<p>UCLA is harder to get into.</p>
<p>UCLA doesn't have an undergraduate business school and USC does. That could be enough to convince business majors to go to USC instead of UCLA. At least, that's how it was for me. The only UC's that offer business degrees are UC Berkeley and UC Riverside.</p>
<p>I don't think it really matters if you go to USC or UCLA. They're both pretty much equally recognized as great schools. I highly doubt a computer engineer from UCLA or USC will have a tough time finding a good job.</p>
<p>well u know most ppl these days go into grad school so they really dont need undergrad business major to get into that...</p>
<p>anyways a trojan is only good once but a bruin is forever!</p>
<p>Will anyone ever get that saying right? lol</p>
<p>Well, I dont think what you described is "we are a business/corporation that needs major advertisement". Sure they are selling, but that is part of the difference between a private and public school. Let's just say you and UCLA deserve each other. Hope you never need help from school's staff and your family, which I sincerely think a right way to grow.</p>
<p>What I said still hold, they are not "only doing things that will help superficially help them in the rankings", and you still know nothing. You don't know USC's plan on almost anything related to their academic program improvement, agressive faculty recruitment, and research facility advancement. And you made up lies such as "keeping the football team famous". That is a revenue sport, so it helps the school and the school doesn't need to help it famous. You really need to know how desperate UCLA want to have their football team on the right track. That is real desperation.</p>
<p>From a third party's perspective (though most of my family went to SC), USC still needs more efforts to compete with UCLA on sciences and liberal arts. And you said it right "ultimately my decision came down to the fact that I want to study Political Science instead of Communications". If you stop at this, you won't be like any trolling badmouthing ucla student a bit:)</p>
<p>uh huh. well why not stay on your own forum then because the only trolling person here is you. :) why do the students have to be salesmen too? oh wait, i already chose my school, yes God-forbid it's your rival. So yeah, there is no need to try and keep selling your product to ME.</p>
<p>My happiness is confirmed when I look out onto views of Westwood from the hill Royce Hall and the gorgeous Powell Library are on. Definitely beats views of grafitti walls and taco bell.</p>
<p>USC actually has a forum of its own? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I don't have a forum of my own to be precise. What do you mean by "why do the students have to be salesmen too?" I don't get it, the students at USC tried to sell you something? That is hilarious, and it must be out of their love to the school, exactly like UCLA student bashing USC.</p>
<p>You take this rival too serious, kiddo. You will feel stupid as you grow up. UCLA has many USC grads on its faculty, USC has a lot more UCLA grads on its faculty, even some trustees, deans, department chairs. It is NOT a big deal, and it is indeed a business. Grow up, don't stoop low to the level of flopsy.</p>
<p>P.S. Westow, if one want business degree but go to non-business major, he may have to work 2 more years, than 2 more years of B-school, that is at least 4~5 years behind a undergraduate business major. Anyway you may get a more well-rounded education, but this really depends.</p>
<p>Iuno average age of entering Anderson Business grad school is like 27... </p>
<p>Mackie45: ya i forgot how the exact wording goes hehe</p>
<p>LOl flopsy</p>
<p>anyways i saw this was gonna turn into those threads where we argue back and forth so im not gonna join in. but GO BRUINS!!!!!</p>
<p>alwaysthere, the only person taking the rivalry WAY TOO seriously is you. stop taking things so personally.</p>
<p>Yeah, don't take things so personally! :rolleyes:
Go Bruins!</p>
<p>hey Mackie45, if u ever have the chance, try to visit LA. u hit two birds with one stone haha. USC and UCLA are close by. but the order u visit should be UCLA and then USC. the way i figure is if u visit the nice, pretty campus of UCLA and then go into the USC "hood," u will realize how much better UCLA is. then if u get shot or something, u will die happy knowing that UCLA is what u would have chosen =))</p>
<p>hehe jk but seriously visit b4 u make the decision of "which school is harder to get into."</p>
<p>Why is the harder to get into question more important than the better question?</p>
<p>Each school has different strengths and weaknesses. This is inherent because they are different. Overall "which one is better" answers are hard to justify. I agree with themegastud first couple posts, and would like to say that UCLA's grad programs generally surpass USC's by far. There are exceptions, such as comparable film (with a slight usc edge) and perhaps business to usc and engineering equals, but the differences are slim. USC is closer in quality to UCLA as many would like to think, although not as high in overall quality as those at USC would like the world to believe.</p>
<p>Mackie, first things first :)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You should visit both schools during similar conditions. (don't visit one school on a day when you're optimistic and the sun is shining, and don't visit another on a day when you feel the world is against you, got into an argument etc) </p></li>
<li><p>If you still can't decide, apply to both!!
Procrastinate on your decision until the admissions decisions come out along with financial information. </p></li>
<li><p>If you have the choice between these 2 schools, Talk with your yourself, family, and maybe us cc-ers about your feelings/thoughts, their feelings, our feelings.</p></li>
<li><p>And fourmost, try not to mention the 2 schools in the same phrase/sentence esp with the word 'vs'/versus/or somewhere in there :)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Regarding USC's graduate programs, I think they mirror their undergrad counterparts in that the prestige lies mostly with the professions.</p>
<p>Basically, at USC, if your major is part of something named the "----- school of --------," it will likely be a top program. Just look at Cinema-TV (film), Leventhal (accounting), Marshall (business), Gould (law), Viterbi (engineering), Thornton (music), Rossier (education) --- though UCLA kicks USC's butt here --, Keck (medicine), Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Dentistry, Policy Planning & Development (public policy/affairs), etc. A few are the best in the world (film, pt, ot), others are in the top 10 (viterbi, public policy, thornton, anneberg), more are top 20 (law, ed,), and top 30 (business, medicine). Other programs which have no official ranking. architecture and Annenberg (comm/journalism), are generally considered to be somewhere in the top 10 and top 5 respectively.</p>
<p>However, like undergrad, if it's a liberal arts major, chances are it will be good, but not top 30; unlike UCLA which has many liberal arts departments ranked highly. </p>
<p>It should be noted though that a College initiative was praised recently by the New York Times, LA Times, and (most importantly) the Journal of Higher Education. The College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences (and its Graduate college counterpart), are spending upwards of $100 million to recruit 100 new, top senior faculty. The Daily Princetonian even recognized USC's initiative when a story on Princeton professor attrition found the school most of it's big-name professors not to another ivy in 2004, but to USC, calling it "a big blow." </p>
<p>This is great as it shows (unlike UCLA) USC has a "war chest" of $$$ to spend on recruting the best academic talent and is willing to to even pay top dollar for ivy-tenures to come to Los Angeles and spearhead departments. However, change is slow and it's unlikely that these changes will be reflected in graduate school rankings for some time. </p>
<p>If I were an english grad student (or any other liberal arts major for that matter), UCLA would definitely be my choice. If I wasn't a liberal arts grad student though, I'd be doing myself a disservice if I didn't give USC serious consideration.</p>
<p>Thanks Teal and everyone else for the awesome advice.</p>
<p>themegastud, what you said is probably one of the bigger reason why usc is underrated by the world. Some just don't know about their good programs, or love to hate them. maybe it's that. </p>
<p>Anyway, USC kinda reminds me of the Yankees in that they are kinda shady and have lots of money to throw around, while still not being the best. Luckily usc is on the upward swing, and the yankees not so much.</p>
<p>DRab, </p>
<p>USC doesn't remind me of the Yankees because although they have tons of money to attract big name professors, they don't dominate in getting them (the Ivies do) and thus aren't like the Yankees, who get like every team's best player. Rather, I think the analogy fits better if we compared USC with the New York Knicks, who also have a lot of money and pay their players well but doesn't necessarily field the best team in the league.</p>
<p>God point, kfc4u. I wasn't as familiar with the knicks, but the analogy makes sense (from what i now know.)</p>
<p>Good analogy with USC and Knicks, or other nyc teams, like Giants, Mets. USC got some good people in science, but none has the potential to be a Nobel laureate Unlike UCLA, UCSD, UCI etc at their beginning. The first several Nobel laureates of those schools didn't do their major work at UCs, or even won an award before joining in. But they helped a lot after they came. It just takes long time to turn around science and liberal arts curriculum, not as easy as other professional schools. But it is doable as long as you sustain the efforts. </p>
<p>Reputation in science and liberal art is crucial for any kind of ranking.</p>