<p>being out of state the tuition for going to UCB or UCLA is almost up in the price range of USC. if i will be paying almost the same amount, would going to a private school like USC be more worth my money??? </p>
<p>O YEAH EVERYONE THAT APPLIED.. im STRESSING LIKE CRAZY... the wait is horrible. GOOD LUCK though :)</p>
<p>Popular opinion on CC seems to say that UCLA and UCB are better schools than USC, and if so, USC isn't "worth" as much (though USC probably has smaller classes). The problem is that as an out-of-stater, you're more likely to get into USC than the other two.</p>
<p>There are pro's and con's, like all schools. Considering price is about equal for you, there are just a few things to consider. USC's classes will be smaller. Now, that's not to say that there won't be an occasional 200-300 auditorium classes for things like Math (which are prereq's to so many majors), but on a whole, many will be around 20-40 students. (It's also important to note that classes will always be fairly large during you 1st and 2nd year, when everyone is meeting requirements, and thin out greatly when you start to focus on your major. </p>
<p>UCLA and UCB are going to have larger classes (but they still thin down around sophmore/junior year, but (especially UCB) I would say the professors at thest schools are probably "better" than at USC. Berkely has so many Nobel prize winners you are bound to learn things other professors won't teach. </p>
<p>My opinion, I would choose UCLA/Berkeley over USC.</p>
<p>I would also choose UCLA/UCBerkeley over USC even if tuition are the same. Also keep in mind that UC Berkeley's class sizes aren't really that large (74% are 30 or under, 7% are 100 or over, compared with 79% and 5% for Stanford), and those two are generally regarded as better universities than USC. Still, the difference isn't too large (especially between UCLA and USC) so visit them and see which one you like better...that is assuming you get into them of course. UCLA and UCB are quite difficult to get into as OOS but if you do I would suggest those two over USC.</p>
<p>hawaii: it's a big $ and time investment so if you can visit all three before choosing. also, there are a lot of colleges in California other than USC, Cal, and UCLA. UCD and UCSD are top science schools, I believe for students tracking toward MD's UCSD is the top undergard program in the state. As for really smart kids Cal Tech and Harvey Mud tops Cal. And then of course there's Stanford! One thing is certain, all of these schools have different settings, cultures, and focuses. I highly recommend you visit and stay overnight if possible.</p>
<p>appsteressin, no way is UCSD better than Berkeley, even for premed.</p>
<p>cal x: your answer is so typical of a cal grad, "cal's the best". Cal is not the best in a lot of areas. below are the rankings of biomed programs in the us (or are you going to be like the dean of admissions at UCLA who recently authored a letter saying that now that UCLA is dropping below Tufts, USC, and other top schools in ranking that she and UCLA will no longer participate in the us news ranking survey)...clasic! </p>
<p>now that UCLA has slipped they're not going to participate when just a couple years ago ucla touted their rankings in marketing materials, only a government school would pull such a move!</p>
<p>us news (2007 rankings):</p>
<p>UCSD, Biomedical rank:3
UCB, Biomedical rank:12</p>
<p>"I believe for students tracking toward MD's UCSD is the top undergard program in the state."</p>
<p>While Cal's ranking for BioE is below that of UCSD, it doesn't necessarily mean that UCSD has a better premed track than Cal. Yes, it may be easier at UCSD, but that's not to say Cal doesn't produce some of the top MD applicants.</p>
<p>In generaly, for OOS $$, I'd choose 'SC since it is slightly less competitive than Cal or UCLA, particularly in the sciences. But, it really depends on your interests. For example, Cal has many top 10 programs in humanities....</p>
<p>appstress, you can't take one ranking of narrow branch of biology and draw blanket statement of premed superiority and entirely dismiss the common knowledge of Berkeley being superior to the San Diego branch of the University of California system.</p>
<p>I also think that UCLA is academically superior to either Tufts or USC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
or are you going to be like the dean of admissions at UCLA who recently authored a letter saying that now that UCLA is dropping below Tufts, USC, and other top schools in ranking that she and UCLA will no longer participate in the us news ranking survey
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a source for this claim? I couldn't find any proof of this. </p>
<p>
[quote]
now that UCLA has slipped they're not going to participate when just a couple years ago ucla touted their rankings in marketing materials, only a government school would pull such a move!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Because we all know that WUSTL and Stanford and Reed haven't had interesting reactions to the rankings game. Not at all. It's only publics doing this.</p>
<p>Oh, and proof of this letter?</p>
<p>lol@just one example of an area in which Berkeley isn't ranked among the top 10.</p>
<p>The Daily Bruin Online 1/16/07</p>
<p>Judith Smith, vice provost for undergraduate education, UCLA</p>
<p>"UCLA officials have said they do not take the rankings into consideration..." </p>
<p>my comment: that's a complete reversal from when UCLA was ranked higher in 1999, 2000, 2001 and bragged about it in their marketing materials.</p>
<p>quotes from Judith (in the article):</p>
<p>"measures used to determine the rankings do not equate to a good undergraduate education, so UCLA will not purse a high ranking" </p>
<p>my comment: so there it is, according to a top UCLA official rankings don't matter so I guess it doesn't matter where Cal is ranked either or UCSD on the pre-med question...what a load of BS...of course rankings matter but UCLA is throwing in the towel!</p>
<p>later in the article she concedes a little to the ranking value which makes her sound confused:</p>
<p>"I would say that some of the rankings are based on measures that we have been concerned about and that we would like to improve"</p>
<p>oh, no reply?????????????</p>
<p>in case you're having trouble finding the article, its title is:</p>
<p>"UCLA Officials De-emphasize rankings"</p>
<p>here's the email for the UCLA reporter/student who wrote it and interviewed the UCLA officials: <a href="mailto:mhong@media.ucla.edu">mhong@media.ucla.edu</a></p>
<p>"oh, no reply?????????????"</p>
<p>Um, UCLAri obviously isn't online to reply.</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>"UCLA officials have said they do not take the rankings into consideration..."</p>
<p>This means they find the rankings to be inaccurate.</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>"or are you going to be like the dean of admissions at UCLA who recently authored a letter saying that now that UCLA is dropping below Tufts, USC, and other top schools in ranking that she and UCLA will no longer participate in the us news ranking survey"</p>
<p>This means that they are no longer going to give US News the information needed to rank them. But that statement isn't supported by your article, which states that UCLA will not intentionally try to change numbers that would boost their ranking, but will improve as they see fit.</p>
<p>"measures used to determine the rankings do not equate to a good undergraduate education, so UCLA will not purse [sic] a high ranking"</p>
<p>Contrast with the University of Florida, which is trying to boost rankings by increasing tuition > hiring more teachers > lowering student:faculty ratio. UCLA, as stated in the article, is not choosing to manipulate numbers like this.</p>
<p>The official said:</p>
<p>"I would say that some of the rankings are based on measures that we have been concerned about and that we would like to improve"</p>
<p>How does she sound confused? It seems that, although she finds the US News rankings to be rather erroneous, she does find that some measurings (the specific numbers, not the overall rankings) are valid and thus UCLA might try to improve those areas because, in actuality, they might not be as good as they could be. But UCLA would be changing to improve the university, not to boost its rankings.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should analyze the word choice of the article more precisely.</p>
<p>i think you're right, my mistake. UCLA is going to participate in the survey they're just not going to "pursue a high ranking" or "take the rankings into consideration" or "set out to improve the university's rank". </p>
<p>are any of these quotes inaccurtate? come on, UCLA is being passed up by other schools in the ranking so they're now "spinning" the position that rankings are flawed and "unrelated to the quality of the undergraduate education" </p>
<p>btw: the whole alumni giving comments she makes are wrong, UCLA, Cal, heck even Davis call me for money. how do you think Cal is paying for the new stadium, all with state money? Or who do you think bought Tedford's car? I think Tedford's doing a great job btw, and I'm all for Bear backers supporting the school and the athletic program.</p>
<p>appstressin,</p>
<p>UCLA has been critical of the rankings for many many years. This is nothing new.</p>
<p>Then</a> again, so has Stanford.</p>
<p>Hmm... not all is at it seems, apparently.</p>
<p>weak reply, but I understand. as a defender of government schools you're in a weak position, especially after the facts in that article.</p>
<p>so what does your reply mean? rankings are meaningless? </p>
<p>what if UCLA slips to 30 or 40, still meaningless?</p>
<p>performance has always been measured, it's what goes on in the real world, not the liberal. communal, i'm ok your ok, halls of some academic institutions. usc has been criticized for being competitive, conservative, professional, "the usc network", essentially all business/capitalist values. American values! ucs is not afraid of measurements and performance, therefore they embrace measurements and tailor their business to improve on those measurements. Like any good business!</p>
<p>How is the state of California through it's public universities benefiting its students, its customers, by communicating that performance measurements are not important? does that me job performance is not important?</p>
<p>appstressin,</p>
<p>So then why has Stanford also been critical of the same rankings which have been kind to them? They perform well. Or maybe it's because it's a flawed metric to begin with?</p>
<p>What if the ranking itself doesn't measure the strength of a university?</p>
<p>I'm not saying that the UCs do a perfect job with their undergrad programs. But what I'm saying is that US News is not a perfect measure of what a university should be. For one, some of the variables are easily tweaked in ways that may not benefit the student body.</p>
<p>I don't think that USC is a bad school. On the contrary: I think it's a fantastic program that's only growing better. On the other hand, I don't think that USNews should be taken as the absolute measure of a school's overall strength to every student. Would you honestly say that USC is a better school overall than Michigan? I'd find it hard to argue that.</p>