<p>Getting admitted into UCLA/UCB is tough unless you have excellent stats. For some reason I thought USC was comparable to ucla and ucb when it came to tough admissions, but it seems that even with "not bad" (i don't mean great or excellent) course load and scores you can get into USC. Obviously, this isn't ALWAYS the case, but I know a few people who got into USC and whose courseloads, etc. weren't that spectacular (ok, I know it was only a few people, but still). It doesn't seem that these same people would gain admission to the top UCs. I know this question doesn't really make sense, since you could get into USC and not UCLA, and vice versa, with an excellent, overall application. So generally speaking, is it true then, that getting into USC is perhaps a tad bit easier, or just plain easier than getting into excellent UCs like LA or berkeley ? What are the USC admins really looking for, besides the generic private school things like legacy, donations, etc. ?</p>
<p>who cares what the reputation is, they're all good schools</p>
<p>they all look for good grades, tough courses, and potential.</p>
<p>Edit: I don't know why I edited this. Basically what it said before was that outside of Cali, Berkeley is a big deal...and UCLA and Cal would be /very/ hard for out-of-staters to get into, whereas USC, not so much. That probably has a lot to do with the fact that USC is a private school, but also because admissions are probably easier overall...which /doesn't/ mean USC doesn't have some programs (or entire schools) that rival and others that are better than those at UCLA/Cal (journalism or film, for example). I definitely have the grades and the scores to get into UCLA, and maybe even Berkeley...but I'm only applying to USC.</p>
<p>alright, although my post states otherwise, what i really want to know, is "how tough is USC when it comes to admissions" ? I know USC is a very good school. The top-tier UCs (such as UCLA AND UCB) have very tough admissions, so I want to know whether USC is as stringent in admissions as those UCs. Are they more lenient, admitting more people, or perhaps admitting a large amount of people (more than UCLA or UCB would admit) whose stats are mediocre ?</p>
<p>USC seems more open to having a good hook and lesser scores... for instance they still use the practice in the arts schools of letting deans pick a couple people each year based on portfolio/auditions alone, and they'll find a way to make it work for those people. </p>
<p>Also, consider the huge international population at USC- the verbal SAT scores are brought down a bit by this.</p>
<p>Apprantly USC was more stringent because our FALL 2006 acceptance was only 25 percent while UCLA was 27 percent.</p>
<p>I mean even without UCLA being 27 percent, I would say 25 percent is still a very low percentage for a school.. (i mean schools that have higher ranking still has like 40-50 percent sometimes)</p>
<p>I would still think USC focuses more on the essays and the person rather than the scores.. I had somewhat mediocre scores but i think my portfolio definately helped (art major)</p>
<p>MissSuperFanatic has a point. UCB and UCLA have a state mandate to educate Californians first and formost. USC has no such mandate, and really can admit as it pleases, while state schools have to take in so many in-state students. So, in theory, it may be harder for a Californian to get into USC, but harder for an out-of-stater to get into UCB or UCLA.</p>
<p>As for actual education, USC has high tuition and massive donations and endowments, while UCB and UCLA have the entire state coffers and state taxpayers of California to lean on. So either way, that's a lot of money going into the system.</p>
<p>USC Average SAT- 1370
CAL average SAT- 1324
UCLA average SAT- 1292</p>
<p>For an out of stater, USC is easier than UCLA or CAL, but for in-staters I would say USC is harder than UCLA and probably even CAL. UC schools also have those super high average GPA's, but it's because they do that crap where they weigh honors/APs a TON while most other schools don't do that.</p>
<p>So yes, I would say USC students on a whole are smarter and more well rounded than UCLA and CAL kids. Most people would probably spit in your face for saying that, but it's because they haven't seen the stats. Also, the "University of Spoiled Children" and party/football school reputation hurts.</p>
<p>In 5 years, USC will be ranked ahead of UCLA AND Cal. Lets put money on it.</p>
<p>thanks everyone, i was kind of getting the vibe that perhaps usc accepts good students whose test scores may be not the super-high or excellent kind of scores that numbers-hungry ucla or berk. look for.</p>
<p>uc schools focus mostly on the numbers - GPA and SAT I/II. So it drives their stats up.</p>
<p>Still, USC average SAT scores are higher than ucla. And, USC has like twice the number of national merit scholars than ucla.</p>
<p>USC's SATs are higher, but they will take the highest scores from multipule sittings. I'm not sure that the UCs will do that. Oto hand, USC will take interesting candidates that might not get into UCB or UCLA. If you are an oos, you might as well try to get into Harvard.</p>
<p>In any case, Jimbob hit it on the head.</p>
<p>From personal experience: I have a few friends from HS who applied to UCLA + USC. Out of those, nearly all were rejected by USC (1 was admitted for spring), yet they were all accepted to UCLA. Apparently, the "University of Second Choice" label doesn't apply at my school. Most of those who were accepted to UCLA had a SAT of 1700s-1800s, and I personally know one person who speaks extremely choppy English and probably failed the English portion of the CAHSEE at least once, yet still got accepted to UCLA. Of course, there are also some very capable people from my HS going to UCLA, but basically, that mandate pretty much reserves spaces for California students.</p>
<p>So, my point is, UCLA and USC have different criteria for determining acceptances, as people above me have said. For UCs, admissions tend to be based largely on numbers (UCSD has a formula to determine admissions!).</p>
<p>Actually, my friend was admitted to Berkeley and rejected from USC...I think UC's and USC (private schools in general, perhaps?) look for different things during the admissions process. It's not necessarily UC's>USC or vice versa. Besides, who cares about reputation? The fit of a school is more important than its reputation.</p>
<p>And to answer your questions...USC is like any other school. USC looks for good scores, GPA, extracurricular activities, and recs. Good essays certainly don't hurt either.</p>
<p>Another thing is that for both Berkeley and UCLA, since they are public, state universities, the primary purpose of them is to educate californians. While along the way they have done much more than that, and become arguably one of the best public university systems in the world, they still have to complete their founding agenda for educating californians.</p>
<p>So, you may find that students inside CA will be admitted to UC with relatively lower stats while outside CA people with higher stats may get rejected (but accepted to USC)</p>
<p>thanks everyone, great informative posts ! TSDAD, what's an "oos" ?</p>
<p>out of state.</p>
<p>Per USNews College Rankings, they (USC, Berkeley, UCLA) are ALL rated Most Selective. </p>
<p>You can pick apart details, if that is important to you. (SAT scores, ACT scores, GPA, Admission rates, etc.)</p>
<p>2005-2006:Berkeley: (apply)36,959 (admitted)9,655 (admit rate)26.1%
2005-2006:Los Angeles: (apply)42,180 (admitted)11,321 (admit rate)26.8%
2005-2006:USC: (apply)31,634 (admitted) 8,408 (admit rate) 27%</p>
<p>(Per USNews):SAT Range:UCB: 1200-1440
(Per USNews):SAT Range:UCLA: 1180-1410
(Per USNews):SAT Range:USC: 1260-1440</p>
<p>You could probably go on and on, looking with a microscope at individual statistics. If you are leaning towards a particular school, you can probably choose a statistic that will show your school is better. However, if you view all 3 universities from afar, you will hopefully see that they are ALL very competitive, and ALL have low admit rates, and ALL have good statistics. I am confident that most students would get an excellent education at any of the 3 universities.</p>
<p>I think a few other factors (beside the numbers which are all very similar) are worth considering. </p>
<p>UCB and UCLA, being public universities, are probably required to adhere more strictly to certain admission guidelines and policies. Some may view this as a postive attribute, others as a negative. In either case, it is one significant difference between the UCs and USC (and other private schools.. Stanford, etc.).</p>
<p>USC, being a private university, probably has the ability/freedom to be more innovative in its admissions policies (and not be so locked into numbers, percentages, policies, procedures, etc. as spelled out by the State of California in it UC System guidelines). </p>
<p>I think that USC has the freedom to use the numbers, or not use the numbers, or use other factors, on a case by case basis. </p>
<p>Maybe, within Engineering, being a very quantitative field, they can concentrate more on SAT/ACT scores, AP Math/Phyiscs scores, SAT-2 Math scores, GPA, etc. and bring in a very selective group of students who will be more likely to meet the challenge of a more quantitative courseload. </p>
<p>Maybe, within the School of Music, being more performance based, and talent oriented, maybe they are able to focus less on test scores, and more on extra curriculars, history of musc performance, essays (that may show depth of creativity), performance awards, music class history, etc. </p>
<p>Maybe, within the School of Business, in general being less quantitative, less performance based, but probably more leadership based, and in general requiring a stronger overall academic strength, maybe they can focus on Leadership history, strong GPA overall, etc.</p>
<p>I do not, in any way, mean to present any one major as being better/stronger or weaker than any other major. I arbitrarily used those majors, simply to attempt to make a point about USC possibly having the freedom to be more innovate in their admissions policies. I do realize that ALL incoming students (across all majors) at USC have extremely high SAT/ACT, GPA, and all other statistics. The numbers that I posted (at the begining of my post) prove this point, that all majors combined, push USC's stats up to the level of being "very selective". Please do not jump on my case about one major -vs another major. Please, instead, look at the point I am trying to make about the likelihood that USC may have more freedom in its admissions policies. </p>
<p>Seeing as how I do not work in the admissions office, I have no idea if this actually occurs. However, since USC is a private university, I think it is far more likely that USC would have more freedom to be innovative, than either UCB or UCLA (or any UC campus).</p>
<p>To add to my post above </p>
<p>If we assume that all 3 schools (UCB, UCLA, USC) are ALL very selective and very competitive, and that you will certainly get an excellent education at any of them. What would be next on your list of WHAT IS IMPORTANT. How many parents want their children to enjoy their college days. How many students want to feel welcomed, and have a great time (while you are getting an excellent education). Obvsiously, all of you do.</p>
<p>If you went to Orientation, you have already seen the beginnings of what USC will do to welcome the students, to assist the students, to feed the students, and to help them have fun. USC had orientation sessions on every imagineable area of interest (health services, academic expectations, academic testing, academic advising, class registration, housing, paying for college, transportation, bookstore, public safety, USCard, student organizations, student privacy rights, faculty lecture example, parent sharing sessions, and the student social activities (skits, listen to music, play pool and ping-pong, etc). This was all within approx 30 contiguous hours (including overnight lodging in the dorms for students).</p>
<p>At work today, a co-worker shared with me that his neice will be going to UCSB this Fall. He indicated she will be moving in to the dorms the day before classes start. With no criticism of UCSB intended, compare that to USCs Welcome week, when the freshman move into the dorms.</p>
<p>Our freshman move in on August 16th (a Wednesday). Classes do not start till the following Monday. That gives them 5 days to have fun, meet people, and get settled in, before classes start. Have you looked at what types of activities occur during Welcome Week.</p>
<p>Last years (2005) Welcome Week (these are the overall activities)
Day 1: Wednesday:Move in Day <a href="http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_events.htm%5B/url%5D">http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_events.htm</a>
Day 2: Thursday <a href="http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_01thurs.htm%5B/url%5D">http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_01thurs.htm</a>
Day 3: Friday <a href="http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_02fri.htm%5B/url%5D">http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_02fri.htm</a>
Day 4: Saturday <a href="http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_03sat.htm%5B/url%5D">http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_03sat.htm</a>
Day 5: Sunday <a href="http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_04sun.htm%5B/url%5D">http://sait.usc.edu/ca/welcome_week_daily_04sun.htm</a></p>
<p>The above does not necessarily include DORM specific welcome and/or party activities.
The above does not necessarily include MAJOR specfic (School of Music, Engineering, Business, etc.) welcome activities.</p>
<p>And, this is only the first week of activities at USC ..</p>
<p>lovetocamp, thanks for the post, i get what your saying and im sure, as everyone has been saying, that all three schools are very good instutitions despite a few differences here and there in the admissions process.</p>
<p>you can get in with connections at usc, while you can't at cal and ucla. i'm not saying that just b/c its a stereotype, its from several people i know. other than that, the schools arent much different in selectivity.</p>