<p>It is funny how I see so much USC bashing done on this board, but never any sort of argument to support the claims. USC suffers from old stereotypes - it is tough to deny it was a party school for rich kids back in the 1980's - although the actual basis for these stereotypes is long gone. I could list off numerous statistics that show USC to be comprarable, and often superior to, their rival in westwood. In term's of money, USC certainly embarasses UCLA - USC's endowment is roughly half the size of the endowment of the entire University of California school system. USC has nearly twice the endowement per student as UCLA does. As phobos already said, money isn't stagant. This huge advantage in monetary resources creates better facilities, hires better faculty, and improves the quality of the institution in every aspect. In terms of selectivity and student quality, the schools have the exact same acceptance rate - with USC students boasting a higher SAT (1270-1440 for USC, 1170-1410 for UCLA).</p>
<p>I certainly understand that one could hand pick individual statistics that would make UCLA seem superior, but my claim is not that UCLA is inferior to USC - it is rather that the unsupported rants against USC that often appear on this board are unjustified.</p>
<p>The differences between public and private schools are not insignificant, and should not be dismissed when comparing USC and UCLA. Although I won't attempt to argue specifics of the public/private school debate, it boils down to the reality that UCLA wasn't created to become the best university possible - it was created to provide the best education possible to california residents. There is a reason the top 20 national schools are all private.</p>
<p>Most unbiased americans would pick UCLA as being more prestigious than USC, and that is understandable given the old stereotypes of USC. Over time, these stereotypes will continue to fade, and USC's level of "prestige" will increase accordingly.</p>
<p>i'm totally usc biased, but academically speaking I think UCLA is probably the better school if you want people to think you're smart(with the exception of the film department, it's better at USC!)</p>
<p>HOwever I think USC offers the better overall experience with social life, education, and how they treat there students.</p>
<p>I thikn UCLA tends to be more of a commuter school for kids who already live n Los Angeles, and USC has more of a "home" feeling to it. I find it very hard to believe that an Undergrad at UCLA would get more attention from school staff and faculty than they would at USC. The extra money to go to private school pays for that extra attention. I'm pretty sure at UCLA they don't care if you're joining them the next quarter or if you fail or pass their classes. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get, considering the fact that countless students mention feeling like a number.</p>
<p>I think out of California(as in US), USC probably has the better name. UCLA I think is only really considered a top school in California to all the public high school students who wouldn't have any other option than to attend a UC or Cal State. UCLA probably also has the better name in Asia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most schools take the best composite score like USC does. UCLA's decision to take only the best overall sitting is the minority choice among universities.</p>
<p>And as the difference in scores is large (100 points at the lower 25th percentile), I very much doubt that this difference is attributable only to the way UCLA computes their scores. I would certainly invite you to provide evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>i evaluated academic programs at USC twenty years ago and recently have reviewed many of the university's academic programs and strategic plans. two decades ago this university was a slightly above average private school, a bit above a place like SMU. today, its film school is the best in the world, its communications school in the top five in the world, its business school at or near the top ten with departments within these three schools in the top two or three. these rankings come from faculty and deans elsewhere, not at USC.</p>
<p>UCLA still maintains supremacy in most of the liberal arts, is a bit better in law and medicine and engineering, but USC has been swiftly making up the difference. that's what billions of dollars in endowment will do for any university.</p>
<p>Yeah, I've definitely had friends at USC tell me that USC's average SAT scores are higher than Stanford's... the showboating and horn-tooting that goes on at USC is unparalleled (myself being the product of two 'SC alumni). I will get attacked by the USC posters who will simply attribute this to nothing more than pride in their school, but it mostly boils down to the all-too-common USC attitude of arrogance and condescension. If you want a perfect example of all of the above, read any of President Sample's "State of the University" addresses.</p>
<p>i agree that there is a certain swagger at USC that also is present at many elite privates. but face the facts--what other university president in the world has raised more than four BILLION dollars? while humility may not be a trojan trademark, excellence in everything surely is.</p>
<p>you guys love to come here and bash USC and say UCLA is better... these statistics, indisputable, if they point to anything, would say just the opposite.</p>
<p>Anyone from UCLA want to actually substantiate their claims?</p>
<p>"I think out of California(as in US), USC probably has the better name. UCLA I think is only really considered a top school in California to all the public high school students who wouldn't have any other option than to attend a UC or Cal State. UCLA probably also has the better name in Asia."</p>
<p>I can understand comparing USC and UCLA, but USC and Stanford? People at USC actually think they are rivals to Stanford? It's going to be awhile before that happens, so I wouldn't go around acting like those two schools are in the same league.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you guys love to come here and bash USC and say UCLA is better... these statistics, indisputable, if they point to anything, would say just the opposite.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure how many times somebody has to point out that the different schools count their SAT I scores differently, meaning your holy statistic ain't so accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
and how USC rivals Stanford in academics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can understand comparing USC and UCLA, but USC and Stanford? People at USC actually think they are rivals to Stanford? It's going to be awhile before that happens, so I wouldn't go around acting like those two schools are in the same league.
not in the slightest. ask drj for substatiation, as i'd personally be hard pressed to prove that well. though i would trust his opinion, based on his background...</p>
<p>and DRab, i've seen you post before. you seem to have some vendetta against USC. i can admit Berkeley is a world-class, world-renowned school with top notch programs. i can say the same of UCLA, and a plethora of other schools. in fact, i always find it hard to really hold anything significant against a school (except maybe Bob Jones, but that's just outright fun :p). but really, what rational reasons do you have to hold USC in such low regard? i know it's not quite a humble school, nor one of underdogs, but come on...</p>
<p>"I'm not sure how many times somebody has to point out that the different schools count their SAT I scores differently, meaning your holy statistic ain't so accurate."</p>
<p>first of all, show me something that says this, second of all, there is still a 170 point discrepancy, that is more than just different computational methods</p>
<p>First of all, I'm not even going to touch upon your shoddy math to come to that "170 point discrepancy" conclusion, but since you decided to use USNWR rankings in your post, I'd just like to say that I could show you rankings until I'm blue in the face that have UCLA ahead of USC. Except of course football, endowment, and perhaps cinema, but I'm going to go ahead save both you and myself the grief.</p>
<p>USC's bottom 25th percentile is 170 points higher than UCLA's. That's how i got it.</p>
<p>I'm just tired of people from california coming here and saying that UCLA is "OMG SO MUCH BETTER" than USC when it is explicitly not seen that way anywhere else in the country. There is clearly an overabundance of california people on CC and i came here to balance those claims, which are, whether you like to hear it or not, biased as ****.</p>
<p>I have no affiliation with either school, i just need to offer the facts that USC is seen as more prestigious than UCLA in different areas of the country; at least where i'm from.</p>
<p>Last time I checked, 1270-1170 did not equal 170. And in addition, anecdotal evidence from you means that, EVERYWHERE else in the country, USC>UCLA. Sounds like we have a future Trojan in training. And, believe it or not, I don't think that the USC posters need any help defending their school--as mentioned, Trojans are not exactly the humble or underdog type.</p>
<p>making Trojans seem cultish (though i will admit, maybe the "fight on" gesture is a bit toward that) doesn't do anything to show your argument as rational or well backed. sure we've got pride in our school, but that doesn't mean we're mindless a-holes. it's not like we're providing empty claims and unsubstatiated reasons for why USC is comparableto UCLA. i'll just let you argue over discrepancies in subtraction...</p>