Let's play rank California universities...

College Search & Selection
161

<p>Heh, I like how you put Cal and LA in one group but USC and UCSD in another. While USC and UCSD are not in the top 25, UCLA is at and Cal is near the end of the group. SC and SD are only five and seven spots, respectively, from being a part of it. SC and SD are more comparable to UCLA than they are to the three middle UC's.</p>

<p>To Megastud: I have a great deal of respect for USC, but when discussing SC's and SD's USNews rankings with you, you told me the "negligible" (my word) difference between the rankings of the schools would grow... I just had to chuckle when I saw SC stay at 30 and SD move from 35 to 32.</p>

162

<p>I concede that I was off on that one. Just based on past USNWR's (USC jumped from 36 to 30 a couple of years ago) and the fact that USC has only gotten stronger, I predicted much the same.</p>

163

<p>University of California San Diego Campus has lack of school spirit and alumni network with no division 1 college sports. Not in PAC-10....too bad.</p>

<p>USC is balanced with what a prestigious institution should have.
On the other hand, UCSD is skewed, but it is a great school though.</p>

164

<p>"University of California San Diego Campus has lack of school spirit and alumni network with no division 1 college sports. Not in PAC-10....too bad.</p>

<p>USC is balanced with what a prestigious institution should have.
On the other hand, UCSD is skewed, but it is a great school though."</p>

<hr>

<p>Characteristic of any incredibly young school, isn't it?</p>

165

<p>If we use SAT scores as a rough indication, the average undergraduate student quality in Berkeley is far below Stanford and Cal Tech.</p>

<p>2003 SAT Mid 50% Scores (25% < Mid 50% < 75%):
Verbal Math School
700-780 760-800 Cal Tech
670-770 690-780 Stanford
670-750 720-790 Harvey Mudd
680-760 680-750 Pomona
600-700 620-710 USC
560-700 510-740 Berkeley
560-680 600-720 UCLA
560-660 610-710 UCSD</p>

166

<p>Remember that the UCs take best sitting, whereas the others let you mix and match. At first glance you might not think that matters, but think back on your own or friends SATs. Did you know people that studied hard for one portion and neglected the others because they knew they could take it again? I know I could have picked up about 40 points if I could have mixed and matched.</p>

167

<p>Are you all seriously measuring the "quality" of the student body based on a standardized test. That seems funny to me. Just to remind you, UC was so upset wit the SAT they made the college board change it. Why, because it wasn't relfecting what they needed to know. I don't think you can boil down "quality" an SAT number. And besides, when was the last time you saw a resume of a person 20 years out of school that listed their SAT score? If it was such an indicator of a "quality" person than why not? Becuase its not an indicator. There is a tremendous amount of academic literature based around inherit biases in all standardized tests. Couple that with the fact that gap grows wider as students take prep courses for the test. Now place another overlay on the issue. Public Schools have a different mission than private schools. They have different obligations to the public good. Looks to me like SATs aren't as much of an indicator of student sucess (which is what it is supposed to determine, not "quality") as it should be. I challenge you to go back and read some of the articles written by, and written about Richard Atkinson, he is a UCSD psychologisit who focused on test and evaluaiton theory, and then went on to be UC President. He was the UC president who pushed around the college board on the SAT. Its interesting to see what he has to say, what he wanted changed and why? It turns out, his concerns were as much about forcing proper K-12 preperation as it was about indicating college sucess.</p>

168

<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Pomona</li>
<li>UC-Berkeley
5.USC
6.UCLA
7.Harvey Mudd/Claremont McKenna</li>
<li>Occidental</li>
<li>Scripps</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>Pepperdine</li>
<li>Pitzer
The rest of the UC's, maybe</li>
</ol>

169

<p>Yea, you're definitely from Massachusetts...</p>

170

<p>Well, if that's the standard East Coast perception of Western schools then I'll take it.</p>

171

<p>I think the debate between UCSD and USC is one of great interest but when it comes down to it, its how well you do at these institutions. Its about academic and social fit and these two schools provide a great contrast: old v new, sporty v academic, LA v La Jolla...</p>

172

<p>yeah 215, I agree that simply using SAT scores do draw conclusions about the overall strength of a student body is inherently flawed; it's simply one of many metrics that should be used. However, I also think using graduate rankings to draw conclusions about the overall strength of entire institutions as a whole is severely flawed. Okay, so UCSD is ranked higher in departments where it goes head to head with USC. What does that mean? It means that UCSD is ranked higher in departments that go head to head with USC. It does not at all mean that UCSD is a stronger overall institution or that its graduate programs as a whole are better. After all, you like to disregard all the other top-20 (some top 10) programs USC offers its grad students (communications, journalism, music, public policy, law, business...) - they apparently don't count because UCSD doesn't offer them. Does this reasoning seem sound to you? The very fact that USC offers so much more (and often highly ranked) than UCSD should count for something. It at least has its strengths diversified. What comes to mind when one thinks of UCSD. The Biological Sciences. How about USC? It could be a number of things. If I wanted a top-20 law school, where could I find one? Not in La Jolla, CA. Wait, that doesn't matter, right?</p>

<p>Alternatively, UCSD has made amazing strides in its short life span. In fact, I think the speed with which it and UCLA have risen to where they are makes them two of the greatest success stories in higher ed. But as to which one is improving at a more dramatic pace? If you count the past 40, UCSD. Past 10 and the future? USC. When UCSD surpasses Harvard with its capital drive campaign and when its SAT scores rise 200 points to surpass Berkeley in just five years and when UCSD decides to spend upwards of $100M on a major faculty recruitment drive (doubtful considering this would be more than 10% of its paultry endowment) and when UCSD manages to surpass Columbia and Yale in total fundraising (to disburse on top academics and students) and rounds the top 5 in this category then perhaps you can argue that UCSD has made great strides in the past ten years and will continue to do so in the forseeable future. Admittedly, perhaps the reason USC has made such great strides is because it has had further to go. But considering the admitted freshman class was stronger than last year's (and significantly stronger than UCSD's by any means of measurement) and fundraising is on track and that the expensive-as-hell senior faculty recruitment drive is underway and the fact that USC plans to build 28 new state-of-the-art facilities in the next 12 years... I would say it shows no sign of slowing.</p>

173

<p>Certainly USC isnt the only school that will progress. USC is making a great financial push and it remains to seen if it will pay off. USC students love their school and think that it should rise. It is rising. They dont realize however not everyone share their unabiding faith in the greatness of their school. One should stop while they are ahead and stop claiming that USC is automatically better than UCSD. UCSD doesnt have a law school but it does have better econ and politics departments (both top ten in the nation, outside of bio) than USC. I am not a bio major but I think I received a great social science eduation at UCSD and I chose it over USC. </p>

<p>Just because USC is spending alot of money and their freshmen stats are getting better (though they take the best combination of multiple SAT sittings), it doesnt mean they will necessarily improve or become great. I am just pointing out the bit of logic in your post that I find troubling.</p>

174

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that each freshman class is better than the last by a good margin (1390 SAT versus 1350, 4.0 versus 3.98) is the very definition of improvement. The fact that USC has reached the midpoint in its $100 million faculty recruitment drive (which drew large praise from the Journal of Higher Education) is improvement.</p>

<p>Before the 90's, NYU was largely a commuter school with a mere regional reputation until it built up its endowment, spent it like crazy, and got itself to a point where it competes with the ivies (and now USC) in faculty recruitment wars. Stanford in the mid-century did much the same (in terms of spending money) to propel itself to its current status as did WashU in the latter half of the century. Let's not disregard the power of financial resources in higher education so easily. What... is USC to somehow spend money on the best faculty and facilities and somehow go backwards? Talk about troubling logic.</p>

175

<p>It is lopsided, MegaStud won easily. </p>

<p>UCSD students are like UCSD, in that you only know a little, and are good at a little, can not even claim yourself having a well-rounded education. You only see what you are good at, not the whole picture. If UCSD cut its undergrad to 1,000, cuts it graduate students to 1/3, I wound say it is a poor man's caltech. But you are not, especially with the subpar quality of student body.</p>

<p>Graduate schools and undergradute departments are totally different stories. Even the graduate courses at UCSD are not on par with the rank (I knew that personally). But the grad students there do benefit from working with good researcher. UCSD's strongest departments, bio-related, are BIG departments, but if excluding salk and scripps, its biomeds are just good, not great. The arguments, which one poster used to prove UCSD's better than USC, can be used to beat half of ivies. But you're still UCSD.</p>

<p>The departments which UCSD is good at are pretty much the weakest link at USC, and only a small part of students are in those majors. It can be lumped into a small part of science and humanity. If you looked at the long list of those ~ology departments at UCSD, you may really smile in the dream. But come on, they are mostly just small departments where graduate students have most the resource, and undergrads only get to enjoy the graduate students' ranking:) Majority of USC students are studying Business/Accounting, Law, Communication, Architecture, Theater, Film, Music, Engineering, Dentistry, etc, all top in the country, where UCSD cannot even hold a candle against. Talking about engineering, how many high profile companies actively recruited at UCSD except Qualcomm which not exactly a reputed organization?</p>

<p>I especially don't like this quote, "old v new, sporty v academic, LA v La Jolla". I didn't see how UCSD undergrads are academic (I have seen many), especially when you were worse high school students than USC's in a whole. "New" is the advantage at UCSD, because you got huge funding from government and used it in a planned way to build up certain departments. It is like China catching up with the US in certain fields just because she didn't develop until NOW. You get a leg up, and those departments happen to be the most ranked departments. "LA vs La Jolla", no brainer, what do you do in La Jolla except watching the sea? When you come to UCSD, don't even talk about "social fit", do you have a "social" to fit?</p>

<p>"USC is spending alot of money and their freshmen stats are getting better", "it doesnt mean they will necessarily improve", is this the logical troubling you?</p>

<p>I suggest UCSD students to think about this: Didn't US News staff know all the stellar departments you are reciting over and over again? Can they know more about these? Why do they still put UCSD in the position UCSD is now? Guys, you can't use usnews to beat usnews. </p>

<p>Or use LT or Shanghai to beat USNEWS, whose rank people would spend money to buy. How many people even gave a damn smile at LT or Shanghai's ranking? Maybe only people from UCs rehash the garbage whenever chances come:)</p>

176

<p>Your arguments Megastud, as many of my fellow Tritons', are one-sided. Firstly, while USC has most certainly increased its admissions standards, UCSD has also. The average GPA of admitted students for the 2005-2006 application cycle was 4.06: only five tenths of a point behind UCLA and 15 tenths ahead of UCSB (the next highest UC). SD admits' average SAT this year was 1307, making it the third UC to crack the 1300 point. Pretty good for a fourty year old public university, that only takes the highest score from one sitting, and is DESIGNED to cater to the citizens of California. Berkeley's average SAT this year was 1350, by the way, and since we can both agree that USC is not at the level of Cal yet (I hope your Trojan pride doesn't extend that far), you yourself can determine how the above factors play into average SAT and, furthermore, how important SAT averages are in determining the quality of a university at all. In response to your statement about USC's faculty recruitment drive, UCSD has always had rock star faculty. Five nobel laureates helped found UCSD and taught there in its early years, eight are currently on staff (tied with Berkeley for the most in the UC system), and, in total, 17 have served for UCSD in its forty year history. Do you know why this school attracts so much renowned faculty? Because of the high-powered research institutions and graduate schools owned by or affiliated with the university that you so casually brushed off as irrelevant to the quality of undergrad education. Scripps is the foremost oceanographic institute in the world, Salk is highly regarded in cancer research circles, we also have the San Diego Supercomputer Center, and 40% of the biotech and telecomm companies in the San Diego metro area that have transformed its previously navy-dependant economy are UCSD spinoffs. As of 2002, UCSD had over 1200 inventions in the works, 392 patents, and an approved capital project budget of over 730 million dollars. THAT kind of cash is what will keep the big wigs at SD. Furthermore, UCSD launched a campaign to raise one billion dollars in private funds (separate from the recent campaign to boost alumni giving) and 100 million of that billion will be used to recruit new faculty. The campaign is set to close in June of 2007, and over 75% of the goal has been met. UCSD is the youngest school in the history of higher education to launch a billion dollar private campaign. The second youngest is UCLA, which is over twice as old as SD. In response to how NYU spent its fat endowment... USNews has it at 37 this year and UCSD at 32. Imagine that. Not once in this ongoing, tiresome, and childish series of arguments have I ever stated that USC is declining. Progress is happening there, but I cannot understand why you believe no (or less) progress is happening at SD. Just in the past two years, a business school (already being compared to MIT's) was opened, a pharamacy school was opened, the engineering college received a massive gift from the founder of Qualcomm (Irwin Jacobs - he happens to be affiliated with UCSD and his company is headquartered in San Diego), and the cancer center was built a brand-new, state of the art building. Take your own advice and do not disregard the importance of financial resources. Ever heard of UCSD Connect? It is one of the most successful college-based entrepreneurship organizations in the United States. Many San Diego startups have Connect to thank for, well... starting them up. Connect was also a pathway for big coroporations to gain a foothold in San Diego, and many still help fund the organization to this day. As I told you before, we should both shut up and see what happens over the next few years. Both schools are growing, but at what trajectories? I do not know, and you Megastud, certainly do not know either...</p>

177

<p>And alwaysthere... your post does not even merit a response.</p>

178

<p>UCSD is on the rise while USC is merely buying off high score students. My friend got accepted with a full scholarship and a stiped even though her scores were merely "good" in my opinion. Certainly not an auto-admit at top-10 schools.</p>

<p>that said, Dr. James Dobson, founder of the ideological extremist hate group "Focus on the Family" got his degree at USC. For my LA area hs, the people who chose to attend USC were either
a. people with full scholarships
b.people who didn't get into UCLA or UCSD
c. people whose mommy or daddy went there(usually conservative, wealthy alums)</p>

<p>USC will always, in my opinion mean:
University of Spoiled Children
University of Second Choice
University of Stupid Conservatives</p>

179

<p>My post may be antagonizing, but it's all truth.</p>

<p>Your facts can not support your other fellow ucsd students' points. It is all potential, and nobody denied ucsd could be better, say, than USC and UCLA in short future. But not now. Thanks for playing.</p>

<p>I am digusted by some UC students on this forum, so I didn't hold down my voice. I still need to point out your facts haven't show anything good about your graduate programs relevant to undergradute courses.</p>

<p>Be careful about Jacobs donation.</p>

<p>Not that I revere usnews ranking, but I predict ucsd is becoming to saturate in that game. You may improve in the rank, but not have as much room as USC has because USC can overhaul its college, the weakest link, to approach its goal. This is not saying UCSD can not surpass USC. It depends on how they do in next few years.</p>

180

<p>Alwaysthere... Maybe you don't know how to read, maybe you do not know English very well, or maybe you just don't know how to form a cogent argument. Whatever it is, I'd like to thank you you for helping me realize just how stupid this all is. I officially retire from CC... I'll be getting a good education and enjoying myself at UCSD. Maybe I'll stop by come the 2007 rankings. Good luck to all of you at all your respective colleges :-)</p>