<p>Which is the "better" school in terms of factors like prestige and also in regards to their engineering program.</p>
<p>i would say that they are pretty much equal.</p>
<p>go to the school you like better</p>
<p>UCLA is stronger academically in most areas, although USC might be stronger in some specific programs. Fifteen years ago it wasn't even close. UCLA was way ahead. However, USC has worked hard to improve. But if it were up to me I'd still choose UCLA.</p>
<p>it's WAY too hard to tell which one is better. it's such a huge rivalry that students from one will always put the other one down.</p>
<p>as a USC student, i feel that SC is a great program. HOWEVER, i would have applied to UCLA had they had an actual business program - all they had was econ. </p>
<p>I know the med program in UCLA is one of the top in the nation.
I also know that USC's business, communication and cinema programs are top class, and are ahead of UCLA. </p>
<p>however, OVERALL, both are just about the same. as coureur and bobbobbob said, both have some strength, while overall being equal. in previous years, UCLA was definitely better, but you have to consider USC's constant improvement as a VERY positive factor.</p>
<p>hope this helps somewhat!</p>
<p>ilya
<a href="http://www.collegecircles.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegecircles.com</a></p>
<p>UCLA is academically better than USC overall. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>USC has better music and cinema programs.</p>
<p>It also has prettier girls. And a beautiful campus.</p>
<p>But UCLA has some good factors too.</p>
<p>I'd choose USC over UCLA in a second. But I am a music major.</p>
<p>Hi, I'm flopsy and I troll around CC looking for threads comparing UCLA to USC and just throw out that UCLA is better without anything substantive behind it.</p>
<p>Anyways, my two cents are that it depends on the program. As a rough guide, UCLA's stronger programs lie in the liberal arts and traditional college majors, whereas USC's banner programs are often preprofessional: engineering, business, music, architecture, etc.</p>
<p>Hey, flopsy gives tons of good advice. Although I really like USC better than UCLA, I know that flopsy helps a lot of us out.</p>
<p>How about in terms of their film/television programs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also know that USC's business, communication and cinema programs are top class, and are ahead of UCLA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are not talking about grad school, are you? But then you can't compare undergrad since UCLA doesn't have undergrad biz program. But for grad school, Marshall isn't really considered "top class". While Anderson is better ranked and a top-15 program, Marshall is outside of top-20.</p>
<p>Prestige...this pains me to say, but I still believe that UCLA wins in terms of prestige. I know this will probably get me some heat from themegastud, but I still feel like UCLA's prestige outside of California is at least a bit better. I think the whole "top 25" thing somehow wires people's brains to believe that anything below 25 is just not as good. Unfortunately, UCSD also gets dropped a bit because of this (and I think that UCSD might just be a superior program to both.)</p>
<p>As for engineering, I think USC is generally considered a bit stronger. flopsy will probably tell me I'm wrong.</p>
<p>Respects to Flopsy, but I don't agree. 25 years ago I was accepted to both UCLA and USC engineering and I chose USC because it was clearly a much better engineering program. Now 40 years ago, that was not so. But that's also a long time ago.</p>
<p>Today, there is a big gap between USC and UCLA in engineering, and USC has the clear advantage. UCLA has a good engineering program, but not really at USC's level. UCLA's strength is in the liberal arts, IMHO.</p>
<p>playtothebeat,</p>
<p>At the undergrad level, USC definitely beats UCLA's BA in business since UCLA doesn't have one (although biz-econ is certainly a decent replacement.) However, at the graduate level, UCLA's B-school is clearly stronger.</p>
<p>Communication is arguable. I think UCLA's PhD programs in comm are either similarly or higher ranked that USC's. Professional programs at USC are better in this field.</p>
<p>Cinema is a toss-up. UCLA, USC, and NYU are generally considered 3 in the top 3. Still, my money is on USC and NYU.</p>
<p>reasonabledad,</p>
<p>UCLA is strong in things other than the liberal arts. It has a top medical school, top programs in many sciences, and very strong professional schools (B-school, law school). In the sciences, physiology, psychology, anthro, and chem are all top 10. In engineering, some consider UCLA aerospace to be top 10 as well.</p>
<p>While it is clear that USC has a better engineering program, I don't think that UCLA is only particularly strong in liberal arts.</p>
<p>Unless of course you count physical sciences and social sciences as liberal arts.</p>
<p>I find it interesting how the nature of this discussion has changed in the last three years on CC. Back then, this question would have resulted in a bunch of posts bashing USC as the University of Spoiled Children or the University of Second Chance. Now it is being treated as a very serious question with reasonable responses.</p>
<p>Let me say there is a major practical advantage to USC's film program. You can be accepted as an entering student. At UCLA you can't start until your third year. I regard this as a major disadvantage to the UCLA program.</p>
<p>tsdad, I would expect this. USC's people have tried to change their image for years. With all that money, they bought many Nobel Laureates and senior faculty. They started caring a little more about academics.</p>
<p>And I think the message has gotten across to students and CC.</p>
<p>Oh, maybe it will really get across in a few years, but it's certainly started.</p>
<p>Haven't bought any Nobel Laureate yet , but quite some senior faculty in similar caliber. In this category, UCs have been doing well, started with UCLA at its early age. UCLA's science programs benefited greatly from a then retiring physicist from Harvard. Now it's UCI's turn. </p>
<p>I don't know why USC can not get some, one reason may be that science was not strong traditionally at USC. Years ago USC lost an economics professor who, some said, will be a sure Nobel winner someday. Anyway, if USC keep doing what they have done in the last 10 years, people will see the effect. I think USC's growth will do good to the region, even UCLA's growth by competition. UCLA 3 bilions fundraising campaign would not be such a success if USC did not set a high bar for them:)</p>
<p>Do realize (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that UCLA is HUGE (45,000+ total student population) whereas USC is just big (30,000 total). Also, I believe that UCLA has more students from in-state than does USC. Also, I personally like the football tradition of USC...but honestly, they are both great schools, and I wouldn't recommend picking UCLA over USC JUST because it is ranked slightly higher, but go with the one that you enjoy more</p>