<p>Don't worry; this isn't a thread asking how big the rivalry is between USC and UCLA. I know it's one of the big ones in the nation. But this thread is merely just an observation I had, albeit a somewhat pessimistic one.</p>
<p>Ever since I applied to USC and got accepted, I noticed that USC has usually been in hot contention with UCLA. It usually transends all collegiate rivalries in the nation, with the game-day atmosphere between the two LA football teams being quite grusome yet exilerating at the same time. But isn't true that the only REAL rivalry between UCLA and USC is an athletic one? Certainly, the academics at both of the schools are different, with UCLA being the more prominant in the nation. But I fear that all that holds up for USC is the fact that they have the #1 football team in the nation with the #1 football player in the nation. Once Matt Leinart leaves next year (he'll certainly be the #1 first round draft pick, no doubt), I fear that the one thing USC is well known for will slowly start to crumble. Yes, I understand that US News and Review shows that USC has jumped 10 spots in the last 5 year, now at #30. But UCLA will still be on top, right now at #25, I believe. </p>
<p>I think that for a real rivalry to exist, you need two schools that show equal prominence in certain areas, whether it be academics or athletics. I sense that what USC once had is only going to decline in the next several years. Don't get me wrong; I think USC is one of the best schools (if not, then THE best) in the country. I consider it to be one of the "hidden treasures" that is not as prominant as it ought to be (finally, some optimism lol). But couldn't it be said that no true rivalry will exist between USC and UCLA once the football team is given a major "shake-up" next year? It'll be cool to know that during this year, I'll be going to the games when the team is at the top of its game, but I'm a little aprehensive about what will happen to USC once they have nothing to go up against with UCLA. After all, all universities strive to have recognition and prestige, but I believe that it'll be tough for USC to accomplish that goal if that is its main intention. UCLA, one way or another, will still considered to be on top. USC will just be considered the University of Spoiled Children. I dunno. I guess I'm just a worry-er; that's why they call me Whiskers <---SNL joke lol. Sorry for the long post.</p>
<p>I'm sorry but I don't agree with you one bit. First off, take a look at Ohio State and Michigan, they are much farther apart in terms of academics yet their rivalry is steaming every year. Both programs have had their respective downtimes, yet their rivalry has remained strong for decades (possibly half a century). </p>
<p>Also our football program will NOT drop significantly once Leinart leaves. We have an EXCELLENT, possibly THE best HS QB prospect in years, coming to our program this fall. Also we've landed at least a top 2 class for the past 3 years and there's no sign of recruiting slowing down. If Pete Carroll decides to leave next year, THEN SC is in some DEEP trouble. </p>
<p>USC and UCLA will always be staunch rivals because they share the same city. Anytime you pit two prominent programs 15 minutes from each other you are going to have some ill feelings. </p>
<p>In terms of academics, I don't think UCLA will always be on top. If you would have told me 10 years ago that USC was admitting kids with higher SAT and equal GPA's as UCLA I would have laughed. UCLA has gone nowhere for quite some time now, while USC is moving up the ladder. For those in the know, USC is almost equal to UCLA. It's the ranking obsessed squares on this board that won't acknowledge USC's historic move towards academic excellence.</p>
<p>I definitely disagree (agree with you, afterhours). If anything, USC and UCLA have MORE to be rivals about than ever. If the rivalry existed for nothing but football, than why didn't the rivalry end when our team was awful in the past, and our academics even "awfuler"? Now, not only do we have a top football team, but our academics are becoming on par with UCLA. Now we really have something to argue about. We may be behind in the rankings, but we are closer than ever, and better in some aspects. This never used to be the case. And as afterhours said, while UCLA is remaining stagnant, USC is continuing to climb.</p>
<p>And no matter what, we share the same city. We will always be fighting for bragging rights and ownership of the city. Every sport and every encounter is intense, just because it's USC and UCLA. It doesn't matter if it's chess, football, ultimate frisbee, or underwater basketweaving- each school will hate the other and want to win.</p>
<p>The rivalry, while it has been dimmed in football in recent years due to the disparity in our teams (now it's all about Cal), still is there, and continues to grow with our academics. Believe me, we have more to hate each other about than ever. :)</p>
<p>And I just have to add, so that when you go up against a UCLA person and you're arguing: when they say that they beat us 8 years in a row at football in the 90s, tell them to look at the stats for the two teams. It's amazing. Those were known as our dark years because we were apparently so bad. To UCLA those were the golden years because they thought they were so great. BUUUUUT... While they were supposedly having their good years and we were having our bad years, we still had a better record, had more Rose Bowl wins, etc. We were basically still better than UCLA in all aspects when we were in our dark years and they were in their best years. It cracks me up. Anyways... random facts...</p>
<p>Yeah, magicdude needs to learn more about this rivalry.</p>
<p>Remember, everybody was wondering what would happen after Palmer left. Also, remember that a USC backup QB was drafted ahead of OU's Heisman winner.</p>
<p>Losing Chow could hurt, but there is too much talent to not win the Pac-10.</p>
<p>To address the declinign football statement, as previous psoters have mentioned, USC often gets one of the best (of not the best) recruiting classes in the country. If Leinart was to break his shoulder before game 1, Carroll would get to choose from John David Booty (the #1 rated HS QB two years ago, Rocky Hinds (whom Kirk Herbstreit called the best incoming QB in Ameria), and Mark Sanchez (the #1 rated HS Qb last year). If there's anywhere our depth chart shines, it's in the QB position. Also remember that Booty redshirted last year, and the latter two are freshmen. Furthermore, we have Carroll and he has no intention of leaving. USC's a huge name in college football, Carroll's a tireless recruiter, and USC will, in the foreseable future, always have elite recruiting classes. Remember at the beginning of last season when we lost Mike Williams and the Wild Bunch? The editors of the Daily Trojan wrote a very pessimistic article on the outlook of the season. I'm sure they're eating their words right now.</p>
<p>As for the academic aspect of the rivalry with UCLA... forgive me magicdude, but what in God's name are you talking about?! </p>
<p>With its budget crisis, UCLA has and likely will remain stagnant in terms of prestige for the foreseeable future. Magicdude, as you mentioned, USC has risen dramatically recently, and with every incoming freshman class becoming even more impressive (this year's SAT was 1395!), and with more money being poured into various programs and departments, and with the College of LAS spending 100 million on a recruiting effrot for the very best professors, etc., etc., USC's trajectory in terms of academic prestige is arguably the steepest of any higher educational institution right now. </p>
<p>In past years, USC could always brag about football and UCLA would just reply "academics." That's not true anymore. With more than twice the # of national mertis scholars (despite being a smaller school!) that UCLA has, and still more than Princeton and MIT, they no longer have the monopoly on what's really important. And they're scared about it, as <a href="http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=26485%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=26485</a> suggests. Bear in mind that article was written almost TWO years ago - we've improved even further since, while they really have not. And believe me, they're watching.... <a href="http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=25321%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=25321</a></p>
<p>It's all the more reason for this rivalry to heat up.</p>
<p>Wow. That above post has really gotten me to think. I have always been to led to believe (especially at my school) that UCLA (in conjunction with Berkeley) have reigning superiority in academics over most privates in California. Maybe the tide is turning for USC. The fact that the rival is admitting that usc is no longer just the university of spoiled children (some things will probably never go away, but oh well) is definitely making a statement. The problem mostly lies in common stereotypes (Berkeley is a bunch of liberals and commies, USC is a bunch of rich daddy's girls, yadda yadda yadda) and we simply refuse to understand that some things we assume to be true are not. You certainly have done your homework, themegastud.</p>
<p>Yeah...the second article really hit on the reason for USC getting so many top students (150 NMS..etc)...The amount of merit based money that USC awards is HUGE...Every NMS student automatically gets half-tuition and hundreds more get Pres and Trustee...probably about 10% (maybe even more....I kinda made up that number) have substantial merit scholarships...If USC is "buying" top students with scholarships that shows that they are truly dedicated to improving the overall level of the school....
FIGHT ON! (FUCLA!)</p>
<p>Thanks magicdude. My girlfriend goes to UCLA, and unfortunately, whenever discussions with people there turn to the academic merits of the various schools, one's got to be armed with the information to debate. Unfortunately, while the UCLA editorial board has done its homework to realize USC has caught up, your average UCLA student hasn't and remains ingorantly confident in their alma mater's superiority, knowing nothing factual about USC other than the stereotypes propagated by other anti-USC students. Some actually think we're in Compton. Thankfully, here are a few more facts you can throw around to add to SAT scores, national merit scholars, and the rankings of various schools which kill UCLA (Cinema-Television, Viterbi, Leventhal, Law (in non USNWR rankigns), Dentistry, Public Affairs (PPD), Social Work, Occ. Therapy, Phys Therapy):</p>
<ul>
<li>USC's endowment is more than twice the size of UCLA's spread out over a fewer number of students (source: <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html</a> ). I say "more than twice" despite my link because that was for 2003. In a recent speech, USC President Sample stated our endowment currently stands at 2.7 billion. To my knowledge, UCLA's endowment hasn't grown substantially. It also ranks among the top universities in financial gifts (source: <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0770757.html)%5B/url%5D">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0770757.html)</a>. Notice we're the first University, then Harvard. Lastly, our recently completed capital drive campaign, "Building on Excellence," edged out Columbia to be the most successful capital campaign in the history of higher education. Needless to say, USC is in a position to fund anything it wants.
-According to Campusdirt.com, USC grads make (on average) more than their UCLA counterparts after graduation. This is based only on surveys though.
-The Princeton Review, through its own methodology, gives USC an academic rating of 85 and UCLA only a 76. (source: UCLA, <a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/academics.asp?listing=1023373<ID=1&intbucketid=%5B/url%5D">http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/academics.asp?listing=1023373<ID=1&intbucketid=</a> USC, <a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/academics.asp?listing=1023244<ID=1&intbucketid=)%5B/url%5D">http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/academics.asp?listing=1023244<ID=1&intbucketid=)</a>. In all fairness though, I challenged the legitimacy of PR's formulas in another thread.</li>
<li>I could go on.</li>
</ul>
<p>Essentially, the only main counterargument UCLA students can suggest is "we're still ranked higher." So be it. But for how long? Every year the gap between SAT scores increases and the gap between GPA decreases (this year's incoming class' average was 4.0 vs. UCLA's 4.2). As aforementioned, the College of Letters, Arts, & Sciences is spedning $100 million of its own endowment to attract the very best professors to its programs - USC Trojan Family Magazine wrote about how the Daily Princetonian called it "a serious blow" when USC "stole" one of Princeton's most notable professors (source: <a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter04/WhatsNew.html)%5B/url%5D">http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter04/WhatsNew.html)</a>. The vaunted Chronicle of Higher Education even wrote about how notable USC College's efforts were, though the chronicle requires an expensive paid membership so I can't post a link. Bear in mind, the College's effort is but one of all the varuous schools at USC spending money trying to recruit the very best professors, make themselves the best departments/schools, attract the best students, and ultimately rise in the rankings.</p>
<p>One last thing - I think the best gauge of USC's excellence is to look at it's people (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Southern_California_people#Faculty%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Southern_California_people#Faculty</a>)</p>
<p>You'll find a list of people that include everyone from alumnus Neil Armstrong, to current Professor of Anthropology Jane Goodall.</p>
<p>The last link posted by themegastud was broken by the parenthesis:
<a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter04/WhatsNew.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter04/WhatsNew.html</a></p>
<p>Although there's sure to be a bias in here, all of this is very interesting stuff.</p>
<p>There is hardly a difference in #30 and #25. It's ridiculous how far people take rankings. UCLA people speak as if 5 spots in the rankings translates into a greater education. Well according to that logic, Harvard kids must be receiving a mindblowing education as they are 25 spots above UCLA, but that isn't the case - actually that's far from the case. </p>
<p>The fact is, there is hardly an educational difference nor is there a great disparity in the quality of students within the top 30. I've taken classes at USC that were taught by a former Wharton professor and another by a former Stanford professor. Do these professors suddenly regress in terms of teaching quality once they arrive to USC?</p>
<p>It might shock you but there are 300+ size classrooms at Yale and Harvard. Wait don't Yale and Harvard students get taught in a 30 person classroom by the best professors in the world? That's what many perceive it to be like, but it is FAR from the truth. Believe me, I have a handful of friends that attend Ivies, and they tell me what it's REALLY like. </p>
<p>I'm a big fan of case competitions, so when I have the opportunity I attend them. I distinctly remember one visit when I was talking with a case competition coordinator and I asked him, "How did Wharton do?". I was curious as they are usually deemed the best and brightest business students in the nation. To my surprise the guy (who has coordinated these types of case competitions for quite some time) said, "People think they are the best, but they usually don't do so well in these competitions." Still surprised I said, "That's surprising seeing that they are the best business school in the nation." And he concluded by saying, "Trust me, the quality of students are the same. I've seen the best schools in the nation and their students are no different from the not so best."</p>
<p>To conclude, I believe the top 10 schools have no better talent than students at USC, BUT I do believe they have a more consistent quality throughout. Going back to the original topic, I think the quality of students at USC and UCLA are exactly the same. You can freeze time, take 5000 USC students (without school colors of course), and place them in the heart of the UCLA campus and classrooms and no one would know the difference.</p>
<p>Also to add, I may be in the minority but I really don't care if USC rises up in the rankings. I'd much prefer USC stay #30 if it meant that the school still offered the great balance of education and social life. Also if it meant that the higher we rise the less legacies admitted, then I would rather we stay where we are. </p>
<p>The reason why USC is special is because we have strong alumni support and a very strong passion for the school. Both of those stem from the experience that USC offers, and frankly, I'd sacrifice pride over who is ranked higher to maintain that experience. </p>
<p>People say we have non-elite academics? Our alumni success can stand with the best. It's safe to say that they wouldn't be there without their education right? We really don't need a low number by the school name to affirm that.</p>
<p>i concur with the above ^</p>
<p>well put, i might add</p>
<p>I disagree</p>
<p>for me, USC will always be the haven for rich white drunk kids.</p>
<p>I have a friend who got a full ride + some other award to go to USC because she's a PSAT NMF. Guess what, she DIDNT pick it.</p>
<p>I didnt apply to either USC or UCLA. All I know is that the arrogance exhibited on campus rubs me the wrong way.</p>
<p>USC=University of Spoiled Children
USC=University of Second Choice</p>
<p>I think that the fact that they are using their money to try and "buy" scores(which the students have) to raise their rankings is despicable</p>
<p>"All I know is that the arrogance exhibited on campus rubs me the wrong way."</p>
<p>So... according to your own view of USC, you'd fit in really well here! ;)</p>
<p>"I think that the fact that they are using their money to try and "buy" scores(which the students have) to raise their rankings is despicable."</p>
<p>Yeah, that whole concept of rewarding bright students for their achievement smacks of stupidity. And correct me if I'm wrong sempiterm, isn't Duke your alma mater? Considering Duke, among other fine schools like USC, WUStl, and the UC's (via Regents) is well known for its own merit-aid system, I think we have a new poster boy for hypocrisy. </p>
<p>... Or is someone just jealous their own institution didn't offer them some merit-aid?</p>
<p>Hey- next time you make a moment please refrain from talking from your ( ! ) <---picture of your butt. I'm happy for your friend, except for the fact that the Trustees scholarship is mutually exclusive (do you even know what that means?) and it cannot be combined with any other scholarships that USC awards. The rich white drunk kids you are referring to are someday going to be your bosses, your son's bosses, and your grandson's bosses. Furthermore, your post has no relevance in a topic titled "USC vs. UCLA and the declining rivalry" and it seems as if you are just trying to induce conflict. That being said, yes I sincerely hope that the pride and spirit of USC do "rub you the wrong way"(the hell does that mean)- we don't need people like you and your ego attending either school.</p>
<p>USC = University of Superb Connections
USC = University of Sweet Chicks
(or insert any other adjective that starts with "S")</p>
<p>Just some other ways to look at it. And litlxjustin, just a minor correction, but if you are a NMF you get half tuition (Presidential), not a full Trustee scholarship. But yes, it's mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Wow, sempiturn just totally made this themegastud comment come true:</p>
<p>"Unfortunately, while the UCLA editorial board has done its homework to realize USC has caught up, your average UCLA student hasn't and remains ingorantly confident in their alma mater's superiority, knowing nothing factual about USC other than the stereotypes propagated by other anti-USC students."</p>
<p>He supposedly isn't a UCLA person, but he just proved how true themegastud was, and how ignorant people can be.</p>