<p>UCSD should be on top of UCLA, guys!!!!</p>
<p>Tier 1. Stanford, Caltech
Tier 2. Berkeley, UCLA
Tier 3. UCSD, USC
Tier 4. UCI, UCSB, UCD, Cal Poly SLO
Tier 5. UCSC, UCR, SDSU</p>
<p>Tier 1 Stanford
Tier 2 Caltech
Tier 3 Berkeley, UCLA, Pomona, Harvey Mudd
Tier 4 UCSD, USC, etc.</p>
<p>Tier 1: Stanford, Caltech
Tier 2: Berkeley
Tier 3: UCLA, USC, Pomona, Harvey
Tier 4: UCSD, CMC
Tier 5: Mid UC's, Scripps, Pitzer</p>
<p>Going off of 2004 stats....
USC
Applicants 29,278
Those who accepted offers 2,976
Avg. Admitted GPA (of matriculants- those who enroll) 3.99
Avg. SATs scores (of matriculants) "1270 - 1420)"
NAS Members 10
Nobel Laureates 1
Established in 1880
Source " <a href="http://afaweb.esd.usc.edu/USC-AFA/upload_images/ACF5F.pdf">http://afaweb.esd.usc.edu/USC-AFA/upload_images/ACF5F.pdf</a>"</p>
<p>UCSD
Applicants 41,330
Those who accepted offers 3,874
Avg. Admitted GPA (of matriculants- those who enroll) 3.96
Avg. SATs scores (of matriculants) 1242
NAS Members 67
Nobel Laureates 15
Established in 1959
Source "<a href="http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/sriweb/profile2004.pdf">http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/sriweb/profile2004.pdf</a>"</p>
<p>The funny thing about statistics is that they are never concrete. We can look at different variables that affect admssions data and the numbers will change. They only way to get "decent results" is to build a regression model with all variables. The matriculation rate was included because it accounts for actual students attending the university. Schools love to publish numbers for the "applicant pool" but don't account for the fact that those same students were admitted to Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc. Good statistical boosters for the "safety schools." We could get into the public school vs. private school debate. Being a public school, UCSD has to report to the state and its tax paying constituents, a factor which directly affects admissions standards. Being privately funded, USC probably does not encounter that problem. Is USC better than UCSD??? I am a UCSD alum so I would have to say yes, but that's my biased opinion.</p>
<p>UCSCR = UCSC and UCR, because their academic rankings are very comparable. You would think the geniuses on CC would be able to figure that one out. Oh, and MegaStud, using your logic, USC would be just as good a school as Berkeley is (similar acceptance rate and higher SAT avg at USC). What you fail to remember is that acceptance rate is relative to the POPULARITY of a school, not its quality. USC is old, has football, and is a household name down here. Tons of people apply there, even those that will likely be rejected. It has the ability to reject plenty of students because of its popularity (which was won primarily due to the prestige of its football program and visual arts departments). University of Chicago's acceptance rate borders 40% every year, but does that mean USC is better than Chicago? Also, USC takes the highest math and verbal scores from individual sittings, while the UC's take the highest combined. This gives USC an advantage when they report avg SAT scores. And, in response to the statement on the inconsequential difference between US News Peer Ratings (and overall rankings), how reliable of a source do you consider US News to be? And, just a reminder, in 2001, UCSD was ranked 31 while USC was ranked 35. Rankings fluctuate. Furthermore, UCSD is not only strong in biology. It is strong in the sciences overall, in engineering, in the social sciences, and the acceptance rates of undergrads to med and law school rival that of Berkeley's. Take your own advice and look at the statistics. The comparative politics department at UCSD was ranked second only to Harvard by NRC and the poli sci department as a whole was ranked seventh in the nation. And, UCSD is only about 40 years old. Even if SD is not superior to USC (which I do not believe it is - each institution has its pros and cons) you cannot just casually brush off UCSD as an inferior TTT.</p>
<p>TritonBruin,</p>
<p>The statistics I used are from the Princeton Review (<a href="http://www.review.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.review.com</a>) and use the matriculated student statistics. If it were simply admitted students, USC's SAT would be 1390 and I expect UCSD's admitted SAT would be much higher as well. </p>
<p>Sunful Saint,</p>
<p>I don't understand your rebuttal; I included a variety of statistics, including those not related to admissions. Popularity is a non-issue because, as TritonBruin pointed out, UCSD actually receives more applicants (due to the UC's common app). Also, how do you defend your statement that USC's popularity "was won primarily due to the prestige of its football program and visual arts departments." Right, I'm sure those four-oh students with 1350's want to come to USC because they're all football fans. </p>
<p>Regarding your statement "how realiable of a source do you consider US News to be?" remember that US News doesn't just pluck its Peer Assessment score out of the sky. The Peer Assessment score is the average of what every other university surveyed determines each school's relative academic strength to be. Obviously, as these professors read each other's papers, adcoms select each other's students, etc. they're in a good position to determine which school is stronger -- and they've spoken. </p>
<p>I don't doubt that UCSD's comparative poli sci was ranked #2 in the nation. However, I could point out how USC film is #1, graduate engineering is #6, undergrad business is #9, accounting #4, journalism top 10, music top 10, communications top 10, public affairs #6, PT #1, OT #1, Grad Social Wrok #4 in the nation, etc. etc.</p>
<p>And I never said UCSD was a TTT. I'm a native San Diegan myself and respect the school. I'm only saying anyone who ranks it above 'SC is either uninformed or biased. To be fair, I'm certainly biased towards USC but for anyone objective out there, I don't see how anyone can compare the information I posted above (or even take a look at every statistic on the PR) and rank UCSD higher.</p>
<p>That's all I'm saying.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is common knowledge that PR's statistics are outdated.</p></li>
<li><p>Many people only apply to UCSD because it's as easy as clicking a mouse button. When they are accepted, they still know so little about the university that many reject the offer. USC's popularity and location provide it with a high yield rate, allowing for a smaller admitted group. Just because the yield is high does not mean the students at USC are better than at SD. You never responded to the way USC reports their SAT averages. Furthermore, the method by which UCSD calculates high school GPA is transparent, while USC's is not. So how do you really know that the academic calibre of students at USC is higher than that of those at SD?</p></li>
<li><p>The difference in the US News Peer Ratings and Rankings are negligible. As I said, just a few years back, the rankings of the two schools were switched.</p></li>
<li><p>It is obvious why many rate UCSD higher academically than USC. In a comparison of ALL academic departments (not just an anecdotal few) UCSD was ranked 10th overall when the scores for all the programs they offer were averaged. USC ranked 46th. When UCSD's programs were ranked (including "0" scores for programs that UCSD does not offer), UCSD was ranked 21st while USC was still ranked 46th. So how is it not reasonable for posters to rank UCSD higher?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>USC sent out about 4 letters/school brochures to every high school students. whether that person is a 2.0 student or the school Valadictorian. thier marketing scheme is how they got where they are. No one i know during high school ever recieve a letter from any UC's without asking for it. The product sell itself, unlike USC who have to beg people to come. They offer free rides to kid who would other wise be paying full tutition elsewhere, and they tell kids about their so-call USC connection. which there is no concrete prove that it is more prevalent than other private school.</p>
<p>UCSD should be on top of UCLA, guys!!!!</p>
<p>no way. UCLA is a much better school in terms of graduate and undergraduate. the only area i can think UCSD is better is in biomed program. but for history, engineering, chemistry, english, law grad, business grad - essentially everything else, UCLA is superior. that's absurd. :p</p>
<p>my criteria: quality of program, but i rank well-rounded research universities over those that are 'well-lopsided'
can't do tier. they are differences that i can't ignore. :p</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford (best all around, humanities - esp. grad business and law schools + math/science)</li>
<li>Berkeley (best grad chem in nation, very good law, business, etc. - fairly well rounded)</li>
<li>Caltech (superior science -esp. physics - and math departments. comparably weak humanities)</li>
<li>UCSD (good biomed program, as well as math - i think one of the last mathematicians w/ erdos number of 1 is there), USC (film, basically controls SoCal business scene, ok overall)
.....and everything else</li>
</ol>
<p>"1. It is common knowledge that PR's statistics are outdated."</p>
<p>Check it yourself; these are up to date. As the gap between USC's statistics and UCSD's grows wider each year, outdated statistics would actually be in UCSD's favor.</p>
<ol>
<li>"Just because the yield is high does not mean the students at USC are better than at SD."</li>
</ol>
<p>I never posted yield, which as you say, is much higher. I only posted percentage granted admission, of which, there is a phenomenal difference.</p>
<p>"You never responded to the way USC reports their SAT averages. Furthermore, the method by which UCSD calculates high school GPA is transparent, while USC's is not. So how do you really know that the academic calibre of students at USC is higher than that of those at SD?"</p>
<p>It's not the way USC reports its SAT average as the majority of schools do so in this manner; its how the UC's report their averages. Regardless, do you think UCSD, reporting the highest V/M of any sitting could make up such a huge deficit? Doubtful. Find me someone whose difference in SAT between the situation was that great. And the reason UCSD is transparent with its GPA compilating method is because it's so maligned. USC likely (though I'm not sure), uses the high school's reported GPA and standardizes it for those schools who do not weight, or do not use a 5.0 scale.</p>
<p>"3. The difference in the US News Peer Ratings and Rankings are negligible. As I said, just a few years back, the rankings of the two schools were switched."</p>
<p>As aforementioned, each year USC's statistics make it "stronger" than UCSD. Look for the forthcoming years to not be so negligible. And are these negligible because they're in USC's favor?</p>
<p>Okay, so you have your own ranking scheme which shows UCSD higher. I have US News, and the list that shows schools as ranked by college preference, and others.</p>
<p>Right butterfish, like the person above who thinks USC got where it is because of it's football team, I'm sure many bright students chose USC because it had a cool viewbook. In theory then, if UC Riverside was to start a football program and print pretty fliers, it could catapult itself in the rankings, right?</p>
<p>And your comment about the Trojan Network makes me laugh. I'm writing this post from an internship that I got almost purely because my padfolio had the USC seal on it. Meritorious? No. Fair? Nope. But will I take advantage of it? You bet I will.</p>
<p>You disregard the fact that while USC is becoming stronger, so is SD. I think we should both just shut up and see what happens in the next few years. They're both good schools, but USC never really did it for me.</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>...based on the last few pages of posts, the California schools should be ranked in tiers and include LACs and CSUs...</p>
<p>Tier 1: Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley
Tier 2: UCLA, UCSD, USC
Tier 3: UCSB, UCI, UCD, Claremont Colleges, Cal Poly SLO
Tier 4: UCSC, UCR, SDSU.</p>
<p>Well, gee... If the Claremont Colleges and Cal Poly get to play, what about Occidental, Pepperdine, Loyola Marymount, USD, USF, St. Mary's, Santa Clara, (and I'm sure I left a lot more out)?</p>
<p>As for California Catholic Colleges/Universities goes...</p>
<ol>
<li>Santa Clara U. </li>
<li>Loyola Marymount U.</li>
<li>Univ. of San Diego</li>
<li>Univ. of San Francisco</li>
<li>St. Mary's College of California</li>
<li>Dominican Univ. of California</li>
<li>Thomas Aquinas College</li>
<li>Holy Names College</li>
</ol>
<p>If Pepperdine and Occidental were in the mix,
1. Pepperdine
2. Occidental
...
...
...</p>
<p>Sorry you took offense. I never applied to USC because I did not find it appealing. It's called... personal taste and opinion? Believe me, I was considering USC for a long time, but when I visited (and yes, I did visit) nothing about the school clicked for me. The presentations for the departments I'm interested in were lackluster, the students I met were rude, I've never really liked LA, and I prefer more modern architecture. Before you categorize me into a group of people that judge universities (or anything for that matter) without basis, you might want to ask me WHY "USC never really did it for me."</p>
<br>
<p>"but USC never really did it for me." this is so little yet says so much. this is how everybody who isnt a Trojan or Trojan-affiliated feels. and for no real reason. sorry we did you the wrong way, you loser.<</p>
<br>
<p>Just because someone said 'USC never did it for me', you had to call someone a loser? thats just plain ignorant. I hope you are not representative of your school.</p>
<p>
That statement says more about you than it does about sinful_saint.
I would expect nothing better... :rolleyes:</p>