<p>are you trying to make me look dumb by quoting two of my posts that may seem contradictory?</p>
<p>it’s a fact that berkeley is viewed as more prestigious than USC and UCLA with or without the rankings to support it. i’m from an asian family, i would know. but at the same time, my point was that too much emphasis is placed on rankings (no matter what they say about the schools)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree that rankings are overemphasized (why do you think I chose UCLA over Berkeley?), but at the same time there is a clear gulf between UCLA and USC in those rankings I listed. There’s also a smaller but still clear gap between UC Berkeley and UCLA. That gap is the reason why Berkeley is seen as more prestigious. It’s silly to pretend that the school’s prestige is independent of that. And it’s silly to pretend that it doesn’t mean the same thing with regards to UCLA and USC.</p>
<p>Whether that should be the only consideration when choosing schools is a separate issue.</p>
<p>but in my opinion, some perceptions of prestige will never go away. for example, berkeley has been top dog for so long and its graduate school is so good that its undergraduate reputation wouldn’t go down even if its ranking did</p>
<p>and i think that’s what’s holding back USC from being put on level ground with UCLA; all the “spoiled children” and “70% admittance rate” stereotypes from way back still linger today</p>
<p>
The general, and most cited rankings, says Berkeley is only 3 ranks ahead of UCLA. In order for Berkeley to be “a fact” as viewed more than UCLA, you need to be either using the departmental rankings or mere perception. Even then, you’d be ignoring numerous ranking authorities that dispute this “fact” such as THEQS ([THE</a> - QS World University Rankings 2009 - top universities | Top Universities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2009/results]THE”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2009/results)), which by the way is based in the UK and not in Asia where UCLA usually holds more sway. </p>
<p>Can something as subjective as “prestige” be a “fact” when not everyone agrees? Especially when the something is a prominent ranking organization? ‘Berkeley is greatly more prestigious’ and ‘The rankings are wrong; Berkeley wins no contest to UCLA’ are generally more valid statements.</p>
<p>But back on USC. I don’t view USC as the “university of second choice” when set next to UCLA. Its a great school; though, I don’t view the university as comparable to UCLA as people make it out to be. That is not at all in reference to rankings but that the schools have very different qualities to them such as USC. To expand further:</p>
<p>1) USC is more undergrad-oriented than UCLA.
2) USC is one of the most conservative universities in the nation.
3) USC has one of the highest sticker tuition prices in the nation.
4) UCLA administration is more concerned with being “politically correct”.</p>
<p>Berkeley students realize they’re more similar to UCLA as well. That’s why Berkeley students blindly dismiss UCLA but they’ll usually write out a well-organized argument against USC. They definitely respect USC more than UCLA because of the qualities Cal itself lacks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nah, if Berkeley’s graduate programs were on the edge of the top 50 instead of in the top 5 there would be nothing separating it from the flagship of any other random state (as in closer to Kansas than North Carolina). Prestige doesn’t exist in a vacuum.</p>
<p>sentimentGX4, thank you for raising up those points. never thought of it that way</p>
<p>also, your post up there about cal vs various other universities is interesting. why do you think many cal students act that way? or is it back to what you just said about how “they definitely respect ___ more because of the qualities Cal itself lacks” and as a result feel the need to put their competition down?</p>
<p>Sentiment, of those four quotes you posted, I think the first and third are pretty reasonable. Berkeley engineering > harvard engineering from what I hear (which is that only Cornell has a good eng program among the ivies)</p>
<p>USC students love to mention how USC is ranked just 1-2 rankings below UCLA and how the average admitted USC student had a higher ACT/SAT score. Nobody mentions how this only started happening this decade. In the 1990s, USC was ranked in USNews in the 40s on par with UC Riverside. Nobody mentions how USC before 2000 was nothing more than an expensive version of a Cal State (no real offense to CSU students). Everyone only talks about the USC of post 2000. It’s as if USC never existed before 1999.</p>
<p>And btw, USC football in the 1990s was just as bad if not worse than UCLA football in the 2000s. Nobody ever talks about the 1990s teams. If anyone talks about USC football, it’s only post 2000. As for the Lexus Gauntlet, that competition ended officially last year and apparently USC still tallies scores for moral victories. UCLA still has more NCAA championships than USC will ever have.</p>
<p>Highlight of Bruin sports: Defeating #2 ranked Trojans football team in 2006, preventing them from going to the National Championship game and instead sending them to the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>Highlight of Trojan sports: In 2010 defeating the worst UCLA basketball team since Steven Lavin’s losing season in Westwood.</p>
<p>So whenever you talk to a USC fan/student, you’ll only hear about how “great” USC is academically and in sports…starting in year 2000. The 130 years before that meant nothing or does not exist in memory.</p>
<p>Oh and what’s up with everyone claiming USC is better as a private school and therefore offers more personal attention. USC has 16,000+ undergraduates. How the hell does that sound personal?</p>
<p>
Those two are actually the ones I deem least reasonable. I should have probably invested more time dissecting the quotes.</p>
<p>FIRST: This says Harvard doesn’t treat it undergrads well. This is far more true for Berkeley, a public university with gaping rank differences between its grad and undergrad programs.</p>
<p>THIRD: The poster says choose Haas for business. Harvard business is rank 1 in the nation. Haas is 7. </p>
<p>@notaznguy
It’s true USC was far less prestigious than UCLA until the past ten years but it has built quite a momentum as well as a reputation for itself. Who knows where USC will be in 10 more years?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its a given that wealth runs commensurate with higher scores and consequently the SAT is no longer a standardized test. A good SAT tutor can raise a mediocre score into the 2100’s. </p>
<p>UCLA is bound by state charter to stay within a certain %-ile from the top. There are undoubtedly some crazy admissions decisions at the school by accepting some whove graduated lower and with lower scores (sob stories, etc, which Im not saying wouldn’t be legitimate…) over those with higher stats from the same hs, but overall, the top 10% is UCLAs primary admissions range.</p>
<p>USC isnt bound by any floor and can fish for SATs, along with the wealth factor being important as it is a private. A lot of this factor is seen in USC admitting approx 35% from private secondary schools; ie, someone who graduates w/ mediocre class standing but w/ higher scores at these schools would still be USC admissible. How far does USC fish at Harvard-Westlake or Menlo School, etc? (And certainly mediocre standing at these schools wouldn’t be anything to discount.) (What %'s USC reports as graduating in top 10% of hs in its frosh class would be a flat-out lie.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think USC invalidates itself by having 17K undergrads and 35K total students. What private school can legitimately keep higher standards and be that costly (regardless of financial aid) and maintain a 35K enrollment?</p>
<p>There are large classes at USC, and TAs have a very important role there also. Theres a complaint at USC, that the science assts often dont know English, because a lot of their grad students are internationals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since this is important to you, how many NCs has USC won during this time to catch up to overall leader UCLA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, private schools tend to have better alumni support and connections, and this is undoubtedly the case wrt USC v UCLA. </p>
<p>But at the higher prestige firms, typically much larger, in the business sector, as youre undoubtedly referring, this connection seems to dissipate. Smaller firms, certainly, school nepotism can play a huge part.</p>
<p>And you have to remember that UCLA produces a lot of students who desire post-grad prof degrees: MDs, JDs, as well as MBAs. USC is undoubtedly strong in the latter, but with respect to the first two, UCLA has 19K+ bar-certified attys in CA, USC, 7K+; and UCLA in 2009 had 700+ apps to med school, USC, 200+. (I wouldnt expect USC to be better in producing attys outside of CA either.) And if you need an adjustment factor for USC undergrad enrollment compared to UCLA, its 1:1.5 or thereabouts.</p>
<p>The point in the prior paragraph, is, UCLA overwhelms USC in the law and medical professions. I dont see how USC can compete with UCLA in these employment fields, connections or not. </p>
<p>I would agree that USCs administration is better. UCLA has become a top-notch unversity despite Murphy Hall being highly incompetent. But if you mixed already strong academics with a great social scene at any school, it wouldnt matter if you had the Enron people running it. (Maybe I should go as far as saying that.)</p>
<p>USC has taken advantage of the doubling of college-aged eligibles at its peak to improve its standards. Congrats…</p>
<p>USC will always produce some good high-powered professionals, but it will never compare to the proportions UCLA has. UCLA has produced a lot of “bootsrap” successes, USC not so much</p>
<p>
UCLA is actually superior in business as well. Anderson is #14 while Marshall is #20. USC business just gets a good rep from its acclaimed undergraduate program. It is a common misconception among students that USC business is more prestigious going forth into graduate school. </p>
<p>This is one of the reasons why I said USC is more undergraduate oriented.</p>
<p>Why care? Besides, Berkeley is better than both.</p>
<p>Sentiment, you quoted the harvard and Berkeley business rankings. Those are for grad school. Harvard does not offer undergrad business.</p>
<p>Rumson:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA: 19k+ bar-certified attys; Cal: 17k+, [read</a> it for yourself](<a href=“http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/demographics.aspx]read”>Attorney Demographics), page 1/2 page down. Yeah, I know, UCLA grads attend Southwestern Law and Berk grads attend Harvard and Yale Law. Actually, the enrollment of UCLA and Berk grads at HLS is pretty much even, sometimes UCLA has more, sometimes Berk has more, both would be the top public-school providers in the nation to HLS, both in top-10 in of all schools (but of course both schools have large enrollments).</p>
<p>I can’t see Berk outpacing UCLA by a lot in the med field either. Yeah, I know, UCLA grads have to re-apply for med school over and over and Berk has 100% placement into med school. More realistically, about 1/4 of those applying to med school are 2nd-time or >-time applicants – here’s the [aamc website](<a href=“http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table2-race.htm”>http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table2-race.htm</a>), applications, 2009. Neither school would have “great” med school placements because both schools have premeds who aspire to CA med schools, which are as a group the hardest to which to attain admission.</p>
<p>Sentiment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly, USC has more undergrad vocations. Many USC students are happy with a bac degree. A lot of them are happy just to get out in 4 or 5 years and become professionals. This is why USC will never be as competitive, nor will its alumni be as high-tiered as UCLA’s.</p>
<p>And I’m not sure why anyone would legitimately pick USC to study pre-med. USC"s placement outside of its seven-year bac/MD program has to be pretty bad. I’m not even sure why the school props itself as a top pre-med institution, or where some people get teh impression as such. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t even pick USC in the seven-year program if I had legitimate choices elsewhere.</p>
<p>I think that U$C is super expensive and in the hood. I also think that it isn’t as affected by the financial failure that is our state. I also think that it’s increasing it’s rep and has some great programs, e.g. engineering. I think that UCLA is more prestigious and has better academics in general. I think that USC football is doing well now while we’re struggling but that’s always changing. I think that in socal USC has HUGE support, but on a bigger scale UCLA has much more. And I think the rivalry is mostly in good fun and people shouldn’t get too up in arms about it.<br>
Oh and I think Berkley students are the most pretentious of them all, way to represent your school guys, this thread is in the ucla section and asks about ucla and usc, who the hell cares about berkley??</p>
<p>^ I hope you don’t actually write like that. " I think… I think… I think…" reminds me of 3rd grade.</p>
<p>^ Thanks for that insight. I’ve been wondering for years why all my papers get low marks. Now I know.</p>
<p>So USC is still the hood huh??** So UCLA would be much safer 4 a girl??* Also why does this site keep signing me out ugh! lol</p>
<p>Yes, U$C is in the hood, and UCLA’s backyard is Beverly Hills!</p>
<p>^The residential part of BH at least … the part that has stuff to do is further away.</p>