<p>
[quote]
WRONG. It's not 1985 anymore, buddy. The median household income of a UCLA student has surpassed that of USC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Links please! Hard data, then we can analyze precisely what that might mean. Thanks.</p>
<p>I'm with you, kenf1234 - I have read that one (household income higher at UCLA) several times, but there is never a source included, so I am not convinced. Believe me, I would LOVE to have that particular piece of information for my little posts, so if you DO have a link, BandTenHut, please post it!</p>
<p>tocollege: true, but USC still has 12% more caucasians, which means 12% less of other diverse races. They are a majority over any other race by roughly 25%, a hugely significant margin. </p>
<p>Band, as for the medium income: unless you can find data that proves it (which I'd be shocked if both schools released), I don't believe that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
which means 12% less of other diverse races.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Asians on university campuses are not proof of diversity. USC has more blacks, similar numbers of latinos, and many more international students than UCLA. Less Asians and more Whites doesn't proof a thing.</p>
<p>given the choice, money not being a factor, probably usc. just stay safe. it'd be a tough decision. </p>
<p>ucla is without a doubt a nicer area while usc is in downtown LA. affluent area versus urban decay.
i'd also visit both.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Asians on university campuses are not proof of diversity. USC has more blacks, similar numbers of latinos, and many more international students than UCLA. Less Asians and more Whites doesn't proof a thing.
[/Quote]
I repeat, whites are the majority at USC by 25%. I don't see why you're trying to defend that as more diversity....it's not.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
ucla is without a doubt a nicer area while usc is in downtown LA. affluent area versus urban decay.
[/Quote]
LOL.</p>
<p>do you disagree? usc is a great school. it's precise location is not.</p>
<p>According to Webster's, whites are NOT (at 47%) a majority at USC:</p>
<p>Main Entry: ma·jor·i·ty<br>
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈjȯr-ə-tē, -ˈjär-\
Function: noun
3 a: a number or percentage equaling *more than half of a total *
majority</a> - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</p>
<p>This majority discussion is silly. I'm still waiting for hard data about USC family income vs. UCLA family income.</p>
<p>Me too. The only information I can find (U.S News & World Reports) is on Pell grant recipients and debt at graduation.</p>
<p>USC
Pell Grant 16%
Av debt at graduation: $25,578
% of students who borrow: 53%</p>
<p>UCLA
Pell grant 35%
Av debt at graduation: $16,220
% of students who borrow: 44%</p>
<p>As with most statistics, you can choose which way to interpret them depending on what you personally want to prove.</p>
<p>The Pell grant information shows that UCLA has more very-low-income students. I can't find any other way to look at that.</p>
<p>The debt at graduation could be a function of the higher cost of USC and the greater borrowing ability of the students (higher family income = better credit). Or, if I squint, I could try to see it as the greater need of the poor, poor USC students forcing them to take on a heavy debt. But that doesn't seem likely.</p>
<p>In any case, my own point was never that either group of students is richer or poorer than the other, just that BOTH universities have a variety of highly qualified students from all backgrounds and socio-econimic levels. Categorizing ALL USC students as "Rich and spoiled" is as silly a statement as any on this thread. If you do see "all" USC students as rich and spoiled, you have to at least allow that those rich and spoiled students were somehow able (while not vacationing in 5-star hotels) to achieve an average 3.8uw GPA and SAT scores of 2108. (That is from my acceptance letter, so I can't post the reference, but the admission stats should be published soon.)
The other sources:
University</a> of California--Los Angeles - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report
University</a> of Southern California - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report</p>
<p>OP: my guess is you're a rower. if right then USC is a tough team to turn down as they're ranked 5th in the nation. They finally entered the rarified level of Brown, Yale, Cal, and the University of Washington programs. UCLA is 19th or 18th and it may be years before they build their program back to a national championship level.</p>
<p>kenf: the "average" Cal and UCLA familes have higher net worths than USC families or Stanford families or Harvard families as well as a lot of other private schools. this flip in student body wealth happened several years ago because the private schools use their endowment money to attract high performing students with very generous scholorships, from anywhere in the world. It's also why USC freshman have surpased both ucla and cal in test scoring (SAT and ACT). that said there are some students at usc, stanford, and harvard, etc who come from families with way more money than anyone attending Cal or UCLA.</p>
<p>"Police reports indicate a verbal exchange between students and others escalated into a physical fight which led to the stabbing," and death of the student. </p>
<p>Unfortunately these tragic events happen everywhere. This happened 3 months ago in the actual yard of the fraternity, in a very "safe" neighborhood. And the circumstances are almost identical to the sad event at USC yesterday. So which place is more dangerous Cal or SC? How about neither and both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
kenf: the "average" Cal and UCLA familes have higher net worths than USC families or Stanford families or Harvard families as well as a lot of other private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am being polite. Please provide evidence for this assertion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's also why USC freshman have surpased both ucla and cal in test scoring (SAT and ACT).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USC has a lot of money they are dishing out in merit scholarships to attract these students. </p>
<p>Anyway, I continue to be very polite. Please do not make statistical assertions without providing evidence for those assertions.</p>
<p>^ Could you provide links to prove or support your assertion that USC students are rich and spoiled?</p>
<p>^^I said "Lots of rich spoiled kids." I can't believe anyone would deny that there are "lots of rich spoiled kids" at USC. If there aren't, of course, then I am wrong. </p>
<p>Saying that the median family income or average net worth of UCLA student families is higher than USC students, though, is a much stronger claim. I would imagine, an almost certainly false claim.</p>
<p>I can't find the USC common data set info. Where can I find it? I found UCLA's easily. I found a link on a CC message but I couldn't get it to work.</p>
<p>^^ I have personally met a number of USC students and have found them to be intelligent, hard working, and friendly, so yes, I will DENY that there are "lots" of rich spoiled kids at USC. (As you have given no definition of “rich and spoiled” nor any number or percent that equals “lots,” I feel my personal experience is enough evidence in this case.) </p>
<p>I have also met many USC parents who have appeared to be intelligent, hard working and friendly. (I do apologize that I neglected to grill them about their net worth, so I cannot tell you the average yearly income of those I met.) </p>
<p>You have made some posts on this thread where you discount the information posted by others and direct them to give you proof of their statements, yet you expect that your pronouncements will be believed unquestioningly with absolutely no supporting evidence at all.</p>
<p>I addition, questioning the character of an entire university's student population (or at least "lots" of them) is a far "stronger" claim than an estimation of income of two groups of people.</p>
<p>^^Would you prefer "pampered" to "spoiled"?</p>
<p>Do you deny that there are lots of rich kids, even if those kids may have "intelligent, hard-working, friendly" parents?</p>
<p>Only the IRS has the income information otherwise you won't find this information realeased anywhere.</p>
<p>What is your definition of "spoiled" and "pampered?" If it is smart, hard-working kids who worked their tails off to get great grades in the hardest classes, who volunteered hundreds of hours, who excelled on their tests and who wrote amazing essays, then you might be describing USC students.</p>
<p>What is your definition of "lots?" 100%? 80%? 53.2%? How have you ascertained that the percentage you deem to be "lots" has been met at USC?</p>
<p>As you are singling out USC, is it your position that ALL of the "rich spoiled kids" are to be found at USC? Are there only poor, unspoiled students at other universities? How about the other privates in California costing approximately $50,000/year who do not guarantee to meet need (as USC does) and who's financial aid budgets do not come close to USC's? Do you not consider those families - paying $50,000/year - to be rich or their children spoiled?</p>
<p>As YOU said, kenf1234,</p>
<p>"I am being polite. Please provide evidence for this assertion."</p>
<p>Either support your unsupportable assertion or stop making it.</p>