<p>Is it true that in Japan there are stores that sell licensed UCLA gear?</p>
<p>You mean people said "UCLA" in english and people understood it?</p>
<p>There are UCLA Stores in China and South Korea, but not Japan. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>UCLA Store in Guangzhou, China:
The</a> Daily Bruin - UCLA name, L.A. lifestyle marketable overseas</p>
<p>Taiwaneseterror,</p>
<p>They say it in "Japanglish." Yuu-shii-eru-ei. Or Konglish (I can't do Konglish as well.)</p>
<p>flopsy,</p>
<p>There are, however, UCLA products sold in Ito Yokado, a big department store.</p>
<p>dude There is no way USC going to surpass UCLA ...</p>
<p>^well said!</p>
<p>but contributing to debate of the recognition of the two school, from my personal experience UCLA is a more recognized name. I have lived in Taipei and Vancouver before moving to Southern California. and I didn't even know USC existed till I moved here. Enough said.</p>
<p>nstitutions, lets note that the most important criteria, academic quality, varies by school and department and is too exhaustive to be undertaken here. It is methodologically dubious to standardize public and private universities as many rankings do.</p>
<hr>
<p>too exhautisve. too exhsautive. perhaps a revision of the title and ed piece instead of something as bold as a 5-year countdown for something that is "too exhaustive" when it focuses more on public vs. private funding + descrepancies and the mentioning of say bias and illdefinted and constantly changing methodlogy instead of an allencompasing opinion or awareness that's cnfidently agreed upon by the masses... are we following some sort of discrepancy or self-referencing system? possibly!</p>
<hr>
<p>It is also the metric that means more to prospective students than any other institutional bragging rights out there, and its one where UCLA rests stagnant, a mere two mere spots above a rapidly ascending USC.</p>
<hr>
<p>USC has experienced a meteoric rise in student applicant quality and selectivity.</p>
<p>Their alumni donations, student-to-faculty ratio and average class size are far better than almost any public university.
_____________-</p>
<p>again private vs. public again private vs. public </p>
<hr>
<p>USC has also embarked on an aggressive faculty-recruitment campaign, pouring newfound millions into stealing top faculty from around the country.</p>
<p>Theyre involved in an aggressive local landgrab in pushing for de facto campus expansion and propping up beautiful new facilities like the Galen Center. Just about everything theyre doing is aggressive.
<em>)</em>______))) </p>
<p>yes but how about the nonstagnateness of the quality of ucla? yes no yes no? lets talk about that as well instead of implying some sort of constant curve while usc skyrockets to somethign that is ALREADY "too complex to methodolgoically blablbalha"</p>
<p>USC has really climbed the ladder in the past 20 years. It now has over 3 billion dollars in endowment, it has been rapidly expanding in all areas, the student body is very diverse, undergrad admissions have become very selective and the alumni network is very powerful, particularly in Orange County and SoCal in general. So, clearly it deserves to be called a great university. </p>
<p>However, unlike UCLA, USC's good academic reputation comes mainly from its professional programs (i.e. law, business, engineering, film, medicine etc.), all of which are more or less on par with the counterpart programs at UCLA. In contrast to this, USC's undergrad and Ph.D programs are considered to be much weaker relative to UCLA (which has all of its programs ranked at least in the top 20). So if USC is seeking to overturn UCLA as the dominant university in the city of LA, it will have to pour money into these areas and try to attract distinguished faculty in order to bring all of its programs into the category of 'elite.' In my opinion, this will not happen anytime soon because (as someone else said earlier) even though USC is rising rapidly up the academic ladder, so is UCLA. Just recently, the latter collected over 3 billion in fundraising and with the opening of the Ronald Reagan Medical Center, we will have the best hospital in the world. Therefore, if USC is to overtake UCLA sometime in the future, it will take a great deal of effort, time, money and luck.</p>
<p>Bruin4life,</p>
<p>Sorry, but USC law, business, and medicine are by NO means on par with UCLA's programs at the graduate level.</p>
<p>Too bad we don't have an undergrad business program. :[</p>
<p>Isn't their medical school better? I know their law school isn't for sure.</p>
<p>No, UCLA's med school is better than USC's by a fair margin. Geffen is around top 10 or so, while Keck is top 30.</p>
<p>UCLA law = USC law</p>
<p>USC law is good, but if you look at more important determinants of law school quality (which I think Leiter captures well), UCLA's faculty is clearly a notch above USC's.</p>
<p>UCLAri </p>
<p>I think you're right about medicine (especially with our new hospital), but I had thought that SC's law and business programs were very close to ours. At least the law rankings indicate this and their business school is very well regarded.</p>
<p>Only USNews seems to think that USC law is on UCLA's level. Leiter and most of the more academic rankings suggest otherwise-- at the very least, UCLA has far more national presence than USC, so employers seem to know what's up.</p>
<p>Business, on the other hand, is no contest. Anderson is much better than Marshall at the graduate level.</p>
<p>Only the WSJ, by the way, considers Marshall better: BSchool.com:</a> US Side By Side - MBAs</p>
<p>Other than that, UCLA is clearly ranked higher.</p>
<p>USC's admission rate this year was 21.0%, with a superscored SAT I average of 2108. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Rankings aren't based on what Asian people's reactions are when you say the school's name over there...</p>
<p>Yeah, Collegekid, I'm with you, since when is that the measure of a college?</p>
<p>And still SC is ranked lower....</p>