<p>I want to know your opinion about the undergraduate business major. </p>
<p>I got accepted by UCLA's Business Econ major, and I am waiting for USC's admission, (which I don't warry too much to get in). However, I do not know too much about the two school's undergraduate business programs. </p>
<p>If I want to besome a CPA after I graduate, and I also want to get my master in Accounting, which school is better for me?</p>
<p>Money is not a concern...</p>
<p>I value more quality education and usefulness of the courses offered.</p>
<p>And also, which school is better in term of graduates getting a job?</p>
<p>Some of my friends have suggested that I go to UCLA for under, and go to USC for graduate, because I can get both networks while also enjoy different campuses.
Because UCLA does not offer accounting master, if I want to go to accounting master program without leaving LA, I guess USC will be my top choice, then maybe my friends have made a point...
Please help me... I'm clueless...</p>
<p>People at UCLA will argue that their bizecon program offers alot of opportunities, which it does, but USC offers a much greater breadth and depth of business options for undergrad. If anything, I might recommend USC Marshall for undergrad and UCLA Anderson for Grad (if you are thinking about an MBA). </p>
<p>As an undergrad at USC, you get a core business curriculum with your choice of a senior concentration (i.e. Marketing, Finance, Real Estate), and you can't do this at UCLA. Also, USC's Leventhal School of Accounting has one of the top 5 undergrad accounting programs in the nation, so if you really want an accounting degree as an undergrad, USC is a superior choice.</p>
<p>USC bias aside it is simply not in the same class academically as UCLA. Avg GPA's, SAT scores, Faculty reputations, departmental rankings all attest to that fact. </p>
<p>You know Seiken it is funny you say that. I was watching some reality show about rich women in Orange County and the daughter was arguing with her mother about wanting to go to UCLA because of its superior academics and her mother wanted her to go to USC because of the connections.</p>
<p>For accounting, it's easy choice: USC.
My relative works in this field for 30+ years. She is also a CPA and has worked in Big-8 accounting. She knows the LA area very well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC bias aside it is simply not in the same class academically as UCLA. Avg GPA's, SAT scores, Faculty reputations, departmental rankings all attest to that fact.</p>
<p>NRC Rankings in Economics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is simply false. Test scores, for instance:</p>
<p>USC</p>
<p>SAT Critical Reading: 620 - 720<br>
SAT Math: 650 - 740<br>
SAT Writing: 640 - 720</p>
<p>UCLA </p>
<p>SAT Critical Reading: 570 - 690<br>
SAT Math: 610 - 740<br>
SAT Writing: 580 - 700</p>
<p>Source: Collegeboard.com</p>
<p>And my understanding is that this was for last year. The gap could well have widened this year. Yes, USC superscores, but even taking that into account USC comes out on top.</p>
<p>The acceptance rates were 21% for USC this year and 22% for UCLA. </p>
<p>Also, not sure what an economics rating has to do with anything, since the OP wants to study business/accounting. USC is top 5 for undergrad accounting according to USC news and top 10 for Business Admin. UCLA has no undergrad business program, although they do have biz-econ.</p>
<p>UCB (Haas, big YES. Even if you didn't get into Haas, they offer the best degree)</p>
<p>UCLA (best academic reputation after Berkeley; 2nd most valuable degree)</p>
<p>USC (I think less "real world" approach than the others, but as many mentioned, they have a very strong network and such, and their alums are no doubt successful).</p>
<p>I'd go Berkeley (especially if you got into Haas, but even if you didn't) then UCLA, then SC. If you want to stay in Southern California forever I'd probably take SC over UCLA but if you plan on leaving it's UCLA easily.</p>