<p>And btw, now speaking from the perspective of Madison WI, please, I don't care whether it is UCLA or USC, I want to be in LA where it's warm. It has been the coldest and snowiest winter of my life.</p>
<p>Theres an entire discussion on the USC board on this topi
Here you go</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC's reputation overseas especially in Asia is pretty good. Eg. in Hong Kong, people think of USC as the next top school after Harvard and Stanford etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not true. I am not sure if that is the case in Hong Kong, but it certainly isn't the case in all of Asia. I lived in Asia all my life (Korea and Japan) and nobody, myself included, knew what USC was. On the other hand, UCLA is quite well known esp. among educated circles. </p>
<p>
[quote]
USC definitely has a slightly better reputation on the east coast over UCLA. State schools, with a few exceptions, aren't well thought of here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, here in the East Coast, most people regard UVA (which is public) fairly prestigious along the likes of Hopkins, Georgetown, etc. UCLA may not be popular here as it is in the West Coast, but USC isn't that popular here either.</p>
<p>calicartel, </p>
<p>USC Law is on par with UCLA, but B-School and medical school are slightly/solidly lower:( </p>
<p>Some other majors are also professional in my mind, but I am not sure if people here think so. For example, architecture, public planning and administration, communication and journalism, film, music at USC are all better or about equal compared with UCLA.</p>
<p>USC and UCLA are both great schools. </p>
<p>Based on your academic interests, USC seems like a better match. UCLA does not have an undergraduate business program in the Anderson School of Management, although there is an economics program open to undergrads. The USC Marshall School of Business is ranked among the top ten undergraduate Business programs in US News and World Report. </p>
<p>USC is home to the largest number of international students in the US, with 9.1% of undergrads coming from other countries and 24.7% of grad students being international. Although almost 150 countries are represented, most students come from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Canada, and India. Due to the large number of students from Hong Kong, USC actually conducts a new student orientation in that city. </p>
<p>USC's undergraduate program has a very international focus, and the Marshall School of Business is home to a high percentage of the international students. The Business program offers tons of specializations with concentrations and courses in International Business Communciation, Business Economics, Finance, Real Estate, Global Management, and Global Marketing.</p>
<p>Patlees, I'm from NY/N NJ area, and I can guarantee that around here more people consider USC to be more prestigious than both UCLA and UVA, especially UVA. Most people I know never even consider UVA to be a good school, in fact, I had an entire classroom full of people arguing with me about how UVA couldn't be in the top 25 schools, etc. </p>
<p>And I definitely don't think it will take SC TWENTY years, to catch up. Over the last EIGHT they've jumped like 20 spots in the US news ranking, they are the only university to receive donations over 1 billion dollars IIRC, and they've had THREE of those 1bil+ contributions. I can easily see USC being higher than UCLA within 4-6 years, especially if budget cuts go to UCLA and they have to raise OOS tuition even more.</p>
<p>I just want to point out that the rankings cited in post #20 are already 14 years old.</p>
<p>I have been a big supporter here on CC of USC and its impressive rise over the past decade. Statistically, the school compares well with Cornell and I think that an ever increasingly strong argument can be made for USC when one considers the full undergraduate experience. USC’s academic reputation is much improved and the social life and the athletic life make for an extremely attractive place to go to college vis-</p>
<p>By the way, there is one other consideration when you look at UCLA and USC: State funding. State funding of state universities has seen a cutback almost everywhere. This impacts a number of programs in many ways from few courses, to fewer faculty to high class sizes etc. Private schools aren't subject to the whims of state funding. Remember that.</p>
<p>Also, if you look at the schools that have risen in reputation over the last 20year, for the most part, it was private schools. School such as Wash U St Louis, Tuft, University of Miami, USC, Claremont schools etc. have become real hot spots and have risen in reputation accordingly. This is NOT as true for publich universities. Pretty much the same schools that were considered good 20 years ago are still at the top with few exception. In fact, the only state schools whose cache has risen over the last 20 years that I can think of is University of Maryland and The College of New Jersey,which was called Tenton State many years ago. I can, however, think of a number of state supported schools that have significantly dropped in the rankings such as CUNY schools.</p>
<p>You guys have gotta be kidding me...</p>
<p>Private schools have risen in perception because USNews ranks on factors that are favorable to privates.</p>
<p>Due to a demographic shift called Tidal Wave II, the schools that were ultra-competitive 20 years ago still are, but the lower tier schools have become more competitive simply because you have more students applying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pretty much the same schools that were considered good 20 years ago are still at the top with few exception. In fact, the only state schools whose cache has risen over the last 20 years that I can think of is University of Maryland and The College of New Jersey,which was called Tenton State many years ago.
[/quote]
That's not surprising -- when you're at or near the top, there isn't that much higher one can go. Conversely, when you start off at or near the bottom, of course there is significant upside.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Hyakku,
I am surprised at your comments about U Virginia, both absolutely and relative to USC in the NY/NJ area. I would have thought that USC has relatively few alumni in those areas with modest (at best) networks to tap into and low familiarity with any aspect of USC outside of its outstanding athletic programs. Furthermore, I have always thought of U Virginia as the premier undergraduate public institution in the USA and that it has a terrific reputation up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Can you (and maybe others as well) elaborate a bit on your comments above involving how USC and U Virginia are seen in your area?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well for most people UVA is just thought of as the state school of virginia and some people know some of their sports. Here, USC is widely known not only for their sports, but I think the old rich kid type of stereotype has saturated into people's minds and they equate the school with being well funded and difficult to get into. As for academics, many just assume that they have good academics, but I'm sure there are more people who know it for being a well funded research university with good sports.</p>
<p>Taxguy,
I appreciate your comments about the improved quality of schools like Wash U, Tufts, etc and I strongly agree with you. Unfortunately, the immovable object of Peer Assessment doesn’t reflect this change. I think it is more likely that hell will freeze over before the academic world will allow these schools to rise. </p>
<p>Why do I say this? Consider the change in the PA scores of Wash U and Tufts since the first year that PA scores were assigned on the 5.0 scale. In the Best Colleges 1999 issue of USNWR, the academics assigned a PA of 4.1 to Wash U and a PA of 3.6 to Tufts. For the 2008 edition, a decade later and following a period when the student quality and the competitiveness and national profiles of the two schools was almost certainly improved, the academics awarded Wash U a 4.1 and Tufts a 3.6, ie, no gain at all for either school, at least according to the “experts.” </p>
<p>In fact, the only USNWR Top 20 National Universities that saw their PA scores change by more than 0.1 over the past decade were Duke and Rice. In each case, their PA grades were REDUCED by 0.2! (I’m guessing the academics were penalizing Duke for the lacrosse scandal and were penalizing Rice for the fact that it is located in the same state that George W. came from.) </p>
<p>Fortunately, this trend has been upset by USC which has seen its ranking move from 41st in the 1999 issue to 27th in the latest edition and its PA score has improved from 3.7 to 4.0. Hopefully, this trend will continue (and quickly) and USC can gain a parity level with UCLA (4.2) and close the gap with UC Berkeley (4.8). </p>
<p>Hyakku,
I guess we see things quite differently regarding U Virginia. Of all of the public institutions in the USA (or at least all of those east of Sacramento), I think U Virginia is the one that has the most legitimate claim to being a true non-HYP Ivy competitor. I believe that it has an excellent academic reputation, that it is seen in the East and South as far more than just another state college (only 67% IS students), and with a devoted and well-placed alumni group, including in your native NY/NJ.</p>
<p>Hawkette, PA score is measuring faculty quality and breadth and depth of programs - not student quality!</p>
<p>Why would they have objective measures on student quality and then have a survey asking the same questions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In each case, their PA grades were REDUCED by 0.2! (I’m guessing the academics were penalizing Duke for the lacrosse scandal and were penalizing Rice for the fact that it is located in the same state that George W. came from.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they aren't...2,000 academics completed the survey. Don't tell me only liberals from California and the Northeast completed the survey. Fluctuations of 0.1-0.2 points happen frequently. Berkeley's PA increased by 0.1 point over 2007. This may be due to the fact faculty members were awarded a couple Nobel Prizes during that time frame, but I doubt it...it's more likely due to statistical error in the survey.</p>
<p>ucb,
Unfortunately, liberals in academia are hardly contained to the NE and California. Try a visit to the heart of Texas sometime (U Texas) or North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and dozens of other places. I think many in America wish that there were more ideological balance on the campuses of America's colleges than can be found today. </p>
<p>As for PA, we don't know what it measures. It's truly every academic to decide for him/herself what this means and to subjectively apply this to colleges that they may (or may not) know. But I hope you will agree that schools like Wash U, Tufts, even USC are underrated on this measure and that colleges like Duke and Rice aren't worse places than they were a decade ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I hope you will agree that schools like Wash U, Tufts, even USC are underrated on this measure
[/quote]
Hawkette, PA measures depth and breadth of academic programs.
It asks academics to rank a university's programs on a scale of 1-5 (1 being marginal, to 5 being distinguished).</p>
<p>WashU, Tufts and USC do not have the breadth of distinguished programs that Berkeley and Stanford have.</p>
<p>Also, I've said before, that this is a survey of academics. In an academics view, what is "distinguished" to them are Nobel prizes, academy membership, publications and quality of research output of the professors leading the program. These factors are prestitigious in their eyes and are visible. Academics aren't going to know whether or not Joe Nobel Prize teaches well...they just think he's distinguished because he was awarded the prize.</p>
<p>Until they ask a different group to complete the survey, you're not going to get a change in opinion. Also, until other privates get top faculty and hence elevate a program's reputation, little will change.</p>
<p>And, no, I don't think Rice and Duke are worse places than they were a decade ago...a 0.2 drop over a decade is not bad...it could be a statistical error. Fluctuations of +/- 0.1 to 0.2 points are common year to year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, liberals in academia are hardly contained to the NE and California. Try a visit to the heart of Texas sometime (U Texas) or North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and dozens of other places. I think many in America wish that there were more ideological balance on the campuses of America's colleges than can be found today.
[/quote]
As a conservative, I agree with you. I think there should be more balance. There was a recent article I read on why academics are mostly liberal. The article mentioned that conservatives are more interested in family and church, therefore, may be less likely to pursue a PhD and go into academia. Or, that since academia is mostly liberal already, conservative students have trouble finding a voice and mentorship. Who knows?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Patlees, I'm from NY/N NJ area, and I can guarantee that around here more people consider USC to be more prestigious than both UCLA and UVA, especially UVA. Most people I know never even consider UVA to be a good school, in fact, I had an entire classroom full of people arguing with me about how UVA couldn't be in the top 25 schools, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is news to me. Even though I have not lived in NY or NJ area, I met many people who are from these regions at my college. The impression I got from interacting with this group of people is that when they were applying to colleges, they were considering UVA as one of the top choices esp. for their impressive academics, impressive repuatation, good sports, very attractive female students (lol...), and generous scholarship aids.</p>
<p>ucb,
I saw that article as well-it was in the WSJ about a week ago. Very insightful piece I thought. I think the conclusion was something along the lines of "there probably aren't as many conservative in academia because they don't like hanging out with the type of folks who pursue their PhDs which is the ticket to college faculty appointments." Something about different value sets for conservatives with a higher focus on finances and family-related issues. </p>
<p>As for the year-to-year changes in PA scoring, actually there is very little change. For most years, they could just print last year's scores. There are some 0.1 changes, but rarely are there 0.2 changes. My personal view is that there SHOULD be more changes. I believe that there has been a great improvement in many colleges across the country and yet the PA rankings have this established pecking order that almost never changes. It's like tenure for the highest ranked colleges and the lower ranked colleges are in an unenviable and (if the historical powers have their way) unattainable position. IMO, the PA rankings are done like this is a zero-sum game. I think that they would be a better reflection of today's college scene if they showed that it is not a zero sum game and that the size of the pie has gotten bigger.</p>