<p>i went to UCLA for summer school and now I just started USC for the fall...</p>
<p>education quality at USC > UCLA</p>
<p>by education quality, I'm talking about smaller class sizes, the way the material is presented, the quality of the professors, and the extra help that is offered outside of the classroom if students need it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
by education quality, I'm talking about smaller class sizes, the way the material is presented, the quality of the professors, and the extra help that is offered outside of the classroom if students need it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>did anyone tell you that UCLA is a public university :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Wait how many classes did you take at UCLA? Are you basing your conclusion on less than a handful of teachers and classes?</p>
<p>I would choose UCLA over USC for engineering. To the people only comparing the buisness schools to define the quality of the schools, there are other majors. But for buisness it seems USC does have the edge since they have an actual buisness major.</p>
<p>they're both good schools. just keep it that way</p>
<p>USC is not academically inferior to UCLA. Heres why. I spoke to people who are alumni from the two UC flagships (Cal and UCLA). I dont get my info from outsiders or hearsay. My calculus I instructor at my ccc is a UCLA alumna who attended all 4 years as an undergraduate, so her experience isnt the same as ours, transfer students. She said that UCLAs quality of education is overrated, because its an institutionalized bureaucracy. The professors are aloof, and as a UCLA student you get little to no attention. Most UCLA faculty are jaded and see their positions as boring perfunctory tasks. UCLAs system drops you in the water and lets you sink or swim. Some might argue and claim that UCLA-caliber students wouldnt need the extra academic attention anyways. Nope, this isnt the case. I know some people, who I literally sat next to in classes at my ccc, who were less consistent with test scores than me, and were stumped on concepts during lecture when I wasnt (and I was rejected from UCLAs business econ whereas they were accepted). These people, despite them having slightly higher GPAs than mine, werent more intelligent than me. </p>
<p>Just to enlighten the ignorant ones out there, a universitys academic reputation is determined by the kind of researchers they can draw in, or buy. And there are more reasons as well. But what does it matter that UCLA has Nobel Prize winning researchers when #1 youll never take classes under them #2 youll never be as smart as them #3 youll never even cross paths with them, and so on and so forth? Terrence Tao, who is considered the best mathematician in the world currently, is at UCLA. Do UCLA students take math classes under him? Ignorant people ride the UC schools academically elite coattails way too much, and dont even know why. This is analogous to people who brag about living in an exclusive part of town, just to see that they can only afford to live in an apartment or condo. Or the ones who brag about driving a Mercedes, just to see that they can only afford a C-class stick-shift, or certified pre-owned. </p>
<p>A lot of people also think that because USC once had the stigma of university of spoiled children that its still a school with easy admissions compared to UCLA and Cal. Well, heres some logic. Since the 2 flagship UC schools (Cal and UCLA) each received more than 13,000+ applications from transfers for this Fall, and USC received about 8,500 in the same respect, of course admissions is easier at USC. Additionally, a lot of people doubt that USC is generous with financial aid, and this is why there arent as many applicants to this school. I guarantee that if USC had as many applicants as say UCLA, then its admission standards would be just as discriminating. Theres no reason to brag about gaining admissions to UCLA or Cal, especially as a transfer, because theyre both public schools with about 25,000 students on each campus. If you want to brag, then gain admissions to the Ivy Leagues or Stanford, because these schools have undergraduate student populations of less than 10,000; and if you look at these numbers, you can infer that their admission standards are much more stringent than Cal or UCLAs. There is no glory in transferring to the major leagues from a junior college. I understand that few students had the GPA, AP classes, SAT scores, and ECs to go to elite schools straight out of high school, but they decided to save money by attending a jr. college. Most of us dont fall in this category. Be honest with yourselfa community college is really a second chanceto redeem yourself of your crappy high school performance. But the underlying point is: USC is not academically inferior to the UC system.</p>
<p>I would choose UCLA over USC because it's much cheaper!</p>
<p>There's no reason to brag about getting into Cal or UCLA as a transfer? This is coming from someone who got rejected from UCLA and chose USC.....hmmm</p>
<p>You knock on the UCs because they are public schools...well, why is it harder to get into two publics schools, Cal and UCLA, than it is to get into a private school like USC? </p>
<p>I'm not putting down USC completely, there have been some good arguments made about the quality of certain programs, like film and business. But generally speaking, USC is NOT of the same caliber as UCLA and Cal. If you wanted to major in psychology, for example, you would NOT choose USC if you could get into the other two schools.</p>
<p>Look at this ranking of schools by department. How many have Cal or UCLA in the top 10 or top 20? USC is rarely in the top 30.</p>
<p>If you read what I wrote (if you read, write, and understand English), about people who brag about getting into Cal or UCLA with unchallenging majors, then these are people with big fish in a small pond mentalities. My friend, psychology at UCLA is only impacted because so many people apply to it. It means that the number of spots at UCLAs psych department are overwhelmed by the number of applicants. Your major does not require heavy math or natural sciences, so stop trying to ride the UCs academically elite coattail. Its not like youre majoring in engineering, computer sciences, or studying for med-school, so stop your foolish argument, especially if you dont know the points argued. </p>
<p>If you read my whole piece, instead of being rash and jumping to conclusions, you'd understand the context of what I'm saying. I never knocked the UCs for them being public schools. Since psych majors dont require much math, heres the logic for slow ones like you. Cal and UCLA each have about 25,000 undergraduates. The Ivy Leagues and Stanford have anywhere from as little as 4,000 to right under 10,000 undergraduates, and hence the admission standards are that much more stringent than your run of mill public school. The UC schools are your everyday run of the mill universities. And I would even say the same for USC. Why? Because you can get into an ethnic studies program at the prestigious University of California at Los Angeles with about a 3.2 GPA. I may have gotten rejected by the 2 UCs I applied to, but I only applied to Cals Haas, UCLAs business econ, and USCs Marshall. My GPA standing at my ccc was a 3.76 prior to transfer. I guarantee that you couldnt achieve the same GPA, or even better, if you had to take the same courses I didpsychologys prerequisites are a jokebecause youre nothing but a gloried social worker at best who studies an easy subject that doesn't rely on structured principles. </p>
<p>You didn't accepted to UCLA's engineering, computer sciences, or pre-med program--you got into an easy program--so stop riding the UC's "academically elite" coattail. </p>
<p>My point was: USC is not academically inferior to the UC systems.
Another thing, stop using arbitrary rankings that are politically swayed. You're a TOOL because you get your information at face value. And finally, I hope you enjoy being unemployed after you get your UCLA degree (that's if you can handle your easy major and your "prestigious" school).</p>
<p>^^^HAHAHA^^^</p>
<p>I don't even go to UCLA and I'm not psych major. Maybe you should stop spewing your ad hominem garbage now, you sound like a third grader.</p>
<p>I read your previous post in its entirety and I was responding to it appropriately and based on your reaction, you obviously can't handle it if anyone has an opinion different than yours. You have an emotional investment in this issue because you go to USC.</p>
<p>The ranking that I linked to ranks undergraduate programs, not graduate programs. Not all UC classes are taught by TAs, just the lower division classes and its not 100% of the time. If someone is given the option of working with stellar facility for a percentage of their undergrad career and working with TA's for the rest of the time, or working with a somewhat less stellar facility 100% of the time, they might logically choose the former because of the advantages associated with working with someone considered an expert in their field. Therefore it is accurate to say that to a student with the above mentality would find the academics to be better at a school with better faculty, even if they do not have a contact with that faculty 100% of their years as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Until you can actually demonstrate how those rankings are "politically swayed", than you are simply spouting out nonsense with nothing to back it up.</p>
<p>I also already conceded that USC has some good programs, but I was making the point that the overall educational reputation of USC is not quite as high as that of UCLA or UC Berkeley, and insulting me by attacking a school that I am not enrolled in and a subject that I am not majoring in isn't going to change that fact. Sorry.</p>
<p>In your first post you attack me in your first sentence, by pointing out that I was rejected from Cal and UCLA, and had to settle for something inferior, USC. You don’t know how to sense the context of what others are saying. You’re rash. </p>
<p>This is what I got to say. We're in the "transfer" forums, so we can assume that everyone here is a transfer. There is no glory in transferring to the "major leagues" from a jr. college, and this implies that I fall in this category as well. So why were you so offended by it? Or defensive about it? I must have struck a nerve with you. </p>
<p>I'm not patronizing others in these forums. But I can’t stand it when people brag about getting into Cal or UCLA from a jr. college, especially when they knock USC, or pursue unchallenging majors. Big deal! The transition from jr. college to “competitive” university is easier than high school to “competitive” university, I’m not even going to get into this because you know it’s true. </p>
<p>If you have any logic, I said in my first post here that schools’ academic reputations are determined by the kinds of researchers they can draw in, and many other reasons as well. Who cares that a university has top-notch researchers when none of their loftiness will rub off on you? This is analogous to benchwarmers who brag about their football team winning championships. Who cares? You didn’t participate in the plays or contribute to the win. </p>
<p>To address the “politically swayed” issue, universities have always used arbitrary and un-objective means to win the favor of public view. This is true in all institutions from all walks of life. You posting that link shows you’re gullible, and take things at face value. It’s hard to convince people like you of the truth. Since I’m a business major, I follow articles in Business Week frequently. Recently, university heads were angry at US News and Business Week rankings, stirring up a controversy of how politically swayed and unfair they were. </p>
<p>I can take differing opinions. I’m not mad that the 2 flagship UC schools rejected me. I tried to get into some very competitive programs, and I don’t have a “sour grapes” attitude over those who got accepted. Why don’t you look for my other posts in different forums and read what I wrote about Cal? Why don’t you consider the simple math about Cal and UCLA each receiving 13,000+ applications from transfers each year, and USC about 8,500 in the same manner? These are some huge disparities. </p>
<p>Last thing, before I “hammer nail in the coffin,” that “top 10” or “top 20” mumbo-jumbo about Cal and UCLA’s undergrad programs are a joke my “friend.” I have many friends and acquaintances who are alumni of UCLA and Cal’s undergrad programs. They all have disillusioned, discontented, and somewhat bitter feelings about their experience as undergraduates from these two schools. They all tell me that after graduation you end up with nothing, in other words they’re unemployed despite them studying under a school with such “prestigious” academic programs. And no, I never insinuated that USC is an absolutely better school than Cal or UCLA. I’m aware that Cal and UCLA both have longer standing legacies of academic “prestige” over USC. Here’s the true anecdote as to why USC revamped their academic reputation from their previous “university of spoiled children” stigma: 1994 USC vs. Cal at football, Cal was getting their asses to handed to them by a 60-point deficit, 4th quarter USC fans were gloating at Cal’s loss, Cal fans retorted back by saying we got 11 Nobel Laureates you guys got none, this was blow to USC’s ego, from this point forth Steven Sample of USC decided to “buy” researchers so that USC would no longer hold the stigma of dumb-dumb school where you can buy your way in. George Olaf: Nobel Prize winning chemist at USC. You don’t even understand or comprehend the social dynamics of why a university is deemed elite. Whatevers….I can take a different opinion.</p>
<p>b boy, I NEVER attacked you in my first post, I was just responding to what you wrote. I don't go to Cal or UCLA (I haven't transferred to a 4 year yet) and I'm not knocking on USC. But the original subject of this post was USC vs UCLA as a transfer and I was simply pointing out that UCLA has an overall better academic reputation. I'm sorry if you have friends who went to Cal and hated it, its always unfortunate when people have a bad experience in college, and no college is perfect. But believe me, there are plenty of people (transfers or not) who went to Cal or UCLA (or UCSD for that matter) who are thrilled that they got the opportunity to go to such a good school. Just because you are a transfer student is no reason to not take advantage of the opportunities offered by the UC schools if you feel that they will suit you. And its still not EASY to get into Cal or UCLA as a transfer, its just not quite as hard than getting in as a freshmen. The point I was making was NOT an attack on you but rather for the benefit of the OP, don't just assume that because Cal and UCLA are publics that they don't have a lot to offer. I already made the point about having limited access to some top professors (and by the way, USC has TAs too) and I think its a valid one. Its a matter of preference.</p>
<p>And finally, you can argue about the validity of college rankings all you want; to be truthful, I would be inclined to agree that they are not as important as they are made out to be. Regardless of ranking, the reputations of UCLA and Cal are very strong and should not be downplayed because of their status as publics or because of their relationship with CCCs. They have some of the most well known and respected departments in the nation in a variety of subjects (I chose psych as one example) and its not just because they have good research facility. Take a look at the number of classes offered in those departments for the undergrad. You're not going to find that at the CSUs. For the determined and dedicated student I have no doubt that UCLA and Cal offer a limitless measure of possibilities.</p>
<p>As for USC, I don't doubt that it also offers a lot to its students. But like any other school, there are plenty of people who went there who were NOT happy with their experience and it suffers from many of the same issues as the UC schools. Therefore, in my opinion, if one was choosing between UCLA and USC (assuming that they were CA residents and they were not business majors) I would advise them to choose UCLA.</p>
<p>You know, I've probably complained more than anyone on this site about UCLA (and all of the other UCs except UC Berkeley and UC Riverside) not having a true undergraduate business major (only a graduate one). I've said why I believe that USC is the best choice for those pursuing business who can't get into Haas (UC Berkeley). </p>
<p>But that certainly doesn't endorse such a blanket statement as USC > UCLA for academic quality overall.</p>
<p>I have no idea where people are getting this rubbish. Every major varies from school to school--and even when it comes to business, I wouldn't go so far as to say USC is better than UCLA once you include the graduate school. Both are excellent--and there are certain business concentrations that are better at USC and there are certain business concentrations that are better at UCLA. </p>
<p>I'm sure the exact same thing applies to the other departments and concentrations at the two schools. So why the big argument? Let's all just get along, okay? (to paraphrase Rodney King)</p>
<p>A last comment--lots of people who don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for the Ivies or other top colleges end up at community colleges. It's not always a "place to redeem ones crappy HS record". As a person who attended Long Beach City College after being accepted to Brown, I think I can speak to this one personally. (My high school record was 3.96 UW, 5 APs and 6 other honors classes, SATs of 670/770 with SAT IIs of 800/800/700). And I have my MBA from UCLA, but am happy my son wants to be a junior transfer to USC's Marshall school this year--so I can appreciate both schools.</p>
<p>so umm... what are we arguing about?
If we are debating the over-beaten subject of prestige between UCLA and USC, here's the answer:</p>
<p>To the Trojans/Trojan Fans, USC is more prestigious
To everyone else, UCLA is more prestigious.</p>
<p>Academic Quality? Can't say one is more superior over another. I say they are equal.</p>
<p>Recruiting? I say they are equal.</p>
<p>Faculty Rating? Equal</p>
<p>Quality of Student? Equal</p>
<p>and just because USC deserves something to win over UCLA...</p>
<p>Football: USC > UCLA</p>
<p>There. All fair and square, now stop debating, go wash your feet and take some nice long nap. And be proud of whatever school you attend. Jesus christ, this USC vs UCLA debate is starting to get really annoying. It'll never end with consensus.</p>
<p>I don't really want to get into this, but if all you care about is how UCLA ranks higher than USC in everything from business to engineering blah blah blah, you might need to know USC Engineering Grad school consistently ranks in Top 8 for the past 5 years, whereas UCLA has never been placed in Top 15. </p>
<p>It's totally pointless to say UCLA > USC or USC > UCLA, both schools are decent. In physical science UCLA > USC whereas in engineering USC > UCLA. Can we all just be friends :-)</p>
<p>College is a college. The only thing that really matters is if you apply yourself when you get there.</p>