<p>I have business econ at UCLA</p>
<p>and Accountin or Business admin at USC.</p>
<p>I know this is a UCLA forum but pls i would reallly appreciaye unbiased input....what would be the better decision for me.</p>
<p>Thanx</p>
<p>I have the same majors as you for both schools. Although, I'm not going to go with either school- I would definitely pick USC for business seeing as how they do have a nationally known and well ranked business school and programs.</p>
<p>you would DEFINITELY go to USC?</p>
<p>I wouldn't think that USC gets that much respect nationally, but you may have some advantages in the LA area.</p>
<p>UCLA Business Economics is way harder to get in, has a better reputation and is a heck of a lot cheaper. Especially if you're thinking long-run and wanna go for an MBA, go with UCLA. Plus you can minor in Accounting at UCLA's Anderson school.</p>
<p>What are you talking about?</p>
<p>USC has one of the best undergraduate business programs in the nation. Pick up last weeks' Business Week.</p>
<p>UCLA doesn't even have a real undergraduate business school.</p>
<p>The reputation for USC in business is far better than that of UCLA because of one thing: the powerful alumni network, which UCLA lacks.</p>
<p>USC's Marshall School of Business > UCLA's Business Econ major--which really isn't a business major</p>
<p>and don't think I'm a USC fan. I got accepted from UCLA and rejected from USC. If it weren't for Art Center, I'd be going to LA.</p>
<p>But I would def. head to USC if I wanted to be a business major.</p>
<p>yep @ gatorobo. USC has a much better undergrad business program than ucla handsdown.</p>
<p>That's what I meant with the advantages in the LA area, the powerful alumni network.</p>
<p>And I guess if you strictly want a business degree, sure UCLA's biz econ program is not a real business program, and he should go with USC. But if he wants to get a financial job for example, or get an MBA, an economics degree from one of the nation's best schools is a great choice.</p>
<p>A major difference between USC's business major and UCLA's biz econ is that with SC, you are directly admitted to the business major, but at UCLA you have to complete pre-major classes and if your GPA is high enough then you can apply to the major. So if you're accepted by USC Marshall it's guaranteed you're in the business major whereas at UCLA it's not. Regardless of that, and assuming tuition cost isn't an issue, I would still go with USC's business admin. major over UCLA's biz econ.</p>
<p>About me: I got accepted to UCLA and rejected from USC Marshall. My grades ended up not being good enough to get into biz econ or the accounting minor so I'm probably just gonna be an econ major.</p>
<p>Btw, 13-9 :)</p>
<p>Thank you all for your responses......right now what exactly is a business econ degree??? does it really matter in the long run what my undergrad major is in.....so i get the alumni network is great at USC and will really help u get a job...but with a business econ degree at UCLA is it possible to get jobs just as well....Also ic having an coouting minor add to the business degree at LA.</p>
<p>Business econ is an economics degree with a concentration on accounting. An economics degree is a great foundation for an MBA later on. In addition, many companies in the financial industry specifically ask for a quantitative degree like economics. Just check out job postings.</p>
<p>getting jobs with a biz econ degree? There's tons of positions available, almost every major company recruits at UCLA.</p>
<p>wait, i thought that you could re-apply to Biz-econ at UCLA even if you didnt get it as an incoming freshman, so long you had the prep courses and the GPA, of course.... is that true?</p>
<p>
[quote]
yep @ gatorobo. USC has a much better undergrad business program than ucla handsdown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that this is true.</p>
<p>For one, UCLA doesn't even have a dedicated undergraduate business program. On those grounds alone, this argument fails. However, the notion that some magical USC network is going to get you jobs that you can't get at UCLA is just not real in any way. UCLA's biz-econ program will set you up with the necessary skill sets you need to get any job that USC's undergrad b-degree will get you. </p>
<p>Students on this site often assume that the name of your major is some sort of necessary factor in getting a specific job. This is rarely the case. You don't need a bachelor's in business to get into business. A solid econ BA will do almost all the same things for you. And in many ways, the education is more rigorous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reputation for USC in business is far better than that of UCLA because of one thing: the powerful alumni network, which UCLA lacks.</p>
<p>USC's Marshall School of Business > UCLA's Business Econ major--which really isn't a business major
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love statements like these that lack any sort of verification or supporting data. We're supposed to believe, without any sort of doubt, that this is the truth. What makes this statement true? What data supports this argument?</p>
<p>The problem is that I don't see any hard evidence either way. I've met people from both biz-econ and Marshall, and all seemed pretty satisfied overall. Besides, the same companies recruit at UCLA as USC. Something tells me that the hiring employers are a good benchmark of the programs' quality...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I love your statement because it's just plain dumb.</p>
<p>You can have all the data you want, but this is a subjective issue so you're never going to get any where with numbers and figures. I bet you're going to refute this with a "well, you can measure it this way" argument as a response, but just a warning in advance, it's going to sound stupid.</p>
<p>Hiring employers may not be a good benchmark of quality but it can land you a job.</p>
<p>And that of course, is the most important thing you want from a college. To land you a job.</p>
<p>Unless the employers you deal with think the education they received was crap, they have a better idea of the qualities you possess if the two of you went to the same school, because that person went through the same program that you did. They know what they got out of the school, and chances are, you got something similiar. Of course, they have to look at your other credentials but suffice to say, it opens doors for you. It's a first step.</p>
<p>No one's asking you to believe anything. I personally believe it because I've heard enough people from USC telling me how much alumni networking has helped them. And with that, I can think of more famous people coming out of USC, like the founder of Geocities, than I can for UCLA. If you can come up with people coming straight out of UCLA business econ that are recognizable, I will stand corrected.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter if both schools have similiar quality in terms of education. One school with a better alumni network than the other is superior to me. It's just one more advantage you can have to compete in this cut throat world. It never guarantees success, but it can help because it adds one more weapon to your arsenal.</p>
<p>To say that skills is all you need to pay the bills is naive because every businessman knows the importance of the people that you know. The people that you know, may know other people, and those other people may be the ones who will actually give you a chance because of the mutual buddy.</p>
<p>So nice try UCLAri.</p>
<p>And if I came across as a jerk, it's because I don't appreciate someone responding to me in a pompous manner with the "I love statements like these that blah blah blah"</p>
<p>I totally agree with UCLAri, not only because I go to UCLA :)</p>
<p>But the idea people have, that you need a BA in Business to get a job in the Business world is just nonsense.</p>
<p>Of course you don't need a BA in Business to get a job.</p>
<p>But I'm sure it'd help you a lot going into the corporate world more prepared with a business sense. I'd rather be the BA in Business dude than the clueless person who received a BA in English Lit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I love your statement because it's just plain dumb.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? How so? I'm saying that you need data to support an argument. Otherwise, it's just an unfounded statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can have all the data you want, but this is a subjective issue so you're never going to get any where with numbers and figures. I bet you're going to refute this with a "well, you can measure it this way" argument as a response, but just a warning in advance, it's going to sound stupid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. You can measure how many students get jobs at top firms, base salary at those firms, and ability to get preferred jobs. There are plenty of objective metrics we can use that aren't "stupid."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hiring employers may not be a good benchmark of quality but it can land you a job.</p>
<p>And that of course, is the most important thing you want from a college. To land you a job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right, but if we base our metric on hiring employers, then UCLA and USC attract (based on career fairs) the same employers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No one's asking you to believe anything. I personally believe it because I've heard enough people from USC telling me how much alumni networking has helped them. And with that, I can think of more famous people coming out of USC, like the founder of Geocities, than I can for UCLA. If you can come up with people coming straight out of UCLA business econ that are recognizable, I will stand corrected.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a biased sample. My sample is also crud, but at least I have students from both schools.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm pretty sure that Laurence Fink graduated with a biz-econ degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't matter if both schools have similiar quality in terms of education. One school with a better alumni network than the other is superior to me. It's just one more advantage you can have to compete in this cut throat world. It never guarantees success, but it can help because it adds one more weapon to your arsenal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLA has alumni at pretty much every level that USC does, and it's really quite easy to tap into. The difference is that USC is better at advertising theirs. But the reality is that after your first job, the undergrad alumni network becomes increasingly less important than your own professional network. Just ask John Henry...</p>
<p>
[quote]
To say that skills is all you need to pay the bills is naive because every businessman knows the importance of the people that you know. The people that you know, may know other people, and those other people may be the ones who will actually give you a chance because of the mutual buddy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but who says that USC's network is any better than UCLA's? USC does. Is this reality?</p>
<p>Furthermore, like I said before, the network you build after you graduate is largely determined by what you do at your job. It doesn't matter if your degree is from Harvard. If you don't produce results, you won't impress anyone. Skills produce results. Not Trojan families or Bruin families. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So nice try UCLAri.</p>
<p>And if I came across as a jerk, it's because I don't appreciate someone responding to me in a pompous manner with the "I love statements like these that blah blah blah"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just be mindful of the TOS.</p>
<p>I'll give an example.</p>
<p>My girlfriend's sister got a job with PriceWaterhouse (before the C) right out of UCLA. Another friend of mine did the same. I personally knew one person who got a job at BlackRock, and another who got a job with Deloitte.</p>
<p>I also know people who got in with tons of other Fortune 500s, including IBM, Citi, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Target (at the executive level, not the store level, of course.)</p>
<p>By this sample, I could say that UCLA's alumni network is incredible! But I really can't say. I also can't say how successful UCLA is at getting students, on a per capita basis, into these kinds of jobs.</p>
<p>I mean, I know that they recruit at UCLA. I saw them at every job fair. I got soft offers from a few really nice companies (and some good gov't agencies.)</p>
<p>But is this a good random sample? I doubt it.</p>
<p>I also don't know whether or not USC is that much more or less successful. The reality is that networking is not always just about your school. Internships can really help you to develop a network that a school network will never get you. So can cold calls, believe it or not.</p>
<p>But I just caution against buying into the "Trojan Family" or "Bruin Family" rhetoric. It's just too easy, and my own experience with getting jobs at the top tells me that alumni networks are useful but not always everything.</p>
<p>You bring up very good points. I apologize for my immaturity earlier.</p>
<p>In the end, I see it as this:
If there were a clear and definite answer as to which college has a superior program, the two institutions wouldn't be such close rivals in the first place.</p>
<p>And with that, you have success stories from both sides as well as failures on both sides.</p>
<p>Right now I stand by my preference to SC's business program, but I will concede that both schools are amazing and both will prepare you adequately in their methods.</p>
<p>In the business realm, anything can happen. The most random events can change everything for you.</p>
<p>gatoroboto,</p>
<p>I think there are definitely good reasons to have a preference for USC's program. It might provide students with more focused education in business.</p>
<p>I just caution against blanket statements that say that one or the other program is better "hands down" or "no contest" or "当たり前".</p>
<p>This is a bit, well more than a bit off topic, but UCLAri, did you take japanese at UCLA? How is it? I passed the Japanese Level 2 Proficiency test. What level would that be in UCLA terms if you know?</p>
<p>JLPT 2 would put you around the 3rd or even 4th year of Japanese. </p>
<p>After the 3rd year, language education largely becomes a matter of literature and linguistic mastery.</p>