well Cal Poly wasn’t coed till the 60s, and wasn’t trying to play in the big leagues either. Once they became a “UNIVERSITY” this became important.
At the time - the story was that UCLA’s accreditation was put on probation because of their LACK of labs. The story went that you could take a BSEE there without EVER having an engineering lab. Poly’s the polar opposite, i.e. there isn’t an engineering class WITHOUT a lab in the program (so yes - I know which end of the waveguide to grab ;-)
My recent experience with some UCLA trained PHd’s. They were why we had to do 4 spins on the analog portion of our latest chip design! They made the same careless mistakes over and over again! What is the first thing you check on a schematic - that you have the POWER hooked up correctly. That is what they repeatedly did wrong! We won’t talk about the basic circuits not being reliable across temperature/process too!
So does that answer your question? ;-)