<p>In fact, USC significantly beat out Caltech in 2002 for federal research funding. Source: <a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2004.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2004.pdf</a></p>
<p>Again, not a slight towards Caltech's research quality (as it is arguable the best in CA), but merely another fact to discredit the statement that it is not a research powerhouse.</p>
<p>USC does beat out NYU... in just about every category. US News overall rankings, % admitted, avg GPA, avg SAT scores, endowment, alumni-giving... I could go on.</p>
<p>The only areas in why NYU beats USC are in total applications and certain departments, usually the best of NYU - Tisch, Stern, Law, and a handful of others. Furthermore, NYU isn't even on the map (or listing rather) of the top research universities in the cited link above.</p>
<p>I would say when USC MBA beats out NYU MBA (last year the rankings were very very close between USC and NYU, but this year, the plummet of USC MBA has to have been engineered by NYU, many MBA students from California decide between USC and NYU MBA) that is a huge win for taking away a large chunk of anti west coast bias. </p>
<p>Many financial firms are setting up shop in Los Angeles recently this year. PIMCO, Newport Beach finance, along with SF Bay Area tech finance and venture capital can be a significant force nationwide.</p>
<p>Right, and as aforementioned, Stern@NYU is one of their premiere schools. With that said, it is unlikely that Marshall, as good as it is, will ever overtake Stern. Stern, merely based on location, can afford its students more things. However, the fact that one school is superior does not equate the entire institution as being superior.</p>
<p>And the west coast has its own share of b-schools - Stanford, Haas, Anderson in that order. Stanford MBA is better than Stern, and Haas is at the same level undergrad and grad.</p>
<p>^ So do you think its possible for one day USC MBA to be at least on equal footing with NYU MBA? How do USC MBA alumni feel about this? Some deals can surely be made with between USC MBA and USC film grads in Hollywood to engineer something.</p>
<p>Right now all the LA media organizations are hemorraging to NY too. And the rest of the country is turning uglier because of the NYC run media.</p>
<p>You really gotta talk to the USC film grads working at FOX. FOX engineered the ugly America and the bleeding of LA media to NYC.</p>
<p>Well, contrary to popular thought, changes in the rankings occur very slowly and Marshall has a lot of ground to make up.</p>
<p>However, Marshall is entirely aware of its drop, and being a student worker within Marshall, I can only describe the flurry of interdepartmental emails outlining the changes to be made. Much of the drop was due to a drop in firm recruiting, and Marshall has since fired and appointed a new director of the Career Resource Center. Additionally, the school has had several "town-hall" style meetings available to anyone to take shots at the school and point out its shortcomings and criticisms in an open manner so that Marshall may address them. Departments are undergoing reorganization, a dramatic curriculum restructuring is underway, etc. etc.</p>
<p>I foresee Marshall as getting much better, but Stern is one of the top b-schools in the world. Even as a Marshaller, I have a lot of respect for Stern.</p>
<p>I think the california Ivy league should be called the Palm League</p>
<p>It should include UCB, UCLA, Stanford in the first tier like HYP
The second tier should be Caltech,USC, UCSD,Harvey Mudd, Pomona</p>
<p>any objections?</p>
<p>^ sempitern, you forgot UCSF and Cal Tech should be higher. But Californians for the most part are not elitists. It is more about ability than pure prestige. That is why we are California. </p>
<p>The Mega Stud- Perception is everything. If the USC film grads pays respect to the black Australian and Polynesian tribes of Southern California that was here thousands of years ago, their associates in New York will make sure the film industry comes back to LA. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Geoscience at the BA: The first Americans? September 7, 2004 </p>
<p>A new anthropological study of skeletons from Mexico is helping to resolve one of the most inflammatory questions in human migration. </p>
<p>Site Editor Ted Nield writes: New research is showing that the modern people now referred to as Native Americans were not in fact the first people to have colonised the Americas. Studies of ancient skull shape - soon to be reinforced by new DNA data - suggest that the first immigrants arrived towards the end of the last Ice Age from Australia/Polynesia by island-hopping clockwise around the Pacific. Modern Native Americans probably derive from a later wave that arrived by land from central Asia. The findings, from the first year of a new £2m, three-year NERC research project (see below), were presented to the British Association today.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wow, those polynesians colonized everything in the south pacific, australia, southeast asia, parts of africa. They are the master colonizers, not the british.</p>
<p>Polynesians are not colonizers. They went to California in alliance with Black Australian tribes. They had tribal respect for each other. And retained seperate identities and tribes. The Black Australian tribes found in California showed no evidence of genetic mixing with other tribes.</p>
<p>This thread certainly went off on a tangent...</p>
<p>^ Yeah. Im random. Happy 420! damm i missed it........ CRAP!</p>
<p>There are not enough "super" schools in California to form a "Palm League." We have Stanford and Caltech at the top, and maybe Berkeley and UCLA as lower Palmies. But four schools do not constitute a league. UCSF, while definitely prestigious, is a graduate school. USC and the other UC's are no-namers, and Pomona is a LAC.</p>
<p>hmm.. back on topic. my opinion:</p>
<p>California Ivies: Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, Cal Tech, USC, UCSF, and Pomona</p>
<p>Up for consideration, depending on future performance: UCSD, Pepperdine, Claremont McKenna</p>
<p>I don't know much about UCSF, except that it's a graduate school. It doesn't fit as well with the others, but it could be the thing about the CA ivies that's unique. I fear putting USC in there, because it would be the lowest ivy, where as the rest are so much better. UCSD has a lot of potential, and I think that Pepperdine would be great for the location, but it def. needs to prove itself and improve it's rank.</p>
<p>I like calling it the Palm League though</p>
<p>fun thread. but, how about we take this thread into a more national spotlight like the "college search and selection" forum? why only let the berkeley forum have all the fun?</p>
<p>i second the Palm League name. our west coast institutions deserve an identity seperate from the "ivies" :)</p>
<p>but "the palms" sort of sounds like a las vegas casino</p>
<p>All the better, in order to show how in California we can mix makin' money with ritz and glamour!</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>Oh man, Vegas. I need to make a trip out there. $1 margaritas ain't nothin' to mess wit!</p>
<p>Pathetic. USC is just a huge private school the size of UCSD. It's huge. ***. It's lame. UCLA > USC anyday. CAL > UCLA ANYDAY.</p>
<p>The ivies are: StanFUrd, CalTech, Cal and the Claremont Colleges.</p>
<p>Forget USC. I would've NEVER paid $40k for a school like that. Even though I got in, I easily declined it because its not worth $40k. StanFUrd maybe worth the $40k, but definitely not USC</p>