Difference between USC and UCLA?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I was looking at both schools because I think it would be really fun to attend college in sunny California, but they seem really similar. What sets them apart from each other? Also, what are some other good colleges in California that are easier to get into than those two?</p>

2

<p>There are many, many, many schools in California. [Let</a> me google that for you](<a href=“LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You”>LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You)</p>

3

<p>One of them features the Trojans AKA the worst (insert word) in the world.</p>

<p>But ignoring my Trojan hate you’d might want to look this stuff up since I know squat of California. What I do know is that USC has a HUGE influence from its alumni network (though UCLA has a very strong base too) and is a private school rather than UCLA’s public status. I was also under the impression that USC’s neighborhood is a bit more ghetto than UCLA’s. But then again, I don’t think there’s TOO many differences.</p>

4

<p>USC is slightly easier than UCLA to get into. They’re both good schools, and if you’re OOS then the cost isn’t significantly different either. I think historically UCLA is better, but USC is good now too.
USC, though, is an a really bad neighborhood. And UCLA’s neighborhood is better (as good as any college neighborhood is). And USC has a business school and UCLA only has business economics.
Other California colleges to look into are Berkeley (similar accept rate to UCLA), some other UC’s (UCSB, UCD, UCSD, UCI). Pepperdine is in Malibu and is exceptionally beautiful. Cal Poly SLO is easier to get in to and cheaper than the UC’s, but is definitely a good school.</p>

5

<p>USC = Football
UCLA = Basketball</p>

6

<p>UCLA students tend to be significantly more successful in terms of grad school admissions.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Cal Poly SLO is easier to get in to than some UCs, but not all of them.</p>

<p>It is generally considered an excellent school for engineering, architecture, and agriculture, and is generally considered good for business, but is not as well known for other subjects.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>That is true. That is very, very true. But that is because there are many more highly achievers at UCLA than there are at USC.</p>

9

<p>Where did you get the information that UCLA students do better than USC students at grad school admissions?</p>

10

<p>UCLA OOS tuition is nominally cheaper than USC’s tuition. However, you will probably have to pay full price, while USC has some scholarships. Also, the entire UC system has suffered major funding cuts, so that’s bound to impact the learning experience and the like.</p>

11

<p>If you are open to liberal arts colleges and want to be in sunny Cali, Occidental College is a school easier(statistically) to get into then UCLA and USC. Oxy is also in the LA area.</p>

12

<p>The difference between the two, USC is a private school situated in a disadvantage area and UCLA is a public school situated in a nicer area. Both campuses are large. You’ll need a car or a bike to get around, or prepare to walk the distance. It will cost more to attend USC without merit-aid of some sort (their merit-aid is not automatic based by stats even if you get admitted). Unfortunately the UC schools are getting more expensive every year. In many cases, it costs less or the same to attend a private school with merit-aid or grants than a UC. If cost is an issue and you want to get a decent education for less, there are some decent smaller to mid-size private universities you can look into. From what I know, if you have the stats and get admitted, the best automatic need-blind merit-aid scholarships would be Chapman University in Orange County, nice area, one of the safest cities in America, centrally located between LA and San Diego. Chapman has the charm and it’s prestigious. They’re highly competitive to get in as well, but worth looking into. There are other private schools in California, but not as generous with their merit-aid or grants. If you’re looking for less expensive schools, try the CSUs such as Cal Poly SLO, or CSULB, or SDSU for the public university options, but keep in mind that these are also large campuses, their classes are usually impacted.</p>

13

<p>@sentimentGX4:</p>

<p>Since you’re making that generalization, I shall make another: USC’s students tend to earn more money and are richer. I’d take $$ over some piece of paper that says I’ve got a masters degree… Just sayin’.</p>

14

<p>Then go to USC because apparently, you can’t get into grad school with a degree from there, but you can make more money, no matter what the case.</p>

15

<p>Ridiculous claims by the poster two posts before…</p>

<p>By placing better into grad school, sentiment meant that UCLA places far better into M, L, and B school. There’s pretty good proof of the prior, and not some UCLA grad taking a quick MA in history, as the prior two tried to portray.</p>

<p>Generally, though, those with more education make more $$ than those with even just one year less.</p>

<p>I’m not a big proponent of Payscale’s unscientific sample sizes of grads for schools – it tries to portray accuracy, but accuracy would need a specific snapshot of a u’s terminal bac-earning grads by professions, much more scientifically done, rahter than by passively taking in surveys … but the median salaries of UCLA and USC are pretty close, which one would have to figure they would be. And figure that ~65% of UCLA undergrad alumni attend grad school, many of them professional schools across the country, I could see the whole set of UCLA"s making more $$.</p>

<p>I’d agree UCLA grads are less attached to the U, certainly in comparison to USC’s, so UCLA grads would be less prone to prop their U compared to USC’s full-out public-relations barrage.</p>

16

<p>What’s your major? It usually comes down to $$$ and major.</p>

<p>UCLA - Top notch programs for bio related…econ, psych, poli sci…engineering is decent…film, comm are good but small and hard to get into.
The campus is beautiful.
Good sports, known most for basketball.
Good greek life.</p>

<p>USC - Great for business admin, accounting…comm/journalism programs are large…film is also good and admits more students.
Campus is ok, not as nice as UCLA.
Also good in sports, known more for football.
Good greek life.</p>

17

<p>USC has improving finances. UCLA does not so their future is less positive than their past. USC is better going forward.</p>

18

<p>I’m not sure what you mean by:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>UCLA is consistently in the top-10 in fund-raising. While other UC’s are cutting classes, cutting enrollment, UCLA is set to enroll its largest frosh class, which I agree, in these times was not a wise move by the administration. In fact, the school will over-enroll from its estimated targets by a good amount because it undershot its yield. Partly, maybe mainly due to increased merit. </p>

<p>I agree this isn’t a marker of economic health, UCLA has cut some fat undoubtedly, but UCLA is pretty healthy within the UC system. Kids are graduating at a better four-year clip than USC, and it would even be approaching 80% if not for the engineering students who push units up to the cap-ceiling.</p>

<p>Classes are larger at UCLA, undoubtedly, but classes aren’t tiny at USC either. USC has 17K undergrads and 18K grad students.</p>

19

<p>USC is a private university, UCLA is a public university, and both are excellent schools. However, I would argue that USC’s future is brighter than UCLA’s. Historically prestigious public schools inevitably fall behind their private school competitors (see Michigan, UVa, UNC, etc.), as private schools are able to offer much more. </p>

<p>USC’s tremendous strides in academics/faculty and constant stream of $100,000,000+ donations during the past decade are a reflection of how USC will continue to rise. On the other hand, UCLA will (at best) stay at its current level based on the power of its history, brand name, and status as one of the UC system’s flagship campuses.</p>

<p>I would also say that the Trojan Family is a lot more close-knit than what the Bruins have. USC students possess unparalleled pride and school spirit; perhaps that is why other student bodies resent us.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>USC’s not your typical private, however. Very large, larger than a lot of public schools, like University of Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, etc.</p>

<p>UCLA doesn’t care to game the rankings as private u’s, specifically, USC does. Let me give you an example:</p>

<p>One of the ways for a u to purposely rise in the rankings is to improve the SAT medians of its frosh class. UCLA and UC purposely discount the SATI. In fact, of all the u’s on the USN’s list, UC is the one most likely to remove the test (and its companion ACT) from the list of frosh-app prereqs. If UC wanted, it could prioritize scores over class-rank and gpa, thus climbing the USN’s rankings for US U’s under ‘selectivity,’ in addition to fudging its average class rank. But this could upset the diversity applecart if UC went to a greater weight towards SATI and would undoubtedly increase the wealth factor for UC students. This is because scores run highly correlative with wealth.</p>

<p>USC, on the other hand, will search far and wide for good scorers, even if their class rank is not that high. This means being more private-hs intensive, and esp, elite private hs. 29 students from Harvard Westlake, another 10% of the graduating class from Bishops in La Jolla, > 10% from Chadwick, etc. </p>

<p>But again, I’m not sure if the two medians of SAT for USC can be substantiated. Part of this could fall under the U not wanting to report a CDS, because the various components of this data set could contradict USC’s reporting.</p>

<p>Also, UCLA doesn’t like merit scholarship donations, so it typically asks the donor to contribute to a building fund or to reinforce a specific department. This is again, because the U, in this instance, rather than the system as a whole, doesn’t want to upset the same diversity cart. Generally, greater merit -> less diversity as UCLA and UC define it. That’s why Mr. Kerkorian’s donation was so special and different. The same $ amount of donation to a public u can fund numerous times more merit than at private.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And congrats to the donations…</p>

<p>USC still admits a fairly pedestrian student outside of those who receive merit. The thing these non-scholarship students have common is that they have the ability to pay full tuition. ~ 50% of USC undergrads are these full payers, which I don’t think USC admits to purposely. The other commonality these students have is that they are middling students from top-notch private or public high schools. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with the first sentence; however, the second, both clauses, are overstated. Why would anyone hate USC because of this. I don’t see a lot of hate of USC anywhere. There are a lot of UCLA grads who rather like USC’s grad professional schools. If you want to self-imagine things, “I’m bad, everyone hates me,” … then I think you’re highly deluded.</p>