UCLA vs. USC

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
101

<p>
[quote]
One of my law school applying friends told me last year that USC law is better for career-minded people than UCLA's

[/quote]

UCLA employment rate - 99.6%
USC employment rate - 95%
UCLA median starting salary/private practice - 125,000
USC median starting salary/private practice - 125,000
UCLA graduates in private practice - 72%
USC graduates in private practice - 69%</p>

<p><a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1307%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1307&lt;/a>
<a href="http://lawweb.usc.edu/admissions/carserv/pages/emplinfo.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://lawweb.usc.edu/admissions/carserv/pages/emplinfo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

102

<p>
[quote]
One of my law school applying friends told me last year that USC law is better for career-minded people than UCLA's

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does this even mean?!! Do people think before they speak/type? </p>

<p>I mean, really.</p>

103

<p>well, most people go to law school off of a whim, just to get a temp job, of course</p>

104

<p>


This is the first I've heard of it -- why would the "Top 14" be considered the elite group of law schools, and not the often-mentioned "Top 15" in many other university rankings? What's so special about the number 14 to choose that as the benchmark, instead of the nearest multiple of five? Is there some law-school tradition I'm unaware of, where 15 is an unlucky number and should be avoided? :rolleyes:</p>

105

<p>flopsy,</p>

<p>It's actually the top 14, oddly enough, that's considered the truly "national" schools. UCLA is, for certain things here and there, considered national, but most people make the cutoff to be at 14.</p>

106

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

107

<p>Ditto. :rolleyes:</p>

108

<p>Can we please just let this thread die (btw, yes, I acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy in this post but this is meant for all future posters). Any USC vs. UCLA thread on a given college's own board is pointless. USC posters will indeed point out that USC does have faw and away more financial resources than UCLA (as witnessed by endowment size) and yet UCLA posters will refute that by posting figures for fundraising from 2004 (as if the only year in which UCLA surpassed UCLA in fundraising -- and not by much -- is enough to make up for a billion's worth of endowment size disparity).</p>

109

<p>hypocritical statement indeed.</p>

<p>Don't ask the thread to die when your own stance is OBVIOUS from that post.</p>

110

<p>idk if i'm an idiot.. but when i was on campus at usc, i felt that a bunch of the ppl were not actually that smart, but were just rich. So... even though usc gave me a large 16,000 a yr scholarshipo... and i'm oos for ucla... i chose the more expensive option to go for classmates who will be more down to earth... plus, who want s to live in compton when u can live in westwood?</p>

111

<p>Right, because USC's in Compton.</p>

112

<p>USC is not in Compton but the point is, South Central isn't even close to being as good as Westwood.</p>

113

<p>Megastud, this is a UCLA thread and you don't have to read it.</p>