<p>I'm sorry, but USC graduate engineering is ranked #6, above CalTech, whereas UCLA is somewhere in the 20's. The Engineering school also recently got a 50 million dollar gift and a state of the art new building.</p>
<p>Undergrad they're tied.</p>
<p>just out of curiousity, from what source did you find this information?</p>
<p>Whoops, the information I posted above was for last year. So...</p>
<p>USC is #3 in the nation among private schools and ranked #7 overall(CalTech is #8 though still), while UCLA jumped to #15 in the 2006 edition: <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php</a></p>
<p>USC-Viterbi gets $22 million gift from alumnus Sequoia Venture Capitalist Mark Stevens: <a href="http://viterbi.usc.edu/news/news/2004/2004_11_11_stevens.htm%5B/url%5D">http://viterbi.usc.edu/news/news/2004/2004_11_11_stevens.htm</a></p>
<p>USC-Viterbi gets $52 million gift from alumnus cell phone aloghythm inventor Andrew Viterbi: <a href="http://viterbi.usc.edu/about/viterbi/viterbi_event.htm%5B/url%5D">http://viterbi.usc.edu/about/viterbi/viterbi_event.htm</a></p>
<p>USC-Viterbi opens new state-of-the-art central Engineering bldg: <a href="http://viterbi.usc.edu/news/news/2005/2005_02_02_tutor.htm%5B/url%5D">http://viterbi.usc.edu/news/news/2005/2005_02_02_tutor.htm</a></p>
<p>That "overall" ranking is very misleading. It's heavily based on % professors having NAE membership and research expenditures per faculty member (USC for some reason got the largest amount out of all schools in 2004) which fluctuates widely annually. If you look at the peer assessment and recruiter assessment scores, USC's is only 3.7 out of 5.0. Its average quantitative GRE score isn't that high either. USC also has no top-10 department if you look at the departmental rankings.</p>
<p>than most other people do, or something?</p>
<p>"If you look at the peer assessment score, USC's is only 3.7 out of 5.0. UCLA has 3.8."</p>
<p>Wait... so a "3.7" gets your rather derisive "only"? But UCLA had POINT ONE above 3.7, so that suddenly proves UCLA is terribly better than USC's 3.7? Do you comprehend number values differently than most other people?</p>
<p>"(USC for some reason got the largest amount out of all schools in 2004)"</p>
<p>USC "for some reason"? Why the contemptous attitude toward USC? Why does it seem rather unusual for you ("for some reason") for USC to have a number of excellent, respectable professors doing a lot of research? </p>
<p>Maybe USC has the largest amount because they really, truly do have a lot of good professors. Goodness! Imagine that! The academic world has turned on its head!</p>
<p>ALSO: Oh, and smooth move, Sam Lee. I see you just edited your post to erase the UCLA assesment score. Hmmm....</p>
<p>PEALS, </p>
<p>You don't have to use those fiery words. People are allowed to have different, even biased views. </p>
<p>BTW USC engineering's research spending per faculty has been #1 in the country for years (maybe 5 years or so). The reputation thing (peer assessment) does lag behind the reality. And the peer score partly reflects your Ph.Ds production, which is an indicator for your efforts years ago. That part needs a long time to turn around.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, </p>
<p>Do your research before put in post. The #1 expenditure index has been USC's for years, not for some reasons, and won't fluctuate annually at all for most engineering schools.</p>
<p>The department rating may not reflect the grant situation.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are the one that is defensive. I didn't go to UCLA. I originally (took that out after editing) put out UCLA's number just for people's information. I didn't say 3.8 is better than 3.7, did I?</p>
<p>A ONE year's expenditure doesn't necessarily prove its strength. What if they just happen to have a good year? (though I am rooting for them to be the football champ for 3rd straight year) ;) Or maybe they just happen to win some "jackpot" projects that get lots of money from the government. If I remember correctly, they actually got some big projects related to homeland security. One or two of those $40 million projects and all of a sudden, your school can look fabulous. Peer/recruiter assessment scores on the other hand don't depend on performance of a single year.</p>
<p>Hey alwaysthere, I don't think I'm being very rude. What's rude is when people aren't FAIR. Sure, I love my school and will defend it as much as I can. But I also find myself being pretty fair when it comes to acknowleding the good characteristics of other schools too. I don't think I've said anything directly bad about UCLA, except that I have repeatedly questioned its level of prestige.</p>
<p>But I haven't said anything close to assuming that it is an inferior school, or even a mediocre school. I'm fair about other schools, even UCLA. Why should I lay down and take it when people aren't fair towards my school?</p>
<p>I've seen a lot of bad things being said about my school, but I don't say anything unfoundedly derisive toward other schools' academic reputation. Maybe about their overly biased students, though. :)</p>
<p>alwaysthere,</p>
<p>do you have the source to prove that? the socalled 2006 ranking is really based on 2004 data. I'd guess 2004, 2005, and 2006 are all based on 2004 data since the US News seem to be rather lazy to collect new data. LOL!</p>
<p>... in your post, Sam Lee.</p>
<p>I don't have any data I can post here. But you can check US News rankings for years past. I am pretty sure in 2000, they were number 1 in that category, when I was still in grad school. And in 2002, they maybe still are #1, when I got out of grad school.</p>
<p>Sorry but I didn't mean to. I just thought when a school had not been known for engineering got such a high ranking--even higher than CalTech, the methodolgy deserves a closer look. I do highly suspect national security projects account for a lot of their money because I've read about it before and working in one of the largest engineering firms in the world, I know how those can be huge. My company is actually feeding on some of those. Some of them worth more than thousands of small projects combined. ;)</p>
<p>Hey guys. I'm actually the perfect guinea pig for this thread because I applied to both this year (and I'm out of state). I got into UCLA but got rejected from USC. Maybe that proves someone right although I believe my rejection was sort of an aberration. Regardless I would've still gone to UCLA had I been accepted to USC.</p>
<p>alwaysthere,</p>
<p>Actually $ doesn't tell the whole story. You have to look at how those money are spread. Is it skewed to just one department and most of it is from several big projects or is it spread across all departments and over many projects. I do know that most of the USC's professors with NAE memberships are in EE department. So it's misleading to think other departments like chemE, environmental E have great faculty because of that (though I don't personally believe NAE memberships mean that much). Also some schools are stronger in departments and projects that don't receive a lot of $$$. Industrial and environmental engg projects are likely to be lower-budgeted than EE/CompE ones.</p>
<p>You are right the methodology need some work. CalTech is above all the ranking. They don't need ranking, and they don't care ranking:) in all their displines.</p>
<p>What puts USC in front of CalTech also did with GaTech, UMich and UIUC. And you won't make mistake to think they are better than CalTech.</p>
<p>NAE membership doesn't mean you are spending big bucks, instead it means you had spent a lot of research money in the past.</p>
<p>I didn't mean NAE members didn't have grant. They may, or may not, but not necessarily be rich.</p>
<p>That's why you hardly see any environmental engineering professor being NAE member. LOL!</p>
<p>You have to understand the research community. They worship nerdiness. If you didn't put unnecessary mathematical formula in your biology paper, you won't get published in top journals. I am just guessing environmental engineers didn't bother to do that:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
That "overall" ranking is very misleading. It's heavily based on % professors having NAE membership and research expenditures per faculty member (USC for some reason got the largest amount out of all schools in 2004) which fluctuates widely annually. If you look at the peer assessment and recruiter assessment scores, USC's is only 3.7 out of 5.0. Its average quantitative GRE score isn't that high either. USC also has no top-10 department if you look at the departmental rankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Assessment scores and GRE scores are also misleading, because it has a lagging effect. It takes a full cycle for it to change and right now USC is in a transitionary stage. To say that assessment and GRE scores from 2-3 years ago are any indication of the quality of admits present day is a bit faulty no? I would be willing to bet that you'll see at least a 10 point increase for the Fall admits. Also SC's average quantitative score is not that low to begin with.</p>