<p>^Haha nice post</p>
<p>cr8tivrec: That’s fascinating. Knew the others except for the AIDS one.</p>
<p>both are great schools. get over yourselves</p>
<p>p.s. and before you guys say i have no business being in the UCLA forum because i’m a USC student, i was referred here by a thread in the college search and selection forum</p>
<p>^Honestly, I’m not sure if I can stand for everyone else, but I don’t mind one bit a USC voicing their sound opinion (aside from the “get over yourselves part”…USC has multiple threads related to this issue with the same outspokenness) in another university’s thread.</p>
<p>So is this what UCLA is teaching you guys??? Dubious claims my friends…You say: The Internet Started at UCLA: Reality: UCLA managed to crash the system that was started by others. ARPANet was invented by others and BROUGHT it to UCLA and three other colleges
Charley Kline at UCLA sent the first packets on ARPANet as he tried to connect to Stanford Research Institute on Oct 29, 1969. The system crashed as he reached the G in LOGIN!
You say: AIDS was discovered at UCLA Reality: In 1981 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, identified the first fatal cases of AIDS, and properly identified it as such.
You UCLA guys are beginning to sound like Al Gore…</p>
<p>"In 1981, the UCLA Medical Center made history when an assistant professor named Michael Gottlieb first diagnosed an unknown affliction later to be called AIDS. UCLA medical researchers also pioneered the use of PET scanning to study brain function. "</p>
<p>Nice try, Rosieoney. Thanks for sharing your ‘realities’ because all they do is support these “dubious claims.”</p>
<p>Let’s face another reality: UCLA has consistently been ranked higher than USC in nearly all credible rankings. However, USC students don’t care! Why? Because they’re both absolutely amazing schools in one of the most diverse, active mega-cities in the world! So if USC does rank higher than UCLA, I doubt many people are going to throw a fit. I even doubt that many USC students are going to make a big deal out of it.</p>
<p>So to ‘compelet’ the sentence (as BayBoi would say)- if USC is ranked higher than UCLA, I will not care because I have already established my own opinion regarding these two phenomenal institutions.</p>
<p>…i will not care. because we all know that UCLA is amazing, and no other school even comes close to it. (:</p>
<p>Rankings are sort of irrelevant anyways. I picked UCLA over Cal and Brown which are both better schools according to US News because of things that actually mattered (cost, location, fit), not a number based on an arbitrary ranking system.</p>
<p>“Indeed, under Kleinrock’s supervision, UCLA served for many years as the ARPANET Measurement Center (in one interesting experiment in the mid-1970’s, UCLA managed to control a geosynchronous satellite hovering over the Atlantic Ocean by sending messages through the ARPANET from California to an East Coast satellite dish). As head of the Center, it was Kleinrock’s mission to stress the network to its limits and, if possible, expose its faults by “crashing” the net; in those early days, Kleinrock could bring the net down at will, each time identifying and repairing a serious network fault.”</p>
<p>UCLA = totally the bad guy for crashing the internet. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Anyway… about the rankings. Don’t care, not gonna happen. Money’s bad right now but UCLA still manages to hold its own. What more when California gets back on track? ;)</p>
<p>who wants to bet that UCLA will not make it to the top 25 in the 2012 rankings? lolololollolololololololololololol</p>
<p>Nobody? It’s already in the “preview of the top 25”</p>
<p>this is stupid. </p>
<p>The only schools that I would consider above the rest are the Ivies because of their reputation and network. Everything else in the top 50 has about the same quality level at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>USC, UCLA, UCB, Virginia Tech, Michigan AA, Stanford, Washington, UT-Austin, Harvey Mudd, etc. etc. etc. they are all the same crap.</p>
<p>it’s a different story at the graduate level.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t see USC climbing to the top 15. I see it stuck somewhere around 18-ish at best. Some of the top 15 are very competitive and another tier from the likes of UCLA or Berkeley altogether.</p>
<p>should look at this imo</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>more here:
<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/970418rankings.html[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/970418rankings.html</a></p>
<p>Michigan, UVA, UCLA, UCB and UNC are ALL better schools than USC, there’s no doubt about that. I was accepted to all of those, and I didn’t once consider applying to USC. I know tons of students who were rejected at UCLA but accepted to USC. The fact of the matter is that UCLA is much more competitive, and a way better institution comparatively speaking, yet it suffers because it’s public. There’s no doubt in my mind that if UCLA were to privatize it’d be somewhere in the top 10-20, UCB in the same situation would be somewhere between 6 and 16, and Michigan would also be in the top 10-20. The reason why it suffers is because it’s public.</p>
<p>
Not true.
[U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/]U.S”>http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/)</p>
<p>During the first year USNWR published university rankings in 1983, Stanford was already #1. After the initial era of USNWR instability, Stanford settled around 4 to 6. Before 1983 there were no respected college ranking authority.</p>
<p>Stanford also started with a massive endowment intended to establish it as the “Harvard” of California. The university didn’t even charge tuition from its founding to the 1930s. Stanford was founded and managed under a completely different set of circumstances than USC: in the past and present day.</p>
<p>U$C is not better. U$C is a school with a lot of students that are not smart enough, but have enough $$$.</p>
<p>I used to work as an intern, and my supervisor told me that he had a professor at a Cal State school who used to teach at U$C, and the said professor was constantly pressured by the department to give many students “A” grade because they “pay a lot of money to go to USC.” And in reality, my supervisor also interviewed a lot of U$C students, and he also said most U$C students can’t even write a proper cover letter for job application. (Note that my supervisor is not biased against any school.) I am not making this up… Go figure.</p>
<p>
What history? Its certainly not chronicled in USNWR or Wikipedia. “Rankings” imply numbers and there certainly were no respected numbers before 1983. Can you cite any sources?</p>
<p>This is all gibberish you stole off the USC forum. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
If rankings are such “</em>***”, then why are you so hard bent on defending the academic rigor of USC? Why would it matter if USC was rank 26 or 100 and why are you here at the UCLA forum to rub it in our faces? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Have fun making up Stanford historical rankings.</p>
<p>I think all of you guys are idiots. I’m a UCLA student and I couldn’t care less about the UCLA/USC rivalry. Any rational human being can see that it’s only to promote sports ticket sales. So get over yourselves. People who argue over this stuff are tools. Period. Both schools are great schools.</p>
<p>However, I did choose to attend UCLA over USC because it has superior academics (higher ranking for my major, ect.) for a fraction of USC’s tuition cost. (And we all know that generally every student who gets into UCLA gets into USC…but not necessarily the other way around. :P)</p>