Usc Vs. Ucla

College Search & Selection
61

<p>kenf1234: I asked a few months ago about USC's Common Data Set also, but as I recall they don't participate in the CDS cooperative. Neither does Duke.</p>

<p>There is something fishy about that.... not with USC in particular, but about Duke. When you look at Duke's website to try to determine from their own published data about GPA, SAT scores, etc, the stats are published in a way that is NOT directly comparable to the data as published by CDS.... there is zero reason to do that unless 1) their data parsing is more descriptive, or 2) they don't want their data compared apple/apple.</p>

<p>So whenever I see a school not publishing data in CDS format... I wonder why.</p>

62

<p>The OP's question was to compare UCLA vs. USC. My claim is that USC has far more rich kids than UCLA. That's obviously, undeniably true. </p>

<p>Now, this is not something unique to USC. It is a feature of many (most) private universities. But the OP's question was comparing UCLA vs. USC.</p>

63

<p>Your claim was:</p>

<p>Quote: "USC is a bastion of privilege. Lots of rich spoiled kids."</p>

<p>As you have provided absolutely NO supporting evidence, it is neither obvious nor undeniable. Simply repeating the same unproven statement over and over in no way proves that statement.</p>

<p>In fact, as USC uses need-blind admissions, it would be impossible for them to admit only rich, spoiled applicants. (I have seen the application, and there is no place to check off that you are "rich and spoiled," or even "pampered.")</p>

64

<p>From an article dated September 26, 1997:</p>

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>“The average household income of a UCLA student, for example, is now higher than for a USC student. In a city long accustomed to thinking of USC as a "rich kid's school" and UCLA as where the children of the middle class end up, it's hard for many Angelenos to accept how things have changed.
"The [socioeconomic status] profiles of UCLA and USC students actually crossed eight years ago," said Professor Morton Schapiro of USC, who this month published a study of trends in higher education finance coauthored with Michael McPherson, president of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. "It's just very difficult for people to understand. It contradicts the common sense notion that the richer kid should be going to the more expensive school." Strange</a> days for colleges facing rising costs - special section: Catholic Colleges and Universities | National Catholic Reporter | Find Articles at BNET</p>

<p>It seems BandTenHut was correct.</p>

65

<p>
[Quote]
It's also why USC freshman have surpased both ucla and cal in test scoring (SAT and ACT).

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Please get your facts straight. The reason USC has "higher" test scores is because they superscore the SAT, taking the highest score from each part from combined sittings. UCs only take the best overall score from a SINGLE sitting.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
According to Webster's, whites are NOT (at 47%) a majority at USC:

[/Quote]
Fine, then they are a plurality. See dictionary.com if you don't know what it means.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
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.

[/Quote]
Or students of Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, Notre Dame, UNC, UVA, Boston College, Michigan, MIT, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon, Pomona, Harvard, Yale, Princeton......I have no doubt that USC students work hard, but so do students at most other decent schools in the country. It sorta comes with the territory. </p>

<p>
[Quote]
From an article dated September 26, 1997:

[/Quote]
You do realize that was 11 years ago, right? 11 years ago, the Twin Towers were still the tallest towers in the world. 11 years ago, Bill Clinton was still President of the USA, Heath Ledger was in start-up films, and shoot, I was just a little kid then! WOW that was AGES ago!</p>

<p>Anyway, in the end I really suggest the OP visit both schools. Look at the surrounding area, look at the student body (bc both are vastly different depending on the school). After you visit, you'll be able to make your own decision. Besides, I think this board is too flooded with overzealous football-followers and proud parents to make a decision off of anyway.</p>

<p>Alright, I'm done, gotta go pack. Best of luck to you OP, and to everyone else....don't get your undies in a bunch!</p>

66

<p>OP. USC is a great school in an improving neighborhood. Annenberg is a top notch Communications school. If you are a good fit with the specific athletic team you are being recruited for, I would say pick 'SC.</p>

<p>The truth is, you really can't go wrong as both schools are excellent choices. </p>

<p>As for the Spoiled Children debate, yes of course there are students from affluent families at USC, but there are just as many if not more at UCLA.</p>

67

<p>This is admittedly anecdotal, but during the 1990s, a close friend of mine worked in administration at a prominent LA professional school. The school was not affiliated with either USC or UCLA, but got many applicants from both. She mentioned that UCLA grads, in general, came from more affluent households than USC grads. I remember being surprised. </p>

<p>By the way, she also claimed that the real "spoiled rich kids" school in LA was Pepperdine, not USC. Apparently they prefer to attend college in Malibu, not South-Central. Go figure.</p>

<p>I haven't spent a lot of time in LA recently, but it used to be that the prefered sports logos in the less affluent parts of town were the Trojans and the Raiders. You didn't see a lot of UCLA hoodies or caps. Again, I admit that this is anecdotal.</p>

68

<p>yes, vc08, I realize the date the article was published, which is why I put the date at the beginning of my post. The fact that USC and UCLA's relative income switched places so LONG ago makes kenf1234's outdated, unproven statements even more outdated - and now his statements are no longer unproven, they are proven to be false.</p>

<p>And yes, that description fits students at all the top universities, so why do kenf1234 - and others - insist on dismissing USC students as "rich and spoiled" rather than the excellent students they have proven themselves to be?</p>

<p>trojanchick is completely correct, both schools are great - visit them both. How much money parents of the students have will be completely irrelevent to your experience as a student.</p>

69

<p>How does this jive with the Pell Grant data? Can you find a link to the actual study?</p>

<p>Let's look at this statistic:</p>

<p>Full-time freshman enrollment: 2,962
Number who applied for need-based aid: 1,608
Number who were judged to have need: 1,073
Number who were offered aid: 1,073 </p>

<p>College</a> Search - University of Southern California - USC - Cost & Financial Aid</p>

<p>So, only 1,073 of the students were judged to have financial need. So, 63% of the incoming students were judged not have need, they can afford a $37,000 tuition. Almost half are so well-off they didn't even bother applying for financial aid.</p>

<p>Here is UCLA:</p>

<p>Full-time freshman enrollment: 4,515
Number who applied for need-based aid: 2,722
Number who were judged to have need: 2,228
Number who were offered aid: 2,228
Number who had full need met: 705 </p>

<p>So we have 2,228 50% were judged to have need, based on a $10K/yr tuition.</p>

<p>This is just incoming freshman data. They both take a lot of transfer students, but UCLA especially takes a lot of california community colleges. We'd have to look at that data separately, see where the transfer students come from.</p>

<p>Here is Pepperdine for comparison:</p>

<p>Full-time freshman enrollment: 751
Number who applied for need-based aid: 456
Number who were judged to have need: 270
Number who were offered aid: 262</p>

70

<p>The UCLA Cost of Attendance - which is the number they use to judge financial need - was not $10,000. (I would like to see a link for where you got that erroneous information, my feeling is that you made the number up.) If fact, for California residents, there is no "tuition." There are "University Fees" which, for 2008-2009 totaled $7,551. The total COA (or cost of attendance, which is the figure used to determine financial need) at UCLA for 2008-2009 was $25,092. That figure comes directly from my child's Financial Aid 2008-2009 Provisional Award letter. The estimated budget on the website for 2008-2009 is $25,131 <a href="http://www.fao.ucla.edu/Forms/pdfs/089%20budgets%20for%20web.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fao.ucla.edu/Forms/pdfs/089%20budgets%20for%20web.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And, of course, the USC cost of attendance (used to judge financial need) is considerably different than the number you gave. It was just above $50,000.</p>

71

<p>Most UCLA students will be from California, while USC is more geographically diverse; USC gives legacies a preference, while UCLA does not; "You are a Bruin for 4 years, but a Trojan for life."</p>

<p>P.S. There must be many threads on this topic, did you do a search?</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
And, of course, the USC cost of attendance (used to judge financial need) is considerably different than the number you gave. It was just above $50,000.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I just focused on tuition/fees and left out living expenses. It's the same difference.</p>

73

<p>It seemed to me that you said 50% of UCLA student needed financial aid to pay $10,000 - that's a bit off, isn't it?</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
It seemed to me that you said 50% of UCLA student needed financial aid to pay $10,000 - that's a bit off, isn't it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, that's not what I said. You can read what I said. </p>

<p>The point is that even though USC costs much more than UCLA, more UCLA students need financial aid. The key number is the difference in the cost between UCLA and USC, not the total amount.</p>

<p>I was emphasizing the difference between UCLA and USC, the tuition, while living expenses should be about the same.</p>

<p>You can make the argument differently, almost half of USC parents are SO RICH they don't even bother to APPLY for financial aid, even though tuition, room, and board is <em>$50K</em> per year! And according to USC, 63% of its incoming freshmen are SO RICH they don't need financial aid at all to afford <em>$50K</em> per year!</p>

<p>Anyway, the point is, USC students, on average, or in aggregate, or whatever, are richer than UCLA students. Which is obviously the case. Part of the reason parents pay $50K to send their kids to USC is because they WANT their kids to hang out with other rich kids.</p>

<p>Not that there is anything wrong with being rich, or wanting to "pamper" your children with your hard-earned money. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with that. But in choosing between UCLA and USC, that is one factor to consider.</p>

<p>Let me also say that if money is equal, I think OP probably SHOULD go to USC, unless she has some strong reason for preferring UCLA.</p>

75

<p>I feel like the OP knows she wants UCLA, but has a hard time choosing it because USC is actually better for her on paper, why else would she continue bumping, when the facts(on paper) say USC.</p>

76

<p>kenf1234,</p>

<p>Why would Professor Morton Schapiro lie?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The average household income of a UCLA student, for example, is now higher than for a USC student. In a city long accustomed to thinking of USC as a "rich kid's school" and UCLA as where the children of the middle class end up, it's hard for many Angelenos to accept how things have changed.</p>

<p>"The [socioeconomic status] profiles of UCLA and USC students actually crossed eight years ago," said Professor Morton Schapiro of USC, who this month published a study of trends in higher education finance coauthored with Michael McPherson, president of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. "It's just very difficult for people to understand. It contradicts the common sense notion that the richer kid should be going to the more expensive school."

[/quote]
</p>

77

<p>Wow I woke up and saw how far this has gotten hahaha....
I really appreciate everyone's advice. It's a really hard decision.
I think I'm going out to USC next weekend to visit since I have already been to UCLA, so that should offer some new insight.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
Why would Professor Morton Schapiro lie?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not a question of who is lying. It's a question of trying to figure out what is really going on. I found some easy-to-see data, and I interpreted it in a certain way. Perhaps he might interpret that data differently, or you might interpret it differently. </p>

<p>10-25 years ago, USC was quite a bit less selective than it is now. So the choice really wasn't between USC and UCLA; most students who went to USC couldn't have gotten into UCLA. That might explain some of the difference. 20 years ago, I would have said, definitely pick UCLA, it is the FAR superior university. But USC has been working very hard to improve their standing, a big part of that has been through very generous merit scholarships to top tier students. I also think the swelling of Asian students, most of whom are the childen of immigrants or are immigrants themselves, is probably lowering the average household income for UCLA students.</p>

79

<p>I have lived in California, Massachusetts, the Midwest, and China, and in every place, UCLA garners a lot more respect than USC. UCLA wins for higher academic quality, greater research accomplishments, better student resources, and more accomplished alumni. USC has improved its admissions selectivity in the last few years, but it has generations of alumni who were more interested in partying than studying, and it will take a long time for the campus to overcome that culture. UCLA has been stronger for a long time, and it continues to get more demanding in its admissions and faculty selection. If I were applying to college today, I would choose UCLA without question.</p>

80

<p>Henry, you bring up an interesting point about the perception of UCLA and USC among the 35-65 age group that has the most influence in business (except Hollywood LOL, where you've made your mark by 35 or you never will).</p>

<p>When most of the power brokers in business attended college (60's, 70's, 80s) USC was in financial distress, and ranked at about the level currently occupied by SMU, TCU, U of Pacific, and many other private schools where a B average and ability to pay gets you in. Until 15 or so years ago, USC was not even in the top 75. It officiallly entered the USNWR rankings at 44 in 1996, off the map prior to.</p>

<p>That historically poor perception will take decades to work itself through the system. In the battle of perception, how would a current USC student feel about having to repeat in interviews and social banter, like a mantra, "Oh, USC is really selective now!"</p>