I’ve managed to narrow it down to these final 2 schools but I’m afraid to say I’m split 50-50 between the two. I was admitted to USC’s Marshall School of Business and was admitted to UCLA as a Pre-Econ major. I am fortunate enough to make this decision able to fully pay for both schools, so I’m not considering the cost of attending.
I’m from Southern California and I have many friends at both schools, all of which rave about their individual school. I know I would definitely enjoy 4 years at either university. The most important factor in my decision is a place where I am in the best position to succeed after college. I was looking to see if anyone had any input about what they think is a better option and why. Thank you
My S1 is in the same situation. He was set on UCLA but then we went to Explore USC earlier this week and we really liked what we saw in the Marshall session. There are endless debates about the 2 schools, and a lot of it is biased toward UCLA based on historical rankings and reputations. But, what I’m trying to focus on is student experience and preparation for a career in business. To do so, I’m trying to get perspectives from recent grads and employers who recruit at both schools. Of course, there’s a big cost difference, as we only got minimal aid. I’ll post more as we learn more. It is rather stressful since decisions have to be made in 12 days!
If you are a California resident not getting financial aid at either school, UCLA will cost $42k less per year than USC. Seems like if you like the schools about equally, the $168k difference over four years is hard to ignore as the tie breaker.
What if you think of the $168k question as a business or economics decision?
@nadocrasin , the differences between the two would be that Marshall will be pure business, and economics at UCLA, of course, will be highly theoretical. Of course, Marshall will also have some economic theory with the accompanying courses (calc, stats) that are foundationally needed to study business finance or whatever sub-field.
If you were to choose UCLA, you can apply to its Business Economics major as a a rising junior. But still, the University keeps within its orientation by melding econ with business within that major, because UCLA embraces theory-based learning. This is why one doesn’t see public relations or a low-level marketing major at the University.
UCLA students in the two fields along with engineering majors will have excellent placement in various fields of business and commerce, and the Econ students aren’t hurt by having all the consulting recruiters flock to those who study the other two, as at some universities.
Similarly USC prides itself in Marshall for placement, and well it should, as it also does very well, but Marshall could overwhelm its econ students (but not its E students who hope to get into consulting).
I think the chief difference though, is that UCLA will place (edit: you into) and prepare you better for law school or a GSB, or both, no matter where the grad school is, and the theory will help you immensely in placement. So in other words, no matter where the grad program is, you’d be prepared because you’d better be able to grasp theory.
USC grads from Marshall will usually terminate their studies with only a BS or they may attend Marshall for an MBA. A few will go for law degrees, but grad attendance for them isn’t as prevalent as it is for those at UCLA.
Edit: The essence is that UCLA is undoubtedly more of a graduate-school preparatory than USC.
Sorry, my concentration was elsewhere, so let me edit Paragraph 3:
UCLA students in (edit: Econ and Business-Econ) along with engineering majors will have excellent placement in various fields of business and commerce, and the Econ students will not be affected by having all the consulting recruiters flock to those who study (Edit: Bus-Econ and Engineering).
USC will give you ability to double major with ease in four years, and UCLA may take 5 years to get through, so price difference isn’t as high as a straight four year comparison. Changing majors is easy, adding majors/minors is easy at USC as well. You can do business and econ at USC or pick a really interesting major or minor (150 minors) to add from any of the other schools at USC - Thornton, Viterbi and a many in Dornsife etc…and still get it all done in four years because getting classes is a breeze. You will have more flexibility to grow and develop into anything you want at USC. The USC alumni network is insane. Both big schools, it may be the public v. private issues in play to consider, if you like red versus blue better, the neighborhood…you know the obvious stuff - so where do you feel best when you are there?
What is hard for some to comprehend is that cost to attend doesn’t matter to some people - and if that is true for you as you mentioned, then go to the school you simply want to go to. Some parents can and want to send their kid to whatever school they want to go to. It’s your 4 years and you don’t get a do over. It does matter where you go to school, even undergrad. And consider yourself lucky that you have this choice, good luck - go with your gut.
$168,000 compounded once annually at a rate of 11% (for example S&P500 with reinvested dividends) will yield >10.9$ million dollars after 40 years. But what do I know, I’ve never taken an undergraduate Econ class and have no interest in “business”
over the last 40 years the S&P500 has yield 11.6% compounded once annually with dividends reinvested.
Also, most elite schools (Harvard, Duke etc. don’t offer undergrad business degrees).
looking back 10.9$ million dollars + UCLA degree vs USC degree 40 years later?
I believe USC offers a broader business curriculum that will prepare a student for all disciplines of business, whether accounting, banking, consulting, marketing, strategy, etc. UCLA’s curriculum is more limited - stronger on accounting but weaker elsewhere.
I spoke with a recent UCLA biz-econ grad who now works in finance. He tried to get into finance classes as a junior but couldn’t because the spots were taken by seniors. And, since recruiting season is in fall senior year, he couldn’t apply for finance jobs and settled for accounting. He did great - got into a Big 4 and worked his way into finance eventually. But, this is consistent with what I’m hearing about UCLA - too many students and harder to get classes.
@anon145 using your logic, no one should go to a college for 4 years but instead should live at home and attend community college for two years and then transfer to UCLA or USC, right? Because they will have saved so much money over the next 40 years!
In the real world, that 4 years attending UCLA/USC will be invaluable to the student and will stay with them for the rest of their lives. College is so much more than your monetary ROI.
@socaldad2002 no where did I say don’t go to college. simply UCLA + 168,000$ invested wisely seems like much better ROI than USC. IMHO.
And I actually have heard from a parent that he was thinking of sending his home schooled kid to community college at . $400 a semester to get the early prereqs done before guaranteed admission into a state flag ship and it did not sound insane to me. To each his or her own!
Please, if we can focus on the pros and cons of both programs – which is the intent of the OP – regardless of finances that’d be great. For some it’s a consideration but for others it is not. ROI can be debated in a separate topic. Thanks.
The OP lives in SoCal and knows many kids who have gone to both places. There is no wrong/right answer here wrt jobs. Does OP want to join the Trojan family – and pay for that privilege – or become a Bruin? Unless the OP wants to major in say Accounting, where Marshall is the clear winner* – its just that simple.
Since you are a parent nivlac, you have to decide whether the delta is worth it to your family.
The quarter system is better suited for double majors and adding minors. Econ at UCLA has limited req courses (it’s considered a “short area of study” or however it’s worded), so most students who study this do attach some other field of study as a minor or perhaps as another major.
The idea that it’ll take five years to get through UCLA is a thing of the past. See ucbalumnus’s graduation figures #12, which is comparable not only to USC, but to Stanford also (and Berkeley) all between 75-80%. (The E majors probably at all mentioned probably tarry; at UCLA they often tend to go over 200 units – when 180 units is needed to graduate.)
Re, “You will have more flexibility to grow…at USC.” Ummm, not so sure about that one. This is one of the best reasons to choose UCLA: to keep one’s options open. There are English majors who venture into public relations; Econ majors who go to med school; life-science majors who attend L-school. Again, UCLA is more of a grad preparatory than USC, and often feeds USC grad professional schools in greater proportions than its own grads.
Re, “The USC alumni network…” The NYT’s Salary Study with respect to the colleges has geographic undertones: the Northeast, then NorCal have higher median salaries than SoCal, so UCLA and USC are not as highly ranked even in CA. I know that USC prides itself on this network, but this study doesn’t manifest this wildly successful income [url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-southern-california]outcome[/url] for its graduates.
A little too anecdotal. I’m sure there are a decent amount of USC grads at Anderson, but it’d be good to have Marshall’s MBA roster of UCLA grads in comparison.
@anon145 . . . if you could respond as your name suggests
Additionally, if a child has an educational fund set aside by his or her parents, why not seek lower cost higher education and invest the remaining in a house or a business?
If you want to go one step further, some would say that higher education is not needed for a career in business and commerce (“b&c”). People always point to Peter Thiel who seeds and grants money to those who dropout or don’t attend to start their own tech business. There is no educational certification needed to delve into finance or other fields excluding accounting.
This is why I think Econ is a better major and certainly engineering also for a wider array of fields of employment within b & c. I don’t think Bus Econ at UCLA is limited to accounting, because one needs to be able to read financial statements in high finance, but we’d have to interview more students to determine if their futures are more set in that realm. I believe what it is is that UCLA Bus Econ majors who do especially well tend to get the higher-tiered offerings, including in the other majors I mentioned, but also that those who are more middling grads in the major tend to go as a default into accounting.
Here’s the commencement keynote [url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLhqjOzoyE]speech[/url] by a gentlemen at UCLA Economics graduation, 2012. This man was certainly of a higher plane, but I believe Econ graduates at UCLA are more intellectual, instead of Bus Econ majors who are cookie-cutter conformists looking to graduate to a good job.
There are > 4,000 Marshall undergraduate students; I’d love to a wider set of views among them to get a feel about their experiences at USC.
The quarter system may be good for this or that, but if you can’t get into classes it doesn’t matter which system you are on. There is no question changing majors is nearly impossible at UCLA. Students have said this over and over. The OP isn’t even admitted to the econ major yet at UCLA. He is a pre-admit. The post above is the best justification for USC I have read. It is good to understand that other people have different financial objectives (and more money) and ability to make choices others cannot. That’s life.
It’s a pretty big misconception you can’t get classes you need at UCLA. With smart planning and flexibility on time of class, you can get pretty much any class you need. Also the Econ major is short enough there is plenty of space to take other classes
@blueskies2day . . .If you don’t mind, I’ll numerically label some of your points I’ll address:
Re, 1, I think you’ve taken up nivlac’s argument wrt getting classes, and this was for a student who couldn’t get finance classes because they were all filled by seniors. It sounds like the student might have been a community-college xfer. I don’t doubt that cc students have a harder time filling their schedules; it’s something which UCLA has to work on to improve things for them. They step onto campus ready to take only (mainly) classes related to their majors as those with third-year standing, and their schedules become exceedingly restrictive.
Re, 2, this isn’t true. If you’re talking about someone entering UCLA as a social science major and later wants to major in engineering, it would be. A lot of this is because E has a lot of prereqs, so the student would be essentially starting all over. But life-science majors drop out of that department all the time and switch over to humanities or the social sciences because they can’t make the grades for premed. As opposed to some on this board would have one believe (and inclusive of those who intend to enter the health field), their careers aren’t finished because they can’t become MDs, even if they stay in the life sciences.
Re, 3, where would they put him if he didn’t exhibit whatever scholarship was needed for Econ? Econ at UCLA has effectively no restrictions of entry to the major. I think you’ve been taking the ideas on some of this board and multiplied them by 10 to worsen their severity at UCLA. I don’t doubt that Marshall would be a good choice, but I would recommend that the OP choose Econ at UCLA. I think it’s a better major, and it’ll open up a wider array of possibilities for his/her future.
