Difference between USC and UCLA?

[Saitsuzen]

<p>

@drax12

USC’s not your typical private, however. Very large, larger than a lot of public schools…

</p>

<p>Yes, USC is on the large size if you’re considering only private schools. But its status as a private school ensures that it can provide benefits (like stronger networking, mandatory academic advisement, smaller classes, more personal relationships with professors, etc.) that public schools struggle to have. And since the point of this thread is to compare USC and UCLA, let me point out that USC has about ~17,000 undergrads while UCLA has about ~27,000 undergrads. USC’s undergrad population is significantly smaller than UCLA’s, and that has a noticeable effect on the academic experience.</p>

<p>

@drax12

UCLA and UC purposely discount the SAT I. 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.

</p>

<p>In my opinion, the UCs should not do that. In a country where schools vary widely in difficulty, GPA cannot be the main decider of admission. There has to be focus on SAT scores because the SAT is a standardized test and thus provides a more accurate way of measuring and comparing students. I realize that the SAT may be better for those who are good test-takers, and that is why some people want to discount it. However, if the UCs ignore the SAT and focus on GPA for admission, then they won’t be able to effectively distinguish between the grade-inflated applicants and the grade-deflated applicants. Thus their entering students could consist of many people who have high GPAs but come from easy high schools where grades are inflated. Meanwhile, the students who attended academically rigorous high schools and are better prepared for college will be rejected by UC because of their deflated GPAs. As a result, they will take their academic talents elsewhere. Missing out on these students will hurt UC in the long run. UC can avoid this by continuing to use SAT scores as a standard method of measurement.</p>

<p>

@drax12

Also, UCLA doesn’t like merit scholarship donations…

</p>

<p>And USC does like merit scholarship donations. This is because USC can use those donations to offer scholarships which attract more top-quality students. As more great students choose to attend USC based on those scholarships, the university’s academics will rise even more.</p>

<p>

@drax12

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>According to USC, 60% of students receive financial aid, meaning that only 40% are full payers ([USC</a> Financial Aid](<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/admission/fa/]USC”>http://www.usc.edu/admission/fa/)). It is wrong to assume that students who are fortunate enough to be able to pay full tuition are, in general, middling students.</p>

<p>

@drax12

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>

<p>I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. USC students possess unparalleled pride and school spirit; perhaps that is why other student bodies resent us when it comes to athletics. Just go to UCLA sports websites like Bruins Nation and Bruin Report Online. When people there post about USC, many of them constantly insult the Trojans and imply that we are all a bunch of idiots, liars, and cheaters. Perhaps they are insecure about how far USC has come since the 70s. Which reminds me of a funny story. Last year at the USC vs. UCLA football game, UCLA fans started leaving early because their team had no hope of beating USC. My friends and I started some harmless gloating until suddenly a UCLA student who was on her way out yelled, “At least I don’t pay a ton of money for a crappy education!” That is when my friend replied to her, “I go to USC for free!” (He is the recipient of a full-tuition merit scholarship.) She just kept walking away. Good times.</p>

<p>And no, I do not self-imagine things, so believe me when I say that I am not deluded.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Obviously USC is still on the move and not at the destination yet (see NYU). But the trends are clear now and money can buy just about anything. Biggest issue remaining is the location. But even that could improve over time if the area takes off.</p>

[collegetrail]

<p>One sucks (UCLA) and the other doesnt (USC).</p>

[chaosakita]

<p>I’m still suggesting to the OP to apply to both schools if he/she wants to live in LA that badly and then see what financial aid packages come up. I’m really guessing that USC will probably be the better deal for the out of state student.</p>

[drax12]

<p>

Yes, USC is on the large size if you’re considering only private schools. But its status as a private school ensures that it can provide benefits (like stronger networking, mandatory academic advisement, smaller classes, more personal relationships with professors, etc.) that public schools struggle to have. And since the point of this thread is to compare USC and UCLA, let me point out that USC has about ~17,000 undergrads while UCLA has about ~27,000 undergrads. USC’s undergrad population is significantly smaller than UCLA’s, and that has a noticeable effect on the academic experience.

</p>

<p>I actually agree on why USC likes to be one of the largest privates. The USC family likes a lot of grads, especially in the bus sectors, ~1,000 Marshall and Leventhal grads every year to try to flood these fields. But with this many entering this field without a higher degree of selection within the U, like Cal, there will be a good portion who can’t connect within the bus sector and are looking for work many months post graduation.</p>

<p>Regarding size of UCLA and USC: That’s why I said there’s about a 1:1.5 ratio, or slightly more, given that UCLA has ~ 26K undergrads, USC, a tick under 17. These numbers and ratios may change this upcoming fall.</p>

<p>With these things in mind, UCLA places far better into M, L and B school. Probably a good ~ 3x’s more for med, and let’s say similar, maybe not quite the difference to L school.</p>

<p>

In my opinion, the UCs should not do that [drop the SATI req]. In a country where schools vary widely in difficulty, GPA cannot be the main decider of admission…

</p>

<p>Sure it can… </p>

<p>If Harvard dropped the SATI, do you think it would have any less qualified students? </p>

<p>

There has to be focus on SAT scores because the SAT is a standardized test and thus provides a more accurate way of measuring and comparing students. I realize that the SAT may be better for those who are good test-takers, and that is why some people want to discount it.

</p>

<p>‘…scores run highly correlative with wealth,’ which means the SAT is no longer ‘standardized.’</p>

<p>Good test-takers could indeed be singled out if all were allowed to prep similarly for the test and if it were only allowed to be taken once.</p>

<p>The SAT only shows a very short-term accomplishment, of say, a few months of fairly intensive study. Grades point towards a far longer-term accomplishment. </p>

<p>Your last sentence makes no sense. I think the reason UC would like to discount it, is, again because of wealth. UC’s thinking is that top students everywhere generally have the same potential and bubble up to the top of their respective hss. High scores can be coached up to anyone. Maybe I’m thinking too much of my abilities to teach SATs to students, but I think I can coach someone who’s only sat once and didn’t have adequate prep from a 1700 to a 2000+. The potential of improvement should be much higher for these students vis-a-vis ones who’ve had private SAT tutors and done many retakes.</p>

<p>

However, if the UCs ignore the SAT and focus on GPA for admission, then they won’t be able to effectively distinguish between the grade-inflated applicants and the grade-deflated applicants.

</p>

<p>The same can be said for SAT’s, however: it’s hard to distinguish a naturally high scorer with all the retakes and differences in prep, based on wealth or lack of it.</p>

<p>

Thus their entering students could consist of many people who have high GPAs but come from easy high schools where grades are inflated.

</p>

<p>Which schools would be the most grade inflationary?</p>

<p>

Meanwhile, the students who attended academically rigorous high schools and are better prepared for college will be rejected by UC because of their deflated GPAs. As a result, they will take their academic talents elsewhere. Missing out on these students will hurt UC in the long run. UC can avoid this by continuing to use SAT scores as a standard method of measurement.

</p>

<p>Which would be the most rigorous? </p>

<p>If you’re saying the ones USC admits largely from, then I would agree to a point. However, UC’s a public school and is trying to be fair in admissions to all high schools, not just the top-tier elite private hss.</p>

<p>

According to USC, 60% of students receive financial aid, meaning that only 40% are full payers. It is wrong to assume that students who are fortunate enough to be able to pay full tuition are, in general, middling students.

</p>

<p>I’d like to read your opinion of this:</p>

<p>Admits to USC from [one high school](<a href=“http://www.pvhigh.com/CCC/pdf/CCC_Student_Profile_2010.pdf”>http://www.pvhigh.com/CCC/pdf/CCC_Student_Profile_2010.pdf&lt;/a&gt;), of which 22 chose USC, and from [url= <a href=“http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf]another[/url”>http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf]another[/url</a>], USC decisions on page 94; I think 15 chose USC. There are other schools, private ones that show some databases where their students attend u. Why is it, that the SAT’s USC reports are so much higher than these two public hss, and similarly from the private ones I’ve seen also? Is it because USC superscores? The average of the 37 USC admits from these two hss is supposedly < 25th %-ile for the U.</p>

<p>Of the individual hss I’ve seen, UCLA has higher gpa/SAT students than USC. Of course, UCLA will take more from underperforming hss, sacrificing standards, but it is a public school. This will somewhat even out the differences in UCLA taking better students, generally from the better schools which will even out some differences, but this still wouldn’t explain the statistical probability of the scores USC reports as being overstated. </p>

<p>

I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. USC students possess unparalleled pride and school spirit; perhaps that is why other student bodies resent us when it comes to athletics. Just go to UCLA sports websites like Bruins Nation and Bruin Report Online. When people there post about USC, many of them constantly insult the Trojans and imply that we are all a bunch of idiots, liars, and cheaters.

</p>

<p>Probably cheaters, as barrons would say, but who am I to judge – I’m sure all cheat in some way or another. We can add Ohio State, probably Auburn, Oregon, etc. But, really, I don’t really care one way or the other. Sports fans typically are not your brightest bulbs.</p>

<p>

My friends and I started some harmless gloating until suddenly a UCLA student who was on her way out yelled, “At least I don’t pay a ton of money for a crappy education!” That is when my friend replied to her, “I go to USC for free!” (He is the recipient of a full-tuition merit scholarship.) She just kept walking away. Good times.

</p>

<p>So your friend is admitting the education is ‘crappy,’ but free?</p>

[drax12]

<p>And I agree with barrons, that using USC’s area against it is not as viable anymore. USC is as one UCLA grad said, trying to ‘gentrify’ the area, and is having success. I still would prefer UCLA’s campus and area better, including hills, but that could be personal.</p>

[Saitsuzen]

<p>Before I respond to drax12’s post, I would like to apologize to the original poster if this thread has become too much of a “USC vs. UCLA” argument. I hope that you’ve learned some useful information on the differences between USC and UCLA. As you get closer to college decisions, I suggest that you consider the following questions:</p>

<p>1) Imagine the university’s location/atmosphere. Can you see yourself being happy there?
2) Will a degree from the university be worth the money that it will cost you?
3) Does the university offer a good program for your intended major?</p>

<p>Now on to drax12’s statements.</p>

<p>

@drax12

With these things in mind, UCLA places far better into M, L and B school. Probably a good ~ 3x’s more for med, and let’s say similar, maybe not quite the difference to L school.

</p>

<p>I saw you mention this statistic in another thread. If it is accurate (and I strongly question this), then I would simply attribute it to UCLA’s undergrad population being bigger and thus yielding a greater number of medical/law/business school applicants. Another explanation may be that more USC students find themselves with jobs right after school and do not need to attend grad school as a result, but I admit that this is less likely.</p>

<p>

@drax12

If Harvard dropped the SATI, do you think it would have any less qualified students?

</p>

<p>Of course not. Harvard is Harvard, and it will always have some of the most qualified students in the country (and arguably the world). However, I cannot say the same for the UCs, as they are not on par with Harvard. I truly believe that the UCs would have less qualified students if they dropped the SAT I, as they would probably admit many people who were fortunate enough to attend easy high schools and receive high GPAs but aren’t really prepared for college.</p>

<p>

@drax12

‘…scores run highly correlative with wealth,’ which means the SAT is no longer ‘standardized.’

</p>

<p>And I would guess that GPAs run highly correlative with wealth too. What we should probably take from this is that SATs and GPAs are both imperfect but necessary methods of measurement for college admission. It is just my personal opinion that SAT scores are a better method.</p>

<p>

@drax12

Your last sentence makes no sense.

</p>

<p>I was acknowledging that people who are against the SAT have a point when they say that the SAT can be unfair due to its tendency to be easier for good test-takers.</p>

<p>

@drax12

Which schools would be the most grade inflationary?

</p>

<p>Probably the less competitive schools, where the performance levels needed for an A are lower than those at other schools because the academic environments are not as tough.</p>

<p>

@drax12

Which would be the most rigorous?

</p>

<p>Probably the elite private schools and public schools that have large numbers of extremely motivated students.</p>

<p>

@drax12

I’d like to read your opinion of this:</p>

<p>Admits to USC from one high school, of which 22 chose USC, and from another, USC decisions on page 94; I think 15 chose USC. There are other schools, private ones that show some databases where their students attend u. Why is it, that the SAT’s USC reports are so much higher than these two public hss, and similarly from the private ones I’ve seen also? Is it because USC superscores? The average of the 37 USC admits from these two hss is supposedly < 25th %-ile for the U.</p>

<p>Of the individual hss I’ve seen, UCLA has higher gpa/SAT students than USC. Of course, UCLA will take more from underperforming hss, sacrificing standards, but it is a public school. This will somewhat even out the differences in UCLA taking better students, generally from the better schools which will even out some differences, but this still wouldn’t explain the statistical probability of the scores USC reports as being overstated.

</p>

<p>My guess is that USC’s reported SAT scores are higher than those of the high schools because of super scoring, as you mentioned. Super scores can be significantly higher than single-seating scores. This is true for me. My single-seating score was in the 2200s, while my super score was in the 2300s, 90 points higher to be exact. I would also like to point out that the 37 USC admits’ scores, plus the scores of the other databases you have seen, would be considered by a statistician as a small sample size and thus a poor representation of the total population of 8,450 total acceptances. Therefore, there is a good chance that your stats do not match the true average SAT score of USC’s admitted class.</p>

<p>

@drax12

We can add Ohio State, probably Auburn, Oregon, etc. But, really, I don’t really care one way or the other. Sports fans typically are not your brightest bulbs.

</p>

<p>I’m impressed by your knowledge about current events related to the NCAA’s crackdown on rule-breaking, or lack thereof when it comes to schools other than USC. I would have to agree with your statement about typical sports fans (even though one of my personal goals is to stop making generalizations about people).</p>

<p>

@drax12

So your friend is admitting the education is ‘crappy,’ but free?

</p>

<p>Of course not. My friend loves the education that he is getting at USC and would never think that it is “crappy.” And I am aware that you were most likely being sarcastic when you asked this question.</p>

<p>We could go on for a long time, drax12, but I hope that won’t be the case.</p>

[drax12]

<p>Let me make a quick correction…</p>

<p>

Of the individual hss I’ve seen, UCLA has higher gpa/SAT students than USC. Of course, UCLA will take more from underperforming hss, sacrificing standards, but it is a public school [with specific duties towards all schools, in an egalitarian state-supported idea towards admissions as best possible]. This will somewhat even out the differences in UCLA taking better students, generally from the better schools […in comparison of the two u’s], [because USC would be inclined to take little or none, say, from the underperforming hss around the U Park campus], but this still wouldn’t explain the statistical probability [maybe possibility (admittedly)] of the scores USC reports as being overstated. [And USC not reporting a CDS adds questions of doubt wrt its reporting].

</p>

<p>Sometimes when writing I lose my train of thought while doing other things, multitasking. Still not what I would like, but I’m not going to spend much time on it.</p>

<p>

My guess is that USC’s reported SAT scores are higher than those of the high schools because of super scoring, as you mentioned. Super scores can be significantly higher than single-seating scores. This is true for me. My single-seating score was in the 2200s, while my super score was in the 2300s, 90 points higher to be exact.

</p>

<p>I don’t think the USC family, and specifically someone like GeorgiaGirl, is going to like this.</p>

<p>

I would also like to point out that the 37 USC admits’ scores, plus the scores of the other databases you have seen, would be considered by a statistician as a small sample size and thus a poor representation of the total population of 8,450 total acceptances. Therefore, there is a good chance that your stats do not match the true average SAT score of USC’s admitted class.

</p>

<p>I agree in part. But these two hss are top-tier publics, which should somewhat mirror top-tier private hss wrt scores for those who are college eligible – and if you look at the top-tier grads they do – with more spread to lower scores down the list at these two hss because they are large public hss. Wrt Grades… we know that USC probably reaches deep into an excellent hs’ graduating classes.</p>

<p>I’m just noting that 37 of the ~ 3,000 matriculants is nothing at which to be scoffed, because actual enrollees is the most important. And some of the 37 would probably more than likely include those who’ve obtained significant USC merit. Would these 37 mirror the 3k who’ve enrolled at USC? I’m not going for that kind of standard; I’m going for why these 37 have averages supposedly < 25%-ile of scores at USC. I don’t think superscoring can fully explain it. </p>

<p>

I was acknowledging that people who are against the SAT have a point when they say that the SAT can be unfair due to its tendency to be easier for good test-takers.

</p>

<p>I don’t think this is it at all. No one is questioning that Yale acceptee is more your typical natural high-scorer. It’s the ones that can buy a score that is more in question: ones that can afford a private SAT tutor at $50K for 1/2 year, along with taking the test multiple times.</p>

<p>

[Regarding grade inflationary schools…] Probably the less competitive schools, where the performance levels needed for an A are lower than those at other schools because the academic environments are not as tough.

</p>

<p>Age old question, we’re not going to solve it here, but many believe more elite schools inflate grades because they need to keep their students college-eligible.</p>

<p>Palo Alto and Gunn HSS have 3.95+ uwgpas at the 90th percentile. </p>

<p>

Quote:
Originally Posted by drax12
If Harvard dropped the SATI, do you think it would have any less qualified students?</p>

<p>

Of course not. Harvard is Harvard, and it will always have some of the most qualified students in the country (and arguably the world). However, I cannot say the same for the UCs, as they are not on par with Harvard. I truly believe that the UCs would have less qualified students if they dropped the SAT I, as they would probably admit many people who were fortunate enough to attend easy high schools and receive high GPAs but aren’t really prepared for college.

</p>

<p>Obviously UC’s aren’t on par with Harvard. But if SATI is taken out, then other methods of measurement of high-school students would have to be subbed in. UC seems to be downgrading the SATII tests, but they could sub those in instead and require a handful of them in application to the system. I think there are plenty of markers of hs students besides the SATI that help in comparison of these students in a total pool outside of the differences that do exist between the hss. But UC will always be a grade-first institution over anything else, which runs counter to USN’s rankings. And all schools fudge their top-10% graduating class %'s, some more than others.</p>

<p>

I saw you mention this statistic [UCLA placing better in grad prof schools] in another thread. If it is accurate (and I strongly question this), then I would simply attribute it to UCLA’s undergrad population being bigger and thus yielding a greater number of medical/law/business school applicants. Another explanation may be that more USC students find themselves with jobs right after school and do not need to attend grad school as a result, but I admit that this is less likely.

</p>

<p>I agree that USC is more undergrad trade-oriented.</p>

<p>But this is why I linked the aamc.org and Calbar.org websites. 722 apps to med school for UCLA; 200+ for USC in 2010. And again, I can’t see USC having a higher acceptance rate of these apps. Since the ratio of adjustment for both is 1/1.5, if UCLA produces 3x’s more MD’s, which I feel is conservative, then UCLA ~ 2x’s more MD’s, with this adjustment factored in.</p>