UCLA's Chancellor vs. USC's President

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
41

<p>yeah even though i am choosing UCLA over USC. i still think USC is an awesome institution and i have the greatest respect for Steven Sample and his accomplishments. </p>

<p>but i will admit students do definitely get more for their money at UCLA: better food, amazing facilities, equally good if not better (in certain departments) education--it truly is impressive for a public school. they do really cater to the needs of students even with less money than USC to do extra things (construction of new dorms, the already existing dorms are much nicer than the ones at SC.) USC admits that it had to go through a makeover, while UCLA has always had a consistently good reputation throughout the world with or without massive fundraising campaigns. It is unfortunate though that UCLA is so susceptible to financial problems because of a lack of strong alumni contributions!</p>

42

<p>also, doesn't UCLA offer guaranteed housing for 3 years? no other UC's do that...and USC definitely doesn't do that even though you have to pay SO much more money for tuition.</p>

43

<p>UCLA is undoubtedly the better school.</p>

44

<p>I don't think anyone can say undoubtedly. If you do, you're only proclaiming your naivete.</p>

45

<p>ok then... plain and simple - "UCLA is the better school"</p>

<p>any problems, megastud? :)</p>

46

<p>Which do you think is a greater indication of leadership - to raise $2.7 billion at a public institution (in the face of state-wide budget cuts to all UCs), or to raise $2.4 billion at a private institution (where there happens to be a pre-existing "Trojan Network" of alumni that has nothing to do with Sample's tenure)?</p>

<p>Oh, and here's the quote you wanted...</p>

<p>"USC sucks." - Albert Carnesale</p>

47

<p>"Oh, and here's the quote you wanted...</p>

<p>"USC sucks." - Albert Carnesale"</p>

<p>Congratulations flopsy... you only make me wonder more and more why UCLA accepted you. I hope you count yourself lucky.</p>

<p>What do you think is a greater indication of leadership? Having one school rise from #42 to #30 in a couple of years, or having another stagnate and even fall from #22 to #26? When people mention rising schools, USC's name almost inevitably comes up. UCLA on the other hand would appear to be going backward. Progress, in case you've forgotten flopsy, is going forward.</p>

<p>"...or to raise $2.4 billion at a private institution (where there happens to be a pre-existing "Trojan Network" of alumni that has nothing to do with Sample's tenure)?"</p>

<p>I take two issues with this. First of all, USC's Campaign raised 2.8 billion, not 2.4 and currently is the record for the highest amount raised through a university's capital fundraising drive. UCLA, while apparently on a track to surpass this, has done it at a slower rate - meaning that if USC had decided not to cap it at 2.8 billion, could have gone further. Secondly, believe it or not, 60% of USC's contributions come from the alumni of other schools, not the Trojan Network. No, they're too busy ensuring seniors are able to enter the workforce. Speaking of which, I never hear anything about a "Bruin Network." Care to address that?</p>

<p>Furthermore, It appears as though even Bruins believe in USC's Mission. Alfred E. Mann, a double alumnus and current professor at UCLA has given 100 million to USC. No school, except USC, has been given more than three gifts of over $100 million dollars and we have a former and current Bruin to thank for it. Kenneth Leventhal, another Bruin, has given upwards of 50 million, sits on USC's Board of Trustees and has campaigned relentlessly for USC. This is all because of Sample. Can you name anyone with USC connections actively supporting UCLA?</p>

<p>I didn't think so. But it's ok; I have no doubt you'll counter this post with some out of context, irrelevant quote, or at the very least find some other way to cast your UCLA education in doubt.</p>

48

<p>no i don't know of any trojan giving that much money to UCLA---but I know people who give tons of money to USC, but still send their kids to UCLA. (my friend and future UCLA classmate, is the daughter of a very active alum/associate at USC.) </p>

<p>my dad is an SC alum (not active though) as well...and i am heading off to UCLA. he does praise the Trojan Network, but says the UCLA students are actively recruited and do networking as well. it's just not as established or hyped up.</p>

<p>i still think the average person gets more for their money at UCLA.</p>

49

<p>Yes, I do consider myself lucky to have gotten into UCLA (while throwing away a $7,500 scholarship to USC - not that it would've compensated for the tuition), and would likewise offer congratulations for a "Sample" of the monetary figures associated with USC's admirable game of catch-up. The fact is, however, that the principal reason behind USC's rise from #42 to #30 (while UCLA is at #25, not #26) was because the US News rankings heavily consider the amount of money alumni give to each school - that's right, USC's new ranking is just a proportional indication of Sample's alumni-gouging, rather than any actual rise in academic quality. $2.8 billion for 12 spots? Sounds about right. Congratulations on beating out Case Western Reserve, Lehigh and the University of Rochester. Maybe U$C can compare itself to UCLA if it ever becomes a tier-one institution. In the meantime, I await more ad-hominems.</p>

<p>By the way, thanks again for bumping up my thread; every little bit helps.</p>

50

<p>"The fact is, however, that the principal reason behind USC's rise from #42 to #30 (while UCLA is at #25, not #26) was because the US News rankings heavily consider the amount of money alumni give to each school."</p>

<p>Ding ding ding ding! You've stated a partially correct fact. However, alumni giving is not nearly given as much weight as average SAT ranges or % admitted. While UCLA still has the advantage in the latter, USC is narrowing the gap. Moreover, it's no secret that USC's incoming classes from as far back as several years ago have had higher SAT scores than UCLA's. Care to say this fact has played no role whatsoever in USC's ascent? If you think UCLA isn't in the same tier as USC you're only kidding yourself. If this were not true, then tell me flopsy, why is the aggregate average salary after graduation higher for USC grads than UCLA grads? Would employers give higher salaries to graduates of a second-tier institution?</p>

<p>Additionally, if USC has "alumni-gouged" its way to #30, then why is UCLA so stagnant in the rankings (even slipping two years ago) when it's been raising money so well (though one wouldn't know it)?</p>

<p>Lastly, this moronic thread against President Sample was the original ad hominem (and one fraught with rhetorical faults), so let's stop pretending like we're able to take the moral high road. And I'm always glad to bump your posts flopsy - it'd be a shame to see such constant fallacy slip into CC oblivion without first being exposed.</p>