How is USC compare to UC Berkeley?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>There's already a thread comparing USC to UCLA and the result was unexpected at least to me. It 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>Thank you.</p>

2

<p>Berkeley's graduate programs > USC's graduate programs (in general).</p>

<p>Undergrad: I don't know.</p>

3

<p>I'm more particularly interested to know about undergrad education</p>

4

<p>USC probably provides undergrads more interaction with professors. But I would argue that that is a disadvantage when applying to grad school because many professors at USC might resent you for wanting to go to a top, non-USC grad program. It's kind of a slap in the face for them, especially if the grad school you want to go to is better than the one they went to...which might very well be the case at USC. </p>

<p>That's why, in my view, it's best to seek recommendations from professors at top research universities like Berkeley. Their opinions of a students' intellectual potential will carry far more weight than those of a professor who has been ridiculed by others in his field. (As can often happen to professors at "lesser" universities, like USC - not explicitly because they teach at USC, but because if they were better researchers, they would probably be at Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, or MIT.)</p>

5

<p>What major are you interested in?</p>

6

<p>Economics and/or business. but please treat this inquiry as a different matter. I would just like to know more about their general undergrad reputation particularly there in the US not just in California but in the whole mainland USA. which between the 2 is more prestigious for many people and to employers as well.</p>

7

<p>It really just depends on who you ask. If you plan to live in SoCal, a USC degree would work better than a Berkeley degree. If you plan to live outside of SoCal, you'll get more heads turning your way with the Berkeley name. (Many people think USC is the University of Southern Carolina...)</p>

<p>But you have to understand that the Berkeley undergraduate experience varies A LOT. One of the main reasons for that is that some students, especially students in the hard sciences, study like there's no tomorrow and still wind up with Cs. Others, in majors I won't identify, can cram an entire semester worth of notes in 5-6 hours and pull of an "easy A." </p>

<p>So, if you want to do business/econ, you might be in for a wild ride at Berkeley. Unless you're insanely smart, I suggest you go to USC...it'll be less stressful and has more business connections anyway.</p>

8

<p>^ USC has more business connections than Berkeley does? BUt i though Berkeley has more successful alumni and has more "elite" students. It has a top business school too. how did USC match those up? i'm just curious.</p>

9

<p>Again, I believe both of these schools are very good but quite different.</p>

<p>I do believe you have a much better chance of meeting & getting to know professors at USC than you would as an undergrad at Berkeley (many undergrad classes are taught by grad students, from what I've heard). Berkeley is a much more sprawling campus while USC is a more compact urban campus.</p>

<p>Below are sites that tell you a bit about matriculating undergrads at these schools.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/parents/images/profilefreshman2005.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/parents/images/profilefreshman2005.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2005-06.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

10

<p>it seems then that the gap between USC and Berkeley, if there is any, is very very small cause there's no one can really tell that 1 is better than the other. I'm just amazed how USC, a school not very knwon internationally, can be very competitive in the undergrad. Looks like the donations by the alumni have statarted to pay off for their reputation and quality. </p>

<p>thanks for those who posted comments.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
many undergrad classes are taught by grad students, from what I've heard)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sections are taught by graduate students, and the basic reading and comp courses are taught by graduate students, but lectures are taught by profs, almost always (sometimes advanced graduate students will teach the most basic intro courses).</p>

<p>I highly, highly doubt profs will resent you for wanting to go to top graduate programs. I sincerely believe they will encourage you greatly. While their letters of rec may not generally be held in as high regard as those from your average prof at Princeton or Harvard, you'll be in great shape if the profs know you well, so it shouldn't be a big worry.</p>

<p>Plenty of schools without much general prestige (in America or abroad) are supposed to be amazing for undergraduates. For example, pick any liberal arts college. USC seems somewhat underrated in academic quality by the general public, but somewhat overrated by those who say it's every bit as good as Stanford and the like.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
USC has more business connections than Berkeley does? BUt i though Berkeley has more successful alumni and has more "elite" students. It has a top business school too. how did USC match those up? i'm just curious.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It just sort of depends. Listen, if you plan to live in SoCal, it would probably be best to go to USC. That's the most prestigious school for many SoCal citizens (No matter how hard people on this board try to make CalTech look just as prestigious as MIT, it's actually a school the vast majority of people haven't even heard of.) But if you want to live anywhere else, the Berkeley name far outshines the USC name. Again, many people think USC stands for the University of Southern Carolina.</p>

<p>And you have to realize, while the undergrad business program at USC isn't as good (academically speaking) as Berkeley's, it most certainly is easier to get into. If you apply to USC as a freshman and indicate business and make it, you will be admitted directly into the Marshall undergrad program. At Berkeley, you will have to prove that you are worthy of getting into Haas by doing well in HUGE classes with little personal attention ("weeders") for your first two years. If you don't do well and major in econ employers will probably assume that you got rejected from Haas. That's not good. </p>

<p>So, again, if you think you have what it takes to get good enough grades in Berkeley weeders (so as to get into Haas) and don't plan to live in SoCal, by all means come to Berkeley. Otherwise, beware of the bears.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Their opinions of a students' intellectual potential will carry far more weight than those of a professor who has been ridiculed by others in his field. (As can often happen to professors at "lesser" universities, like USC - not explicitly because they teach at USC, but because if they were better researchers, they would probably be at Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, or MIT.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not always true, nor even close to true. The market is sometimes fickle and puts otherwise GREAT researchers at no-name schools. I know plenty of professors who also chose a "lesser" school based on location and still manage to pump out some respected research.</p>

<p>It really varies from individual to individual. One of the best known political scientists in the world did much of his best work at UCI. And trust me, NOBODY ridiculed him. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's the most prestigious school for many SoCal citizens (No matter how hard people on this board try to make CalTech look just as prestigious as MIT, it's actually a school the vast majority of people haven't even heard of.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As a native Angelino, I take serious issue with this statement. I'd say that it's VERY safe to say that UCLA still carries more prestige in LA than USC, and any employer worth a nickel is going to know about CalTech.</p>

<p>And ultimately, who cares of some randoom boob knows about it or not? I bet many random boobs in LA haven't heard of MIT. That doesn't make it a bad choice.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
It just sort of depends. Listen, if you plan to live in SoCal, it would probably be best to go to USC. That's the most prestigious school for many SoCal citizens (No matter how hard people on this board try to make CalTech look just as prestigious as MIT, it's actually a school the vast majority of people haven't even heard of.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i've lived in socal for quite a while, and i am confident in saying that usc is NOT considered by socal residents to be the most prestigious school in socal. in addition, caltech is NOT an obscure school. i'd say that its name is up there along with mit, and not any less.</p>

15

<p>I was born and raised in SoCal and USC is not considered to be the most prestigious, not by a long shot. If anything it has a somewhat poor reputation because of the school's history. Personally I think USC is not up to par with UCB (football excluded) but it doesn't really matter because the school's atmospheres cater to completely different personality types.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Again, many people think USC stands for the University of Southern Carolina

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no truth to this statement, unless you happen to be in South Carolina. Being from the east coast, and having spent significant time all along the eastern seaboard, USC = Southern California, if for no other reason than the football team.</p>

<p>University of South Carolina has 1) no national reputation 2) a tiny out of state student body. The only place where one would have to clarify the USC acronym would be within the state of South Carolina.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
And you have to realize, while the undergrad business program at USC isn't as good (academically speaking) as Berkeley's, it most certainly is easier to get into. If you apply to USC as a freshman and indicate business and make it, you will be admitted directly into the Marshall undergrad program. At Berkeley, you will have to prove that you are worthy of getting into Haas by doing well in HUGE classes with little personal attention ("weeders") for your first two years. If you don't do well and major in econ employers will probably assume that you got rejected from Haas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And there's a chance you won't even get into Econ, as econ is impacted too. </p>

<p>I know of some people who came into Berkeley hoping to get into Haas, with econ as a backup, and not getting into either one, and thus having to scramble for a 'backup to a backup'.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Being private by itself confers no advantages. There are plenty of crappy private 4th tier no-name schools. </p>

<p>The real question is, what do you do with your private status. Do you use it to bring in a higher quality group of students because you're not forced to accept some lower-quality in-state students? Do you use it to create programs that are less political in nature (because you're not bound by a public insistence on 'access')? If the answers are 'yes', then you MIGHT be better. Being a private school may give you the opportunity to be better than a public school, but the private school still has to take advantage of that opportunity. </p>

<p>And besides, public schools don't do too shabbily. In particular, Berkeley's PhD programs are among the best in the world despite being technically 'public' programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
USC probably provides undergrads more interaction with professors. But I would argue that that is a disadvantage when applying to grad school because many professors at USC might resent you for wanting to go to a top, non-USC grad program. It's kind of a slap in the face for them, especially if the grad school you want to go to is better than the one they went to...which might very well be the case at USC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. I see no reason to believe that they would consider this to be a 'slap' in the face any more so than the profs at a major research university might feel about you wanting to go to another program. For example, I know an MIT guy who was heavily recruited by the PhD program at MIT, but chose to go to Harvard instead, and he was easily able to find profs to write rec's for him for Harvard. MIT and Harvard have a long-standing professional rivalry. </p>

<p>The truth is, academically speaking, almost all profs end up collaborating and writing papers with profs from many other universities. That's why so many papers are jointly published with multiple authors, often times across multiple universities. Furthermore, many doctoral students establish committees of profs that come from different schools. Speaking of that MIT/Harvard guy again, this guy is almost certainly going to form a doctoral committee that consists of profs from Harvard, MIT, and perhaps even BU (as there is 1 prof at BU who is highly relevant to the work he does). Most academics are not jealous in the way that you are implying, as otherwise none of these collaborations would ever work.</p>

<p>That's not to say that you won't find some jerks. I am sure there are some jerks at USC. But there are also some jerks at Berkeley and any other school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Their opinions of a students' intellectual potential will carry far more weight than those of a professor who has been ridiculed by others in his field. (As can often happen to professors at "lesser" universities, like USC - not explicitly because they teach at USC, but because if they were better researchers, they would probably be at Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, or MIT.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then how is it that such a high percentage of the students at the LAC's are able to get into PhD programs? Most of the profs at the LAC's are not famous for their research. </p>

<p>Look, the truth is, what matters more in terms of a strong rec is not so much about how prominent the prof is than about whether the prof really knows you well enough to give you a strong endorsement. Again, speaking of that Harvard/ MIT guy, the best rec he got was from a low-level assistant prof at MIT, who turned out later that year to have been denied tenure at MIT. This prof was not a rockstar researcher in the field but gave the guy such a ringing endorsement that demonstrated that the prof knew this candidate extremely well and could vouch strongly for him. In fact, both the Harvard and MIT doctoral programs told this guy later that that particular rec was what put him over the top. </p>

<p>It's far far better to get a ringing and personal endorsement from a lesser-known prof than a ho-hum, bland rec from a superstar prof. Obviously the best of all is to get a ringing and personal endorsement from a superstar prof. But that's clearly difficult to do if, for no other reason, lots of other undergrads are also trying to crowd into their labs trying to get that rec.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Which is better between USC and Berkeley (in general)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In general, I would say Berkeley is better. However, like dobby said, the Berkeley undergrad experience varies greatly. Also, since different people want different things out of a college, it's hard to make a general statement. There are some things that USC do better, and some things that Berkeley do better.</p>

<p>However, I am giving the edge to Berkeley because of its excellent staff, prestigious name (which will help later on), great research, top-notch programs in many fields (engineering, haas, english, chem, etc.), vast amounts of resources, diverse student population, interesting culture, and the colorful surrounding city.</p>

<p>To be fair, I think USC is better in that: more personal attention, safer city, great film school, no capped majors, better housing, and large donations which I'm sure will help in making the school better.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
it seems then that the gap between USC and Berkeley, if there is any, is very very small cause there's no one can really tell that 1 is better than the other. I'm just amazed how USC, a school not very knwon internationally, can be very competitive in the undergrad. Looks like the donations by the alumni have statarted to pay off for their reputation and quality. </p>

<p>thanks for those who posted comments.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think it's very very small, but it's hard to compare because not only do they have different strengths and weaknesses, but they are structured differently and have different purposes. International reputation doesn't mean everything, especially when it comes to undergrad. I bet schools like Williams or Swarthmore are known even LESS internationally than USC, but they probably offer a stronger undergraduate education than Berkeley. Similarly, I can dig even deeper and bring up Deep Springs College, which doesn't even have a national reputation. The key is to recognize why certain schools have built up international reputations, and seeing how much that has to do with the undergraduate education it offers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I was born and raised in SoCal and USC is not considered to be the most prestigious, not by a long shot.

[/quote]

I don't think it's the most prestigious school, but I wouldn't say it's not the most prestigious by a long shot. I think it's probably #3 in SoCal next to Cal Tech and UCLA, and arguably #2 as USC and UCLA are quite close. This is, of course, disregarding the Claremont colleges which are not only not universities, but also quite obscure.</p>

20

<p>Disclaimer: I am a UCLA Alum</p>

<p>It is clear USC is on the way up and its reputation outside California is growing. At least that is what I have observed here in New Jersey. Having said this, some of the comments being made in CC are quite a stretch. There are several steps that separate USC and Berkeley in terms of reputation.</p>

<p>As a bruin it is hard to see SC coming so close to UCLA in reputation but I accept that. On the other hand claiming that SC is more prestigious in Southern California (let alone the rest of the world) than Caltech, or that it is now being compared to Stanford, is, borrowing words from our former Fed Chairman, "irrational exuberance".</p>

<p>SC is an up and coming school but it is not quite there. Enjoy the ride instead.</p>