Berkeley VS USC... HELP!

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[Quote]
2. Berkeley offers more opportunities. CC seems to place a lot of emphasis on undergraduate focus, which is understandable, of course, because most of the members here are concerned with undergraduate education. Coupled with this is a strange love/hatred of large state schools. I'm not going to argue that Berkeley is a place where you'll be cuddled and led by the hand. It is, however, a place where you'll have more opportunities than at just about any school in the world (with a few exceptions) if you put the work in. Berkeley has amazing resources if you're willing to put in the effort. If you're not, then USC might be better.
I also think that Berkeley's "indifference" to undergraduates is exaggerated. Admittedly, introductory classes are large at Cal, but this isn't the case for the whole four years. Upper division courses are often a good size, no larger than comparable classes at other top "undergraduate-friendly" schools.</p>

<ol>
<li>Berkeley's academics are stronger. Berkeley offers more majors, more courses, and generally stronger departments altogether. If you can "survive"--this refers mainly to impacted majors more than anything else--then Cal's academics are hard to beat.

[/Quote]
</li>
</ol>

<p>Really? Because USC's website lists at least 156 majors (which doesn't include the 20 different concentrations that a BS in Biz Admin offers) including a brand new video game major. UC Berkeley only writes that it offers more than 100 majors. </p>

<p>As for resources, USC has a huge endowment that is higher than UC Berkeley's. This allows USC to offer many programs that include a free week-long trip in East Asia to study business internationally in a real-world setting, a mentor program that each alumni (from various business backgrounds) voluntary to mentor three students, a summer international intern program that places students with leading companies, classes taught by the founder of Kinkos or George Lucas, many paid research programs funded by the large endowment, and an on-campus recruiting program where the same companies that recruit at Berkeley come down to recruit at USC (which include Goldman Sachs, Lazard, Google, and Bain just to mention a few).</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
I don't see why it matters whether a person is from California or not. How would that affect you?</p>

<p>White is to USC as Asian is to Berkeley. Otherwise, the stats are virtually identical.

[/quote]

yes, but as an Asian, i can say with confidence that the Asian population is much more uniform and cliquish than any white group. also, on the issue of why not being Californian matters--argue all you want, but coming from other states and just vastly different places in general brings radically different experiences and opinions to the table. in the last 8 months i've been in school, i've encountered so many different people with interests, habits, etc that i would have never had the chance to see had i attended a state school (UCLA and UCSD were my other very serious options). and my dad's initial response to seeing my first cell phone bill during college was priceless..."Who are you calling in Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio?!" (and heck, my roommate is Chilean, and one of my other friends is a huge landowner in Bangladesh...we call him Prince Shakib haha, he hates that) my college experience wouldn't be half as rich without those encounters in diversity.</p>

<p>and as far as i can tell, USC isn't in the minority in superscoring...i'm pretty sure a great deal of other prestigious schools do the same, but everybody's quick to jump on USC for doing it...</p>

<p>i honestly feel that USC is still suffering from the inertia of being the oh-so-famous "University of Spoiled Children," something that within the last 10 years has been improving much faster than the prestige-focused want to admit. it's too easy to overlook USC in terms of prestige when comparing it to a school like Berkeley, but without having direct experience on one side of the fence or the other, there are some things you just can't quantify.</p>

<p>ultimately for me both schools are excellent, and i won't argue that Berkeley is often held in higher regard than USC in most places, but that should not also draw the conclusion (as it so seems in this thread) that USC isn't held in high regard. once you graduate, i don't think you'll remember the prestige of your alma mater but the experiences you had there. (and you probably won't remember the prestige because i would bet your chances of getting a job/going to grad school aren't radically different if you had attended one or the other. it's not like all the people with jobs are Berkeley grads...nor are they all grads from prestigious schools period, USC included) i can't say that USC would give you better experiences than Berkeley per se, but i can tell you that because of circumstances unique to USC, my experience so far has been unforgettable.</p>

43

<p>
[Quote]
Since 2 million students take the SAT each year, that's 1 million retaking it. Also, when you consider the two common dates of taking it (spring and fall), that leaves the summer for studying, and thus the scores should, ideally, be a bit higher. Now, if USC superscores, whereas Berkeley just takes the best sitting, I can see a more-than-minor difference cropping up.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>From the one million students re-taking the SATs, how many actually would qualify to a school the caliber of UC Berkeley or USC? Re-taking the SAT does not guarantee a higher score. The SATs aren't something that you're supposed to study for; there is only so much that you can improve. And if you do improve in one area, you may score lower in one of the other sections. And even if you do score higher overall that does not mean that there will be a difference in the way your score is reported by the two methods. Personally, I did re-take the SAT and improved, but my score would've been the same regardless of the scoring method. </p>

<p>USC's class roughly has a higher SAT score by 50 points. I doubt the difference reporting methods would make up for the disparity.</p>

44

<p>and...

[quote]
That said, you should go to Cal so you can know how good it feels when the bears whip the trojans in football next year.

[/quote]

suuuure hahaha. we beat Cal pretty squarely last time (such a satisfying win...i have a lot of friends at Berkeley, and on top of that i was at the game), and to say the very least our football team is going to be better this time around that last year. Booty did well, but now Sanchez is in the mix and he could potentially do better than Booty. that and we recruited extremely well this year, and likewise lost very few to the pros or graduation. Trojans lookin' good in 07 :D</p>

45

<p>Even the collegeboard agrees that re-taking (and by extension, superscoring) the SAT does not result in an improvement, on average, of more than something like 20-30 points (I don't have a source, sorry, someone else can maybe find it)</p>

<p>USC weights essentially only AP/IB courses whereas UC schools weight many "honors" courses as well. So UC students tend to have more "inflated" GPA's.</p>

<p>You know I hear a lot about how Berkeley's graduate quality "trickles down" into it's undergrad program, but never the same for USC. For example, USC graduate engineering is ranked #7, but undergrad engineering is like 20-something. I've never heard anyone outside USC say that USC's engineering grad program "trickles down" to it's undergrad.</p>

<p>Frankly, Berkeley is a great school and an incredible bargain at in-state tuition - but if you're paying full "sticker" price then schools like USC are catching up in terms of value.</p>

46

<p>justdrop:</p>

<p>"If you think geographic diversity isn't important then I don't know what to tell you."</p>

<p>Geographic diversity within the US? I don't see the importance of it. Enlighten me?</p>

<p>"Really? Because USC's website lists at least 156 majors (which doesn't include the 20 different concentrations that a BS in Biz Admin offers) including a brand new video game major. UC Berkeley only writes that it offers more than 100 majors."</p>

<p>I think you're confusing "degree" and "major." Berkeley offers over 300 degrees; it is one of the most diverse universities in the country.</p>

<p>"As for resources, USC has a huge endowment that is higher than UC Berkeley's."</p>

<p>Well, yeah, USC is a private university. But think about it: Berkeley is a public institution and has a $2.4 billion-dollar endowment; USC is a private institution and has a $3.1 billion-dollar endowment. Granted, Berkeley's 12 years older, but consider that other privates have a MUCH larger endowment (and they should -- they're private schools that tend to be older). In addition, it isn't even a billion-dollar difference, so the opportunities won't be largely different. In fact, I'm sure Berkeley offers many opportunities that USC doesn't, though you might want to consult a Berkeley student on this one.</p>

<p>"Re-taking the SAT does not guarantee a higher score...."</p>

<p>You're pointing out trivialities. Statistically (and logically), SAT scores are higher second time around.</p>

<p>"And if you do improve in one area, you may score lower in one of the other sections. "</p>

<p>Precisely, which is why USC will take the highest scores, whereas Berkeley will take the highest score total.</p>

<p>"USC's class roughly has a higher SAT score by 50 points. I doubt the difference reporting methods would make up for the disparity."</p>

<p>I disagree. I think the reporting methods could easily make up a 50-point total difference.</p>

47

<p>One common argument for choosing UC Berkeley is prestige. It is true. UC Berkeley will always offer a better brand name than USC. But, how much does it really matter or help at the undergrad level? </p>

<p>Despite being more prestigious, the same companies that recruit at UC Berkeley recruit at USC for the same positions at the same locations around the world. There is no evidence that UC Berkeley helps its undergrads gain admission to graduate school at a higher level or at better schools. In fact, one argument against UC Berkeley is that the competition hinders its undergrads when it comes to grad school. </p>

<p>Some would argue that one of USC's main strengths, its alumni network, only helps on the west coast. This is purported to be true despite USC attracting students around the country and around the world at a level far higher than UC schools. These students outside California certainly have roots back to their hometowns and are connected to it. I would argue that the Trojan Family is more effective the further away it is from California than the closer it is. One is more likely to help out other Trojans in places where it isn't as common. </p>

<p>UC Berkeley with close to 90% of its students from California isn't as connected to other parts of world outside of California. One of the most important parts of college is your peers. At USC, you will have a much higher chance of connecting to students from the east coast or other parts of the world who will be able to help. If USC is suppose to be weak on the east coast, then how weak is UC Berkeley?</p>

<p>The point that I am trying to make is that UC Berkeley really isn't better than USC for undergrad. The schools provide similar opportunities. One would not gain an advantage choosing one over the other on average. Make the decision based on fit. Don't base it on prestige. This isn't Harvard vs. Penn State. Sure, strangers will be more impressed with UC Berkeley. But that does not translate into a higher salary, more job offers, or a better chance at grad school. So pick based on where you will be happy. So look at things like the campus, the culture, and the social scenes.</p>

48

<p>"USC weights essentially only AP/IB courses whereas UC schools weight many "honors" courses as well. So UC students tend to have more "inflated" GPA's."</p>

<p>UC schools weight very few honors courses; they have to be approved courses (for example, at my school only Honors English 11 is weighted). And no, UC students' GPAs tend NOT to be as inflated, because UC schools do something called a GPA cap: they will only weight up to four classes. In addition, I've never heard of USC weighting only AP/IB classes. Source?</p>

49

<p>Let's leave this debate at: both institutions are awesome; you can't go wrong with either.</p>

<p>End.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
UC schools weight very few honors courses; they have to be approved courses (for example, at my school only Honors English 11 is weighted). And no, UC students' GPAs tend NOT to be as inflated, because UC schools do something called a GPA cap: they will only weight up to four classes. In addition, I've never heard of USC weighting only AP/IB classes. Source?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>USC does not weigh grades when it reports its average GPA for freshman. And for someone arguing that superscoring the SAT score can make a 50 point difference on average, your indifference towards the difference honor classes can make is laughable.</p>

51

<p>"USC does not weigh grades when it reports its average GPA for freshman."</p>

<p>You have yet to support this.</p>

<p>"your indifference towards the difference honor classes can make is laughable."</p>

<p>"Indifference"? What are you talking about? I'm saying: UCs weight very few honors courses, so it won't make a real difference, especially considering that AP/IB courses take up all the weighting space (only 8 semesters' worth, or 4 classes). I was correcting a misconception.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
You're pointing out trivialities. Statistically (and logically), SAT scores are higher second time around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and you aren't arguing trivialities either? SAT reporting methods really is trivial too. Re-taking the SAT can improve the score, but the higher you score the harder it is to improve. How much can someone scoring 2100 (the level of USC or UC Berkeley student) improve by 50 points? This isn't the same as improving from 1000 to 1050. It is much more difficult. Even if someone can improve that much, how would the two reporting methods score be different? It is not trivial. A 50 point difference between the two reporting methods at that high of a scoring level is huge statistically speaking. There is almost no way that the two reporting methods can account for that difference.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Geographic diversity within the US? I don't see the importance of it. Enlighten me?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Someone argued that UC B is more diverse. I stated that it wasn't because geography played a role. It is one more area that USC is more diverse at, which contributes to overall diversity.</p>

<p>What you are trying to argue is that geography diversity does not matter. Think about it. You are saying that it doesn't count, when that isn't the point. Don't argue the merits of geography being important to diversity. The facts point to USC being more diverse. You are stating that one of those factors isn't important, which contradicts the whole idea of diversity in the first place. If geography doesn't matter, race and economics don't matter either. </p>

<p>
[quote]
think you're confusing "degree" and "major." Berkeley offers over 300 degrees; it is one of the most diverse universities in the country.</p>

<p>Well, yeah, USC is a private university. But think about it: Berkeley is a public institution and has a $2.4 billion-dollar endowment; USC is a private institution and has a $3.1 billion-dollar endowment. Granted, Berkeley's 12 years older, but consider that other privates have a MUCH larger endowment (and they should -- they're private schools that tend to be older). In addition, it isn't even a billion-dollar difference, so the opportunities won't be largely different. In fact, I'm sure Berkeley offers many opportunities that USC doesn't, though you might want to consult a Berkeley student on this one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How does UC B having 300 degree programs (is that for undergrads?) compare to USC? Compare it to USC's degree programs. Someone pointed out that UC B is better academically because it offered more majors, and more degree programs. I simply said that this was false because USC did in fact offer more majors, so that is one point where UC B isn't better at than USC; they are the same. I am not going to look up the # of degree programs, but I believe that the number is similar. </p>

<p>i doubt those endowment figures are accurate. USC certainly has a way higher endowment than 3.1 billion today. It is closer to 5 than it is 3 today. The point I argued wasn't the endowment, but what USC did with its endowment by offering many programs to USC students. How does UC B use its endowment to provide opportunities to its students. This was to support by point that USC provides similar opportunities as UC B. </p>

<p>Don't bother addressing these points if you're just going to nit-pick. Address the points.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
You have yet to support this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you kidding me? a simple Google search titled "USC Freshman Profile" brings up a PDF for the 2006 entering freshman class. One of statistics is GPA. A note next to the GPA statistic is an explanation of how the GPA is calculated, which states that USC reports its freshman class GPA on a 4.0 un-weighted scale.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What are you talking about? I'm saying: UCs weight very few honors courses, so it won't make a real difference, especially considering that AP/IB courses take up all the weighting space (only 8 semesters' worth, or 4 classes). I was correcting a misconception.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The same argument can be made, which i did in fact make, that SAT scoring methods won't make a real difference (certainly not one that would account for a 50 point difference in scores in the 2100 range). But you merely downplayed my arguments as trivial. Amazing logic and debating skills you showcased!</p>

<p>Now, do you want me to provide a tutorial on how to use quotes?</p>

54

<p>1) You never supported that; now you have. As a rule of thumb in debate, you support your facts with evidence; you don't just expect the person to know or to have the resource -- you must support it yourself. However, I'd like to see the breakdown of GPA according to this (I think it's questionable that this info and the info reported to collegeboard both use the same method of reporting GPA).</p>

<p>2) You have no need to be asinine. I know fully how to use quotes in vB code; I choose not to use them, preferring simple quotes.</p>

55

<p>You never supported any one of your arguments. Why would you expect me to, especially something so simple and so easily findable as the way USC reports its GPA. I did not see you linking your gpa numbers or your endowment numbers. Don't mouth off on me when you didn't do it either. practice what you preach or whatever cliched phrase that is relevant. </p>

<p>So, you don't believe the way USC reports its GPA? Do you think USC's freshman profile is false and that they are making up random numbers? USC is not ITTech or the University of Phonenix. It is a world-class, non-profit university that is concerned with educating. Your reliance on collegeboard, a questionable organization that may profit (is it a non-profit?), is laughable. Why would you count on some second-hand source, when you can easily get it from the source itself? I have never used collegeboard for its information except to register for SATs and APs. Even then, I wasn't 100% sure of my scores. I thought it was common knowledge that collegeboard isn't reliable for college statistics.</p>

<p>The way you nit-picked arguments was asinine. Taking things out of context and trying to argue something that wasn't relevant. Just curious, did you get accepted to UC Berkeley? Are you a enrolled student? If so, how long have you been there?</p>

56

<p>
[quote]

I think you're confusing "degree" and "major." Berkeley offers over 300 degrees; it is one of the most diverse universities in the country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're counting graduate degrees, I think. If you count only undergrad majors you get a lot less than 300, more like 100 or so.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Let's leave this debate at: both institutions are awesome; you can't go wrong with either.</p>

<p>End.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I agree. The OP can't go wrong here.</p>

57

<p>"and you aren't arguing trivialities either?"</p>

<p>No, the assertion of "Re-taking the SAT does not guarantee a higher score" is a triviality within the triviality of SAT reporting methods. Again, I disagree that such difference in methods can't account for a 50-point difference.</p>

<p>"Someone argued that UC B is more diverse."</p>

<p>That wasn't me.</p>

<p>"It is one more area that USC is more diverse at, which contributes to overall diversity. You are saying that it doesn't count, when that isn't the point."</p>

<p>By that logic, I can argue that Berkeley's better because it has a better variety of flora. But you can't say it doesn't matter, because that isn't the point. What I'm saying is, I fail to see how geographic diversity within the US will make a difference -- which is why I'm asking you to enlighten me (you so far have failed to do so).</p>

<p>"Don't argue the merits of geography being important to diversity."</p>

<p>I'll do what I please, thanks. Instead of telling me not to argue such, though, why don't you tell me why there are merits in the first place? It'd clear the matter up quickly.</p>

<p>"If geography doesn't matter, race and economics don't matter either."</p>

<p>You're showing a severe lack of logic in this instance. Why am I saying that geographic diversity within the US doesn't matter? Because I don't see how it would have an impact on undergrad experience. Why would I say that ethnic diversity has more importance? Because that has clear implications: there are fewer "cliques" formed, ethnic differences can be overcome, there is more social mobility, etc. Geographic diversity (again, within the US) doesn't seem to have any significant implications -- though it could be just that I can't see them, in which case you'd tell me what they are. =)</p>

<p>"I simply said that this was false because USC did in fact offer more majors, so that is one point where UC B isn't better at than USC; they are the same."</p>

<p>I don't even understand what you're arguing. I'll ask you again: does USC offer 156 majors or 156 degrees? I'm guessing the latter, because if the former, it beats Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and all the other top privates -- a feat which USC, I'm sure, would hold on high. Berkeley, on the other hand, has 300 degree programs, something which is commonly known and lorded over other universities.</p>

<p>"i doubt those endowment figures are accurate. USC certainly has a way higher endowment than 3.1 billion today. It is closer to 5 than it is 3 today."</p>

<p>Oh really? From US News' 2007 rankings:</p>

<p>USC: $2,746,051,000
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1328_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1328_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Berkeley: $2,388,839,000
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1312_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1312_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, you were right; the figures were inaccurate. However, from the USC site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usc.edu/about/ataglance/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usc.edu/about/ataglance/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Says the endowment is $3.1 billion. So they're either lying on that page (doubted), or reported information differently (as they seem to have misled some in collegeboard's data -- that is, if you take the source of information you provided on GPA to be in accordance with the information reported to cb). Either way, the endowment is nowhere near $5 billion. But again, that is neither here nor there.</p>

<p>"How does UC B use its endowment to provide opportunities to its students."</p>

<p>As I said, talk to a Cal student about that one; I'm sure it offers many (research opportunities, study abroad, etc.).</p>

<p>"Don't bother addressing these points if you're just going to nit-pick. Address the points."</p>

<p>... I don't understand what you're saying. Clarify?</p>

58

<p>"You never supported any one of your arguments."</p>

<p>Yes, I have, with quotes and links. You can't see them?</p>

<p>"Why would you expect me to, especially something so simple and so easily findable as the way USC reports its GPA."</p>

<p>That's fallacious.</p>

<p>"Don't mouth off on me when you didn't do it either."</p>

<p>So far, I haven't mouthed off to you once. Further, I suggest you not act as though you're my superior ("don't mouth off to me"? Honestly...).</p>

<p>"So, you don't believe the way USC reports its GPA? Do you think USC's freshman profile is false and that they are making up random numbers?"</p>

<p>No need to get defensive. You simply provided a source that may or may not have supported the assertion that collegeboard's data is based on unweighted GPA. There's cb data, then there's the data you provided; however, there is no definite link between the two. I cannot find USC's common data to provide such a link, either.</p>

<p>"Your reliance on collegeboard, a questionable organization that may profit (is it a non-profit?), is laughable."</p>

<p>Everything's laughable to you, innit? Notice, however, that I've used other sources of information (US News, USC's site, etc.).</p>

<p>"Why would you count on some second-hand source, when you can easily get it from the source itself?"</p>

<p>Er, perhaps because I don't see USC's common data set?</p>

<p>"I thought it was common knowledge that collegeboard isn't reliable for college statistics."</p>

<p>If that's common knowledge, then it's a common misconception. You can compare collegeboard's data and the common data set from the site of the college in question -- they're usually in accordance.</p>

<p>"The way you nit-picked arguments was asinine."</p>

<p>How so?</p>

<p>"Taking things out of context and trying to argue something that wasn't relevant."</p>

<p>Do tell how I have done such. Examples?</p>

<p>"Just curious, did you get accepted to UC Berkeley? Are you a enrolled student? If so, how long have you been there?"</p>

<p>This is irrelevant. In addition, you seem to have read poorly, for I've told you a few times to consult a Berkeley student for information on the opportunities there. Obviously, I'm not a Berkeley student. =) I'm going on information I have found, and see no other reason to argue for a common understanding about the two schools.</p>

59

<p>jbusc:</p>

<p>"You're counting graduate degrees, I think."</p>

<p>I'm not counting anything; I'm going off Berkeley's site and general knowledge about the school. See:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/academics/departments/a.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/academics/departments/a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley offers some 300 degree programs, listed here in alphabetical order. ...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"If you count only undergrad majors you get a lot less than 300, more like 100 or so."</p>

<p>Correct. However, I would still find it hard to believe that USC is more diverse in majors than Berkeley -- Berkeley is well known for its extreme broadness.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]

No, the assertion of "Re-taking the SAT does not guarantee a higher score" is a triviality within the triviality of SAT reporting methods. Again, I disagree that such difference in methods can't account for a 50-point difference.</p>

<p>That wasn't me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not saying that re-taking won't give you a higher score. It could. But that isn't the issue. If you score higher at the 2100-ish level by 50 points congrats. That is markable difference. how many would fall into that case? from that number, how many of them would have at least a 50 point difference between the two methods to account for the 50 point average for every student. That is a huge difference. </p>

<p>and i didn't say that you argued that UC B was more diverse</p>

<p>[qupte]By that logic, I can argue that Berkeley's better because it has a better variety of flora. But you can't say it doesn't matter, because that isn't the point. What I'm saying is, I fail to see how geographic diversity within the US will make a difference -- which is why I'm asking you to enlighten me (you so far have failed to do so).</p>

<p>I'll do what I please, thanks. Instead of telling me not to argue such, though, why don't you tell me why there are merits in the first place? It'd clear the matter up quickly.</p>

<p>You're showing a severe lack of logic in this instance. Why am I saying that geographic diversity within the US doesn't matter? Because I don't see how it would have an impact on undergrad experience. Why would I say that ethnic diversity has more importance? Because that has clear implications: there are fewer "cliques" formed, ethnic differences can be overcome, there is more social mobility, etc. Geographic diversity (again, within the US) doesn't seem to have any significant implications -- though it could be just that I can't see them, in which case you'd tell me what they are. =)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt UC Berkeley has more diverse flora. USC has a huge budget for its campus maintenance. The campus is prestine and beautiful and constantly maintenanced. and comparing flora to geographic diversity is lacking in logic.</p>

<p>I'll tell you argue as I please. </p>

<p>You're showing a severe lack of logic when discounting geography. Geography diversity does have clear implications. There are cliques based on geography. For example, some fraternities will only take southerners and exclude people from the north. There are steroeotypes based on geography as well. With increased represenation, differences can be overcome. and simply having students from different areas contributes to college. getting to know students from different areas, I learn more about their culture and the way they see things. Having grown up in socal, I defintely see the value in getting to know kids from iowa or boston (like how it was growing up as an Indian kid in Iowa City) and etc. there are different social opportunties in different parts of the country.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't even understand what you're arguing. I'll ask you again: does USC offer 156 majors or 156 degrees? I'm guessing the latter, because if the former, it beats Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and all the other top privates -- a feat which USC, I'm sure, would hold on high. Berkeley, on the other hand, has 300 degree programs, something which is commonly known and lorded over other universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>how does UC B have over 300 degree programs for its undergrads? If USC offers a similiar number of majors and minors, how would UC B have more degree programs. The actual number isn't the point. the point is someone said that UC B is better academically. One of the reasons for that, this person argued, is that it offers more majors, more degrees, more classes etc. I just looked up the number of majors, and I said that it wasn't true. USC offers the same or even more majors. I have no idea about degree programs or classes. I just skimed the website quickly and only saw number of majors. </p>

<p>and USC does offer over 156 majors. Harvard and Stanford are smaller schools so of course it will offer less majors. </p>

<p>
[quote]

As I said, talk to a Cal student about that one; I'm sure it offers many (research opportunities, study abroad, etc.).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>the endowment numbers are not important. what is important is the opportunities that are offered. Someone, not you i know, argued that UC B is better. one of the reasons they mentioned was more opportunities and resources. I questioned this. I provided some of the opportunities that I knew for sure USC offered. I wondered how UC B was better at this especially since USC has a bigger endowment.</p>