<p>Hmm, it appears that the subject of this thread has somewhat drifted… haha. Regardless, thank you all for your opinions! I see them both as fabulous places of higher learning with distinct pros and cons. However, I still have many schools to hear back from and this question may even become irrelevant.</p>
<p>People at my high school definitely view USC as a difficult school to get into, and now that I’ve been accepted, everywhere I turn I notice that someone’s wearing a USC jacket. I like the private nature of USC in regard to adequate funding and smaller class sizes, but I like Cal’s departmental strength in my major and overall location. At this point, it depends on whether I can pull out these scholarships or not. But then, with so many other schools potentially in the picture, it makes it that much more difficult…</p>
<p>Does anyone have any opinions on Wellesley, as well?</p>
<p>Not exactly the same, but similar. => 3.75’s were right around 50%. A general rule of thought is if mean gpa of frosh class is < bottom of first interval, 3.75, then not a high % of frosh would be included in this group.</p>
<p>Again, if the mid-points of these intervals ~ the approximate means for these groups, then this would -> mean gpa of ~ 3.7 for this distribution, which is what USC reports for the mean of its incoming frosh.</p>
<p>Of the second interval, the vast majority of these wouldn’t be t-10%. Even some in the first interval wouldn’t be either. If both these were ~ equal, ie, those < 10% from 1st = those > 10% from second, not too unreasonable, then only ~ 50% USC students would be t-10%. </p>
<p>At a hs like Palo Alto and Gunn, a bottom-rank t-10% is 3.85uw, per their websites. Certainly, 3.75 could be t-10% but not generally at a good public or at many private schools.</p>
<p>USC reports ~ 80% t-10%, which is an important factor in USN’s selectivity index. If the actual is 50%, then the fudge factor is 38%.</p>
<p>Don’t worry, all fudge in some way. Cal and UCLA report 98%+ t-10%. The uw gpa of each is ~ 3.85 and 3.81, resp, which would require that 90% or so would be in first interval, again, because 3.8+ > the low of the first interval 3.75. (So those who say there’s not much diff between a 3.7 and 3.8+ gpa would be wrong, seriously wrong.) (Cal’s reporting of 3.9 uw for frosh would be too high, wouldn’t be possible, but the 3.9 could be round up error. Ergo, my guestimate of mean 3.85 for Cal.)</p>
<p>If actual for both is ~ 80-85% t-10%, which would still be quite high, then the fudge factor for both would be 12-17%. Maybe hard numbers would be better here, 30 points for USC, 12-17 for UCLA and Cal.</p>
<p>So all schools “fudge” the t-10% statistic, some more than others. There isn’t a university in the country that has 90% t-10%, save for maybe Cal Tech. The Ivies wouldn’t because of their legacy admits, eg, “W,” et al.</p>
<p>I’m going to take a different perspective from lbpontel. I used to be a hiring manager (20+ years, now semi-retired), and in that time I can say I never spent more than a couple of seconds considering the comparative merits of first tier schools. The assumption was pretty straight-forward, if you graduated from a major university with a good GPA (3.2+) then we assumed you possessed the basic skills necessary to be taught how we wanted things done. The only time I contemplated differences was whether a 3.7 from school A was materially different from a 3.4 from school B. When I realized I was talking about the difference between a “B” and an “A” is maybe two classes, I stopped worrying about it. </p>
<p>As far as undergraduates were concerned, I saw no difference between USC, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Notre Dame, BC, Northwestern or any of a number of other schools. MBAs were different because you were paying more and expecting more Day 1, but even there we were looking for specific characteristics not alma maters. Simply put, I had far more important things to worry about than the perceived differences in prestige between two major colleges. If you were bright, you got an interview. If you were impressive in the interview you got a job. If you did a good job you got promoted. I never once looked back on where people went to school.</p>