<p>Hahaha. Look fellas, pride is far different from stupidity. Furthermore, by looking at both of your guys post history, your both losers who are intent on praising USC at any given moment and bashing other schools. Can’t you guys give it a rest? I mean, SeattleTW, seems like you’ve even graduated.</p>
<p>But now that I am part of the Trojan family, I just wanted to help you out SeattleTW: It is actually spelled “Bogo”, not boo go. If you can’t do it, then you might want to highlight my name, right click, and hit “Copy”. Then right click the text box and hit “Paste”. No problem buddy.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, but there are some decent points made on both sides, that should be addressed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have to remember that UCLA is one of the top pre-med schools in the country, and this is the reason why 800+ undergrads applied to M-school from UCLA and 250+ from USC in 2011. As I said before, if you want to adjust for undergrad enrollments, UCLA sends ~ 2Xs more to med school than USC. </p>
<p>UCLA is a far greater STEM University, and the nos. for UCLA outpacing USC adjusted for undergrad enrollment, especially for the “S” and “T” could even outpace 2:1. USC (again, undergrad USC to PHD or MD completions) is a relative STEM lightweight. </p>
<p>
The last one I saw were the GMAT scores, in which UCLA students scored higher than USCs, and this despite USC having an undergrad B-school. </p>
<p>
</h1>
<p>ModernMan, your quote here, as far as Im concerned, is an exercise in futility. You wasted your time in looking at specific L-school production and passage rates, wrt UCLA L and USC L; Im speaking strictly of undergrads. Look a little lower in the link I provided and youll find a table listing undergrad institutions attended by the members of CalBar: 20,000+ who attended UCLA for undergrad and 7,000+ who attended USC. </p>
<p>The Bar passage rate of UCLA’s and USC’s L-schools don’t concern me because there are a lot of UCLA grads at USC L, and a few the other way. In fact, there may be more UCLA grads at USC L, than from USC"s undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You expect USC to admit this? Many who post on the CS Board are able to see this. Also, if you look at the specific high schools, youll find that USC will take as much as 10% of the graduating classes of prestigious high schools, sacrificing lower class rank for the higher scores these students attained. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely speculative on my part. I just wanted to show that UCLA doesnt superscore and indeed double counts scores. So my exercise was just to show that not presentations of scores are normalized. Its the old argument that statistics can be manipulated and therefore s/b invalidated. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…as borne out of UCLA students scoring higher on the graduate admissions tests. You have to be an active participant on the main CC board to be able to take in this info. Generally, UCLA students strive towards a higher plane of graduate-school appts. This involves those in STEM from bac to PHDs, to M-school, to L-school, to B-school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, Payscale excludes from the survey, those who have grad degrees and also those who have contractor income, as well as other types of professions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didnt intimate or state better; I stated that UCLAs undergraduates tend to aspire to higher vocations … nothing about their receiving better educations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think that students who choose USC will settle on majors as they would if they were to choose UCLA. UCLA will always have viable numbers in Physics, Sociology, Philosophy, Anthropology, etc, and students will use these majors as their entry to various fields in research and professional schools, as well as entering fields where major isnt quite as important as in public relations, advertising, or sales/brokering. </p>
<p>What I love about UCLA graduates is there are those who majored in Poli-Sci, who are in consulting; those who majored in sociology or history and are in commercial RE; those who majored in physics, who are computer scientists. This is along the line of the truly top-tier colleges and univesities in the country (and again, Im not saying UCLA=Harvard) … in other words, UCLA grads are using the schools name to enter various fields w/o respect to having to major in something relatable to their chosen professional fields.</p>
<p>USC students, generally, want to major in Public Relations to enter PR; they want to major in BUAD, to enter the business sector. </p>
<p>Therefore, because of the above, USC will never have the thriving L&S Departments that UCLA has. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I told bluebayou, whos a Cal grad, who should understand better, UCLA is a freaking public school. The chief concern of UCLAs administrators is their hitting their diversity indices, wrt each individual UR minority. Thats all they care about and are quite willing to sacrifice standards; consequently, there are numerous 3.8-uwgpas/2100’s that UCLA rejects unfairly, when it shouldnt reject any at all under a merit-based (read, stats) system. But then again, its a public, and upward mobility of various races s/b a U concern. How it balances the two, exclusively merit v. diversity, could be balanced better, especially when those of lower quals are more expensive to educate because of the added cost of tutorship, etc. UCLA is certainly more noble to sacrifice standards and it certainly isnt trying to game the college rankings. And certainly if the U succeeds in getting these lower-tiered students up to par and sends them to top grad schools across the country, the state and the nation have won.</p>
<p>The University of Southern California. Next question.</p>
<p>I do admit, however, that UCLA grades harder than most private schools, including Stanford and Harvard, based on sheer numbers. It would appear to be a brutal place to succeed…so if you graduate with honors you are pretty smart.</p>
<p>If we use Seattle’s logic, UCLA has the better business school since clearly, Seattle likes to proclaim that its all about rankings. In that case, UCLA has a higher ranking for business.</p>
<p>USC has the most random admissions, very holistic. Random people from my school got in (low GPA’s etc) and many also got in based on legacy. their admissions are illegitimate. Everyone attending USC from my school got rejected from both Cal and UCLA, and UCSD for that matter. UCLA admits tend to have a trend of high SATs and high GPAs. UCLA name recognition is greater, and REPUTATION wise, UCLA is viewed in a more positive light. USC is often placed in a negative light because there are so many money-related entanglements that go on at that school. Though funding is short, UCLA still manages to be a prestigious school, even though it does not receive nearly as much money in donations/tuition/endowments U$C does. UCLA has a long history and is known as a research university. The internet was born at UCLA, first open heart surgery performed at UCLA. This long tradition of research is how UCLA gained its prestige. USC… only recently gained attention and I’m not sure exactly what for.</p>
<p>UCLA is recognized internationally. Who hasn’t heard of UCLA? USC on the other hand… not so much. It may have great name recognition in SoCal and some in the US, but nothing more.</p>
<p>Nah. UCLA is indeed rigorous; quarter system, fast paced; competitive, not easy … but the average gpa of a graduating senior was 3.30 in 2007-2008 with Comm majors 3.68, BusEcon ~ 3.5. The average Stanford and Harvard student had a higher mean, 3.50 and +, because they probably deserved it.</p>
<p>I’m not saying USC has a more international presence than does ucla. But I thought it was great how I took a family trip to Europe and saw middle school kids from Britain wearing USC jackets! I mean USC has always been my dream school and now I’ll be attending it which is great. So seeing those jackets made me feel proud to want USC and now to be attending USC. For those of you who are against USC, just stop please. Rather, be proud for the school you have dreamed for and hopefully get to attend (UCLA for example). I applaud and congratulate those who prefer ucla! It’s a fantastic school! Better than USC? Worse than USC? I dont know but it absolutely doesn’t matter. Just be proud of yourself and your school and be happy for those who have made their dreams come true to attend their favorite school–even if that school rivals yours.</p>
<p>And ModernMan’s posts take a drunk, incoherent pattern along a highly linear baseline. I could predict what you were going to say next every time, but you threw in stupid stuff like the killers of the Chinese students at USC were Bruins, who swore their allegiance to UCLA, with your trying to defend how safe USC is vis-a-vis UCLA. Some education you received. Pathetic.</p>
<p>Oh drax, we had to explain to you what a wash was. Come on now. So hyper-emotional you are. This is only College Confidential give it a rest and live for once.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand what “living for once” would have to do with drax’s statement. I would think that the only way this would apply to the discussion at all is by telling people to get off the internet and experience real life.</p>
<p>Regardless, this discussion is getting severely tiresome.</p>
<p>BTW I was going to let it go but since you keep bringing it up, “it’s a wash” in the context that you used it is not only slang but it was also incorrectly used. For something to be “a wash” it means it was a wasted effort. As in, “The UCLA CC board put all this effort into convincing ModernMan that UCLA is better, but it was all a wash.” In no context does a wash mean a tie, unless this is some USC-specific slang. Not knowing what a wash means has nothing to do with the quality of one’s education. I won’t even hold it against you or USC, since it is slang and not academic vocabulary.</p>
<p>“BTW I was going to let it go but since you keep bringing it up, “it’s a wash” in the context that you used it is not only slang but it was also incorrectly used. For something to be “a wash” it means it was a wasted effort. As in, “The UCLA CC board put all this effort into convincing ModernMan that UCLA is better, but it was all a wash.” In no context does a wash mean a tie, unless this is some USC-specific slang. Not knowing what a wash means has nothing to do with the quality of one’s education. I won’t even hold it against you or USC, since it is slang and not academic vocabulary.”</p>
<p>Actually the term “it’s a wash” has multiple definitions. This slang term has been in use for at least 50 years. Although not an " academic source" the Urban Dictionary lists multiple definitions of the term “it’s a wash”. The. # 1 definition is a waste and the #2 definition is a draw or a tie. In my opinion this discussion meets the definitions of both…</p>