<p>“A weighted GPA is computed with credit given for AP, IB and honors classes. That is why it is 4.1.”</p>
<p>But if you’re taking into consider weighted credit, then you must mean it is a 4.1 on a 5.0 scale. A 4.0 scale means there is no weighted credit, whether it is AP, IB, or honors. Or am I wrong?</p>
<p>yes, but not all classes are out of 5, some are still out of 4, like P.E., making it impossible to get a 5.0 . At least as I understand it… My school doesn’t weight honors classes, just IB and AP. But I have something like a 4.4 this semester, so I can’t really complain.</p>
<p>the weighted gpa of the previous fall’s admissions data at ucla was 4.35. USC’s freshman class profile does not provide the weighted gpa of the admitted freshmen, but provides an unweighted gpa of 3.8 for fall admits. UCLA had an unweighted GPA of 3.86 for fall admits. very comparable. </p>
<p>UCLA had a critical reading SAT score of 654. USC had one of 630 to 730 for its middle 50%. Keep in mind that this includes USC’s policy of superscoring, which in my opinion, matters greatly on a large scale. just think of what your sat would have looked like if it had/hadn’t been superscored.</p>
<p>I will not go on into the other parts of the SAT, but each of the sections has similar trends to this one. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe USC does superscore the ACT. Why would they superscore the SAT and not the ACT?</p>
<p>USC had at a 24% admissions rate, UCLA had a 21.86% admissions rate.</p>
<p>“UCLA had a critical reading SAT score of 654. USC had one of 630 to 730 for its middle 50%. Keep in mind that this includes USC’s policy of superscoring, which in my opinion, matters greatly on a large scale. just think of what your sat would have looked like if it had/hadn’t been superscored.”</p>
<p>I think studies have shown that the difference between a one-time SAT and a superscored SAT is about 20 points on average, and many only take the SAT once OR take it more than once but don’t improve any of their sections on subsequent tests (like me, my first time was my highest on all sections so superscore doesn’t mean anything to me). So, while it may provide for slight differences in the SAT average, I don’t think it matters greatly at all.</p>
<p>From what I have read SC does NOT superscore the ACT. That is why I felt it would be a more significant comparison. Keep in mind nearly all private universities superscore.</p>
<p>A key component is the large number of students at SC in the arts, 18%. Those students are judged on more than scores and grades. How can a profile factor in talent, imagination and creativity?</p>
<p>Thanks to the poster who informed me the music school at UCLA is part of the School of Art and Architecture.</p>
<p>My daughter was accepted to both. She also received the Trustee Scholarship at USC and a UCLA Regent Scholarship (not much money but big perks and prestige) and a UCLA Alumni Assoc. Scholarship. She turned them both down for Georgetown’s School of Foreign (Ouch! I know. Declining the Trustee Scholarship was especially painful for my husband and me and we’re both Bruins). </p>
<p>Hard to say which school is actually harder to get into. One of my daughter’s friends was admitted to USC but rejected by UCLA–she’s in her first year at Cal. I know a valedictorian of a local school who got into USC but rejected by UCLA–he’s in his 3rd year at Claremont McKenna. I know of another boy who was rejected by UCLA but is in his last year at Princeton. My D has another friend who was admitted to USC last year but rejected by UCLA, Cal, and UCSB. </p>
<p>Last spring I heard Dr. Tran, Dean of Admissions, speak about UCLA’s admissions and he made it very clear that they turn down kids with perfect GPA’s and SAT scores if they don’t see anything beyond academics. Also, two years ago UCLA revamped their admissions process to be more holistic. They’ve changed how the applications are read. Also, I believe the essays are considered significantly. At UCLA and other UC’s I suspect you probably don’t get very far in the process if your statistics are weak. I think many of the privates may dig a bit deeper. </p>
<p>Finally, USC has admittedly come a long way in the last couple of decades. We were so impressed when my daughter was being courted for the Trustee Scholarship. I attribute the change to the stellar leadership of Steve Sample who has either just stepped down or will be shortly. He has turned that university around from a playground for spoiled, privileged California kids to a world-class institution attracting strong international applicants. I predict it will surpass UCLA in the rankings very soon, especially with the tragic budget constraints.</p>
<p>Another reason UCLA is mroe selective is that a lot more people apply to UCLA than USC, roughly 10,000-20,000 more applicants, I believe.</p>
<p>@georgia girl, I completely agree about the arts thing. As a cellist, I know my weighted gpa takes a hit. I’ve taken orchestra for 4 years, marching band for 3 and quite a few arts classes for one year (like dance and 3D art). These classes kill my weighted gpa, and therefore my rank, but given the chance to do high school again, I would not change this. I’m glad schools like USC take this into consideration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Accepted at USC but turned down by UCSB?! How is that even possible? O_O</p>
<p>Sorry; I know it’s not really relevant to this thread, but it’s just really shocking.</p>
<p>^ The UCs have very specific and rigid eligibilty rules. It is possible the student did not meet the UC eligibilty rules but was a top student. The VAPA and two SAT 2s requirements are examples of requirements many students don’t think are “important,” but without which they will not be accepted, even with excellent grades and test scores. (*The SAT 2 req will be eliminated in the future.)</p>
<p>Ah, well, if that is the case (and the student just didn’t meet the rules to be accepted at ANY UC) then he or she shouldn’t really be used in an example comparing UCLA’s difficulty of admission to USC’s.</p>
<p>The two schools have different institutional goals. UCs, for example, weight in favor of those students they are most intent on educating–those from California, obviously, but also those over a wide spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds. In this regard, the UCs will accept students from the top 10% of their class, even–due to the lower performance of many CA high schools–if this includes students with relatively lower SAT scores. </p>
<p>Private universities, like USC, have different institutional goals. They tend to seek high achievers from significantly rigorous sending schools, and therefore may take slightly lower GPA students from the hardest schools in the country. The comparative GPAs for admits to both schools can be deceiving and you can see by the comparative SAT scores that not all GPAs are created equal.</p>
<p>In addition, selective private u’s do pay close attention to the rigor of the sending school and the curriculum chosen: the As from grade inflated schools will not be seen as equal to As from extremely grade deflated schools. This is less of a factor in state Us, where it is a priority to treat all sending schools within the state equally.</p>
<p>Despite there differences, the two are among the top universities in the world. While the educational experiences may be quite different, and the fit will vary depending on what a student wants from college, each provides great qualities.</p>
<p>I offer the above opinion as the mom of a USC student and I also teach at UCLA. :)</p>
<p>^Interesting post! 
As the mom of a USC student and a teacher at UCLA, what would you say are the biggest differences between the two schools in terms of “educational experiences” and “fit”? Just the usual private vs. public differences or is there anything specific to USC/UCLA?</p>
<p>Great post by someone who knows!</p>