<p>
[quote]
It is the most difficult school to get into in the state of California, only behind Stanford.
[/quote]
Hmmm...
I can name several CA schools more competetive than USC in admission:</p>
<p>Caltech
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Berkeley</p>
<p>No doubt USC is rich and has a high-SAT-scoring student body, but it still has a ways to go in terms of faculty and program quality.</p>
<p>Peer Assessment measures top faculty and breadth and depth of programs...this is where USC lags, and it's reflected in the Peer Assessment score.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that UCLA and Berkeley, also receive a significant portion of their budget from the government. So comparing endowment figures per capita is a little misleading.</p>
<p>okay... USC has improved a lot!(Almost equal to UCLA) but do you think USC or UCLA will catch up UC Berkeley eventually?</p>
<p>^ In terms of student quality, it already is. In terms of faculty reputation and program prestige, these factors take a lot longer.</p>
<p>Keep in mind USC superscores the SATs, UC's don't. USC also does not publish a Common Data Set, therefore, you have to take these improvements on USC's word.</p>
<p>phear me,</p>
<p>awesome post! thanks for the info.</p>
<p>While UCLA and UCB do get state funding - remember that USC pulls in 3 times the amount of money either UC does via tuition (and also gives tremendous aid to needy students - but so does UCB and UCLA to be fair). Also: US News creates a COMMON DATA SET so the myth about published superscores scores, at leat when it comes to US NEWS, is false. They standardize all of the data. USC accepts superscores, but US NEWS standardizes so this argument is moot.</p>
<p>The faculty resources rank ousts any argument about the quality of USC's faculty compared to UCLA and UCB. Faculty resources is the money spent on acquiring top faculty (top faculty demand a higher salary) and the money spent supporting them once they are at the school. USC clearly dominates in this regard. </p>
<p>Generally, Alumni Giving is the biggest indicator of student satisfaction. If UCLA and UCB were so fantastic and USC "has a long way to go in faculty and programming", why do nearly 3 times as many USC students donate than their Bruin and Golden Bear counterparts?</p>
<p>To me, that SAYS IT ALL.</p>
<p>p.s. It's amazing to me that people, such as Torrancecali, will still say things like "USC has improved a lot (ALMOST equal to UCLA) but do you think UCLA or USC will catch up to Berkeley eventually?"</p>
<p>CATCH UP HOW? You just saw the facts - USC is clearly dominating BOTH institutions. If the numbers, sitting right in front of your face can't convince you, then I have no idea what to tell you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The faculty resources rank ousts any argument about the quality of USC's faculty compared to UCLA and UCB. Faculty resources is the money spent on acquiring top faculty (top faculty demand a higher salary) and the money spent supporting them once they are at the school. USC clearly dominates in this regard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, no doubt that USC has money to pay faculty...but I don't think faculty salaries are that much higher than UCB and UCLA, I'd have to see more proof.</p>
<p>The faculty resource ranking comes from these factors:
Faculty compensation 35%
Percent faculty with top terminal degree 15%
Percent full-time faculty 5%
Student/faculty ratio 5%
Class size, 1-19 students 30%
Class size, 50+ students 10%</p>
<p>To me, this is just a composite score of other objective factors. USC is favored because it has a lower student/faculty ratio, and better class sizes.</p>
<p>This does not say anything about faculty quality. If USC wants to be a top research university on the level of Berkeley, it needs more top faculty. USC only has one faculty Nobel prize. Factors like Nobel prizes and academy membership are more prestigious to academics...until USC has faculty that has these prizes, USC will be seen as inferior in academic's view...hence the lower PA score.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alumni Giving is the biggest indicator of student satisfaction.
[/quote]
While this may be true, there is a difference between publics and privates. Private universities always seem to have a higher alumni giving rate than publics. Now, public university alumni may, erroneously, believe that they don't have to give to a college because their tax dollars go to support it. I'll say Berkeley has been trying to get more alumni donations, and feel it's critical to maintaining success...hopefully, they get better in this regard in the future...I'm doing my part. :) </p>
<p>
[quote]
US News creates a COMMON DATA SET so the myth about published superscores scores, at leat when it comes to US NEWS, is false. They standardize all of the data. USC accepts superscores, but US NEWS standardizes so this argument is moot.
[/quote]
Do they? So, USNWR gets the raw SAT data and computes these averages itself? Seems kind of intensive for a magazine staff to be conducting, don't you think?</p>
<p>Common Data Set:</p>
<p>Using</a> the Common Data Set - Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings (usnews.com)</p>
<p>^ 10-4...</p>
<p>But if USC follows the CDS, why don't they publish it like other universities?</p>
<p>I haven't the slightest clue: I just know what the US News website says about their rankings and CDS, as provided in the link I posted.</p>
<p>Not to come off as treasonous, but, in the context of faculty quality, academic prestige, and overall contribution to science, I agree with UCBChemEGrad in his/her assessment of the disparity between USC profs and Cal profs. </p>
<p>While USC has only 1 Nobel prize winner, Cal has an innumerable amount (something horrendous like 30; I could wikipedia it, but I fear that if I log in to Wikipedia I'll start searching for other topics and waste even more time ). I think the underlying factor for such a large void between the two schools lies in the inherent nature of the graduate schools. As you probably know, most research is conducted not by undergrads, but by grad students and their supervisors. So while USC's undergrad population is on par with Cal's, its grad population is not. Understandably then, our ability to produce truly momentous research is deflated in comparison with Cal. </p>
<p>What I find disheartening about these sort of rankings is that they often facetiously attribute scientific contribution to teaching ability. To be honest, my best teacher didn't even have a phD (he was a 30 year old phD student) - what he did have though, was this uncanny ability to break things down, to make incredibly abstract concepts ridiculously lucid.</p>
<p>^ Hehe...thanks mrgorilla. For undergrad I do say USC, UCLA and Berkeley are peers - you cannot go wrong with either choice. However, I'm biased and I think Berkeley has more top programs than USC does.</p>
<p>I have more respect for USC than UCLA. IMO, USC is waaaay more original. ;)</p>
<p>I totally agree about UCLA. I do have to say that UC Berkeley is the TRUE public Univeristy of California. It seems like UCLA tried to create its own identity with the brand name UCLA in stead of tring to associate itself with the UC system with a name like UC Los Angeles. They stole the Cal colors, they stole the Cal mascot, and they stole the Cal Fight Song!!</p>
<p>I actually like Cal. I almost went there, but on the day that I submitted my SIR, I decided that USC is better!</p>
<p>Honestly, it seems that every UC has stolen their colors from Cal. I have seen UCSD, UCD, UCI (though not as many), UCSC and UCLA sweatshirts in navy blue and gold.</p>
<p>Technically, Cal shares all of the symbols of the state of California, being the CA state school (i.e. the bear, the colors blue and gold, the redwoods planted around the campus). As "branches" of the same UC system, the other UC's all use the same colors. I guess UCLA can be thought of as "innovative" in that they use a baby blue at times instead of a navy. How creative!</p>
<p>proudtrojan is right - I've been told that all UCs are supposed to have a bear as their mascot, the same school colors, etc. It's part of the state-run University of California system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
all UCs are supposed to have a bear as their mascot
[/quote]
Not true.</p>
<p>UCSC = Banana Slugs
UCD = Aggies
UCI = Anteaters
UCSD = Tritons
UCSB = Gauchos
UCR = Highlanders
UCM = Bobcats</p>
<p>They do, however, all have blue and gold variation of color.</p>
<p>This is off the topic of mascots and colors, but many people are saying that USC is on the rise and is no longer just the "University of spoiled children" as my dad always says (he went to Berkeley), so do you think this is true? If I go to USC now, will it be an awesome honor in 15 years?</p>
<p>15 years? You are heavily underestimating USC.</p>
<p>^^hes right...USC already has top-notch nationally recognised programs that will get you far in life....
I cant even wait to see where USC will get to in 15 years</p>