<p>First of all, I should state that I am biased toward UCSD because I went there but I think there are arguments to be made its on par with USC. UCSD does have a better life sciences department across many disciplines (more NAS members, research spending, nobel laureates, research institutes; salk, scripps etc) and has a equally reputable engineering department. Even in social sciences, UCSD has a much better politics and economics departments (both top ten programs in the nation). In terms of quality of students, USC, unlike UCs, take the best of math/verbal scores while UCs take the best single seating so on paper, it might seem like USC is ahead of many UCs but that may not be the actual case. In fact, I suspect USC's strength of students may not stem from purely academic attractions but generous aid packages. I certainly considered it when I was applying because USC gave me alot of money. I think when students are accepted into both USC and UCSD it is not automatic that they take one over the other. In terms of quality of life, UCSD is in a much better area, La Jolla is absolutely beautiful and safe. USC has a bigger partying scene and frat community while UCSD is much more sedate with a more academically focused campus culture. Overall, I definitely wouldnt put USC automatically over UCSD.</p>
<p>ok, I used to work at JPL(Cal Tech research lab) and worked with a lot of people from Cal Tech and also a lot of people from UC Berkely. I think Cal Tech's strong point is physical sciences while Berkeley is EE/CS.</p>
<p>"USC, unlike UCs, take the best of math/verbal scores while UCs take the best single seating so on paper"</p>
<p>UCLA can use this to argue, but UCSD is too far behind USC to make something out of this.</p>
<p>"USC's strength of students may not stem from purely academic attractions but generous aid packages"</p>
<p>I think USC people can say UCSD (or any UCs) strength stems from the cheap tutitions not academics tractions. This is more legit than yours.</p>
<p>UCSD's course quality is not higher than at USC. They tops the rank in life sciences because they have many established big names, but they are becoming too old, you know what I mean. The undergrade student quality at UCSD is defintely lower than USC's overall. But they get good graduate students from all over the world.</p>
<p>I don't think UCSD should be ranked higher solely because of one or two of its taunted majors, while it already benefits greatly reputation-wise from the bio-related researches.</p>
<p>Gutrade-</p>
<p>Estas muy cobarde porque tu divulgaste el poste al administrador. Esta discusion esta abrumando por tu?</p>
<p>Undergraduate education,</p>
<p>Should include Pomona and Harvey Mudd at the top. Pomona certainly is on par with UCLA/USC etc. Undergradwise certainly
1.Stanford
Caltech (maybe tie)
3.Berkeley
4.UCLA
For large schools.
Graduate school
1.Berkeley</p>
<p>2.Stanford
3.Caltech
No argument because of well roundedness (number of programs with international academic acclaim and faculty)</p>
<p>alwaysthere,</p>
<p>hmm, i think i have to differ with you on some points. For 2004 (I dont have 2005 stats for ucsd), enrolled freshmen at usc and ucsd had a gpa and sat of 3.89/3.96 and 1301/1242 respectively. This may due to the fact UCs select more on gpa and USC puts more emphasis on SAT (UCSD employs comprehensive review). Furthermore, USC takes best of multiple sittings which makes it hard to quantify though the gap of 60 points is still considerable. On the otherhand, as recent as 2002/2003, UCSD and USC were ranked in parity on US news and report. It is now ranked 35th and 30th respectively though UCSD is only technically two ranks behind as Brandeis/NYU/UW-M share the ranking just before. I think USC was able to surge in the last couple of years but a couple of years do not a superior institution make. It is far from certain if USC will be able to consolidate its place or it may fluctuate around the 30s like UCSD. In terms of biology and life sciences, UCSD does have some big names in the field but you are mistaken if they alone carry the department. If you look at UCSD investment, infrastructure, research, projects, it is one of the most solidly integrated/sound bio-life sciences research environments in the nation. UCSD aggressively recruits and produces thus unlike what you hinted, as some academics get old or die off, UCSD's bio/bioeng/neuro sci and general life sciences programs will go into drastic decline or something. As a student of social sciences, I am just amazed that UCSD doest get its due as UCSD's politics and econ departments are both simply amazing. Arguably, both departments are the hottest rising stars in the UC system.</p>
<p>UCSD engineering is great also.</p>
<p>Someone please explain why everyone thinks Cal Tech is so great. Would you go there for art, music, English, film, business, history, or sociology. On the other hand you would go to many of the other Universities mentioned in these lists for engineering as well as art, music, etc. So what's makes it as good as Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA or USC?</p>
<p>It's a matter of caliber. What makes Caltech so great is the fact that EVERY single student there is incredibly smart and accomplished. The fact that they are geniuses in math, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering makes them even more impressive. Only HYSPMC can boast student bodies that trump all others, and this is what props Caltech above every UC and puts them on par with Stanford.</p>
<p>I' still remain unconvinced. Sounds like it lacks by a wide margin the breadth of educational opportunities that MIT provides outside of the sciences.</p>
<p>Caltech is a trade school.</p>
<p>Stanford
Berkeley
Cal Tech
UCLA
UCD
UCSD
UCI
Cal Poly SLO
USF
USC</p>
<p>Gutrade, you're talking like a true theoretical person. I have some example to prove Cal Tech is not a great school. My brother's ex-boss graduated from Cal Tech, yes he said there were a lot of smart people, but he did not learn a thing from Cal Tech, professors expect you to know it/figure it out on your own. He only realized it when he went to UCLA for Master Degree, where he learned so much more. If that is your definition of a great school then Cal Tech is a great school but it's not everybody's definition.</p>
<p><em>EDIT</em> I have relatives(by marriage) that went to Cal Tech recently on merit scholarship, so I'm not bashing it for the sake of bashing it. I'm speaking the truth.</p>
<p>I dont know why people affliated with Berkeley are always so quick to denounce schools that are far superior than their own. They bash Stanford, Caltech, Princeton, the "lower" ivies, and basically any school that provides a superior education. They even try to put down schools they are on par with like UCLA, USC, and the like.</p>
<p>And you're ready to bash Berkeley at the drop of a pin, so it about rounds things off...</p>
<p>"Stanford
Berkeley
Cal Tech
UCLA
UCD
UCSD
UCI
Cal Poly SLO
USF
USC"</p>
<p>Wow. I would rebut this... but I think the lack of research, let alone basic common sense, put into this speaks for itself.</p>
<p>Stanford
Cal Tech
Cal
USC
UCLA
UCSD
UCD
UCSB
UCI</p>
<p>Gutrade is mad because he got rejected from Cal and Stanfurd. Your bitterness is warrented but its also very ugly. Get on with life. Dry your eyes. THink of unicorns. Take Bobby McFerron's advise and "be happy." Just because these fine insitutions decided that you don't measure up to thier standards does not mean that you are useless. Not by any stretch of the imagination. After all, someone needs to respond when the intercom says "clean-up on isle nine."</p>
<p>he also compares berkeley to USC</p>
<p>HA!
yeah right. The trojans arent even on par with the bruins much less ucb</p>
<p>I never applied to Berkeley. I thought about applying there as a safety school after I got rejected from Stanford EA, but the deadline passed. At the time, Columbia was the lowest school I applied to and I was in desperate need of a true safety school. Anyway, everything worked out in the end, and I'll be attending the Y in HYPS. </p>
<p>Yes I got rejected from Stanford, but if I was so bitter about that, why do I always say good things about the school? That's because I don't let personal circumstances cloud my judgement about the truth of the situation. Stanford is a superb school, so even though they rejected me I will still post about how it's an excellent institution. Caltech is a superb school. Even though I have no affiliation to Caltech, I will post about how it's a great place. I never applied to Berkeley and have never been "personally offended" by the school. But in a college discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of a college, I will freely talk about my opinions and point out the fact that I dont think Berkeley is a good place to receive an undergrad education. It's nothing personal. It's never been personal.</p>