<p>Here's my opinion about that^- I'm sure some will argue otherwise.</p>
<p>In GENERAL, with crossover of course, (from my kids' HS in Orange County), the purist, intelligent academians want UCLA; the highly motivated, intelligent go-getters want USC. </p>
<p>(OK- I admit- this comes from a biased USC alum with two USC kids.)</p>
<p>I agree with that assessment.</p>
<p>I agree that USC and UCLA are generally equally prestigious at the undergraduate level now, but this is a very recent achievement. What people here may not realize is that USC has <em>decades</em> of poor academic performance to overcome relative to UCLA, other UCs, Occidental, the Pomona colleges, </p>
<p>In the 1970's when I attended Stanford and UCLA, USC was not even on the map academically. If there had been a ranking, it would have been on par with Santa Clara, University of the Pacific, and other schools ranked around 100-150 currently. Students with B and B- average were admitted without difficulty... some even with C averages. In the 70s USC was no more selective than Cal State Long Beach, Cal State Fullerton, Cal Poly Pomona, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, or Whittier College.</p>
<p>Things have changed a lot in 30 years. Undergrad is top tier, professional schools have always been, and non-professional PhD programs are the next to be upgraded. As I mentioned on the other part of this website, USC was ranked #35 in PhD programs across 41 disciplines from 1994 data. I would expect the next publicaiton of these data to show USC in the mid 20s. In another 20 years, mid teens.</p>
<p>USC's improvement has been very impressive, if not startling. The USC of 10 years ago is not the same as the USC today.</p>
<p>what exactly is USCs rise in the ranks of colleges due to? was it a large grant of some kind? or maybe because its been in some recent hollywood movies? because i know that good students dont usually apply to a number 100 without some reason...</p>
<p>I think part of it was a surge in applications due to its Los Angeles location, the reputation of its student body, etc.</p>
<p>The rate of improving is impressive, so if it keeps continue at this rate it will be catching up to Stanford. At least I'm hoping. :D</p>
<p>i actually had a long conversation with a professor who teaches mathematics about this. USC started boosting its status by putting lots of money into the school and by attracting better students about 14 years ago. They then made an effort to get better "super" professors. So among the faculty, there is something of a rift between the groups that came before that time and after.</p>
<p>USC is much less of a party school now than it was. In the professor's words, now "you can actually walk around and here people talk about material."</p>
<p>That is always good.</p>
<p>It started with the tenure of USC's current president, Steven Sample. He increased dramatically the number of merit scholarships awarded, and began Building on Excellence campaign to raise money for the university. He aimed to raise $1 billion in 7 years, instead he helped raise almost $3 billion in 9 years. As stated earlier, USC has used the money to attract faculty and fund research.</p>
<p>Here's an article that sheds light on the improvement question: National</a> CrossTalk -- Vol. 13 / No. 3 -- Summer 2005</p>
<p>according to USC site, average class size is 26 and student faculty ratio is 14:1</p>
<p>Formerlyabcdefgh: Since when did Berkeley have ANY marine biology? I'm curious b/c that's my intended major and I've never considered Berkeley.</p>
<p>^I think it does because I've met people collect species near Half-Moon Bay's dock that came from UCB, so they must have a marine biology program. I remebered asking them why they collected these things and they said it's for UCB.</p>
<p>I was at a presentation given by USC's director of Admissions and he presented this interesting comparision between the USC of 1992 and the USC of 2007</p>
<p>Topic, 1992 Stat; 2007 Stat
Applicants, 13,362; 33,760 (150% increase)
Admissions Rate, 68%; 25%
Enrolled Freshmen, 2,327; 2,963
Average SAT Score of Enrolled Freshmen, 1094; 1375(2060) a 260 point increase
Average GPA of Enrolled Freshmen, 3.49; 4.09
% Under-represented Ethnic Groups, 12%; 21%
% From California, 75%; 52%</p>
<p>For 2008, there are 37,000 applicants, and 20% will be admitted. The target freshmen class size is 2,600 students.</p>
<p>I gotta give the Condoms credit, it is impressive. But, I wonder how much of this has to do with the notion that a rising tide floats all boats...it's become enormously more competitive for college admissions due to Tidal Wave II.</p>
<p>USC has improved its financial situation over the last 20 years (not just beginning from President Sample's tenure). I heard during some time in the 70s, USC was going bankrupt. However the main reason for this rising in quality is the change of mindset. The administration and faculty are really trying to achieve excellence, unlike before they were complacent about their academic profile and put more efforts on building the "club". </p>
<p>Most of the faculty will tell you "we are much better now", and they feel very supported and confident when applying for federal research grant.</p>
<p>First of all - lets get it straight:</p>
<p>The average SAT score at USC is 100 points higher than the average SAT score at UCLA and even more so than Berkeley. It is the most difficult school to get into in the state of California, only behind Stanford. </p>
<p>If you simply look at the US News data (go to Barnes and Noble and LOOK instead of trusting anonymous people who don't know what they're talking about!) you will see that USC beats UCLA in 90% of all relevant categories. The ONLY reason UCLA is ranked (by an arse hair) above USC is because of peer reputation score, which is the single most important assessment in the US NEWS ranking system. Many deans who's impressions were formed 25 years ago aren't privy to the drastic improvement of USC over the last 15 years and continue to rank the school lower than it should be. </p>
<p>The difference between the culture of the UCLA and USC is phenomenal: </p>
<p>UCLA is a fine state school and the students, while reasonably proud, go to UCLA for 4 years and then move on with life. </p>
<p>USC has the strongest alumni network on the planet and the most school spirit of any school on the west coast - and arguably in the country. A person graduates from USC in 4 years, but they are a Trojan for life. It is expected that one Trojan will aid another when asked. That's JUST THE WAY IT IS. This intense pride is why most people perceive bruins as having a chip on their shoulder. They feel (based on old and currently false perceptions) that they go to a better school and yet the Trojans are 10 times more proud to be at USC. It drives them crazy.</p>
<p>Next year, USC WILL pass UCLA in the rankings. It's already beating it in every category and expect the subjective peer reputation score to go up just enough to allow the factual data points where USC is leading to boost it over the UCLA and into the top 25.</p>
<p>UCLA does have superior science programs (with a few exceptions, such as engineering) while USC has superior professional programs (with a few exceptions, such as the MBA program). Expect USC to catch up on the sciences over the next 10 years. For now, only an unreasonable person would say USC leads UCLA in that department. </p>
<p>But for UNDERGRADUATE experience, student quality, class size, endowment per student, and a lifetime of connections USC wins hands down.</p>
<p>I also read somewhere that several recruiters are moving out of UCLA in favour of USC...including investment banks such as Goldman and morgan stanley....i cant really back this statement up with hard proof but i know for a fact that it is true</p>
<p>Here are the facts - USC DOMINATES</p>
<p>Period!</p>
<p>US NEWS HARD DATA</p>
<p>Peer Assessment Score (5.0 highest): </p>
<p>Berkeley: 4.8
UCLA: 4.2
USC: 4.0</p>
<p>Average Freshman Retention Rate: </p>
<p>Berkeley / UCLA: 97% (tie)
USC: 95%</p>
<p>Faculty Resources Rank:
USC: 28
Berkeley: 38
UCLA: 42</p>
<p>2006 % of classes with 50 or more:
USC: 12%
Berkeley: 14%
UCLA 20%</p>
<p>2006 % of classes with 20 or less:
USC: 62%
Berkeley: 61%
UCLA: 54%</p>
<p>Student/Faculty Ratio:
USC: 10/1
Berkeley: 15/1
UCLA: 16/1</p>
<p>Endowment per undergrad student:
USC: $183,270.67
Berkeley: $140,163.43
UCLA: $114,285.07</p>
<p>SAT 25th – 75th percentile:
USC: 1280 - 1460<br>
Berkeley: 1200 - 1450
UCLA: 1180-1410 </p>
<p>Freshmen in top 10% of HS class:
Berkeley: 99%
UCLA: 97%
USC 86%</p>
<p>Acceptance Rate:
Berkeley: 24%
USC: 25%
UCLA: 26%</p>
<p>Alumni Giving Rank:
USC: 15
Berkeley/UCLA: 117 (tie)</p>
<p>Alumni Giving Rate
USC: 35%
Berkeley/UCLA: 14% (tie)</p>
<p>Alumni Giving Rank:
USC: 15
Berkeley/UCLA: 117 (tie)</p>
<p>wow....</p>