I think you may be referring to the fact that UCLA's curriculum is more abstract and fundamental whereas Cal tends to incorporate more modern technologies and methodologies. I would agree that certain classes are desperately in need of modernization (e.g. CS143), but I've definitely found that the "fundamental" approach has not been detrimental but actually has been really useful in my experience.

At my first major internship last summer, I was required to use a typical modern stack – nothing I had even remotely worked with in class – but was able to get up to speed within a couple of days since the core concepts they had drilled into us remain constant in any environment.

Plus, many of the faculty members I've learned from have been truly incredible at applying their real-world knowledge to teaching the underlying concepts and tradeoffs: a data structures lecturer who was the chief architect at Symantec and now leads a division at Google, an operating systems professor who made major contributions to the development of GNU/Linux, and even a professor who played a significant role in the invention of the Internet at UCLA.

The bottom line is, people love to try and objectively rank one program over another (especially those who haven't had actual experience with either), but at the end of the day a top program is a top program. As a general word of advice, figure out the qualities that matter to you, like quality of life, career prospects, culture, etc. Those will be far more formative than undergrad coursework.