<p>US News and World Reports: UCLA - #25, USC - #30.</p>
<p>Even if you don't think US News is credible, dozens of other international rankings don't even recognize USC, but place UCLA in the top 50-75 schools in the world. There's empirical evidence to back up UCLA. Even UCSD, UCSB, and UCI are on par or better than USC on a number of levels. UCSD's better in medicine, biology, engineering, economics, and english. UCSB and UCI have over half a dozen Nobel Prize winners in different categories - and those professors all won the prize in the past 5 years. USC?..Only one Nobel Prize winner on the faculty and/or alumni.</p>
<p>There's no doubt about it that USC is overrated and as many have said, "It's a rich kid's school." My own high school is a testament to that. I know of a few students with 3.9's and 1400's whose parents earned $75,000 but they were all rejected (3 of them). On the other hand, there was 4 other kids with 3.6's and 1300's and all were accepted to USC...and their parents' salaries? -- Over a $2,000,000 each. USC may be well-funded but that doesn't make an institution great, tsdad. You come from the University of Wisconsin which is a great institution but I'm not sure how much USC and UW-M compare on how much money they've earned. I wouldn't be surprised if UW-M earned less money than USC and still beat them in academics...</p>
<p>tsdad -- I agree that USC has undertaken many steps to improve many of its departments and that it has probably moved up a notch or two in recent years. I'm not sure what to make of the fundraising numbers you cited, however. Look at the following link which gives "Top Fundraising Colleges and Universities, in Total Amount Raised, 2003". It shows that UCLA raised more money in 2003 than USC. The discrepancy most likely stems from the various ways that fundraising and donations are defined and compiled for statistical purposes.</p>
<p>more usc bashing... should have known when i brought it up. i just have to wonder why everyone is so quick to criticize the school. i agree that ucla is a better school but, really, they're both great colleges.</p>
<p>remember this, Med?
"Are you an IIT and/or MIT graduate, Gutrade?</p>
<p>How would you know which college is better? Just hearing word of mouth doesn't mean anything nor do college rankings done by magazines."</p>
<p>You are contradicting yourself, and being very opinionated. Not a good thing as a young man. Be careful to sound off on subject you are not really informed.</p>
<p>Don't miss the point here again, not one person here said USC is better than UCLA academics-wise, just that not one school deserve the badmouthing you throw.</p>
<p>The average SAT I scores of USC are inflated, because USC calculates your SAT I "score" as the sum of your highest Verbal score and highest Math score, wheras UC schools only accept your scores if they are from the same sitting. Therefore, the more times one takes the SAT, the more likely one will have a higher score reported at USC than at UCLA or UCB. I'm sure that one could achieve a "score" of 1600 by taking the SAT I twice: once after focusing solely on Math (while bombing the Verbal section), and then taking it again after studying solely Verbal (while bombing the Math section). Such is an indication of the overall grade inflation at private schools.</p>
<p>i think i figured it out. too many ucla students on the board. i guess that's why the usc name gets tackled at every moment the school is mentioned on the forum.</p>
<p>Flopsy, I didn't know that. But did you ever think that the more times one takes SAT, the smaller the discrepancy between one-sit and the combination of the highest? Or for those really high scorer, there is no discrepancy mostly.</p>
<p>Ace, you may get it right. I chimed in another thread where UCLA's students blatantly bash USC for everything remotely close to negatives. I enjoy the rivalry between the 2 schools, especially on football. But this bashing is not something I like.</p>
<p>alwaysthere: I accept your advice to me to not be so adament in my stance. After reading your post, I thought about what you said and I agree with you. I guess that's something I need to work on.</p>
<p>However, I don't feel it's right for you to make an attack on me and generalize that I'm contradictory and never swayed by others. You implied this by saying "Not a good thing for a young man."</p>
<p>I did not mean you are contradictory, simply pointing out you were judging a school by a way you are not for at all. I am sorry if you feel attacked, 'cauz I really didn't mean it. Probably because of my language problem. </p>
<p>My opinion is not to say harsh words to any school, even if it is really a lesser one. Because i know a lot of great people from not so great schools, it will be too disturbing, and hurting to them. It is simply unfair one put down a school as a whole. It would be enough to pass your point if you say UCSD > USC.</p>
<p>who cares about stupid money... gosh i think USC is just as good as UCLA execept the fact everyone is *****ing about how expensive USC. Thats the main reason y everyone hates that school</p>
<p>people wouldn't complaining about how expensive USC is if it was worth it. I don't hear too many people complaining about how expensive Stanford is. But then again, I guess it's unfair to compare, because there are institutions that can offer a good education at a low price in california (the UC's).</p>
<p>What people? UCLA people? Frankly, it is none of your business to complain a private school's tuition if you don't pay it. </p>
<p>Why don't I see many UCB people complaining these issues? It definitely shows the level of confidence, or lack of it. Stanford is lucky becasue they have UCB as rival:)</p>
<p>but honestly, if you had $160,000 reserved for tuition and the rest of your school expenses, and you got into both stanford and USC, where would you rather spend the money?</p>
<p>PR puts CalTech on top as Toughest CA College to Get Into:
Princeton Review top 5 toughest schools to get into:
1. MIT
2. Princeton
3. CAL TECH
4. Yale
5. Harvard</p>