<p>I've heard lots of things about USC, but i've always wondered, in terms of prestige...is USC in the same league as schools such as Berkeley, UCLA, etc?</p>
<p>this isn't going to influence my decision to go there, i'm just curious.</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA have a huge focus on graduate schools and research... in international rankings UCB and UCLA often climb above the Ivy League. However, international prestige doesn't really affect you, the American student. USC is generally considered to have an equally reputable undergraduate system. And USC has a few schools with prestige greater than UCB and UCLA, i.e. the film school. Honestly, though, the prestige differences between these three institutions will have little effect on your undergraduate education. Prestige is all about the connections you can make if you choose to pursue a career immediately after college, but USC has such an unrivaled alumni network that the name recognition of some other college is outweighed by being a member of the USC family.</p>
<p>IMO.</p>
<p>i think yes to UCLA, no to Cal. imo</p>
<p>yeah, i've always paired USC/UCLA together (rivalry!) and Berkeley as slightly higher up. All prestigious though, so yes, it's prestigious :)</p>
<p>We are not quite at the level of Berkeley, and even a little behind UCLA in terms of public perception. However, USC is quickly getting to that level.</p>
<p>The general public on the East Coast basically consider those two schools to be on the same level, but everyone I've talked to on the west coast have thought UCLA's more prestigious. But of course that doesn't mean anything to undergrad education.</p>
<p>k thanks guys ;-)</p>
<p>they are basically the same...the difference comes because we pay more money for school. They therefore think they are better/prestigious which is total bs. I got accepted both to cal and ucla and decided i didn't want to be 1 of 40,000 people. I actually wanted to know my professors and not live in a cracker jack box triple my freshman year. I didn't want to go to a school where the populations of ethnicities were completely out of wack. And i wanted to go to a school where it wasn't just california people but people from all over the world. the list can go on all day...</p>
<ol>
<li>Cal</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>USC</li>
</ol>
<p>I'm from NY, and I viewed UCLA and USC pretty much the same. I am applying for business, and I know that USC's Marshall is an excellent top notch program, while UCLA can't match up. Same goes for USC's #1 film school. USC is also a private institution, while UCLA remains public, which in many people's eyes, would make it less prestigious. I applied to USC for that reason, but not for the prestige, but to get into UCLA from out of state it extremely difficult simply because it is a state school.</p>
<p>USC also has a sick football team!!
Trojans!!</p>
<p>USC is a great school, but Cal and UCLA have a little better reputations. However, USC is just a good academically, and has amazing alumni support.</p>
<p>UCLA does not have an undergraduate business school.</p>
<p>All three are good schools. I spent substantial time looking at USC, Cal, and UCLA, and I was admitted to all of those schools. Each campus has a different ambiance, and each school has something different to offer to students. </p>
<p>Like alot of prospective students, I initially focused on what I would hear in conversations and I had high expectations of UC Berkeley before visiting the campus. I was set to go there when I was admitted, but I found the campus to be a major letdown and I was also disappointed with its undergraduate program. I went to the Cal Alumni Scholars overnight program amazed that class sizes were huge, the facitilites were not in pristine condidition, and programs such as specific study abroad programs characteristic of the USC experience were being cut at Cal as a result of state budget cuts. Most of what Cal lacked was the care and personal attention that characterize USC; it is still a great school. </p>
<p>It is true that USC has not always been a top school. Less than two decades ago, it was ranked on par with such mid-tier UC's as UCSD and UCI. I would argue that with its current faculty, programs, and student body that USC offers more to its students than any of the public schools in California, making it one of the most prestigious universities in the state.</p>
<p>proudtrojan, could you compare UCLA and USC a bit?</p>
<p>In many respects, USC is the West Coast prestige equivalent of East Coast NYU; everybody knows and respects the name, and certain programs of study are more prestigious than others. I agree that USC and UCLA are often lumped together while Berkeley's liberal, activist reputation adds to it's intellectual powerhouse reputation. The realities, however, are influenced by the financial "distress" of the state of California at Berkeley and UCLA. Any student paying out of state tuition should also look at programs of interest at very well funded USC. It would be interesting to hear from current UCLA and Berkeley students regarding class size, availability of classes and housing, and any comments about the high number of commuters.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree about UCLA/Berkeley's public school status as a disadvantage. You will find numerous large classes at any research university, public or private. In terms of funding, I would actually argue that the UCs have the advantage- they are mostly privately funded anyway but they have what elite private schools don't necessarily have- ACCOUNTABILITY. Whereas many private schools build up a large endowment to climb up in rankings and prestige, UC schools actually have to spend their money as they are financially audited and scrutinized by the state. Certain departments are VERY wealthy. From first-hand experience, I can tell you that the resources available for undergrad Molecular/Cell Biology undergrads at Berkeley BLOW AWAY the resources available for Biology undergrads at Stanford (although Stanford Marine Biology is unrivaled by Berkeley). </p>
<p>I have many friends that did their undergrad at USC, and a lot of them have the same complaints that Stanford students have- they feel like the administration is more concerned with promoting USC as an elite "club" and focusing on social satisfaction rather than working to make USC the best possible educational institution. Schools like USC and Stanford have very little incentive to improve their undergrad academics because the name sells itself, and they do not have the accountability problem. </p>
<p>When you pay extra tuition to attend a private over a public, don't automatically conclude that you are paying extra for a superior education. With that extra cost, you are buying membership to an exclusive club. That being said, don't under-estimate the perks of being in the Trojan Family either.</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments, but I am mostly concerned about class size and availability; both of which are impacted by California's budget crunch according to second hand sources with whom I have spoken, including a UC chair from UC Santa Barbara.</p>
<p>icy9ff8, I can't speak for all UC students about their respective UC school and all departments and classes within each UC, but from my personal experiences at UC Berkeley from 2002 to 2005, I have NEVER had a problem getting into required classes or classes of interest in my major (chemistry/biology) nor have I ever perceived that the classes were "too large".</p>
<p>California's budget crunch will likely raise student fees. I doubt it will have any impact on UC student population, class sizes, and course availability.</p>
<p>UCLA and Berkeley definitely have USC beat on the prestige factor.</p>
<p>But it's not too far behind UCLA, and it's definitely a rising star that's been on an impressive upwards trend for years.</p>