<p>Which is better? More importantly, which one is harder to get into?</p>
<p>lol! you asking this in the UCLA forum.<br>
UCLA is definitely harder to get into I believe. Being a public institution where you receive more grants and such, as well as lower tuition helps.<br>
FUSC! =P</p>
<p>UCLA is better, UCLA is harder to get into, and USC sucks at everything except football.</p>
<p>Okay, trying to come from an unbiased point of view...</p>
<p>UCLA and USC for undergrad are roughly the same. Both have their strengths and weaknesses really... for academics, UCLA is more well-rounded, USC has more of a pre-professional emphasis. Both are good to go to for the college experience as well. As far as jobs come, for most fields, they are recruited and treated roughly the same. UCLA carries a better reputation overall because of its stellar graduate programs and because USC has only recently gotten serious about its academics. </p>
<p>As for harder to get into, that is UCLA for sure. I don't think this has been debated. The only exception that for the first time, USC has a higher average incoming freshman SAT score than UCLA, but that's just one of many factors. Overall, UCLA is still the tougher school to get admitted into... to the point that some complain UCLA admissions is "random," and many compare it to being almost identical to Berkeley's admissions standards.</p>
<p>UCLA is better.
UCLA is harder to get into.</p>
<p>Thank you for polling the UCLA message board. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"As for harder to get into, that is UCLA for sure. I don't think this has been debated. The only exception that for the first time, USC has a higher average incoming freshman SAT score than UCLA, but that's just one of many factors. Overall, UCLA is still the tougher school to get admitted into... to the point that some complain UCLA admissions is "random," and many compare it to being almost identical to Berkeley's admissions standards."</p>
<p>kfc4u, I appreciate your objective response and I'll try my best to do the same. However, I take issue with your second paragraph. </p>
<p>USC actually surpassed UCLA's avg. SAT scores in 2001 (and surpassed Berkeley in '04) and has had the gap widen steadily ever since, with the avg. GPA gap closing (4.0@USC vs. 4.12@UCLA). Also, whereas in the past (as recently as 5 years ago) an admission to UCLA almost automatically implied an admission to USC, you'll find cases much more often now where a student will get into UCLA but not USC; though I'm sure the cross admit ratio is still in UCLA's favor. USC admits 27% of its students vs. 23% at UCLA which is not a significant difference at all.</p>
<p>However, as another current thread somewhere mentions, UCLA's admissions are as difficult as PENN's, despite its applicant pool being significantly less qualified -- not that UCLA's applicant pool isn't stellar, but merely in comparison with PENN, an ivy, a statistically significant difference exists. As someone pointed out, it's likely attributed to the UC's common app which lets someone of, say, UC-Santa Cruz caliber apply to UCLA on a whim by merely checking a box whereas if that student wanted to reach for USC or Penn, they'd have an entirely new application (replete with 4 essays) to do. </p>
<p>This is not to say that UCLA admissions isn't as selective as it is on its own merit, but simply that other lurking variables exist. The past few years it has posted admission percentages less than that of Berkeley, and I would anecdotally comment that it is as hard to get into UCLA as Berkeley. </p>
<p>I would also -- all bias aside -- say that for CA residents, it is only, despite what those on this board will tell you (or those on the USC board who will argue the complete opposite) <em>slightly</em> harder to get into UCLA than USC. The number of students who now get rejected from USC and into UCLA reflect this. </p>
<p>One last thing is that both schools appear to have different priorities when considering applicants. UCLA, on paper, gives a slightly bigger edge on GPA while USC, on paper, seems to give more consideration to standardized test achievement. It's something to bear in mind if you're a CA resident considering the two schools. It's also another rebuttal to the argument that UCLA is, hands down, harder to get into. Perhaps harder to get into if you if your application skews toward what USC gives more consideration to. If I was an applicant with a 1200/4.6, I'd likely have much more difficulty getting into USC.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that they're both elite, and unless you have the credentials of an ivy-admit, will likely be challenging to get into. I've seen students who looked incredible on paper get rejected from both and I laugh when others consider each a "safety." UCLA and USC are safeties for only a very select few, and with a nod to kfc4u's comment about UCLA admissions sometimes being considered random, I'd even go as far to say that UCLA is a safety for no one.</p>
<p>good post there megastud, I agree completely.</p>
<p>I'm applying to both USC and UCLA this fall. I'm still really undecided on where I would go if I got in both. If I get into both, another visit and the amount of scholarships I get at each will probably decide that. I have to say though, that from what I've seen, as far as out of state admissions, it is a world of difference between USC and UCLA. USC considers out of staters the same as in state being a private institution. UCLA discrimminates against out of state students more than any other public school in the country IMO. When I tell people my stats, most say I have a great shot at USC, but a so so shot at UCLA. So as far as out of state goes, UCLA is probably on par with IVY admissions (I think I have a better shot at Cornell than I do at UCLA). As far as instate admissions go, I think megastud covered it. I'm not sure which is more difficult, they seem to emphasize slightly different things. But also remember UCLA counts the highest SAT in one sitting, so that may lower the average by 10-30 points.</p>
<p>Wow, thanks for everyone's unbiased views. They really helped me a whole lot. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't UCLA a public school? It is right? Then why is it so hard to get into? I expect that from ivy league and private universities, but not from a public college. I also hate to think that UCLA admits students "randomly", it just gets me annoyed. They want people to apply to their colleges, but they don't give prospective students a main idea of what they're looking for. Besides USC and UCLA, what are some other great schools in California?</p>
<p>Top schools have competitive admissions regardless if they're public or private. While public universities have an obligation to educate the populous of its own state, the sheer lack of space versus the number of admission candidates (high in this instance because a UCLA degree will get one farther than a CSU-Podunk one) makes this impossible. The same holds true for other top publics like Berkeley, UVA, Michigan, UNC...</p>
<p>And UCLA admissions isn't really random; it's just an oft-recurring joke because sometimes it appears that way. For instance, many have stories about knowing someone with a 1500/4.5 getting rejected by UCLA, and yet also knowing a non-athlete, non-minority with a 1200/3.8 getting in. Obviously this isn't the norm otherwise UCLA's avg admit stats wouldn't be as they are, but this type of situation seems to happen more often at UCLA than other top schools. Maybe their adcom puts more weight on intangibles.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, the top CA schools are often considered to be (this is not a ranking nor are these in any order) Stanford, CalTech, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and UCSD along with Pomona and Harvey Mudd to round out the LAC's.</p>
<p>How about CalState?</p>
<p>a trojan is good only one time BUT a BRUIN LASTS FOOOOOOREVAAA!. roar lol :]</p>
<p>Actually, because of USC's alumni networking and connections, a more true statement we have is "you're a Bruin for four years but one is a Trojan for life." UCLA students who've gone to USC for grad school have echoed that sentiment on this board.</p>
<p>The best Cal State's are generally considered to be the Cal Polys, SDSU, and Long Beach.</p>
<p>^^lol. I'm thinking.......huh? What's a Bruin?</p>
<p>UCLA is a public school. However, it appears that the top campuses of the UC system is much better than most state schools. Some people see these top public campuses along with a few privates (such as Stanford and USC) to be the "Ivy league of the west coast."</p>
<p>For California residents, the top UCs (Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego -- more or less in that descending order) are a great value.</p>
<p>The "random" factor that people speak of isn't really random. Obviously high GPA, high SATs, and ECs are what they want. But some people with great stats don't get in while others with less than stellar stats gets acceptance.</p>
<p>CalState (CSU) is not a great option. Some may be better than the lower tiered UCs, like UC Riverside. The requirements are lower and so is prestiege. But, I've been told that it's better for people seeking a less research oriented education. UC and CSU are both state school systems, but UC is generally held in higher regards.</p>
<p>Also, what makes it so difficult for out-of-state (OOS) applicants to UCs is that the percentage of out-of-state students is capped. From other threads, I heard that this figure is about 10%. Though the admit rate among out-of-state applicants is roughly the same to the overal admit rate. So as an OOS applicant, the cost is going to be almost the same whether it's private or public. And as you know, the services offered to students at private schools are better.</p>
<p>"Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't UCLA a public school? It is right? Then why is it so hard to get into? I expect that from ivy league and private universities, but not from a public college."</p>
<p>Yes it is. I also see you're from Georgia. Many East Coast and Southern students have a hard time understanding why the UC's (UCLA and Berkeley in particular) are so difficult to get in. That is because the vast majority of the state schools (besides some like UVA) are NOT difficult to get in. Thus, someone might compare UCLA as a state school with another state school like UConn or UMass or SUNY etc, when the truth is, there's a whole other tier of state schools in California (the Cal States) and that the UC system is a tier above the vast majority of the state schools in the USA. If you look at US News rankings, even the lowest ranked UC, UC Riverside, is still ranked higher than 25 state flagships (half the USA!). </p>
<p>"I also hate to think that UCLA admits students "randomly", it just gets me annoyed."</p>
<p>I am sometimes confused myself by the "randomness" of UCLA and UC Berkeley admissions, but so far, the vast majority of the students I've met at UCLA are qualified. This "randomness" is the same randomness that you get at the Ivies and the top schools -- there are too many overqualified applicants and not enough spots. I think it is because many applicants fit into the UCLA statistical averages that they complain about the randomness while you don't hear it as often from the Ivy applicants. But contrary to popular opinion, I think UCLA admissions ISN'T based solely on statistics and is based on many more factors. EC's seems to be a big one; many students at UCLA participate in EC's in college too. And don't overlook the essays; there's no standing committee doing admissions, meaning individual officers actually have the time to read them.</p>
<p>"Besides USC and UCLA, what are some other great schools in California?"</p>
<p>Stanford, UC Berkeley, Cal Tech. If you're looking for LAC's, Pomona is a popular one.</p>
<p>I would say that UCLA is the better school. I was accepted to both with a trustee scholarship at SC and a Regents Scholarship at UCLA. As far as admission is concerned, I think Cal, UCLA, and USC are roughly on par, however, I would give a slight edge to LA and Cal in this respect. Reputation wise, UCLA is considered better than USC, although SC has significantly improved its rep over the past few years. I think if you are admitted to both, you should definetely visit each campus and talk to students with an open mind because IMO you can't really go wrong with either. However, what tipped the scale in UCLA's favor for me was that UCLA had a significantly better location, better campus (just personal opinion), a larger breadth of courses, and more prestige and respect internationally, domestically, and locally. But in the end, it all depends on the individual and its up each person to decide which is the better fit.</p>
<p>oh gosh you remind me of myself. i had to choose between SC and LA..and all i can say is so far i'm so happy i chose UCLA :). </p>
<p>both schools are awesome. the one thing i really, really don't like about USC is that it has a "we are a business/corporation that needs major advertisement" type feel. their focus always seems to be about raising the endowment, keeping the football team famous, over-exposing their name, and only doing things that will help superficially help them in the rankings. I didn't like that for a school you had to pay SO MUCH for (like without any aid or scholarships in my case) you're only guaranteed 1 year of housing, it has a lot of crappy run-down dorms/facilities, and get bad food. then again improving stuff like that won't help them in rankings right? so yeah little things like that bugged me.</p>
<p>They certainly did some advertisement, because they think they lag behind in reputation and want more people to know them. In the meantime, they have amazing construction plan for academic buildings and student dorms. They also have campaign to hire famous professors, most of whom promised undergraduate teaching.</p>
<p>pixiedanzer, you don't have to justify your decision by bashing others like a lot of people do on this board, especially some of insecure mean-spirited UCLA students.</p>
<p>UCLA and USC both sound like awesome schools. I guess it all comes down to which one i feel more comfortable with. I better start planning my campus tours. Another question: Earthquakes.......How often do they occur? I have never lived in a state where we had earthquakes. I lived in NYC for 15 years and now i live in georgia.</p>
<p>alwaysthere i was just giving my honest opinion of what I didn't like about USC. i really got the "We're desperately trying to sell you a product" vibe everytime I visited the school and even when I meet people that go or have went there! I mean I STILL get mail from them. I recently got this survey/evaluation thing to fill out which blatantly asked why I turned the school down and all these elaborate questions that made me "rate" the school and my experience of it. "What do you think of our campus? Is it green enough? What's the campus of the school you chose like?" "Did you like our glossy brochures? Rate on scale from 1-5." It essentially was the type of survey you fill out after trying out a new service or product of some sort... </p>
<p>rankings rankings rankings. that's ALL i hear when it comes to SC. "we're going up in the rankings, we're going to beat UCLA soon, blah blah blah. will this help us in the rankings?" i never heard the word "rank" when I visit UCLA. in fact UCLA does things that risks their status in the rankings like quitting the National Merit Scholarship program because they don't feel PSAT scores is the best way to assess the merits of all students and screws a lot of people over. hmm i dunno, personal observation. </p>
<p>That all being said LoL, I <em>STILL</em> think it's a wonderful school and it really was a hard decision for me. I mean my dad is an SC alum and sooooo many of my friends are going there. ultimately my decision came down to the fact that I want to study Political Science instead of Communications (Poli-Sci being a UCLA strength, Communications being SC's) and the fact that I think USC, even though challenging, has the same sheltered, private school, "hold my hand" experience that I've grown up with by living where I do and going to the schools I've gone to. It felt too safe and not as exciting on a personal level. Many people want the whole big family/home atmosphere that SC offers, and that isn't what I was looking for.
UCLA is definitely a more intimidating place, where I'd be forced to grow in many aspects and be more independent. It is more exciting of a place to me, and the excitement definitely stems from stuff outside the football team. It's more politically active, has a big, expansive campus bustling with activity, and I know I'll meet/have already met a lot more people with different past experiences from mine. At SC's admit day, I immediately recognized people I knew from school or my neighborhood in the parking lot! LoL so yeah.</p>