<p>I know UCLA is very popular abroad but which is between the two in the US? which school attracts better students in-state and out-of-state? which is more prestigious? Which has better undergrad education (in general terms)? Which one has better grad education?</p>
<p>UCLA for all of the above, unless you like football.</p>
<p>obviously, it must be iowa</p>
<p>it depends if you like public or private too.</p>
<p>UCLA is more prestigious than USC, and with good cause. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>UCLA for both undergrad and grad (especially grad).</p>
<p>Undergrad UCLA for sure. Graduate UCLA for most all programs but a select few. UCLA is overall just a better university.</p>
<p>I agree. UCLA is overall just a better university.</p>
<p>UCLA, unless you happen to be an aspiring football player.</p>
<p>according to usnews UCLA ranks 26, USC ranks 27. So why there is so much of a difference?</p>
<p>I think last year UCLA was 25 and USC was 30. Anyway, UCLA is probably a little stronger overall, and a little more selective overall. But in my opinion, the difference is minimal.</p>
<p>where i live, people perceive them about the same, maybe even giving the edge to usc because it's private and smaller</p>
<p>I think USC will soon overtake UCLA due to all that money it is getting from donors.</p>
<p>UCLA is a better university, if you ask me.</p>
<p>USC has bought its way up the rankings, which has led the ignorant public to believe it's a top 30 school...</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC has bought its way up the rankings, which has led the ignorant public to believe it's a top 30 school...
[/quote]
Nevertheless, it is effective, no?</p>
<p>can you explain why it wouldn't be? a great part of that explaination being, can you prove that the money is stagnant and NOT improving the quality of the school?</p>
<p>honestly, i could care less about rankings, but i'd be interested to see if you could adequately justify your implicit claim that USC isn't a top-tier school. i have my biases (see location), but i'm willing to listen.</p>
<p>relating to the thread starter...i perceived the two schools very similar in status and academic quality, and i still do even after several months at USC. if anything, more and more i've been learning that UCLA has the upper hand in several aspects, including prestige. in 2006, USC accepted students with statistically higher SAT scores and higher GPAs, with USC accepting a similar percentage of students (27% at USC to UCLA's 25%, a negligible difference indeed). the difference in SAT scores and GPA is small enough to be negligible as well, but that should be enough to dispell any thoughts that USC was not academically competitive. many still cling to the old and far past idea (particularly in the 1980s, probably early 90s as well) that USC was the party school for rich kids. this couldn't be any farther from the truth now, especially considering such statistics.</p>
<p>i very seriously considered UCLA (in fact, i still get ocassional emails from their housing office..). i loved the campus (and the area around it was FAR better that that around USC's), and i would have had my tuition covered by my dad's veteran's benefits. but i ended up at USC for a number of reasons, mostly reasons of fit. </p>
<p>i should explain first that 1) i'm an engineering, and 2) a significant criterion for choosing my school was that it could provide a well-rounded education and promote the idea of well-roundedness in general...that is more or less, i could NOT choose on prestige alone. i toured both schools and went to their engineering presentations. UCLA made a point of it's high rankings (and they definitely made a point of their funding, comparing themselves to Stanford and Berkeley), but from more than a few reasons, i got the feeling that they didn't promote said ideas. one of the key moments was when a student panel headed by a professor was faced with a question from a prospective student: "Do engineers go to the beach?" it was met with quiet talk among the panel, eventually resulting in the professor saying "Pretty much, if you want to go to the beach, don't become an engineer," which elicted hearty laughs from the panel and prospective students. also, another memorable moment was when our student guides said, probably in jest but still with intent, "Don't make too many friends from North Campus [the liberal arts majors, i believe]."</p>
<p>USC made a point to provide an education and experience that was academically rigorous as well as stimulating. their engineering program, though not nearly as respected as some top programs, was definitely good enough for me. they had a minor i desperately wanted, Music Recording. their Electrical Engineering department also had a major concentration in the integration of the creative arts with engineering, having a huge research lab called the Integrated Media Systems Center. one example of what they're doing there that interested me was their work on a 10.2 surround sound algorithm. Tom Holman, after whom they named the THX technology, does research in that lab and on that project. USC also started a program called Visions and Voices meant to give people the opportunity to attend events outside of the scope of their major. i can't speak for those at UCLA, maybe they have a similar program, i couldn't know since they didn't mention it at any of the presentations i went to, while USC mentioned V&V as a means to "expand the scope of engineering." for example, just this week i saw a discussion with Quincy Jones along with music from when he toured with Dizzy Gillespie in 1956 played by our jazz orchestra. today, i'm going to watch our symphony orchestra at Walt Disney concert hall for free. they also recently had a discussion of family values in Simpson's with a producer of the show.</p>
<p>also, USC, being private, has many more out-of-state (~40% of the students) and international students (>10% of the students). you wouldnt think that makes a difference, but it definitely does. i have a friend from Ohio who won't stop raving about it, and a friend born in Bangladesh but living in Hong Kong and with British vernacular (which is to be expected, since he attended a British school). it's such an interesting but rewarding experience. it wasn't a pivotal consideration when deciding between the two, but it factored in a bit.</p>
<p>i will say this though: generally majors under the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences aren't exactly that competitive, and i wouldn't recommend going to to USC for those majors and you would be better off at UCLA. however, the professional schools (music, engineering, architecture) are fairly well regarded.</p>
<p>anyways, that was my long first-hand experience between the two, i hope that helps. WOW this post was long...</p>
<p>btw, my first remark (first two paragraphs) was in response to jhype17.</p>
<p>USC has "bought" its way up the rankings in the same fashion as other selective privates, notably from the Ivy League, has done so. So you buy a few hundred endowed chairs, a million volumes for the library, and multimillion dollar research institutes. As a result, you have an elite university.</p>
<p>The ignorant public is that group that has not noticed USC join the top twenty and even top ten in many academic programs across the board, a few significantly better than over in Westwood. Now it's giving Stanford a run for top private in the West.</p>
<p>^^^ hahahaha</p>
<p>"Now it's giving Stanford a run for top private in the West."</p>
<p>-That is hillarious. remember for those of you who state that usc has higher sat's than ucla, they compute their sat's different. best single sitting versus numerous sitting. this clearly inflates usc's numbers substantially over ucla's. computed equally, i imagine the edge would go to ucla.</p>