<p>
</p>
<p>Very logical choice, understood, esp since you got help from usc… no one is faulting you, good choice.</p>
<p>It takes someone who is more wealthy to pay full tuition at UCLA or Cal, which is the case in the 23 and 15% non-residents.</p>
<p>LOL, I thought winning sports stuff helps the school overall, you know, more recognition, school spirit, stuff like that.</p>
<p>
Berkeley did move down 1 with us. Berkeley has hit a new low they have not seen in a decade. (This is a decade+ low for Virginia as well.)</p>
<p>
UCLA Engineering is worse than USC’s.</p>
<p>[Best</a> Undergraduate Engineering Programs - Best Colleges - Education - US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/spec-doct-engineering]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/spec-doct-engineering)
[Rankings</a> - Best Engineering Schools - Graduate Schools - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/rankings]Rankings”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/rankings)</p>
<p>Even in Grad Engineering USC beats us rank 10 to 15.</p>
<p>are you engineering, sentiment?</p>
<p>Okay, I’m sorry. UCLA Engineering is not awful but its one of UCLA’s weaker graduate departments.</p>
<p>there are so many good-great engineering schools taht the grad school takes a beating. But undergrad: a lot of successful grads that started chip companies, and place well with companies. I’m sure that a top-notch engineering grad would go somewhere more reputable. But that didn’t stop Samueli and Nicholas from going BS, MS, PHD at UCLA.</p>
<p>Honestly, the quality of undergraduate education is arguably equal among the top caliber schools. This was true when USC was ranked lower than UCLA in the US News, and is still true today with USC on top.</p>
<p>People place too much emphasis on rankings. I really think College Confidential makes these rivalries seem much worse than they actually are.</p>
<p>In 2000 an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times that mentioned how USC’s SATs for its incoming class had eclipsed those of UCLA for the first time. Since then, while UCLA has remained about where it is today – 25 – and of course, well before its cheerleaders were criticizing the USN&WR ranking and embracing the “Shanghai” and other “world” rankings (as though those lists carry any weight in America or anywhere else), USC was busy raising money, hiring outstanding faculty, lowering its admission rate, and basically pulling up its sleeves and working diligently on itself and its reputation. But by 2000, it was too late for the Bruins (and the Bears), because Time Magazine had already announced USC as “College of the Year” (remember that?), and also because the endeavor to raise the bar had been in the works for a decade and a half earlier, when USC went on at least two fundraising campaigns, raising billions of dollars to increase its endowment, hire stellar faculty, and improve its infrastructure. So 2000 was actually the watershed year, and what has transpired since then is merely a reflection of USC building its reputation, marketing itself and attracting a very smart and able student body, one that boasts the highest number of National Merit Scholars in California, except for Stanford. USC reportedly has spent $100 million this past decade alone to hire faculty. Out here, on the East Coast, the finest prep schools (Exeter, Phillips Academy) are sending substantial numbers to USC, and USC’s enhanced reputation has created a snowball effect that is feeding on itself. You can bet USC will capitalize on its new position and become an even better place academically.</p>
<p>^Campaign UCLA was the “most successful” fundraising campaign in the history of higher education raising $3 billion for the university in a period of 10 years.</p>
<p>[Campaign</a> UCLA raises $3 billion / UCLA Spotlight](<a href=“http://spotlight.ucla.edu/programs/campaign-ucla_3-bill/]Campaign”>http://spotlight.ucla.edu/programs/campaign-ucla_3-bill/)</p>
<p>Also, from 2000 to the present<br>
-UCLA’s admittance rate has declined so that it has become the most “selective” public university
-UCLA’s freshman high school GPAs have risen above Berkeley’s
-UCLA has rose from the 4th place public university to tied for 2nd
-UCLA has went from a USNWR rank of 25/26 to a solid 25 and even 24 last year</p>
<p>UCLA might not be rising as fast as USC, but it hasn’t exactly been standing still either. In the 10 years, it has passed numerous milestones and done at least 2/3 of the items you claim USC has been doing.</p>
<p>… but if you look at the private-school admits to USC, you’d find that there’s nothing really high-ranking about them. USC might pull one or two first-quintile students from east-coast’s finest preps, but not a consistent number to rank with the nation’s best colleges, the Ivies.</p>
<p>Same for a school like Harvard-WEstlake. USC takes > 40 students from the school, but materially none of them are top-10% or even top-20%. </p>
<p>UCLA and Cal, because of admit floors can’t take them generally, except for a few athletes here and there.</p>
<p>Seriously, why does everyone care about rankings so much? A lot of people have this false perception of higher the better. I don’t believe in any school rankings, they’re meaningless, they tell nothing about academic quality of a school.</p>
<p>I think this is a big deal because for years UCLA argued that USC was the school for the stupid rich kids. But now you guys cant argue that because we are on the same level as far as academics. There isnt a big difference between being ranked #23 & #25 but its a big deal for USC because we are now equal with UCLA for academics and its something you guys are gonna have to deal with for years to come. </p>
<p>FIGHT ON !!!</p>
<p>^I hate to admit it, but USC will probably rise to a point where it won’t be something to talk about in a couple of years. There’s no point to “fight on” because USC won’t be catering to the UCLA demographic in a few years anyway. USC is also nowhere near challenging UCLA in the graduate front. The rivalry will quell down soon enough.</p>
<p>…and Caltech looks down and laughs at the squabbling USC and UCLA</p>
<p>…While UCLA and USC look down and laugh at the pitifully awkward social scene and general experience at Caltech. Oh wait, they don’t look down at CalTech-they don’t even look at Caltech. Caltech is kind of like that exceedingly intelligent student in high school that never really speaks to anyone outside of the World of Warcraft and COD teamspeak line. At the same time, UCLA and USC are the two popular rivals fighting for student body president.</p>
<p>^
agreed. Unless you’re gonna be some mad scientist who cares about CalTech?</p>
<p>Pretty sure those Caltech students are too busy succeeding at everything to care about a popularity contest.</p>
<p>Madseason ftw.</p>
<p>The definition of fun is just different at Caltech. Getting ****-faced and herpes isn’t our cup of tea.</p>
<p>And Stanford looks down and laughs at the puny Cal Tech.</p>