<p>This is Wesam88's sister.</p>
<p>Im planning on majoring in business and Im not sure which university I should got to. I thought I wanted to go to USC, but my brother also got accepted to U-Mich and it might be better if we're both in the same place.</p>
<p>Also, I heard that it isnt garuanteed that Ill get into the business school later on if I go to U-Mich, and that even if I do, its extremely hard/competitive. Where do you guys think I should go?</p>
<p>Michigan. You can always major in Econ with a business minor at UofM if you don't make the Business School.</p>
<p>If you want to stay in LA/SoCal, USC would be a good option.</p>
<p>Check out Berkeley/Haas as well.</p>
<p>i remember one of the huge selling points for my friend for a while was that USC didn't have a business pre-major...they admitted you straight to the Marshall School of Business.</p>
<p>Excluding the business program, which university is better in general?</p>
<p>If you get good grades your first year at Michigan, it is not hard to get into the business school. Also, regarding Ross, hard? No. competitive? maybe. Depends on your definition I guess. It's definitely not as competitive as the medical field anywhere, but it's harder than most programs to get into, so maybe admissions is competitive, but the school itself isn't (I know some below-average students taking b-school classes and doing well).</p>
<p>i dont like stats when it comes to rankings and i dont like to quantify a school based on stats alone, but apparently UMich (#5) ranks higher than USC (#21) according to Business Week online....</p>
<p>...boo (because i'm heading off to USC in the fall haha)</p>
<p>Michigan is much better in general. USC has been closing the gap, but they have been a second tier school for ages.</p>
<p>wesam88's sister,</p>
<p>You need to ask yourself a question: why do you have to be with your brother together? Can your brother come to USC with you?</p>
<p>The point is either of you should not give up something you really want to just be with each other. If you were set on USC, you should go there. Otherwise, in case you might be feeling regret or sacrifice of going to Michigan, you may make your family and your brother feel guilty. </p>
<p>The two schools will give similar education, but they are different in a lot of other ways. The business week's ranking was wrong about some data as someone pointed out in USC forum, so it is not a good source for distinguishing the two business majors. The two are in the same tier, but Ross is more reputed, especially in east coast.</p>
<p>CALX,</p>
<p>Michigan is not much better. I don't know where you developped this unfounded hatred towards USC, but you at least should stop talking something you don't know. You've never been to USC, or even Los Angeles, your biased opinion pretty much shows your ignorancy, and your insecurity about your own education.</p>
<p>If you are a Michigan resident go to Ann Arbor. If you are not the cost between the two schools is not that much different. Academically they are similar. Choose which ever one feels right to you.</p>
<p>QW553,</p>
<p>I've been to USC about a half dozen times, and to LA many more times. I go there almost every year. Half of my friends at Cal were from SoCal. I know several students who went to USC as undergrads and for professional schools (Marschall.) I've been on over 50 campuses in the US (Michigan included), and USC is not in the top 40 in terms of environment. </p>
<p>No unaffiliated observer would claim that USC is as good a school as Michigan.</p>
<p>Notice as well that I did not bash USC: "If you want to stay in LA/SoCal, USC would be a good option."</p>
<p>Most kids I know would choose USC. Not that selectivity=how good a school is, but Michigan is considered a safety for a lot of students at my school.</p>
<p>For me, personally, Michigan is just too big and the weather isn't for me. I'd go to sc. </p>
<p>Calx, whether you're willing to admit it or not, your comment was sort of a backhand insult to the school. You're comment is assuming USC is a regional school(only a good option for socal residents). This isn't true at all, it's a nationally recognized university.</p>
<p>also, yes, sc has made great strides in the past 10 years, but when has it ever been a second tier university?</p>
<p>Rockola, I take it you are somehow affiliated with USC? </p>
<p>USC is a second tier school on the move, but it's not quite a top tier school now. Michigan has always been top tier, but perhaps it's not perceived as such at some prep schools like yours where there is a strong preference for private schools.</p>
<p>My comment about USC as being regional is because its campus environment is quite poor compared to that of other local universities like UCLA (or Michigan's), but someone who likes LA and is used to commuting won't find that too much of a downside. As well, the national prestige of a Michigan degree exceeds that from USC, except for a business career in SoCal where the USC alumni network is strong.</p>
<p>I'd go to USC.</p>
<p>Funny how this "second-tier school" manages to attract students with higher SAT's, have more national merit scholars, and a significantly larger endowment than Cal, CalX. If USC is second-tier (which it certainly) is not, then what does that say about your own alma mater?</p>
<p>Note: Before I get flamed, I'm in no way saying Berkeley is second tier or even that USC is superior. I'm merely pointing out metrics in which USC beats Cal making CalX's argument that USC is second-tier somewhat laughable.</p>
<p>And what about the campus environment? I've been to both USC and Michigan and thought USC's campus was much more attractive. Obviously Ann Arbor is the quintessential college town and the campus surroundings have USC beat of course for aesthetics and overall college feel. Yet one could make an argument that USC students have the second largest city in the nation as their playground whereas Michigan students (I'm making an assumption here) must tire of the same town and the same boring bars by their senior year.</p>
<p>Are USC's immediate surroundings nice? Not really. They're ugly, though much safer than people who haven't lived in the neighborhood will admit. But the immediate surroundings are mitigated by the Santa Monica Mountains, Malibu, the Sunset Strip, bars in West Hollywood, the Grove, etc. etc. </p>
<p>B-school-wise, I will admit though that Marshall, while great (and underrated by CCers who know little about it and assume it has only a regional focus despite the number of NY finance firms that recruit here), is not on par with Ross.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan students (I'm making an assumption here) must tire of the same town and the same boring bars by their senior year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>speaking as an Ann Arbor resident, yes. Ann Arbor gets old, very fast.</p>
<p>Town environment is not everything in a college (many people cheerfully spend four great years in dinky towns), but when that is a consideration, many people find Ann Arbor a plus.</p>
<p>I bring this up because the "you'll get sick of the bars" comment took me aback. I didn't go here for college, but through grad school I found my interests changed and so did the places I patronized. I didn't run out. Not that my life was restricted to bars, but to the extent we went to those places, there were plenty to choose from. Brewpubs, dance clubs, sports bars, billiard halls, out-and-out dives...</p>
<p>I was single and social for some years (and all of them legal, not a position many undergrads are in). My point is, I don't think exhausting the social scene of a small city/college town is a big risk. Ann Arbor is not LA and will never be LA. But that doesn't mean one will be sick of its offerings (which are more than just bars) in four years.</p>
<p>I do not agree with the assessment that one tires of Ann Arbor. I have lived in Ann Arbor for 7 years, and I loved every minute of my stay there. I have also lived in cities like Paris, London, Berlin, Barcelona, NYC, San Francisco, DC and Dubai for a combined 10 years. Ann Arbor never got old. I would live in Ann Arbor any day.</p>
<p>themegastud, I'm not taking a stance on USC, but the data sets for both:</p>
<p>USC gives a massive range for SAT scores, 1290-1430 as the middle 50% SAT I.
I calculated Berkeley's mean 50% by hand as: 1325.</p>
<p>You should keep in mind that USC uses composite scores while Berkeley only uses one-sitting.</p>
<p>As for attracting students, keep in mind yield rates:</p>
<p>USC: 33%
Cal: 41%</p>
<p>As for National Merit Scholars, it should be noted that Berkeley discontinued the National Merit Scholars program, thus making it less attractive to those students who did well on the PSATs.
I understand your point, though I'm not sure National Merit is the best example to bring up. I personally am one but don't particularly think that doing well on the PSAT makes me any smarter a person.</p>
<p>I think USC and UC Berkeley attract different types of students. If students cared purely about academics, Berkeley would not lose nearly as many students to UCLA as it does. There are other factors involved and I think we can agree that USC and Cal are different universities that cater to different audiences.</p>
<p>Ross > Marshall</p>
<p>Marshall > Umich LSA (for the true business major)</p>
<p>Take your risks and also keep in mind whether you want to work on the WEST COAST or not.</p>