<p>Does a high school senior need some type of portfolio or experience in the film/tv industry to get into SCA?</p>
<p>brownjohn, here is a thread with LOTS of info on applying to SCA <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-southern-california/854601-official-school-cinematic-arts-2014-applicants-results.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-southern-california/854601-official-school-cinematic-arts-2014-applicants-results.html</a></p>
<p>You might want to start a new thread with your portfolio question so people see it.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>"there are about 65% of USC freshman are in state students, which prove that USC deserve the extra tuition. (i think there are few people who are rejected by UCLA but admitted by USC) "</p>
<p>How does that prove that USC deserve [sic] the extra tuition? What are you talking about? </p>
<p>“Daughter accepted by (amongst others) UCLA, Berkeley and USC. Chose USC.
a) We are definitely NOT wealthy
b) She’s definitely NOT crazy”</p>
<p>Explain this? What I did admittedly leave out of my original post was, assuming grants/aid were constant. Obviously, if you’re offered a full academic scholarship to USC and nothing at UCLA, that’s a different story. But if your daughter chose to pay more tuition to attend USC over Berkeley…she is most certainly crazy.</p>
<p>On a related note, you can’t directly equate out of state UCLA tuition with USC tuition b/c, after 1 year, you can become an in-state resident for purposes of the CA bd of regents (it’s not like, for e.g. Michigan where it’s nearly impossible to become in-state).</p>
<p>People talking about undergrad business schools and alumni connections, etc. are kidding themselves. First off, the whole idea of undergraduate business is repulsive. No one benefits from an undergrad business degree (there’s a reason why, with the rare exception of Penn, most top 10 schools don’t have undergrad business programs). Second, if you think your son/daughter is going to get a job b/c of u-grad alumni connections, I hope you have a back up plan. In any event, why not teach your kids to try and get somewhere by, I don’t know, achievement, as opposed to connections?</p>
<p>Maverick-Achievement and using alumni connections aren’t mutually exclusive. As to undergrad b-school, none of my kids majored in business, but my D was a class of 2009 graduate and I observed that her friends who majored in business were at a clear advantage in this very tight job market. Your objectivity has obviously been affected by strong emotions as evidenced by your use of the word “repulsive” in a manner totally out-of-proportion to the topic at hand.</p>
<p>"after 1 year, you can become an in-state resident for purposes of the CA bd of regents "</p>
<p>lol… you can’t.</p>
<p>
As unknownpleasures has already pointed out, you are quite mistaken about (among other things) California Residency for tuition purposes at the University of California. It is nearly impossible for students who enter the UC as non-California residents to obtain in-state tuition. [University</a> of California - Admissions](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/ca_residency.html]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/ca_residency.html)</p>
<p>
Haha! My kid is where she is because of her wonderful achievements so far. Add USC’s connections to that, and she is unstoppable.</p>
<p>
No, she was offered scholarships to all the universities to which she applied. Yes, after everything was added up, USC was a bit more than UCLA or UCB, but USC’s Thematic Option and the programs for her major/minor/minor combination were superior to the other options.</p>
<p>it’s alright guys, maverick1978 is still thinking of the pre-sample USC, not the current version of the school.</p>
<p>in my opinion, it’ll take at least another decade before the mainstream perception of the school accurately reflects its astronomical rise.</p>
<p>^ yeah i was gna say that too lol</p>
<p>josebiwasabi,</p>
<p>I disagree. maverick1978 is not mainstream. USNEWS is mainstream:) For anyone who is not UC-affiliated, especially who is not a bruin, USC is about equal to UCLA as for the undergrad academics. Based on my personal observation, I think USC’s overall undergrad student quality is better than UCLA’s. This change in student quality started years ago, but it is only being recognized more and more recently. </p>
<p>I do concur that it will take another decade for USC to be a research university that is equal to UCLA in profile. Not that USC professors did not do stellar research, as a whole, USC is lacking in research volume compared to UCLA. The new president specifically stated that elevating Ph.D. programs to an elite status is one of his four major goals in order to cement USC’s status among the elites. I am hopeful.</p>
<p>Maverick…</p>
<p>Your smug sarcasm and obvious derision towards anyone who doesn’t share your view permeates your post- so I am sure that this reply won’t influence your personal perception of USC- but I still want to respond to some of your comments.</p>
<p>1) You deride a business education- that is your perogative- obviously you are influenced by the University of Chicago(your purported alma mater) belief that an econ major is more valuable. Based upon the current job market and current hiring practices I respectfully disagree.
2) Is double majoring in accounting/finance also abhorrent to your delicate senses? UCLA doesn’t offer these majors either. Also- so that you can fully comprehend how “crazy” we are according to your supercilious opinion - my son also declined (gasp) Cal .
3) Thank you for your presumptuous “sage” advice that my son should disregard the alumni connections and “Actually try to achieve something”. You obviously make giant ASSumptions that my son was just going to skate by blithely assuming that his USC connections will assure his future. Let me inform him of this- oh wait - he is on an advisory board, just completed a prestigious internship, volunteers, is in the mentoring program…and has a 4.0. I will tell him that according to you he should “actually achieve something” Obviously-the only thing that connections may do is give you more opportunities to prove your worth- you must be able to back it up by your performance.But if you never get a foot in the door(such as an interview) you will never be able to let an employer know what you have to offer. And you must be drinking that special Kool Aid if you do not believe that connections can smooth the way- no guarantees- just more opportunies. </p>
<p>In my opinion you have an archaic view of USC- but from my RECENT perspective I feel that my USC sons quality of education is equivalent to my older son’s who graduated from a HIGHER ranked school than U Chicago. Also- my son has friends that decided to attend UCLA/CAL- and the current California budget crisis had definately affected their education. This is also a factor in choosing a private university over a UC in today’s economic climate.</p>
<p>I am sure that my comments will fall upon deaf ears…but I feel better 
So I will chose to ignore your pejorative comment’s because I do not believe that they are based on any current valid data- but are colored from your own bias and prejudice.</p>
<p>b&b’smom,</p>
<pre><code>I agree with your comments. Thank you for such a positive parent’s view.
Isn’t is amazing how alumni from this excellent university, which Maverick looks upon with disdain, manage to serve as Prime Ministers of Japan and Korea, found huge national companies, walk on the moon, head major universities, win Academy Awards, serve in high government posts, become Olympic champions, patent life saving inventions, star on Broadway, become members of national academies, win Peabody, Pulitzer and Emmys, lead famous orchestras, donate millions to SC and also serve humanity unselfishly as nuns, ministers, missionaries and community volunteers?
</code></pre>
<p>yes GG… it’s amazing</p>
<p>Some of you guys are delusive.</p>
<p>USC is great but I highly question its ability to scale the ranks of Stanford. While it may surpass UCLA and even Berkeley I feel there will be extreme resistance starting somewhere around rank 15. </p>
<p>Also, USC and UCLA are not yet equal. International perceptions of USC still needs work and some would argue even national perceptions.</p>
<p>USC will have serious obstacles becoming an established research university. While USC has a bigger endowment than publics like UCLA, its endowment is actually really really small relative to top privates. What more, even Ivies are sometimes jokes in the graduate arena. </p>
<p>Public schools have tons of government money pumping into them every year. More money is spent on research at UCLA than any other university.</p>
<p>USC also happens to have crappy alumni connections because most former USC alumni from 20+ years ago were not stellar students. While the connections between alumni are strong the first wave of truly influential alumni have just graduated.</p>
<p>I know everyone is passionate about trying to compare UCLA and USC due to the rivalry but I don’t see how it can be done fairly in a broad sense since they are both different in so many ways. </p>
<p>To digress just a bit, I looked up what USC and UCLA actually do take in through research funding and personally learned a few things I never knew. </p>
<ol>
<li>Johns Hopkins takes in nearly twice as much in research funding as the school in second place, UCSF.</li>
<li>Only 3 out of the top 10 schools for total research dollars are private. </li>
<li>If I had to speculate, it looks like having medical schools and a lot of medical research really draws in the $$.</li>
</ol>
<p>For anyone else who was curious, I got that from:
[url=<a href=“http://mup.asu.edu/research.html]Research-”>http://mup.asu.edu/research.html]Research-</a> The Center for Measuring University Performance<a href=“2009%20report”>/url</a>
Page 173 - Ranking of total (private/federal) research dollars
Page 178 - Ranking of federal research dollars.
Page 182 - Endowment rankings.</p>
<p>The data appears to be from 2007 so obviously the numbers could very different for 2009/2010.</p>
<p>crappy alumni connections? I don’t agree. They might not have been A students but they have money.</p>
<p>USC will go by UCLA just like Stanford went past Berkeley and Duke went past UNC. The powerbrokers at USC are using the same strategy that Stanford and Duke used to go past their public schools rivals. That can’t be ignored.</p>
<p>What is holding the two big UC schools together is their great faculty is showing amazing loyalty to them even though they could go make more money at private schools. They have lost some top faculty members but not many. There are of course many other variables to consider.</p>
<p>And you’re right Stanford won’t be touched.</p>
<p>I am an alum of both USC and UCLA. </p>
<p>sentimentGX4: You rep UCLA in the best of all ways: The word is delusional, not delusive. The latter indicates having the property of a delusion. This is an incorrect usage of the word. Pompus perhaps, but incorrect.</p>
<p>I can say that one daughter was accepted to UCLA and picked USC. She graduated from the Film school at the worst time: Looked for a job in the industry for two weeks, three offers. At a time when kids are jobless after graduation, I think that speaks for itself.</p>
<p>And my friends who are huge UCLA supporters: None of their kids went to UCLA, despite grades/scores and activities. Many of them went to SC (and other schools). Wonder why that is?</p>
<p>
I think you’re missing something big: USC has no powerbrokers. An endowment of $2.67 billion is nothing impressive for a private school. </p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment</a></p>
<p>Disregarding the two public school systems listed in the system, USC is 19th on the list of universities with the biggest endowments. With your logic, money won’t really get you past rank 19 and you’re already rank 26 and comparing yourself with Berkeley.</p>
<p>Also do note that the public universities do ultimately get a financial boost from their respective states despite lower endowments.</p>
<p>
UCLA has no great faculty. I don’t believe Berkeley has great faculty either but you’ll be hardpressed to find a Berkeley student who will admit it. (They actually recommend their university over Harvard and CalTech.) </p>
<p>Most UC professors aren’t even tenured. Most of them hold titles such as “Associate Professor” or “Visiting Faculty” (that never leave) or “Lecturer”. It has been like this for forever.</p>
<p>I will say the decline of the UC system has been greatly exaggerated. </p>
<p>
Touting the film school as a strength in academia can be described nothing short of embarrassing. </p>
<p>I’m certain the film school is not taken into strong consideration in the rankings. Do you honestly think a rival chancellor will rate USC higher because of its performing arts program?</p>
<p>
Maybe because you met them at the USC Mommy Bash? lolz.</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence doesn’t count for much.</p>
<p>First of all, I wonder what the job placement is for UCLA students within their field in a horrible job market. The next question to ponder (if you can do so) is what shapes a nation, what assists in running the economy of a region, and what areas of study are of value to a nation?</p>
<p>The Film/Television/Media (Annenberg) departments, be it for entertainment, news, or evolving a nation’s sentiment on issues is determined by this industry. And, with NYU, SC is tied at number 1 in the nation.</p>
<p>Medical and Dental schools: (Yes, UCLA has an excellent Medical School, no question): The health of a nation and USC is at the top.</p>
<p>Gerontology: Number 7 in the United States with an emerging aging population.</p>
<p>Marshall School of Business: Hey, you want a job someday? Or do you want to create jobs? </p>
<p>No, we aren’t at a “mommy bash”, which is insulting on it’s best day and a direct reflection on who you are and the respect that you have for women in general. These are active supporters of UCLA, with monetary gifts every year. Our friends, men and women, sadly bemoan the state of UCLA and hope for the return to the glory days. And yes, we are all aware of the strengths in various departments at all schools because we read and can discern the facts.</p>
<p>But I’ll go with the fact that you are just a rude and limited individual.</p>
<p>SentimentGX4-</p>
<p>Judging by your rude and immature reply to ellebud and others I find this description of UCLA students that was posted by BruinLifer spot on:“I am saying that people at UCLA are rude, individualistic, selfish, and not a group-oriented.”</p>
<p>You are what- a UCLA undergrad sharing your “wisdom” and supposedly concrete data to support your claims while bashing other opinions which you deem are “anecdotal evidence”?</p>
<p>1) You have somehow utilized some sort of flawed logic to dismiss the statement that many USC alumni are powerbrokers (you actually said that USC has NO powerbrokers) because of your belief that having a lot of powerbrokers is directly porportional to the size of UCS’s endowment…huh? A powerbroker is a person who wields influence and power…CEO’s, owners of companies, politicians, famous connected individuals, wealthy individuals,etc. USC is LOADED with these types of alumni. By your flawed logic if a person is the President of the United States or a CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation and is not a major financial contributor to USC then they are no longer a powerbroker??? If I used your same twisted logic since USC’s endowment is roughly half that of all of the UC’s combined endowments and there are 10 UC’s then USC must be 5 times better than UCLA in this arena. As far as my son is concerned he has met parents of friends that run/own major companies, leading researcher’s, own financial firms, law firms, entertainment companies- and he has been offered potential future internship and research opportunities from several of them. </p>
<p>2) You state that the UC’s receive “extra” money from the state of California as if that is the same as an endowment. I hate to burst your bubble- but the ACTUAL cost of educating a student at a UC is far higher than the tuition that the students pay. Most of the money from the State of California that is sent to the Universities is used to make up for the SUBSIDIZED portion of a California resident’s education. That is the main reason out of state students pay a much higher tuition cost- which is closer to the true cost of a UC education.</p>
<p>3) You speak of the value of a UCLA degree as if you actually have concrete factual knowledge. Hire anyone lately?? I own a company that belongs to a consortium of small to midsized firms that high THOUSANDS of employees. Sorry, but a UCLA degree does NOT hold greater weight than a USC degree. There are certain instances where say a CAL computer engineering degree with a decent GPA will get more interviews than a UCR engineer- but you are the one basing your beliefs of UCLA’s superiority upon “anecdotal evidence”. </p>
<p>4) You dismissed ellebud’s comments about her daughters personal experience finding a job in the film industry in a tough economic climate as anecdotal- as well as mocked the value of USC’s top ranked film & communication school. Last time I checked the television and film INDUSTRY related firms are major employer’s in the LA area and beyond.</p>
<p>5) UCLA educational quality hasn’t declined in your opinion. Really? And what empirical evidence do you base this on…your classes last quarter?</p>
<p>In my opinion you are definately a rude “know it all” KID that summarily dismisses the opinions of those with decades of real life experience.</p>
<p>I would like to throw in a “**** UCLA” just for good measure. Thanks.</p>