USC vs. UCLA Bio

I’m trying to decide between UCLA and USC and only have until May 1st so I would appreciate any feedback!

At UCLA, I’d be a Regents Scholar with an undeclared major in life sciences. At USC my major is Biological Sciences and I was wait listed to the Freshman Science Honors Program. After financial aid, my tuition at USC would be about $5000 more than at USC, although I’m considering writing an appeal to explain some nuances.

I have visited both schools and I think I USC “feels” like the right fit. I’m worried, though, because all logical signs point to UCLA. As a Regents Scholar, I’d get priority registration and guaranteed housing and parking for 4 years, etc.

I am wondering if anyone has insight into the strength of these schools in the life sciences. I’ve heard that UCLA is much stronger but I also worry about the availability of professors and research experience. Is USC as well repeated nationally as UCLA? What are the study abroad opportunities like? The option to take courses outside of your major field of study?

I’m also having trouble because everyone seems to have an opinion about where I should go and throws out the whole USC - University of Spoiled Children thing. Is there any truth to this stereotype? I know USC was viewed this way in the past but I feel like it has changed a lot in recent years. Also any insight into the area around USC please!

Please help! Any honest advice is welcome.

By now you’ve probably already made your decision, but as an alumni of UCLA, it is definitely true that UCLA is strong in he life sciences. Regent’s Scholar is very prestigious so you must have been pretty distinguished in order to obtain that. I don’t know much about USC though, which is part of the reason why I’m on this forum. After a year, how is it! (USC or UCLA…if USC then you can inform me…if UCLA you can tell me about how awesome you realized it was haha).