<p>Polar, onecircuit is noting that you aren’t taking education into account, even if you say you are. A Drexel education does not compete Harvard education. I am actually reasonably good friends with a Yale grad who is teaching now and someone who is getting a graduate degree from Harvard and intends to teach later. I believe that they would tell you they are much better off with their degree, even though they payed for it. </p>
<p>If one’s goal in college is to become educated - which should be goal - then the limited pre-professional outlook is, as onecircuit says, nonsensical. A Drexel or Penn St vs top private school argument ignores the far superior experience a student <em>generally</em> has at a top private school. I do agree with you, though. Prestige means very little, unless your ego needs a stroke. </p>
<p>@op: In my opinion, the difference between USC and Berkeley is negligible. Employers and grad schools will not discriminate between the two if you’re successful at your respective school.</p>
<p>USC is a good “private” alternative to Berkeley. (Think of all the advantages that come with private schools and all the disadvantages that come with public schools.) </p>
<p>Otherwise, USC’s programs are generally deemed worse than Berkeley’s. Also, USC has a lot more white people and a heavily flaunted “Trojan family”.</p>
<p>USC is very appealing to a certain demographic.</p>
<p>onecircuit, my father’s choice wasn’t between LAVC and Harvard - it was between LAVC and no college at all.</p>
<p>For those select few who have the opportunity to go to HYPMwhatever, awesome, congratulations. But for the 99.5 percent of American high schoolers who don’t, there are plenty of great places to get a quality education in this country.</p>
<p>Given that California community colleges are all regionally accredited by WASC, same as Cal and Stanford, and that CCC transfer credit is essentially universally accepted, it would seem that the broader higher education community agrees that their courses are comparable in content and rigor to lower-division courses at four-year universities.</p>
<p>Thus, the burden of proof lies upon you, onecircuit. You are making the claim that LAVC does not provide a “quality education” - now back it up. I eagerly await the peer-reviewed, scientific evidence which you undoubtedly have to support your claim.</p>
<p>No, “OMG LOL ITZ A JC” does not count as evidence. Sorry.</p>
<p>I actually have problems believing this. Data would show that Berkeley grads are heavily more represented than USC grads at top MCs and IBs, as well as, at top grad schools and professional schools. For example, Berkeley undergrad alumni count significantly more than USC alumni at Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School and Yale School School. That’s both for head count and on ratio of the undergrad’s student population.</p>
<p>“Notre Dames business program is ranked 2nd (currently), while Cornells doesnt even reach the top 10”</p>
<p>You are referring to the Businessweek ranking. That ranking has Cornell at #5, so it is obviously ranked among the top 10. But it is hardly a reliable ranking. Any undergraduate business program that does not have Wharton at #1 is highly suspect.</p>
I disagree with RML, and not on the basis of close USNWR rankings. Undergraduate universities are largely irrelevant to grad schools and the entire perception of “prestige” is practically nonexistent. Berkeley isn’t just roughly equal to USC. It’s roughly equal to a variety of average universities such as PennState. </p>
<p>The difference between the number of USC and Berkeley students at leading law and business schools can be explained with different factors, such as strength of the student body and the variety of internship opportunities, rather than the mere “name” of the universities.</p>
<p>polar, just because a junior college gives classes that transfer to Stanford and UC Berkeley DOES NOT imply that you can get a quality education at JC’s.</p>
Community colleges may be accredited by the same organization as universities, but are they given the same type of accreditation? The WASC has an entirely different committee devoted to accrediting community colleges!</p>
<p>While I have great respect for your father’s education, unless universities are accredited under the same standards as community colleges, your argument is misleading and invalid. </p>
<p>
Well, not really… </p>
<p>The biggest reason I think that students choose USC over Berkeley is because of cost. USC offers financial aid for OOS students as well as sizable merit scholarships. Ironically, cost is the same reason Berkeley students will often choose it over USC. -.-</p>
<p>Go with the best program generally. You’ll get industry/research connections because of the professors in that field. However, it’s all a tradeoff among school prestige, program strength/connections, cost, and campus experience. Prioritize those and compare your schools and you’ll likely pick the right one for you.</p>
<p>The perceptions within California may be different, as I do not live there, but as a business executive who hires many recent grads, I would look at Berkeley more favorably than USC. My perception of USC is that it is mostly rich, California kids who have a lot of connections. I would be generally more impressed by a Berkeley resume. I am anticipating alot of hate mail on this but I think the poster’s questions is fair and this is one hiring employer’s perception. Many very successful people did not go to big name schools. Many people who went to big name schools have not been successful. But, having a prestigious school on your resume will open doors. You have to do the rest after that.</p>
No “hate” mail, just the comment that as someone is a position to hire, it is unfortunate that you are subscribing to long-outdated stereotypes rather than seeking out accurate data.</p>
<p>Approximately 60% of students at USC receive need-based aid, and as another poster has mentioned, USC gives aid to OOS students (unlike Berkeley) making it more affordable in many cases for out of state students. Approximately 50% of USC students are from outside of California, and USC has a large population of International students. USC has become so selective that Legacy applicants are no longer given admissions advantage, but they are offered special transfer planning and advising if rejected as freshman applicants.</p>
<p>If you will take a look at the freshman profile for 2010, you will see that students accepted to USC are very well-qualified, and do not have to rely on “connections” for acceptance to selective universities.</p>
<p>very surprised at the number of transfer students that come into USC every year for a top notch private university - the size of 1/2 the incoming freshman class:</p>
<p>onecircuit, I await the peer-reviewed evidence which you undoubtedly have to demonstrate that community colleges do not offer a quality education.</p>
<p>I’m also a community college graduate, from one of the top JC journalism programs in America. I’ve been accepted for graduate study at three USNWR top-35 public universities. Somehow, the fact that my freshman and sophomore years say Contra Costa College on the transcript hasn’t mattered a bit.</p>
<p>polar, somehow you are confusing getting an education for 2 years at a JC then completing the last two years at a 4 year school, with claiming that the JC’s offer quality educations.</p>
<p>let me ask you a simple question - If JC’s offer a quality education, then what schools don’t offer a quality education?</p>
<p>Portions of your second and third paragraphs, anyway…</p>
<p>You have to remember that the vast majority of internationals at USC are from Asian countries. And Approx 1/2 of USC’s 34K students are grad students, so the int’l mix of students appears to be even higher there, when, say, one is walking around campus becaues there are even higher % int’ls in the graduate programs there.</p>
<p>Mainly, USC is incredibly diverse geographically and ethnically and non-whites > white students there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>USC to its credit offers a lot of merit to students regardless of geographic origin. Per Alamemom, ~ 20% of the frosh have various scholarships… so USC might be a better choice outside of CA rather than within. So there is some validity to what you’re stating.</p>
<p>This probably means the top 20% can compete with anyone’s top 1/5 including Cal’s. The lower 80% may be more pedestrian, not nearly up to Cal’s standards at least in gpa and class standing. Probably competitive wrt SAT, though, because USC can take those of lower standing but good scores, unlike Cal, which generally has to take top 10% of hs students, along with USC’s frosh class weighted towards private-school kids which have $ means to prop up their scores.</p>
<p>(My criticism of USC and in general of a lot of colleges would be: I don’t think nearly 80% students there are top 10% of hs, according to gpa distribution of its 3.7 uw grades ~ 50% would be more the correct %, say because 50% 3.75 & >; 35% 3.45-3.74, 15% below 3.45 ~ 3.7 uw)</p>
<p>“(My criticism of USC and in general of a lot of colleges would be: I don’t think nearly 80% students there are top 10% of hs, according to gpa distribution of its 3.7 uw grades ~ 50% would be more the correct %, say because 50% 3.75 & >; 35% 3.45-3.74, 15% below 3.45 ~ 3.7 uw)”</p>
<p>Are you insuating that USC fudges their numbers?</p>