<p>
[quote]
afterhours -- with your logic, Bama should be a top tier school since they place many in high positions in Birmingham. LOL
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm... Birmingham versus Southern California. Claiming "ownership" of any part of CA is a major feat considering that CA is the largest state economy in the US and among the top in the world. Please tell me you're kidding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford has the best sports teams in the country, so USC doesn't even come close. Stanford has won the Sears Director's Cup for 10 years in a row. Just being good at football doesn't make you the best sports school in the nation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seriously don't make me laugh at your homer statement. Only UCLA can be compared to USC in terms of athletics, the rest are an afterthought.</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>Good point...</p>
<p>Yes, to expand on blue bayou's correct statement, admission percentages for the UC's are inflated because, to use a common example, a student who has only the academic credentials for Santa Cruz/Riverside can fill out his UC application for those schools, yet simply check the box or click the button for UCLA/CAL in the "which campuses are you applying to?" and voila, his app is sent to those schools.</p>
<p>Conversely, if this same student wanted to apply to Stanford or USC, instead of merely clicking two more buttons, they would have to fill out a completely new applciations, including writing three essays for each school, not to mention having having to file more in-depth financial aid statements such as the PROFILE. In comparing UC's to California private schools, one cannot use admission percentages for this exact reason.</p>
<p>"Seriously don't make me laugh at your homer statement. Only UCLA can be compared to USC in terms of athletics, the rest are an afterthought."</p>
<p>yea... 95 national championships.. the most of any university. while ucla does have 11 in basketball, its the well-roundedness of other "non-money" sports that often gets overlooked and deserves more respect. just won another one this year-- men's water polo-- against none other than stanford ;)</p>
<p>"Um... no. USC does not raise more money than Harvard University."</p>
<p>True, Harvard annually takes the top prize in financial gifts. What the poster meant to say was that USC's recently completed capital campaign, "building on excellence," was the most successful (to date) in higher education ending at 2.85 billion. Coming is second is a recently completed capital raising campaign by Columbia concluding at 2.83 billion.</p>
<p>Furthermore, figures tabulated by the Chronicle of Higher Education show that no other university has ever received three individual contributions of $100 million or more. USC has received four - one notably form a UCLA grad. For the person who tried to make a comparison to UCLA's current campaign, "Campaign UCLA"... please. UCLA, not even taking into account California's budget woes, will never reach the fiscal security USC enjoys, nor will be able to build up something comprabale to the financial war chest USC is currently using to lure top professors in a current senior faculty hiring campaign it's currently undertaking. While UCLA is figuring out where to cut costs and whose tuition to raise, USC is hiring professors away from the Ivies.</p>
<p>The simple fact is USC grads are more loyal to their alma mater than many of their counterparts. Those on CC here who would mock USC, mock on. I'll just post another link about how an alumnus from your university, for one reason or another, just wrote USC a fat check.</p>
<p>what one app fee are you talking about? I applied to 3 campuses and paid $165....$55 for each.</p>
<p>themegasomething:</p>
<p>It's probably true that USC alums are more loyal to their university in terms of donations, and it is certainly true that USC has a larger endowment than UCLA. USC has fewer students and has been in existence for 39 more years than its cross-town rival. </p>
<p>To me this begs the question, why does USC find itself in a position where it is playing catch up vis-a-vis a younger public university? It has an age advantage, a financial advantage, and a stellar (local) alumni network. As one of the oldest universities in the west and with so many assets, why isn't it a notch or two above the publics? The faculty aquisitions are certainly a welcomed improvement for USC, but why didn't the university secure these positions long ago?</p>
<p>As for Campaign UCLA -- it's difficult to understand how one could so easily dismiss raising over 2.7 billion in 7 years. That is over $500,000,000 more than USC's entire endowment. And while it's true that California's budget difficulties are not helping the UCs, one should keep it in perspective by noting that only 20% of the operating budget comes from the state. The rest comes from private fundraising, something which the administration at UCLA seems to be managing quite well. Carnesdale has also proposed a "higher fee, higher aid" policy to make up for any remaining shortfall. I for one support the idea.</p>
<p>bicoastal,</p>
<p>I stand corrected. Campaign UCLA's numbers are indeed impressive. While it still has not reached USC's 2.85 billion becnhmark, apparently it is on track to do so - something I was unaware of.</p>
<p>There are several reasons why I believe USC has had to play catch up, though these are all theories. For starters, unlike Stanford, U of Chicago, Vanderbilt, and many other private universities, USC lacked a major wealthy benefactor. Families such as the Rockefellers were able to endow their fledgling universities from the start to ensure they never encountered fiscal difficulties. Conversely, the founding of USC was largely the effort of more financially modest community leaders - not oil tycoons. Consequently, USC often encountered hard times, even resorting to building barracks for military officers during world war II to receive government aid.</p>
<p>Another reason why I believe USC has had to play catch up is simply because it's competition is so fierce. The fact that UCLA was founded merely in 1919 and yet has rocketed to the top 30 is one of the greatest success stories in higher education, and I believe is the only school founded in the 20th century to be ranked that high. Indeed the school over in Westwood has had an admirable, albeit brief, history.</p>
<p>Not until recently (the President Sample era beginning at the start of the last decade) has USC really risen into the national conscience academically. Perhaps a reason why Trojans are so proud is because this upward trend shows no signs of slowing down as the credentials of each freshman class rise (avg. SAT scores have already surpassed Berkeley, let alone UCLA while avg. GPA is almost that of UCLA) and contributions keep pouring in. In the meantime, with the newfound exception of Campaign UCLA, UCLA seems to be stagnating academically, witnessing only slight differences in it's freshman class profiles. Budget woes only add to the mix, though I agree that Carnesale has a good outline. We'll see how they do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yea... 95 national championships.. the most of any university. while ucla does have 11 in basketball, its the well-roundedness of other "non-money" sports that often gets overlooked and deserves more respect. just won another one this year-- men's water polo-- against none other than stanford
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually USC has 105 national championships total (most men's NCAA national championships) but since some of them are not recognized "NCAA" championships we are behind UCLA. Also take into consideration that 15 NC's of UCLA's championships come from sports that USC doesn't even compete in (Softball and Gymnastics). Is that UCLA's fault? No, but you have to take it into consideration when doing heads up comparisons. </p>
<p>Overall in terms of tradition, history, and accomplishments I personally believe USC takes the top honors for best athletic program of the 20th century and many will echo the same sentiment. I say that with the upmost respect for UCLA, Wooden, and the great teams that have come out of Westwood.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me this begs the question, why does USC find itself in a position where it is playing catch up vis-a-vis a younger public university? It has an age advantage, a financial advantage, and a stellar (local) alumni network.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CA funding, lower tuition, and nicer area? USC has had the financial advantage in recent years. There was hardly an "advantage" in years past.</p>
<p>To add an interesting factoid, UCLA's banner sport is generally considered to be basketball while USC's is generally considered to be football. UCLA has the most NCAA basketball titles with 11. USC is tied with Notre Dame with the most NCAA football titles with 11.</p>
<p>Academic
1. Stanford and Caltech
3. UC Berkeley
4. UCLA
5. Claremont McKenna
6. UCSD
7. Harvey Mudd</p>
<p>Reputation
1. Stanford
2. Caltech
3. UC Berkeley
4. UCLA
5. USC
6. Claremont McKenna
7. UCSD</p>
<p>CSU's (Academics + Reputation)
1. Cal Poly SLO
2. Cal Poly Pomona
3. CSU Long Beach ("The Beach")</p>
<p>UC's (Academics + Reputation)
1. UC Berkeley
2. UCLA
3. UCSD
4. UC Davis and UCI
6. UCR
7. UCSC
8. UC Merced</p>
<p>Though UCR is usually considered the bastard child of the UC, Chancellor France A. Cordova, UCR's new Chancellor, is pushing for new programs and her ambition is unmatchable. Plus, UCR has that program with UCLA for medical school.</p>
<p>I think some people might put Caltech above Stanford and depending on the major field of study their could be shifts between any of the top ten schools. It is great that California has so many great schools, hopefully we will one day get Sacramento to remember the value of the UC system. It is clearly lacking support today, almost to the extent that they are intentionally destroying their ability to provide superior educations. We need more college families voting. We could use two or three new UCs to accomodate the instate need and to allow greater opportunities for out of state students in our UC system. I suggest a UC Mendacino. Maybe we also need to get a group name for our best schools, I suggest the Magnolia League. Then we could group market our quality like the Ivy do. LOL</p>
<p>Magnolia League? That's not even our state flower. If anything, it would be the California Yellow Poppys. But that sounds way too weird.</p>
<p>I purposely disregarded the constant bickering between UCLA and USC. Neither side will ever concede one is better than the other and sometimes it the argument dissipates into ad hominem. This is of course in general and not related to any of the above statements on this page.</p>
<p>I luv USC, UCSB, and Claremont McKenna =)! who cares about "BEST" reputation...everyone will have their own interpretation and outlook on what is a "good college" based on their interests and goals in life.</p>
<p>yes UCR is taking great stides to improve. however, i do recall that they disbanded the thomas haider program where you can get into ucla med school from UCR (somebody from my h/s actually got into ucla med through this, though)</p>
<p>Well the Chancellor is pushing for a UCR Medical Center and School.</p>
<p>eiffel, poppy doesn't work, maybe orange league would. I would suggest west coast league but then we would have to invite Reed.</p>
<p>The top UCs should have special dorms and considerations for top students and 1/3 of the space should be targeted for out of state/country students. </p>
<p>What would you gentle people consider the top public college (non UC?) Why can't I think of one?</p>
<p>Eiffelguy, what happened to Pomona? since when did a school with an average SAT of 1450 and a funding of over $1 billion for under 1600 students rank lower than its claremont college counterparts, CMC and harvey mudd, as well as UCSD?</p>