USC is need-blind in admissions and guarantees to meet 100% of USC-determined need using the CSS/Profile. At USC that includes all domestic students from all 50 states. Approximately 60% of undergraduates at USC receive need-based finacial aid, and 24% receive merit scholarships (with some receiving both).</p>
<p>Generally, for out of state students qualifying for significant financial aid, USC will turn out to be more affordable than a UC because the UC system does not meet need for out of state students.</p>
<p>In-state students *qualifying for significant financial aid *will often find USC costs approximately what they are expected to pay at a UC.</p>
<p>Having lived in 7 difference states, none of which being California, my impression is that state schools in California other than UCLA and Berkeley are not very well known (UCSD bging slightly more recognizable). Even if they’re solid schools, they sit in the shadow of two of the best public uni’s in the world and none of the other UC’s have big enough sports programs to be recognized nation-wide. </p>
<p>You may ask why that is if they’re ranked highly in USNews since schools that are ranked lower are better known. The fact is that the other UC’s have little influence outside of California, and again, they sit in the shadow of Berkeley and UCLA. People have heard about other schools like Penn State, Washington, etc because they have more national influence and a lot of those schools have big-time sports programs. </p>
<p>With that said, the UC’s are certainly better known than most Cal State schools.</p>
<p>Nonsense. For many (most?) people, price is not immaterial when it comes to education. It’s still a major consideration. What’s worth it to the family who makes $500,000 and is sending one kid off to school vs what’s worth it to the family who makes $50,000 and has 3 more kids to send off in the next 5 years are two different things. </p>
<p>And when you talk about whether UC’s (beyond Berkeley and UCLA) are worth OOS prices, you’re talking about schools that are large schools (and all that that entails in terms of being “one of the masses”), without a concomitant nationwide reputation, unlike other state schools for which one might pay OOS prices.</p>
<p>We are full pay for my kids. However, there are plenty of schools that aren’t worth the price to me, even though money’s not the issue. In the absence of a compelling program only available at those schools and nowhere else, I can’t see any reason why I would ever pay OOS prices for any UC beyond UCLA or Berkeley. I’ll pay $50K for many, many schools – but not large “beige” universities that are undifferentiated in my mind and are relevant only in California.</p>
<p>This gets said over and over again whenever this thread is brought up – that the UC’s beyond LA and Berkeley are pretty much unknown – and yet the California-centrics, who honestly and actually think that people should be knowledgeable about all CA schools just because,refuse to believe it. It’s like how Texans think the world revolves around Texas!</p>
<p>Your obsession with defending Berkeley is really more than a little odd. It’s like you take it as a personal insult if someone doesn’t worship the ground that Berkeley sits on and doesn’t genuflect to every Berkeley alum on the street.</p>
<p>I’ve worked with Berkeley alums. They are just like everyone else! Really! They aren’t uniformly brilliant, and they aren’t uniformly stoned hippies either! Berkeley is not some magical place. It’s just a very good public university that doesn’t hit a lot of radar screens. Which doesn’t mean anything, because plenty of good places don’t hit a lot of radar screens. Because “good” and “super popular / known by everybody” aren’t the same thing, by a long shot.</p>
I don’t think they have more "national influence’. The <em>do</em> have DI football teams in power conferences. Now that you bring that up, I believe that most people hear about colleges outside their region either from DI football, or March Madness in basketball (with the football being by far the more prevalent influence)</p>
there is a HUGE difference between hippies and street people, or homeless, or panhandlers, whatever you want to call them. And a HUGE difference between students at Berkeley, and the surrounding city. There are not many of the former at Berkeley or in the city surrounding Berkeley, and many of the latter in the city, but not on the campus.</p>
LOL. Like I said, keep dreaming old man. You can use PayScale, a simple optional survey that can easily contain misrepresented data, to keep telling yourself that Berkeley is a super great school that rivals the Ivy League–How do you know if these Berkeley grads are actually inputing higher data just to have their school appear top 10 in some list? Might as well, no? I wouldn’t be surprised if majority of Berkeley grads are as insecure of Cal as you.</p>
<p>you’re forgetting football and basketball. take those away from the past 70 years and UCLA would not be known. And Cal would only be known for its grad schools.</p>
<p>aggressive (at times angry) and insecure is what I’ve experienced and I lived in Berkeley. Granted that is a sweeping generalization but just look at these boards, Cal people spend an enormous amount of energy trying to prove that they are as good as top privates.</p>
<p>and face it, the SAT stats (one of the few objective measurements) show Cal students testing way lower than Harvard, and even lower than USC which from my view is passing Cal as a better “undergrad” school in California.</p>
Berkeley weighs HS GPA more than they do SATs or test scores, and
Berkeley does not superscore SATs</p>
<p>If only Berkeley would do, Berkeley would have 30 more points for each subject test. The SAT scores for Berkeley would eventually become something like this:</p>
<p>Reading: 650-770
Math: 680-800
Writing: 670-780
This is comparable to lower-ranked Ivies</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, about 3 thousand students at Berkeley are not Californians and are paying the full fees. many of them I supposed have chosen it over elite privates. Do you think those more than 3 thousand students stupid for enrolling in Berkeley?</p>
<p>'SAT stats (one of the few objective measurements)…"</p>
<p>Are you serious? High SAT scores run commensurate with wealth. Wealthy families can spend $10,000’s on SAT tutors and $1,000’s on SAT prep courses for their kids, to boost their scores by 100’s. (Maybe if they spent $100,000’s and $10,000’s, their offsprings scores would improve by 1,000’s. ; ))</p>
<p>Add, most private schools including Harvard and USC superscore. Harvards students dont need it, and naturally have high scholastic aptitude; USCs do and probably naturally need the boost. Harvards probably traditionally take the test once; USCs probably take it more than once, especially those who have middling class-rank.</p>
<p>…USC which from my view is passing Cal as a better “undergrad” school in California.</p>
<p>This is what USCs working the variables to the USNs rankings has done. Youre equating inputs with outputs. Youre assuming that becuase USC is rising USNs input-intensive rankings, that outputs to the university are improving.</p>
<p>Cal produces more lot more MDs, attys, and according to RMLs links, a lot more Bulge Banking hires. According to this same link, USC, with undergrad Marshall isnt even competitive with UCLA. Shhhh… dont wake USC spin doctors from their dreams. In a parlance USC people would understand: USC couldnt carry Cals jock strap.</p>
<p>Jesus RML, your logic is so godly…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>And congratulations, Berkeley students have had high GPAs in high school.
98% Graduated in top 10th of class. </p>
<p>For Brown, Duke, Dartmouth, Yale, and Stanford, around ~93% have only graduated in top 10th in class (Stanford only has 91%!)
But Berkeley students have low test scores…
What does that say? NOTHING! In fact, you can argue that this is against Berkeley’s favor. What do you say about a group of students who have high GPAs yet low SAT test scores? If anything, I think they’ve graduated from high schools that have subpar administration and academics where its EASY to get 4.0s. These students lack ingenuity and creative thinking that SATs are supposed to measure. These students could have simply “sucked up” to teachers and get their grades. Who knows? GPAs are a tricky thing. </p>
<p>It’s why in places like India and China, test scores are given full consideration. GPAs are worthless.</p>
<p>None of the UC schools have 90%+ T-10%, per Alamemoms explanation that this is a figure based on all CA students lumped together.</p>
<p>I would question Cals 3.93, which I think is more of the admitted, pre-enrolled numbers, despite what Cals website would state. I would think Cals final enrolled uw gpa would be ~ 3.85, unless the site is going with soph-jr gpas, in which case both Cal and UCLA report 20-25% with perfect 4.0’s. Actually on reflection, I think they do just go on soph-jr grades.</p>
<p>I mostly question USCs though:</p>
<p>I dont think the 3.70 and 86% match. Their site also reports ~ 10% validictorians, which I would think would be the expanded view of such, with > 1 person, with many times many students qualifying as ‘valedictorians.’</p>
<p>If 10% of USCs student body (valedictorians) have average uw gpa of 3.98, say, scraping the 10% off the top, that would leave 76% t-10% with gpa of ~ 3.67. </p>
<p>I dont think this matches because the school admits ~ 40% from private secondaries. The mean class rank of a 3.67 wouldnt put a student anywhere near the top 10% at a private hs, which dole out higher uw grades, but closer to the 75th % probably lower, closer to the 70-75th. Public schools, maybe 80-85% at best also. The two together would be ~ 81th % best case. </p>
<p>90% of the students graduating 81-82th % (best case %) =/= 76% in t-10%. At least I wouldnt think.</p>
<p>And thanks to sentiment for the notation of ‘not equal’ as ‘=/=.’ Just try to encapsulate ‘.’ and your ‘,’ in quotes, squotes. ‘?’ and ‘!’ are different matters. ; )</p>
<p>That is entirely speculative. Similar statements made for test scores at the University of Michigan are easy to debunk by analyzing the concordance of the ACT and the SAT.</p>