<p>I have to agree that air quality in LA is MUCH better now than it was in the 70s (when it used to discolor my soft contact lenses). It's not perfect, but I find many aspects of LA to like. For those who don't, I'm not sure I understand why they come/stay in LA? Surely they have other options they might find more attractive?</p>
<p>I haven't noticed any of the superficiality expressed in the posts about anybody I've know from LA. The people I've known from LA aren't really any different than people I've known from the bay area (I've lived there), San Diego, Phoenix, Colorado, Georgia, etc. I really don't know any movie stars or hollywood people though that probably make up a fraction of 1% of the LA area.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>I've lived in LA for more than 4 years. So, I am not really like the Chicagoans you mentioned--who probably didn't live in NYC before but made comments about NYers. </p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad,
Many people I've encountered aren't movie stars but do live around the western part of LA. But that's where the heart of LA is (just like Manhattan for NYC) and where the concentration of Mercedes is higher than in Germany (I was told). That's where you can see people driving the recent models of Jaguar and Infinini out of NON-luxury apartment buildings (the idea is to look good and rich once you are outside). The feel/atmosphere/people are more down to earth in the Valleys/other outlying areas and closer to other places you mentioned.</p>
<p>Sam Lee - you ever been to Marin County? Or the streets of San Francisco? Or over in Danville/Alamo in the East Bay area of San Francisco Bay Area? You want to see Jaguars, Porsche, Mercedes, etc. - you will see it there. In fact, what is the most disturbing is the many mothers driving around in huge new SUVs. And, I am not talking Toyota or even Ford SUVs. We are talking Cadillac Escalade & SRX, Lexus RX and LX, Lincoln Navigator, Land Rover Range Rovers, etc. And these women are usually driving alone. You see them speed through parking lots so they can quickly get into the Starbucks line. </p>
<p>LA is not alone, with its segment of people who focus on material wealth. In fact, per capita, LA has far fewer than areas like Marin County, San Francisco County, Danville/Alamo, etc. I don't know back east, but from all I have heard, there is tremendous wealth back there. Wherever you have wealth, you will have wanabees - people trying to look like, act like, and spend like those with old money. Such a tragedy. They suck the equity out of their homes (what little they have) in an attempt to keep up. Or worse, they rent an apartment/condo so they can buy their expensive cars, boats, etc.</p>
<p>Sam Lee,</p>
<p>I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I wonder if you really think that the SF Valley is less prone to this than "over the hill" in LA? I personally think that the Valley is just as prone to this sort of behavior as the rest of the greater LA basin.</p>
<p>But to be honest, I think you may be overlooking an important factor: LA requires a lot of driving. People who drive a lot want the drive to be nice, hence nice cars.</p>
<p>I've heard it argued over and over that it's an awful thing for people to have small apartments but nice cars. I think that argument's silly. It's all about what someone gets the most utility out of. If people want a nice car, why does that make them a bad person? Why do you have to assume that it's just image, and not just someone wanting a car that they'll enjoy driving?</p>
<p>If you're in your car 3 hours a day, you might as well enjoy it...</p>
<p>I attended USC. Great professional programs. Great alumni network.</p>
<p>Party school-nah. Little goes on at the school except on football game day. the greek system is pretty strong and I suppose where the party rep comes from, but of the entire school, pretty small % of greeks.</p>
<p>Housing is very limited on campus and mostly outdated. Little immediately off-campus in the way of housing too. Very large commuter base of students.</p>
<p>the attraction would be Los angeles if that is of interest to you, but not in the sense of Ann Arbor or some other college town, which LA is most certainly NOT.</p>
<p>My feeling is a USC degree is great to have, but it's not the greatest school to attend IMO. Very disjointed, very "cliqueish" and many local kids who go "home" for the weekend.</p>
<p>lovetocamp,</p>
<p>I've been to those areas. I lived in SF (the nicer part of it--Noe Valley) and Palo Alto before for a total of 3 years (99-2002) and I still go back often. The density of luxury cars in the streets of SF is obviously less than that in <em>comparable areas</em> of LA. I don't know where you get per capita number for the whole city but even a higher number for the areas you mentioned doesn't mean much anyway because per capita household income is a lot lower in LA (37K vs 57K in SF). But if LA still has higher number, that would be quite something! Therefore, you need to look at comparable groups in comparable areas (e.g. Castro vs West Hollywood; Hollywood Hills vs Pacific Heights). West Hollywood is definitely more image concious and showy than Castro and same goes for Hollywood Hills/Sunset vs Pacific Heights/Marina District. I am not just talking about cars in those areas, but also how people try to look, and the types of shops in the areas..etc. </p>
<p>The areas you discribed are affluent areas and there's nothing wrong with having nice cars when you have a decent salary. Hey, if I make >200K/yr, I'd buy myself a pretty nice car too. There's nothing wrong with spending part of your hard-earn money for personal comfort and luxury. I got two friends driving Lexus in their mid-twenties while I lived there but they went to top schools and worked as high-paying software engineers in the Silicon Valley.</p>
<p>What I see here more than other places is in general, people are more concious of their images and more things are built on perception. I've seen more people pretending to be something they're not or living beyond their means just to "look" wealthier . I've never encountered anyone in SF that's elusive about what they do but I have met quite a few people who couldn't articulate what exactly they do or call themselves "writers" when actually they are waiting tables or doing whatever that are too embarrassing for me to know. You may say that's because I am living in the westside of LA but I was also in the most happening places in SF and Chicago. I am well aware how every place has mixture of people and nothing is homogeneous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
people to have small apartments but nice cars...
[/quote]
Actually, after discussing this subject with a few people I know in this category, some of this has to do with the price of housing in some areas of California. Basically, many of them are caught at a point where the can't afford to buy a house so they're living in an apartment, but they can afford a pretty nice car. Many of them go for the car. I don't see a problem with that and I don't believe that they're all doing it purely for the 'image' - some actually like the cars. I see the same thing in the bay area (Santa CLara, San Jose, etc.).</p>
<p>One can't compare this to a place like SF where many people spend little time on a daily basis in traffic since it's a centralized very urban city where public transportation is the best option. I've known a number of professionals in SF that rarely drove (relatively) because they didn't need to.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>I did take that into account. What you said would probably be true if driving nicer cars is the only thing I've seen. But the image reputation of LA is more than just about driving nice cars. What I said is in line with the well-known stereoptype and before knowing anything else, it may be safer to assume stereotype has some truth to it than not having any. Keep in mind, you were here as a student hanging out with your peers in the UCLA bubble. Once you start parties and social events with crowds in their 20s-40s, maybe you will have a different idea. </p>
<p>Edit: ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, as I mentioned to UCLAri, the image culture is more than just driving nicer car, which is just one forms of the manifestation.</p>
<p>Anyway, I am done with this whole disccusion of LA. This thread is about USC, not LA. So let's put this to end and get back to USC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind, you were here as a student hanging out with your peers in the UCLA bubble.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm...I'm an LA native. I was born and raised in LA and the SF Valley. </p>
<p>Most of my friends and family are Angelenos. I realize you've spent some time in LA, but outside of a couple years, I've spent my entire life in LA...</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about if that was only limited to the US?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In fact, there still are some cultures on earth that are not preoccupied with materialism and consuming. When I travel back to the US, I am amazed how quickly my brain fills up with thoughts of buying. When I lived there, I didn't quite realize how much of my brain space was devoted to thoughts about buying stuff. Consuming is ever-present in American conversations--if it's not a conversation about the car, it's the house, it's the college, it's the something someone wants to buy or has bought. I don't know why I get so swept away with it when I visit--although there are so many amazing things to buy.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, </p>
<p>I worked many years in the Financial District in San Francisco. I guess that you and I can agree to disagree. I saw far too many businessmen and businesswomen (in San Franciscio) around me who exactly match the description that you describe in LA: (pretending to be something they're not or living beyond their means just to "look" wealthier). I just accepted it. It happens everywhere. Especially, young pups right out of college who thought their stuff didn't stink. I did not look down on them, nor did I seek them out to spend time with outside of work. If anything, I smiled inwardly at their arrogant attitude. </p>
<p>It is just a matter of time, and maturation, before we (hopefully) come to realize that "who we are" is (1) not where we went to school, (2) not what degree we earned, (3) not what car we drive, (4) not what street we live on, or the square footage of our house, (5) not whether we had our morning Latte at Starbucks, (6) etc. Instead, "Who we are" IS a composite of how we live our lives, how we treat others, how we treat our spouses, our children, our siblings, our parents, our grandparents, our friends and our neighbors. Are we ethical in the workplace. Do we treat others with respect, regardless of their background. I figure those young pups will learn these truths sooner or later (and if not, then they are in for a lonely life). </p>
<p>You say "I've never encountered anyone in SF that's elusive about what they do or call themselves "writers" when actually they are waiting tables or doing whatever that are too embarrassing for me to know". I will disagree with you. I found the contrary to be true. </p>
<p>Oddly, you are just fine with those who buy expensive cars when they are making a decent salary. I guess they are only buying those cars for the comfort and not to impress anyone? You're kidding, right? I guess "impressing others" only occurs in LA. :-)</p>
<p>You skipped over my comments about Marin County, and Danville/Alamo. Maybe you never spent much time in those areas. I have never, in my entire life, met so many openly arrogant people as those in Marin County. They have no shame about looking down their noses at you. Before I worked in San Francisco, I worked for a short while in San Rafael (Marin County). At that time, I lived in Sonoma County. There were a few people in the office who were nice to me - up until they learned that I did not live in Marin County but instead lived in Sonoma County. I was scum to them after that. I was not all that bothered, at the time, because I was young, and found them to be old, stuffy, and boring anyway. :-) </p>
<p>After working in San Francisco, I worked for a number of years in the Danville area (a very affluent area). I had a co-worker, who was a woman and a mother, who told me stories of her son's soccer games in Danville. She drove her Honda Acura (which she was quite proud of) to the soccer games. She spoke of the many "soccer moms" who arrived in their Jaguar/Porsche/Mercedes, wearing their tennis outfits, with their tennis bracelets. As you can imagine, they did not go out of their way to engage her in conversation. It was their loss, she was a wonderful woman, and an excellent programmer.</p>
<p>My point is that you will find shallow people everywhere (Los Angeles area, San Francisco area, other states, and in other countries). They may exhibit their shallowness by (as you said) "pretending to be something they're not or living beyond their means just to look wealthier. Or, they may exhibit their shallowness with their arrogance, looking down their noses at anyone who does not drive the same car as them, or who does not live in the same neighborhood as them, etc.</p>
<p>Really? A "which town is snootier" competition? Though I know it wasn't the intent, I take just a little bit of offense in the name of the numerous modest and good-hearted families I know in Danville and Marin (and LA, for that matter)! Any second grader will tell you to "Choose your friends wisely." You don't like some type of person? Learn to deal with him and then choose to avoid him. Recall that the OPs daughter wants to work in broadcast journalism, and so LA, for better or for worse, is hardly a bad place to get used to (no, not the ONLY place, but certainly not an unreasonable one).</p>
<p>If you want to hang out with a certain crowd and follow a particular routine in LA, then sure...you might find yourself running with some pretty shallow people. It's nothing unique to LA and it's nothing unique to USC. Whether or not it's easier in any one place is debatable, but I absolutely promise you that it will NEVER be decided in this thread, no matter HOW many Escalades so-and-so told his uncle's wife's cousin that he saw in the parking lot of God Knows Where.</p>
<p>You are blowing what I said way out of proportion. I've never said it's "unique" to LA or other places don't have any of that. I said it feels like it's RELATIVELY MORE image concious and has MORE people of that type to me. I have many friends who moved from other places to LA and felt the similar. </p>
<p>NOBODY here said USC students were superficial. Not sure why you even bothered to mention that. Nor did I ever suggest to OP not to come to USC. My original comment was a response to someone's comment about LA being exciting. It wasn't even directed to the OP specificly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OPs daughter wants to work in broadcast journalism and so LA, for better or for worse, is hardly a bad place to get used to
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since when that becomes a valid reason for others not to give negative comments about LA? </p>
<p>As for "learning to deal with him", where did you get an idea that I didn't know how to deal with them? I have never kept in touch with any of those types. So what else do you want me to do? Lock myself up in my apartment?</p>
<p>You really need to read carefully what people have written and what not before coming here to scream at them.</p>
<p>None of this banter really applies to USC, UCLA, or at least most of the other college campuses. A college campus is in its own little world so I doubt that the rep of some aspects of the cities being discussed (superficiality) really matter that much even if true.</p>
<p>I would think that for broadcast journalism, LA, NY, and a few other large cities would be a good choice for internship opportunities.</p>
<p>A couple of personal remarks on the thread:</p>
<p>1- USC's campus is NOT particularly nice. It isn't in a total ghetto, but it is at best a very drab setting for a campus!</p>
<p>UCLA's campus is nicer, Cal's campus even more.</p>
<p>2- Sam Lee is spot on in terms of the materialism and superficiality of LA culture, which the USC ethos exemplifies.</p>
<p>Lovetocamp, the Bay Area culture is sharlpy different in that sense. It is one of the least materialistic envirnoments in the US, particularly considering that it is also one of the wealthiest. You see a lot of multimillionaires driving 15 year old Volvos or BMWs, cars that would be valued at less than $20k. A lot of the people that you mention who work in the Financial District aren't originally from NorCal, those are transplants (many from SoCal actually.) </p>
<p>generally speaking, LA culture is driven by its car-centered layout and urban geography, the dominant entertainment industry and a bit of beach culture thrown in.</p>
<p>CalX - I guess that we can agree to disagree. Maybe in Humboldt County, or in the Berkeley Hills, you might see the old Volvos. </p>
<p>I have personally driven far too many miles in the Bay Area, and seen far more newer/expensive cars, than the old BMWs and Volvos that you mention. During my years, working in the Financial Distrcit, I "commuted" over 250,000 miles (round trip, to and from the City). During my years, working in other locations in the Bay Area, I "commuted" over 500,000 miles (round trip, to and from the other locations). Total miles over 750,000 miles. I stand behind my statements about the type of cars that I saw on the road every day. </p>
<p>As for the image of USC, I will post a different website. The website that i list shows actual photos, not just a map. <a href="http://community.webshots.com/user/uscdad2010%5B/url%5D">http://community.webshots.com/user/uscdad2010</a>. I will let people look at the photos, and judge for themselves what they think of USC's campus. </p>
<p>I am willing to concede that UCLA's campus is more scenic that USC's campus. Westwood is truly a beautiful city. No doubt. I might disagree with you about Cal. Cal used to be very beautiful. However, with the ever increasing smog in the area, it is not nearly as nice as it used to be. I challenge anyone to drive down 24 or 580 (towards SF) in the middle of the day, and tell me how often that you can see clearly across the bay to SF. </p>
<p>You say: "generally speaking, LA culture is driven by its car-centered layout and urban geography". I knew, and worked with people who commuted to S.F. from northern areas of Sonoma County, from eastern Sacramento, from Modesto, and many other remote areas. Both Los Angeles, and the Bay Area have people who commute long distances. Why is Los Angeles the only bad area?</p>
<p>You mention that the people in San Francisco who ARE materialistic are actually transplants from L.A. I suppose that you can tell this, from afar, as you watch them drive by? There seems to be this double hatred (of USC, and of Los Angeles). Why? Just curious: where were you born, and where were you raised?</p>
<p>Almost everyone I know who works in the Silicon Valley commutes from a long distance. Have you ever checked out the cars in the Los Gatos area? Hardly 15 y/o Volvos.</p>
<p>I have only been to California on brief visits, but the content of this discussion makes it sound like an unappealing place to live. I'm sure that is not the intent.
I'm also getting the impression that the universities there are just subsumed by the local culture and not at all places where one would want to spend his or her "bright college years".
I am ready to be "straightened out". Honest.</p>
<p>danas:</p>
<p>There seems to be a lot of 'NorCal vs SoCal' happening on this thread for no apparent reason other than a poster decided to state that LA (a city of millions) is superficial and all anybody cares about is their cars. This is so obviously ridiculous that I think you can easily discount it. </p>
<p>The students attending the colleges aren't much different than most places. The state schools are relatively inexpensive and certainly aren't filled up with pretentious people. Universities like the UCs and several of the CalStates attract students from the entire state and elsewhere so people attending UCLA aren't all 'LA types' and people attending Cal aren't all 'NorCal types'. Some have called USC a college for the more wealthy families due to its high cost but USC also offers plenty of grants to attract people from all walks so it's not entirely comprised of the wealthy.</p>
<p>I can tell you that the students at UCLA and UCSD I've run across are just typical students of that age albeit ones who performed well enough to be accepted there. My Ds could have just as easily ended up at Cal or USC since they were accepted there and their personality would have been the same regardless of the school being attended. </p>
<p>I wouldn't pay any attention to these very large generalities and leaps some are making regarding the locales. I've lived in many places in the world and I love California and plan to stay here.</p>