<p>aucladad, </p>
<p>I’m referring an article posted by a legitimate newspaper that is widely distributed. Yes it ended up them not being students, but bruin fans. Also this does not dismiss the fact that a UCLA student slit a fellow students throat. I’m sorry if you took offense, I quickly corrected myself with the USC murders but the on campus attempted murder at UCLA did happen. Sorry.</p>
<p>Here is your valid counterargument:</p>
<p>The Princeton GPA you listed is unweighted and the UCLA GPA you listed was weighted. You are comparing apples and oranges. Here are the averages for 2011 all for unweighted high school GPAs. These are averages for enrolled freshmen. (I couldn’t find GPA averages on Princeton’s website, so I have used your number.)
Princeton: 3.89
UCLA: 3.81
USC: 3.72</p>
<p>The Princeton GPA is higher than UCLA, and this reflects the differences in prestige between the schools. The same can be said for USC.</p>
<p>The UCLA student who committed the throat slitting was mentally ill. It had nothing to do with what school he attended. I remember that just days after the tragic incident occurred, I went to the USC vs UCLA volleyball game. A hoard of USC fans showed up and started making motions with their hand, repeatedly bringing it to their throats, indicating that they were making light of that horrible event. Way to stay classy, Trojans.</p>
<p>I respond with b&bsmom’s post. </p>
<p>"…the UC’s do there own GPA ( the UC GPA), freshman year is excluded, USC includes freshman year…so some may have had a poor freshman year and have a lower USC GPA, or vice versa…the point is that the GPA argument is also not a valid comparison- it is not apples to apples… Also the budget cuts have just begun to have their impacts felt, and the rankings run a few years behind. If the cuts result in a reduced ranking( which is yet to be seen) that will not be shown for the next few years."</p>
<p>@modernman --</p>
<p>But here you are on a message board for college students (and helicopter parents), citing that article, talking about “bruin fans” slitting throats on a message thread created by a USC fan with the express purpose of trying somehow to show up the UCLA kids and prove to them that USC is a better school than UCLA. Slit throats, and murders have no place in this discussion and it seems to me your only apparent reason for referring to it is to somehow show that USC is better than UCLA because what? Bruin fans slit throats? College kids, and fans of colleges do not slit throats. Criminals do and criminal behavior has nothing to do with which college is better than the other one.</p>
<p>I was refuting your point about Princeton’s GPA. You counter with a related claim that nevertheless is not entirely relevant to our specific point of debate.</p>
<p>No, I did not say that GPA proves a school is more prestigious. In my opinion, these GPAs for these specific schools reflect that true rankings in my eyes. </p>
<p>What you just did is called a straw man.</p>
<p>I believe I was not addressing if USC or UCLA was better, but the safety of the campuses. While, I do not claim anywhere that is USC the safest, but that UCLA isn’t pleasantville. Student-on-student crime happens and happened recently, and where UCPD have boundary issues.</p>
<p>People don’t generally claim that USC has an unsafe campus. The claim is that USC is in an unsafe neighborhood whereas Westwood is a million times safer. That USC is in some classy, safe, high-end neighborhood… that’s not something that anyone could legitimately claim.</p>
<p>@modernman </p>
<p>Campus safety is an issue. Though on this “thread” started by “seattle” with subject “USC is now more prestigious…” it seems off topic. In any case, while campus safety is a reasonable topic for kids to think about, “Committed by a BRUIN!” or “bruin fan” in relation to crimes, is intentionally incendiary. Being a Bruin, Trojan, or fan thereof is irrelevant to campus safety. That said, I am convinced that the USC campus is just as safe as UCLA. Surrounding areas I’d say not…</p>
<p>Modernman, please respond to my question in post #69.</p>
<h1>69</h1>
<p>"Can you describe why this set of USNews rankings:
National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges
is valid, while this set of USNews rankings:
World’s Best Universities; Top 400 Universities in the World | US News
is not? " </p>
<p>First, I did not say one was valid and one was not. </p>
<p>“- UCLA is ranked higher globally.<br>
– No matter how much you personally love the international rankings, US News is the only rankings that people rely on. Look outside the CC community and you will see this. Moreover, good luck on telling the academic community in the northeast that UC,<br>
Riverside is better than Dartmouth.” </p>
<p>I simply said that the public relies on [and references] US News the most out of any other ranking, which is common knowledge. Even the new UCSD president is determined to climb the rankings of the US News Best College list. In the following video he even mentions that alumni giving is critical not only for donations but a school’s spirit. Jump to 2:58 [First</a> Look: Pradeep K. Khosla - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube) </p>
<p>Now, I am sure that you are aware that US News does not populate this list, but QS does. </p>
<p>However, I do have reading comprehension and logic skills unlike some overachievers, and I do see what you are getting at. </p>
<p>Your argument is that you feel I am saying that US News is the only “valid” ranking source, and this source produces (or supports) two ranking list. One “Best Colleges” and the other “Top World Universities”. </p>
<p>Now, your word choice is valid and mine was “rely on”. I will chose my word choice since it was my post that u were disputing. For one to rely on something, it will have to be based on want they are needing it for, which in one case is comparing undergraduate education the other (based on the methodology) is international presence and reputation. Please refer to my other topic: "
<p>I do want to note, that I do feel like it is a fair ranking. But the truth of the matter if a list does not have the ivies at the tippy top, then the public believes it is not credible. You have to be extremely stubborn to deny the fact that the masses and public do refer/rely on US News Best College rankings the most. This is something that is simply undeniable. Further, yes it will take awhile for the world to acknowledge USC’s growth, but being recognized nationally superior is not a bad start. It’s a snowball effect, my friend. </p>
<p>Bottom line, when one says college rankings in the media or casually they think “US NEWS BEST COLLEGS”, if it is another ranking then they would need to specify. </p>
<p>I am starting to realize you bruins are hyper emotional, and I do not think USC>>>>>>>UCLA. As of 2012, USC=UCLA. Okay :)</p>
<p>@ModernMan heres a counter argument that you still have not responded to because you know youre wrong. Why so many relevant gangs around USC while westwood and ucla has none? Let me just name a few along with the recent connection to the double homicide at usc: 18th street, rollin 20’s blood, harpys dead end, rollin 40’s crip, fruit town brims, and many more. Please name me at least 5 dangerous gangs literally down the street to UCLA like USC, and then i will admit you are right. Did I also add that all the gangs I listed are literally down the street from USC too? the fruit town brims marked the coliseum as their territory about 2 years ago I believe. By the way, I work as an EMT with someone who worked for 15 years on the USC Public Safety Force, and he has shown me pictures and told me things on his job that are way beyond the scope of UCLA’s safety. So dont give me that bs about ucla not being a safer campus because obviously ucla campus= much safer than usc.</p>
<p>Did I say USC campus is safer? No.</p>
<p>Is Bel-Air safer than Downtown. Absolutely! </p>
<p>Are students safe on UCLA’s campus? Please note I am using the word “campus” and not surrounding area. That is questionable. </p>
<p>Let’s look at the facts that are known:</p>
<p>UCLA allows bums on campus because it is public.
UCPD have a history of harming/harassing students.
A UCLA student attempted to murder someone in a lab. </p>
<p>Um isn’t pleasantville. But no campus is. </p>
<p>Now to appease you, yes USC’s area is not bel-air. But neither is Cambridge, New Haven, Philly, NYC, ect but they still have amazing universities. </p>
<p>Urban universities by nature will always have crime. Now to be fair UCLA is in more of a suburban setting than truly urban. </p>
<p>Bottom line, I am not saying USCs area is safer than UCLA, because that is redicupous. But I am saying that crime/murder does not happen in Bruin Town too.</p>
<p>Sorry typed that on my cell. “But I am saying that crime/murder DOES happen in Bruin Town too.”</p>
<p>Ridiculous*</p>
<p>here let me just quote the things you said. </p>
<p>“The following is a list of counter arguments and facts to the most common UCLA v. USC debates.”</p>
<p>"- UCLA has a safer campus. "</p>
<p>Also, you only show one instance of when UC Police are actually justified in their actions, and then claim to say "Also, are UCLA and UC student really safer when the UC Police are harming students? " as a general statement. Sorry at least we have real cops working for our campus when USC has wannabe cops that couldnt get a real job as a cop anywhere else ( word by word statement by the chief at usc force telling me while at work as an emt). So when I say " are USC students really safe when their means of safety arent even cops? it is really a true statement. </p>
<p>You are throwing specific statements while I am giving you concrete, generalized information. </p>
<p>stop changing your answers and be consistent or at least edit your posts so you can back up your nonsense.</p>
<p>UCLA and USC’s campuses are probably equal in terms of safety. With a little edge on USC because of our extensive security efforts. </p>
<p>I am confused why you are attacking DPS. Please let me know how the crime around the area it is their fault? </p>
<p>Yes you do have an actual police that patrol your campus. You are a public school and that is a benefit. But what I don’t get is why you feel that tazing and pepper spraying students is justified?</p>
<p>But let’s digress. Bel-Air is Safer than Downtown. And the two “campuses” are equally safe.</p>
<p>
If anything its much easier to get a high GPA freshman year than other years. Freshman typically take lower level/basic classes like PE, Health, Spanish 1, etc and the majority will not have any AP classes which does weaken the argument for USC.</p>
<p>But I can attest that USC gives better financial aid for out of state students. One of my friends who comes from a low-middle income working class family went to there for only $13,000(tuition and room and board) her first year. They do give less aid for Soph, Junior, and Senior years because Freshman financial aid is used to reel students in. However, the total expenses will still be significantly cheaper than UCLA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which ones?</p>
<p>1) UCLA produces many more MDs? Look at the aamc.org link.</p>
<p>2) UCLA has more bac grads to PHD completions in STEM? Look at the links circulating the College Search Board.</p>
<p>3) UCLA produces many more JDs? Look at my CalBar link.</p>
<p>4) UCLA scores better on grad admission tests? Look at the links provided on College Search Board. </p>
<p>Correction:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of her three went to USC, one went to JHU and is in M-school, and the other went to, I think she said, a ‘top-10 in engineering’ U. The latter, she boasted, makes $150K five years out of school, which is pretty decent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isnt true. You have to remember that USC actively searches for high scorers to game the USNs rankings. The administration there is playing all the variables that USN presents as weights to ascend the rankings. UCLAs administration couldnt care less to game these rankings.</p>
<p>You have to realize that SAT scores can be bought. It has been clearly shown that higher scores run commensurate with those of higher weath. This is the reason why USC has 40%+ from private secondary schools, because those who attend these schools have higher scores because they are generally from weathier backgrounds. </p>
<p>These students have parents who can spend $10,000’s on private tutors or at the least spend $1,000’s on higher ranked prep courses for the SAT.</p>
<p>UCLA, as a state U, takes in a higher portion of students of lower socioeconomic background, which means that these students probably can’t spend much on preps. In addition, this entails UCLA admitting those from worse schools with worse education which has a natural lowering effect on scores, in addition to their not being able to buy into a higher score.</p>
<p>Add that UCLA doesnt superscore and adds redundant scores. So if 60 is the typical add to superscoring, added to, say, 40 points of redundant scoring, the approximate mean/median score of UCLA students would be 1920+60+40=~2020. Undoubtedly, USC has higher means/medians, but UCLA admits the afore mentioned significant portion of lower scorers because of lower soc-ec background. </p>
<p>Again, the students UCLA takes is based more on grades, and they have higher potential than their USC counterparts because USCs are more topped out wrt SAT and are lower in rank wrt the longer term competitiveness of grades and class rank … and this will end up with UCLA students having higher professional grad appts, and consequently higher-level vocations, as the MD, JD, and MBA numbers suggest. USC is much more of an undergrad trade/vocational U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because 65% of UCLA baccalaureates attend grad school, this leaves a significant portion, much greater than this 65%, out of the Payscale survey. If you do a search of the Payscale survey on the CS board, youll find a large conversation we had about this highly faulty survey. Its probably too deep for you to understand, but one cannot survey inactively a set of baccalaureate alumni and expect to receive a correct mix of what they do professionally, besides the exclusion of the survey of post-bac degree recipients. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA has a better engineering program wrt reputation of employers. Silicon Valley, see Forbes rankings of E programs within Silicon, aerospace companies. Also UCLA grads have far greater no. of grad appts at top-notch E-schools across the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>USC also has an exceedingly large grad school, and ~ the larger the grad school, the larger amt of profs are taken out of the undergrad mix for those in favor of grad programs. Bottom line: USC has exceedingly large classes also. </p>
<p>Main point wrt some of the above: The advantages of a private school are undone by USC having a large undergrad and grad population.</p>
<p>General Points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>UCLA has far greater rigor. Rigor is what drives the engine of competitiveness and the pulling upward of those who didn’t have the stats in high school to become better students, and this will lead to far greater appts. professionally and wrt grad school for UCLA students.</p></li>
<li><p>Intellectualism. UCLA has been described by some as anti-intellectual. This couldn’t be further than the truth. There are a lot of UCLA baccalaureate to PHD, MD, JD, even DBA completions within the student body, and the U has produced 5-6 Nobels from its undergrad programs. The I-word runs high on campus. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>A-I is more definitive of USC. This U is more about undergrad trades and the students there get lazy and just go for bac degrees. This is evident when the whole student body gets drunk from Thursday-Sunday, without any regard to studies. This is why the administration there was so opposed to James Franco’s college series which shows a bunch of USC students getting soused, and consequently because of this, the U put the kibosh on it by obviously threatening suits, with a lot of people saying Franco doing this because he’s a Bruin and wanted to “clown USC.” The real story is this was younger brother Dave Franco’s idea, a former USC student. He said, he wanted to portray an accurate version of USC. </p>
<ol>
<li>Companies who recruit at both U’s. You can’t decide to take who shows up for UCLA"s job/trade fairs as indicative of the whole list of employers who recruit at the U. A lot of these employers are those who are trying to entice students to careers in their fields and at their companies, and therefore there is more of an employer need of students’ interests and applicants, rather than the other way around. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand this either, ModernMan.</li>
</ol>
<p>So if you were the UC Regents member and students were chasing you, you would feel safe? I wouldnt feel safe with hundreds of strangers chasing me. Also, I am not attacking their DPS. If I wanted to attack them, I can just ask my EMT event coworker to go on this forum and list all the harass, scandals, and negligence that your so-called safety is committed for. You’re clueless about the DPS. I am merely stating factors that you “consider” what constitutes a safer campus. And I have clearly shown that the USC Campus is definitely not safer than UCLA.</p>
<p>Drax, out of all seriousness, you are my favorite and I think we would actually be friends in the real world. I respect you but your arguments are weak. </p>
<p>Also, I was about to head out and give this thread a rest, but I saw you posted and I had to respond. </p>
<p>"1) UCLA produces many more MD’s? Look at the aamc.org link. </p>
<p>2) UCLA has more bac grads to PHD completions in STEM? Look at the links circulating the College Search Board. </p>
<p>3) UCLA produces many more JD’s? Look at my CalBar link. </p>
<p>4) UCLA scores better on grad admission tests? Look at the links provided on College Search Board." </p>
<p>1-4 deal with volume. Yes, UCLA has more students and thus would produce more. </p>
<h1>1) Side note: Yes, UCLA has an amazing hospital. I personally have benefited from their excellent care.</h1>
<h1>4 Actual link please.</h1>
<h1>3 While UCLA does produce more JD’s. USC score BEST in California. Yes even our northern schools have a less successful passing rate. I am pretty sure we had this debate before. But, I am glad to revisit it.</h1>
<p>2 things to notice about the links. </p>
<p>1) It is the official government link.<br>
2) Not only is USC #1 is CA, but even Pepperdine is better than UCLA. That has to burn. </p>
<p>Feb 2011:<br>
<a href=“http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HEL6jUYJLxU%3D&tabid=2269[/url]”>http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HEL6jUYJLxU%3D&tabid=2269</a> </p>
<h1>1 USC 100%</h1>
<h1>2 Pepperdine 92%</h1>
<h1>3 Santa Clara 81%</h1>
<h1>4 (T) Stanford and UC Berkeley 80%</h1>
<p>July 2011<br>
<a href=“http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspxfileticket=PL6VLVgQEIM%3D&tabid=2269&mid=3159[/url]”>http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspxfileticket=PL6VLVgQEIM%3D&tabid=2269&mid=3159</a> </p>
<h1>1 USC 91%</h1>
<h1>2 Stanford 89%</h1>
<h1>3 UC Berkeley 87%</h1>
<h1>4 Pepperdine 86%</h1>
<p>Next, the following needs sources, because if not then it is all hearsay:<br>
<p>Again, higher volume does not equal better education.<br>
-“UCLA students having higher professional grad appts, and consequently higher-level vocations, as the MD, JD, and MBA numbers suggest.” </p>
<p>Next, “USC is much more of an undergrad trade/vocational U.” </p>
<p>If by vocational/trade you mean having great strength and breadth in professional programs, which are also available to undergraduates? Then yes USC, Cornell, Northwestern, UPenn are terrific vocational Us. If you are attacking USC’s LAS program, please refer to my post about hiring transformative faculty by using the 200mm donation, which is equal to 35% of UCSD’s total endowment where they rival and surpass your LAS programs. </p>
<p>WRT USC taking in more privilege students, where UCLA has an obligation to take in lower performing students. Neither university can be faulted. USC has a luxury of being a private school, where UCLA is strapped by public obligation. Still the facts are the facts. Sometimes the government “red tape” sucks. </p>
<p>Lastly, all your general points are not supported by anything and are all assumptions. But, this is an open forum and you are allowed to post them. </p>
<p>This is exhausting… I am not going to address everything. I do not think people truly care and the moderators would appreciate it. But, Drax, buddy, you presume a lot! That is not how you debate. You need to make informed points.</p>
<p>ITT</p>
<p>UCLA people argue that UCLA is a stronger school academically.
USC people argue that USC is ranked higher in USNWR.</p>
<p>There really isn’t any counter argument to either side…</p>