USC or UCLA?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>drax, not so.</p>

<p>In the 1970s, when I applied to colleges, I applied to:</p>

<p>Berkeley: did not apply, as it had a reputation at that time of a radical extremist school
Stanford, applied, because I heard it was great academically: Accepted
UCLA: applied, because it was very good academically, plus the sports scene and cool campus: Accepted
Yale: wait listed
Harvard: rejected
USC: did not apply because at the time it was a B (and even C) student’s school. UCLA was my safety. Those that could not get into UCLA went to USC, but only if their family was well off, as at the time USC did not have much in the way of financial aid. In fact up into the early 1980s, USC was constantly on the brink of running out of money. If you were rejected by UCLA and could not afford USC as your safety, your safety became UCSB, UCI, UCD if you were basically an A- student.</p>

<p>In my time, for non-radical smart kids, no Berkeley because of radicals, no USC because it was a safety school. Obviously times have changed. But don’t forget half the people out there owning and running companies, and hiring kids out of college, went to college in the 60s, 70’s and early 80s when USC was a Safety school, and UCLA was for the smart kids.</p>

<p>UCLA did not admit “anyone who qualified under the index”. Not sure which index you refer to, but if you mean at least a 3.7 unweighted, and 1200 SAT, that’s probably about right. UCLA did not accept 3.4 GPA and 1100 SAT even back then. There are six other UC schools that rank behind UCLA that took those that did not get into Berkeley or UCLA but were still in the top 12% of California graduates as outlined in California’s Master Plan for Education.</p>

<p>If you are looking for an ACADEMIC equivalent to USC in the 70s it would have been UC Santa Cruz or UC Riverside, not exactly the names that make an employer go OOHH, AAHH, a kid with brains.</p>

62

<p>In the 1970’s, you were only allowed to apply to TWO UC’s. Then you had to list 2 or 3 other UC’s in case you didn’t get into either of your first two choices. So this greatly cut down on the number of applications submitted, and also on the perceived “selectivity”. When the system changed to letting students apply to as many UC’s as they wanted, UCLA and Berkeley started getting deluged. Last year UCLA had 57,000 applications. Berkeley had 50,312. USC had 35,900. And Harvard had 30,000.</p>

<p>Apply to both UCLA and USC, wait for acceptance, weigh any scholarship offers, visit both schools, and THEN make your decision. You don’t yet know what it will be that influences your final decision. </p>

<p>Good Luck! :)</p>

63

<p>“Last year UCLA had 57,000 applications. Berkeley had 50,312. USC had 35,900. And Harvard had 30,000.”</p>

<p>No wonder these schools have such a low acceptance rate. 57,000 applications? That’s ridiculous.</p>

64

<p>The [UC</a> Index](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html]UC”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/scholarship_reqs.html) shows the eligibility of students to the UC. But of course now with apps so strong at just about all UC campuses, the index would serve only as a floor. The index probably serves mainly UC Merced and probably some at Riverside. The index has morphed throughout time, with different requirements as the link for 2012 states.</p>

<p>I didn’t know USC almost ran out of money. So, it has indeed come a long way. Congrats to it… I’ve read that football actually helped USC grow to a mega-campus; whereas if it didn’t have fb, it would have been roughly the size of Occidental. This statement came from the administration, so I’ll take it as truth.</p>

<p>If I may add to what I stated previously… </p>

<p>Besides the problems the school might face post echo baby-boomers, I think what USC will have to face is ongoing competition with not only UCLA and Cal, but all of UC.</p>

<p>For instance according to the [url=<a href=“http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table2-race.htm]aamc.org[/url”>http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table2-race.htm]aamc.org[/url</a>] website, these are the apps from the top UC’s to med school in 2009:</p>

<p>UCLA 737<br>
UCB 669
UCSD 450
UCD 351
UCI 324
UCR 142</p>

<p>This totals 2,673 students. USC had 224 apply in that year. I would guess, conservatively, that UCLA grads accepted to med school > 400. Cal also, and so forth down the list…</p>

<p>The same applies to law school also, and job prospects in the business sector, the latter of which USC understandably tries to exploit with “connections,” and in which case they’ll have to keep enrollment strong. An administrator said: ‘It isn’t Harvard (or whatever school he mentioned) we’re in competition with, but rather the University of California.’</p>

<p>I would think that despite USC having ~ 50% non-CA students, many of them, except the internationals, probably would consider becoming CA residents. So I would think the mismatch of students between USC and UC wrt origins, would be lessened, and there would still be competition for the same jobs and grad appts, a lot of them in CA.</p>

<p>And Dunn, you intimated something about 17-year-olds’ opinions possibly being different as opposed to those older, with the former more attached to USC and the latter, UCLA. I think that’s just a function of College Confidential; there are a lot more USC fans here. According to Princeton Review, UCLA was 7th in ranking for “dream colleges,” with USC 9th, for students, and similarly for parents. I’m not saying that Princeton’s poll is scientifically sound, but there has to be an element of truth to having UCLA and USC as “dream colleges,” both in the top-10.

</p>

<p>The difference in apps between UCLA and Cal would be the conservative OC element; conservative in general, say, Catholic school students - a lot of Catholic schools probably discourage Cal enrollment; etc; and some extraneous apps from those who were lower ranking who applied to UCLA as a chance. With UCLA holistic admissions for all that could open things up for leap-frogging at high schools with more lower ranked students accepted.</p>

65

<p>Dunn- People in their 50s aren’t caught in a 70s time capsule. We do get out and about sometimes. We have college-age children or have friends who do and we therefore are very much aware of USC’s current high academic standards.</p>

66

<p>… that I see:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>On a macro level, state continuing to fund educations of 160+K at UC (and 300+K CSU undergrads and countless cc students).</p></li>
<li><p>On a micro level, keeping tuition low enough to keep applications and generally interest strong.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>–Ward Connerly, whom I love - was behind race-blind admissions along with the people of CA speaking forth (more economically based now), even if the administrators would still peek at racial data - put forth the idea of privatizing UCLA and Cal, which would take enrollment reductions at the two, and keeping all the other UC’s public. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing he meant rolling back tuitions at the other seven or so. This would have an effect of reducing enrollment at UC, which would reduce the necessary state funds for undergrads. Reasonable, but would Regents get behind it? </p>

<p>Some other ideas:</p>

<p>– Deferring tuition, which would be like loans. Bad Idea…</p>

<p>– Having more tiered tuition: charging higher tutition for specialty schools, eg, engineering, which is already done on the graduate level, eg, med school, etc. Bad Idea…</p>

<p>– Accelerated learning: which would reduce burden on students taking longer to graduate. Would have to ensure all those on fast track got their classes. </p>

<p>– Encourage more overseas studies. </p>

<p>– Schools can continue to look at non-residents, like Cal and UCLA, but most universities in the two systems don’t have the names to draw a lot of oos and internationals. Could be disloyal to state residents, but both Cal and UCLA have argued that if state funds only allowed for x and y amounts at each, then CA resident enrollment at each would be capped at those figures.</p>

<p>I would recommend that UC reduce non-resident tuition to somewhere between what state residents pay and full tuition. Somewhere between those two is the cost of educating students at UC. Also get the alumni chapters of, say, UCLA Alumni of NY, to be even more involved in helping defray oos tuition costs, say, instead of directing them to school scholarships, etc. </p>

<p>I’m just curious about the < $70K, no tuition for UC. </p>

<p>One, is filing statement a deterrent to applying? Cetainly there won’t be any illegal aliens who apply, I would think. </p>

<p>Two, could abuse of this lead to more lesser qualified students being admitted, with both UCLA and Cal at 100% holistic admissions? It is essentially a “scholarship,” so one would think that the universities would seek out more qualified students and parse from there; ie, it should lead to more qualifed, but with UC one never knows.</p>