<p>There's already a thread comparing USC to UCLA and the result was unexpected, at least to me. That thread established the fact that USC is as competitive as UCLA. Some posters even compare USC to Stanford and some elite private colleges and the reasons given were quite valid. </p>
<p>Some argue that USC is better than UCLA because it is private, but i don't think that alone is a good reason enough, though a lot of people will really argue that being private brings a lot of advantages. I now know that USC is very competitive and has even higher SAT scores and GPA (on average) than that of UCLA's, which again, to be honest it was really a big shock to me, given I don't read US News ranking and stats... furthermore, that thread was very informative because it dispels many wrong misconceptions about USC that it is for dumb rich kids and stuff… and at the end USC, which a lot of people would agree, is truly a remarkable academic institution with huge funding and support by its alumni.</p>
<p>Now I want to know how USC compares to a real big time school like Berkeley. Berkeley is a world-wide known school and has so many Nobel awardees attached to it and has so many famous alumni. But like UCLA, Berkeley is public and being such has trouble with over population and mismanagement and stuff... but Berkeley is very famous and is regarded in many countries as famous as Harvard or even more famous in some countries (whether that’s due to ignorance is a different topic altogether). But the general acceptance of Berkeley in many parts of the world is seen MORE famous and more prestigious than either Yale or Princeton. But then again, things might be different in US set-up and you guys, among others, are the more knowledgeable about this topic than those people who are not US born. So I would appreciate an honest to goodness comment.</p>
<p>Which is better between USC and Berkeley (in general)? </p>
<p>"I now know that USC is very competitive and has even higher SAT scores and GPA (on average) than that of UCLA's, which again, to be honest it was really a big shock to me, given I don't read US News ranking and stats... furthermore, that thread was very informative because it dispels many wrong misconceptions about USC that it is for dumb rich kids and stuff… and at the end USC, which a lot of people would agree, is truly a remarkable academic institution with huge funding and support by its alumni."</p>
<p>"Some posters even compare USC to Stanford and some elite private colleges and the reasons given were quite valid." </p>
<p>-Just read how the poster listed his question. what a joke. haha its clear the poster is trying to pump up USC. What a joke. This post should be erased. I have nothing against USC, but the way this post was written is ridiculous. haha UCLA has an average gpa of 4.12, USC has an average gpa of 4.02. so why is the poster making up claims saying that usc has higher gpa averages tha ucla. usc computes their average sat by the numerous sitting method, as a lot of schools do. yet, ucla configures their scores by the single sitting method. clearly this lowers ucla's average sat scores in relation to usc. you must compare apples to apples when stating facts and stats. haha this poster is just trying to pump up his image of usc by stating things like its a remarkable institution and so on and so fourth. he is more making a statement than asking a question. in regards to an undergraduate institution i personally would pick berkeley. yet, i would recomend others choose the school they feel most comfertable with. for graduate school, outside of film and communications, clearly berkeley is a far superior graduate institution than usc. there is no case argueing any differently. at the undergraduate level i would argue berkeley is likely a top 15 school. at graduate level, however, berkeley is clearly a top 3 school, second in my opinion to only harvard across the board. and even that is debatable do to berkeley's graduate department's strengths and rankings.</p>
<p>"Berkeley is very famous and is regarded in many countries as famous as Harvard or even more famous in some countries (whether that’s due to ignorance is a different topic altogether)."</p>
<p>haha check the departmental rankings. i think you will not conclude that their is any ignorance comparing berkeley and harvard academically for graduate education. berkeley has more top 5 and top 10 programs i believe than any other school in the country, including harvard (although im not positive about more than harvard i believe i read that recently).</p>
<p>by everything else i mean the intangibles such as
1.) student body - the people at usc are much better looking - ask anyone that's been to both schools.
2.) school spirit
3.) competitiveness (My Berkely friends say there's wayy too many Haasholes and grade grubbers)
4.) location (i like so. cal better than nor cal so i am biased)</p>
<p>however, berkeley wins on prestige and academics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
-Just read how the poster listed his question. what a joke. haha its clear the poster is trying to pump up USC. What a joke. This post should be erased. I have nothing against USC, but the way this post was written is ridiculous.
[/quote]
it sounds like faux-(and overly dramatic)-incredulity...though i'll agree with you on the idea that USC isn't Stanford-comparable, the beginning of your own post made you look ridiculous and, especially, pretentious.</p>
<p>and what year are you getting your stats for? also did you consider unweighted GPAs? because most sources i've seen for this year have indicated that USC's admitted/matriculated UW GPA was higher that UCLA's. albiet not significantly, but enough to show that USC's students and thus (stretching it a bit) programs are nothing to sneeze at, as the prestige-fixated around here seem to like to do.</p>
<p>as i've mentioned elsewhere, at this academic level, rankings become moot and we can start to assume that regardless of where you go, you will get a good education and well-respected degree, which is what we're all ultimately looking for. so the more important consideration is based on personal preference; where you feel like you have a better experience for 4 years--academically, socially, etc. i say academically because you will have your own personal needs that rankings alone couldn't tell you would be met. consider minors, tutoring, undergrad research, etc. socially...college isn't all work. it's your time to be independent, seize the day and as much as you fill yourself with formulas and books, fill yourself with experiences.</p>
<p>MABUHAY, after two comparison threads with many people saying the same, i would have thought that this would start to become clear. btw, from your username, is it safe to assume you're Filipino? where are you from?</p>
haha check the departmental rankings. i think you will not conclude that their is any ignorance comparing berkeley and harvard academically for graduate education. berkeley has more top 5 and top 10 programs i believe than any other school in the country, including harvard (although im not positive about more than harvard i believe i read that recently).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley trails only Stanford in the number of top ranked programs</p>
<p>The problem is, I am not sure that I necessarily agree with the number of 'programs' that the NRC counted. For example, why exactly is "Biological Sciences" broken down into 7 different 'programs', but Economics is just one 'program'? After all, there are plenty of subcategories of Economics that could each be considered 'programs' - i.e. microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics, industrial economics, etc. So why isn't economics broken down in this fashion so as to count as multiple 'programs'? Where are the Ph.D. business administration programs? They're nowhere to be found in the NRC. What about the doctoral programs in public health? Or Education? Or public policy? Again, nowhere to be found, even though they are all programs.</p>
<p>Hence, the point is, I don't think it's clear that Berkeley really has more top-ranked programs than does Stanford or Harvard, if you were to actually count the true number of programs out there. I think they're all basically tied. Let's just leave it that all 3 of them have a bevy of excellent doctoral programs without worrying so much about who actually has more, because you then get down to the debate about what really constitutes a 'program'.</p>
<p>^^^ These rankings were released in 1995, and are based on a survey that was conducted in 1993. With the huge ammount of time that has pased, I would consider them pretty much worthless.</p>
Hence, the point is, I don't think it's clear that Berkeley really has more top-ranked programs than does Stanford or Harvard, if you were to actually count the true number of programs out there. I think they're all basically tied. Let's just leave it that all 3 of them have a bevy of excellent doctoral programs without worrying so much about who actually has more, because you then get down to the debate about what really constitutes a 'program'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh I agree... but I was actually referring to USNews department rankings... gourman ranked schools based on USNews graduate data across the board. NRC rankings are so old... they are in need of an update.</p>
<p>but again you're absolutely right though...they're all roughly equally prestigious at the graduate level... trying to number and rank them is rather senseless</p>