<p>
[quote]
kfc4u, since when did USC's prestige become an issue in this thread?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>themegastud, i was just trying to prove that the prestige of a school varies depending on your location and on your social-economic background, and that needs to be taken into account. </p>
<p>i was replying to someone who thought vanderbilt and usc are very prestigious, and rightfully so from his/her background, which happens to be the (very) affluent southern california suburb of newport beach. usc is especially well-regarded in that city, but that person was surprised to see how usc isn't AS well-regarded (here on CC) compared to what his background has showed him/her. </p>
<p>but vanderbilt is rarely mentioned among the middle-class, especially out west, and how well-regarded usc is also varies in different locations (if you're not asking just usc alums of course). </p>
<p>i am not trying to bash usc or vandy but to simply show that for some schools, prestige may vary by region or by background.</p>
<p>I think many here confuse popularity with prestige. At the surface, they may seem to be the alike, but scratch ever so lightly and you will see that they are not at all the same. </p>
<p>Prestige generally assumes that the source is qualified to pass judgement. Most people aren't qualified. To the average person, University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, University of Miami and Lansing Community College are all equal! Prestige has to come from people in the know. Adcoms at top universities, top university professors and researchers, highly intellectual and educated people, recruiters for elite firms such as GE, Goldman Sachs, Cisco etc... Whether a qualified person sits in LA, Chicago, or a tiny village in Lebanon (and I speak from experience here), prestige is pretty standard. </p>
<p>Popularity on the other hand is a completely different concept. It is rooted in what is appealing or trendy. It is seldom backed by real substance and is designed to appeal to the masses and in some cases, even to the lowest common denominator.</p>
<p>For example, the best movies are seldom the biggest grossers. There are exceptions of course, like the original Star Wars Trilogy and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but in general, the top grossing movies (the most popular movies) are more likely to have a very appealing cast of good looking but not-too-talented actors and no real plot and a weak screenplay. Another example are restaurants. The best restaurants are seldom the most popular because they do not advertize and they charge way too much money. Most people know the trendy and cool places, but few will know the best restaurants. Only a small fraction of people actually know the top restaurants and movies.</p>
<p>You know what? I have seen that kfu4u have always attacked USC in his/her words. He/she does not have to show that kind of hatred which originates from jealousy.</p>
<p>You know what? I have seen that kfu4u have always attacked USC in his/her words. He/she does not have to show that kind of hatred which originates from jealousy.</p>
<p>No jealousy, no hatred.</p>
<p>I agree that "UCLA is at least as good as USC." in times past.
However, right now USC is better than UCLA peroid.</p>
<p>not most; all. even the elites seems to be somewhat underrated by students of competing schools. At least, many people choose to pick out these school's weaknesses and pull a Brutus on them (stab a famous name multiple times in the back) because of the competition between elite schools.</p>
<p>What college someone from one part of the country may consider to be prestigious may not be to someone from somewhere else. In certain parts of the Southeast, a state U. with a great football team would be considered more prestigious than, say, Yale. (I'm not saying I think this way but MANY people do)</p>
<p>Arguing which is better, UCLA or USC, is like arguing which is better, cake or cookies. They are both extremely respectable, excellent learning facilities. I actually live closest to UCI, but coming from someone who's close to both, they both carry a good deal of weight in job hunting around here. Of course, grads of one or the other are obviously going to argue about which is better because they're age-old rivals. :)</p>
<p>Dke, would you consider the opinion of an uneducated person to be a contributor to "prestige"? Maybe Time magazine, in order to compete with the USNWR, should launch its own annual ranking of colleges and universities, but instead of having a peer assessment score, they could use an "uneducated person's assessment score". In that case, I agree, Okahoma, Nerbraska, Alabama, FSU, Georgia and LSU would probalby all be top 10 universities and annual rankings would make USNWR fluctuations look like flatlines! LOL </p>
<p>I guess what I am trying to say is that prestige is only applicable to what highly qualified individuals think...and it is not at all important in the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>At this stage I think USC reputation is ascending, closer to UCLA than ever, but it hasn't reached its prestige yet. UCLA reputation is established much earlier while USC is still regarded as 'easy-entrance for rich kid' school. Nevertheless, USC department of engineering is flourishing, thanks to Viterbi legacy and contribution. USC prestige may reach UCLA level in the future, but certainly not now.</p>
<p>Matriculant statistics:
- 179 national merit scholars
- Average SAT: 1370; GPA: 4.00
- 59% from public high schools
- 52% not of caucasian ethnicity
- 62% RECEIVING FINANCIAL AID</p>
<p>Yeah, sure sounds like an "easy-entrance for rich school kid" kind of place. Maybe an easy entrance if that rich kid is a national merit scholar with a 1400+SAT.</p>
<p>I didn't say it is Themegastud, I don't really know, but many still perceive it that way. Believe it or not, people would generally say it's (much) harder to get into UCLA than USC.</p>