USC vs UCLA vs Tulane

College Search & Selection
1

<p>So I'm down to these 3 schools. </p>

<p>I'd pay:</p>

<p>30k at LA.
35k at USC
30k at Tulane.</p>

<p>I'm a Neuroscience major and pre-med. I'm in Tulane's Honors Program and I'm in the process of applying for USC's Thematic Option and LA's Honors Program.</p>

<p>I've lived in Norcal all my life, so LA would be a place I'd be comfortable in but I wouldn't be able to get away from my classmates. New Orleans is a totally new city in the South, but it'd be a new experience. </p>

<p>Any feedback would be great. I'm really struggling to make a decision.</p>

2

<p>Anyone? =&lt;/p>

3

<p>hey im actually considering these 3 schools too!</p>

<p>out of the 3 i like ucla the best personally, but im out of state so it’s different for me</p>

<p>im from ny and have zero interest in a ny state school because i dont wanna be with all nyers so if i was you i probably wouldnt consider ucla</p>

<p>usc is also a awesome school but what i dont like about it is that even though its in a city it feels so isolated. like i feel like u cant just walk off of campus and find something to do like you can at ucla</p>

<p>tulane is also a great school with a beautiful campus, my main reason for not considering it is b/c i dont wanna go to school with my brother lol
also when i visited everyone i talked to seemed to party everyday and werent really doing as well in school as they had been in hs</p>

<p>so i guess if i was you id go to usc or tulane…usc is ranked higher but tulanes honor program sounds good (im in it too!) and being guaranteed a scholarship each year is nice!</p>

4

<p>The most important question related to your undergraduate education is this:</p>

<p>Do your parents have the income to make sure that you have very little debt or none at all when you graduate?</p>

<p>If the answer is no, then, I wouldn’t consider any of the three; I’d head directly to the nearest community college and enroll there instead, and try to get into a TAP if they have one, or generally an honors program.</p>

<p>As much as I’m about UCLA, I realize that future MDs have to be completely cognizant about their costs and debt because being in serious debt after a four-year degree would be fatal w/ med school ahead of them.</p>

<p>If the answer to the question above is a resounding “NO!,” then I would go to the nearest community college, graduate from there, and reapply to the nearest UC near you and try to commute to school to save room and board.</p>

<p>One of the advantages of the smart pre-med rich-kids around UCLA’s neighborhood is, they get to stay at the comforts of home, go to SMC or go straight to UCLA, then UCLA Med, and spend relatively little once they complete med school, despite their being rich. As one kid said, “I get to complete all eight years of my college education at institutions just a few miles/blocks from my home.” Seems in a way wrong, but that’s how life is sometimes.</p>

<p>If your parents have great cash flow even after planning for siblings’ educations and paying the mortgage and planning to pay for your pre-med and medical educations, then let it fly with at whatever school you feel best and most comfortable, because you’re going to spend most of your time studying.</p>

<p>The reason why I said you might want to commute is because you’ll be prone to getting sick studying so much; I hope not, that you’re in good health and stay that way.</p>

<p>UCLA has one of the most competitive pre-med programs in the nation, and typically leads the nation in applicants to med school, [Table</a> 2: Undergraduate Institutions Supplying Applicants to U.S. Medical Schools, by Applicant Race and Ethnicity - FACTS - AAMC](<a href=“http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table2-race.htm]Table”>http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table2-race.htm), so if competition scares you off, then don’t consider going to school there.</p>

<p>Next, at whatever school(s) you attend, make sure you have a fall-back. Neuroscience sounds like a great major, but if you can sneak into an engineering program, and do the pre-med curriculum concurently or a little belatedly, that might be better option, employment-wise if med school falls out of the picture.</p>

<p>Anyway, I hope some of these ideas might help you out and best of luck at whatever school(s) you choose.</p>

5

<p>UCLA the best and the cheapest (Tulane doesn’t belong in the conversation IMO)</p>

6

<p>vociferous - then you absolutely don’t know much about Tulane. Why exactly would you say that? Because Tulane students are not at the same level academically? No, that cannot be it since Tulane students have average test scores moderately higher than UCLA and moderately lower than USC (well, identical ACT scores to USC actually). Add to that the OP is in the Tulane Honors Program, which is their top 10% of matriculants and have average stats that blow both USC and UCLA away. Because they are not as selective? No that cannot be it since they all have roughly the same acceptance rate. Because it is out in the sticks somewhere? No, it is in the most upscale part of town in one of the most unique cities in the world. Can’t say that about USC.</p>

<p>Obviously you are welcome to your opinion. It would just be nice to know the basis for it.</p>

<p>To the OP - They are all great schools, clearly. You just need to decide which fits you better, since cost is roughly equal at all. UCLA is large and rather impersonal, and will definitely feel the effects of the California budget crisis. USC is bigger than Tulane, has a great sports scene, and has a lot of plusses. It is not in the nicest part of LA by any means though. You are at that stage where you just have to go with your gut. There really is no factor we can tell you without knowing a lot more about you. Certainly if you have questions about Tulane, PM me and I will answer them as honestly and objectively as I can.</p>

7

<p>UCLA is a top 5 public and the most applied to school in the country. Tulane is a fine institution with some fine programs, but overall there is no comparison. How many Tulane Ph.Ds are teaching in major universities around the country? I would say its not 1/10 of the number that are out of UCLA. Although in that regard USC and Tulane might be pretty even. Again Tulane is a great place, but its not on par with UCLA.</p>

8

<p>That is comparing grad schools. On that basis LAC’s would never be in the picture. We are talking undergrad. As one who has done both, I can absolutely tell you that is apples and oranges. However, if you were to look at Ph.D.'s teaching at the university level now I bet UCLA beats Tulane 20:1 at least. But that has nothing to do with the OP’s decision, he is not going for a Ph.D. And the quality of the grad school has little to do with the quality of the undergraduate experience. I could even make an argument for a negative correlation, because high powered grad programs often mean more undergrad classes taught by TA’s, profs that are too busy for undergrads, harder for undergrads to do research, and other factors. That may or may not be the case at UCLA, but it does go to show that talking about Ph.D. programs at the least has nothing to do with choosing an undergrad school.</p>

9

<p>“I could even make an argument for a negative correlation, because high powered grad programs often mean more undergrad classes taught by TA’s, profs that are too busy for undergrads, harder for undergrads to do research, and other factors.”</p>

<p>This is highly relative and quite frankly I would put some of the TA’s at these places up against some of the burnout Profs I have observed at “teaching” schools. They are more cutting edge and really care about their students. But again, its relative.</p>

10

<p>No argument there. I have seen very talented TA’s and very awful professors when it comes to teaching. But since that is very iffy and random, it still has nothing to do with comparing Tulane to UCLA other than I can almost guarantee that 95 out of 100 students and parents want professors teaching the courses, not TA’s. Tulane, even though they do certainly have Ph.D. programs and therefore grad students in many areas, have 100% of classes taught by regular faculty, which in Tulane’s case means either tenure track professors, visiting professors, or what they call Professors of Practice, which is someone like James Carville who has taught a Poli Sci course at Tulane and I believe is scheduled to again.</p>

<p>Bottom line, if the OP had asked which school was better for getting a Ph.D., with the exception of a handful of particular subjects it would be UCLA. For undergrad, it is far more about what environment the OP is looking for, since these schools are academically similar on the whole yet otherwise quite different.</p>

11

<p>Where do you think you’d achieve the best “fit”? That will give you your answer when you are comparing schools that are pretty much on the same level academically. UCLA is 94% Californians, so you might ask if that would make you more comfortable or if you’d rather follow a different path at Tulane where only 35% of the students are from Louisiana–and presumably just a few percent from California. As you say–you’d have a hard time getting away from your HS classmates at UCLA.</p>

<p>As I help my daughter look at colleges, the TA issue is a big factor for me. I can’t understand why someone would want to sit in a huge class and be taught by a 25 year old, instead of in a small class and be taught by an experienced PHD–but to each his own.</p>

12

<p>Totally agree with you KY Crusader. Just a minor clarification. The percentage of full time undergraduate Louisiana students at Tulane is just a hair under 16%, not 35%. Here is the link:</p>

<p>[2009</a> Fall First Time Freshmen Profile](<a href=“Office of the University Registrar |”>Office of the University Registrar |)</p>

<p>While this is for freshmen only, the previous year was almost identical and the year before that just slightly higher. I could not find the stats for this year’s senior class, but they wouldn’t vary enough to change it. So at most about 18% of the full time students are from Louisiana.</p>

<p>Just strengthens your point, actually. The higher percentage comes from counting the School of Continuing Studies enrollment, which is virtually all Louisiana because that is the night/weekend school. The typical freshman hardly ever interacts with people attending these classes (not that it would be a bad thing! Just the reality) since they live in their own homes, not on campus and attend in the off hours out of neccessity.</p>

<p>It is confusing. Tulane shows undergraduate enrollment at 7200, which I couldn’t figure out at first sine the incoming classes are about 1500. The difference is, of course, these part time students. Just a little nugget to clarify things. In fact, Tulane has more students from 500+ miles away than any other US university, apparently.</p>

13

<p>Also, the number of PhDs that are teaching in major universities around the country is directly proportional to the number of PhDs they actually turn out. UCLA has a huge graduate population (over 13,000) whereas Tulane’s is much smaller (just under 5,000).</p>

<p>Are those total costs, or per year costs? If those are total costs with loans factored in I say you can’t go wrong with any of them, and in that case you should select based upon your heart. If those are just what your family would have to pay out of pocket I say recalculate based upon what your loan burden will be in addition to what your family will pay out of pocket and compare that. (In the unlikely event that those are per year costs, I say scrap them all.)</p>

<p>Personally I’d eliminate USC (it’s not the cost, it’s just the school itself - something I don’t like about it, although it does have great majors including Health and Humanity and select between UCLA and Tulane. Being an East Coaster with a familiarity with New Orleans and the South I’d be partial to Tulane, also in some part because it’s smaller - still bigger than my it-got-too-small-by-junior-year LAC, but still small enough to warrant some attention and development and the feeling of a somewhat cozy campus. But honestly, part of me really wanted to experience huge-university life and all the resources and advantages that come with that. So honestly, I think fit and feel is going to be the determining factor here.</p>

14

<p>Fallenchemist:</p>

<h2>vociferous - then you absolutely don’t know much about Tulane. Why exactly would you say that? Because Tulane students are not at the same level academically? No, that cannot be it since Tulane students have average test scores moderately higher than UCLA and moderately lower than USC (well, identical ACT scores to USC actually). Add to that the OP is in the Tulane Honors Program, which is their top 10% of matriculants and have average stats that blow both USC and UCLA away. Because they are not as selective? No that cannot be it since they all have roughly the same acceptance rate. Because it is out in the sticks somewhere? No, it is in the most upscale part of town in one of the most unique cities in the world. Can’t say that about USC.</h2>

<p>I know your reply is based on vociferous’ post. But let’s be fair here: UCLA accepts people based more on class rank and gpa, or as a UCLA administrator stated, ‘how the student best performs in his/her classes at his/her high school.’ And surely test scores are a large consideration. </p>

<p>Someone from an underperforming high school could be admitted with a 3.8/3.8 unweighted/weighted gpa – the u-w gpa being approximately the same because some high schools don’t have much or any AP – along with an 1,800 SAT score. UCLA is first and foremost a public school that needs to be true to its land charter and educate the poor as well as rich. </p>

<p>Just because Tully and USC can cherry-pick those kids with middling class standing but have families with the funds to acquire tutors to coach them up 300+ points on the SAT, doesn’t mean that higher test scores are in anyway reflective of how good a student is at least potentially. Besides UCLA has a building specifically there to help these disadvantaged students obtain that potential, and many of these students do attend med school.</p>

<h2>Per your ‘apples and oranges’ statement earlier, which would apply to you, why don’t you research what Tulane’s placement into med school is? And assuming the originating poster wants to attend med school near home, how good Tulane’s placement is into CA med schools? </h2>

<p>KyCrusader:</p>

<p>Where do you think you’d achieve the best “fit”? That will give you your answer when you are comparing schools that are pretty much on the same level academically. UCLA is 94% Californians, so you might ask if that would make you more comfortable or if you’d rather follow a different path at Tulane where only 35% of the students are from Louisiana–and presumably just a few percent from California. As you say–you’d have a hard time getting away from your HS classmates at UCLA.</p>

<h2>As I help my daughter look at colleges, the TA issue is a big factor for me. I can’t understand why someone would want to sit in a huge class and be taught by a 25 year old, instead of in a small class and be taught by an experienced PHD–but to each his own.</h2>

<p>UCLA, because of its budget concerns is trying to increase its profile of out-of-state students and internationals, who pay full tuition. Neither Cal nor UCLA will have problems in this regard. So that 94% from CA stat won’t be true for this frosh class, with maybe at or around 20% non-Californians. People tend to create pathways around residency laws, and that 94% was probably never nearly right in the first place.</p>

<p>Per your second paragraph, at UCLA it is sink or swim. But I would think the research ops at UCLA would be greater than those at Tulane. Just as being at a large school of 26k-undergrds like UCLA will have its disadvantages, it will certainly have its advantages too for those extremely motivated self-starters.</p>

15

<p>Why would you assume that your liking New Orleans would translate to the originating poster?</p>

<p>To some it is a vibrant city, but to others it’s just a dirty, run-down mess (not my thoughts). </p>

<p>Yeah, we have romantic notions of the city, with its jazz clubs on Bourbon Street, but that’s a small area; many people will get its fill within weeks/months.</p>

<p>The great thing about LA is you can go west down Sunset to teh beach, or east on that same boulevard to the all the clubs on the three boulevards, athough I wouldn’t take Sunset for either.</p>

<p>But regardless, a premed major will probably be locked in his/her room perpetulally studying, so the sights and experiences of each of these cities may never be visited by said poster.</p>

<p>This is why I recommended a re-evaluation of his/her plans and go local; certainly because of the costs as you mentioned.</p>

16

<p>with regard to UCLA’s and Berkeley’s CA resident %:</p>

<p>The real question is, I assume, cultural diversity. Why do we care where the students hail from? We are looking for a diversity of opinion, culture, race, religion, ethnicity, when we ask that question.</p>

<p>Because California is a melting pot of cultures (e.g. Los Angeles County lost its white plurality some 15-20 years ago), the IN-STATE students at UCLA and Berkeley are more diverse than schools that are georgraphically diverse (by student home state). California geographic diversity is global more than US – most countries in Asia (including India), most countries in Latin America, lots of eastern Europe, etc. Thus, you find that the combined Asian and Latin American/Latino populations at UCLA and Berkeley top 50%… bringing with them their foods, religions, views on family roles, connections with their native countries, etc.</p>

<p>Beyond that, most CA-resident students at both these schools have parents or grandparents NOT born and raised in CA. CA’s real population boom started in the mid 1930s when Texas, Oklahoma and neighboring states suffered a multi-year drought smack in the middle of the Depression. There are very few 4rd generation Californians, and few 3rd generation, so I’m not sure what it even means culturally to say a person is a “native Californian”.</p>

<p>The CA in-state issue really is an irrelevant one if your concern is diversity.</p>

17

<p>drax - you are very funny. My apples and oranges statement was clearly directed strictly towards being an undergraduate and being a graduate student. As far as your test score vs. gpa/class rank comparison, at least the test scores are on an exam that is standardized for everyone. High schools vary quite a bit in their grading and policies from state to state or even high school to high school. That whole matter can easily be argued both ways, but it is a very facile argument on your part to suggest that the reason Tulane test scores are higher than UCLA’s is because of coaching. You cannot possibly have any proof of that. If you want to promote UCLA (which you really don’t need to) or run down Tulane and USC (which is classless and ridiculous), at least don’t do it with baseless assertions.</p>

<p>I certainly wouldn’t even know where to research Tulane’s placement into CA med schools, although there is no basis for assuming that the OP wants to go to med school in CA in particular. Most people are happy just to get in. But I do know Tulane’s success rate for med school placement in general is very very good, and among Honor’s Program student’s nearly 100%. Your comments about New Orleans show that you obviously know very little about the city and even less about Tulane’s involvement with it.</p>

<p>You really would be better off sticking to talking about the good points regarding UCLA and not talking at all about schools you clearly know little about.</p>

18

<p>DunninLA - I largely agree that the diversity issue is mostly about ethnic diversity. However, one should not ignore regional diversity as well. People from Maine really do grow up with a different experience than those from Missouri, which are different than those from Colorado, which are different than…well you get the idea. Both kinds are good if you can get it.</p>

19

<p>as you stated in quotes:</p>

<p>“drax - you are very funny. My apples and oranges statement was clearly directed strictly towards being an undergraduate and being a graduate student.”</p>

<p>But you violated that tenet yourself by referring to apples-and- oranges situations yourself.</p>

<p>Besides, why couldn’t he have meant those UCLA undergrads attending grad schools for their PHDs?</p>

<p>“As far as your test score vs. gpa/class rank comparison, at least the test scores are on an exam that is standardized for everyone.”</p>

<p>It’s a point of fact that wealthier kids can be coached up through SAT prep schools, or if they’re more wealthy, by private tutors. As one administrator put it, “the SAT is no longer a standardized test because there is a very high correlation between wealth and higher scores.”</p>

<p>“High schools vary quite a bit in their grading and policies from state to state or even high school to high school.”</p>

<p>Undoubtedly…</p>

<p>But at least with gpa and class rank, the latter is probably most important to UCLA, these represent a prolonged achievement rather than a one-shot ephemeral one over a few months of cramming. </p>

<p>“…but it is a very facile argument on your part to suggest that the reason Tulane test scores are higher than UCLA’s is because of coaching.”</p>

<p>I’m just going on Tulane’s private-school status, associating that with wealth. </p>

<p>“If you want to promote UCLA (which you really don’t need to) or run down Tulane and USC (which is classless and ridiculous), at least don’t do it with baseless assertions.”</p>

<p>Typical…</p>

<p>You run down UCLA to promote Tulane, and you accuse me of the like wrt your school. You’re so blind with rage, you fail to see this. </p>

<p>The only thing I said or inferred was that UCLA is bound by charter to accept those from a certain (generally, top 10% rank), but those from USC and Tulane, being private, aren’t restricted by such.</p>

<p>Are you going to tell me that Tulane doesn’t dip into the second and maybe third quintiles of high-school classes?</p>

<p>And why is this so offensive to you? There should be college spaces for those who graduate lower in their high-school classes.</p>

<p>“I certainly wouldn’t even know where to research Tulane’s placement into CA med schools, although there is no basis for assuming that the OP wants to go to med school in CA in particular.”</p>

<p>The originating poster is from NorCal, I believe. Yeah, I was projecting a bit, but, would this be wrong based on CA med-school spots are among the nation’s most prized?</p>

<p>“Most people are happy just to get in.”</p>

<p>Undoubtedly…</p>

<p>Most UCLA grads will be attending med school outside of CA, and maybe some on foreign soil.</p>

<p>“But I do know Tulane’s success rate for med school placement in general is very very good, and among Honor’s Program student’s nearly 100%.”</p>

<p>Big whoop, and I did intend to mock on this one…</p>

<p>Heck, if we took the top 10% of the 737 UCLA applicants to med school from 09, I’d say that there was 100% acceptance from that set also. </p>

<p>“Your comments about New Orleans show that you obviously know very little about the city and even less about Tulane’s involvement with it.”</p>

<p>Yeah, there are plenty of people who swear by New Orleans, and I congratulate Tulane for helping rebuild and improve the city, etc. </p>

<p>Where did I denigrate the city? …besides it being small or at least smaller in comparison to LA?</p>

<p>“You really would be better off sticking to talking about the good points regarding UCLA and not talking at all about schools you clearly know little about.”</p>

<p>Likewise…</p>

20

<p>I have no idea what half of what you said even means. What apples and oranges did I do? Also, 3/4 of the Tulane students are on FA of some amount or another. You are making generalizations without having specific knowledge. And btw, Tulane accepts all Louisiana high school grads that meet a certain criteria, but it is hard to compare to UCLA’s. However, it is a 28 ACT and a 3.5 GPA, so hardly cherry picking the very top. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You just assume things because they are private.</p>

<p>Oh, and he couldn’t have meant those UCLA undergrads that went elsewhere for their Ph.D.'s because no one tracks that kind of thing. When you see a professor’s pedigree, often they only state where they got their Ph.D. And besides, as was pointed out, it would be meaningless anyway because UCLA is just so much larger.</p>

<p>You show me one quote where I ran down UCLA. You cannot. About the closest thing I said that could be construed that way is that it is rather impersonal, and many many UCLA posters have said the same thing. All large schools are to some degree. I didn’t say very impersonal.</p>

<p>I am blind with rage?? That is hysterical. You really are something else. I won’t debate this with you any longer. Anyone that speaks reasonable English can read our posts and decide for themselves who is more coherent and logical.</p>