<p>
</p>
<p>Not ture. USC's Marshall is still nowhere near the top-10. It's UCLA's Anderson that's at or near top ten, according to US News. The latest Business Week's MBA ranking doesn't help USC either. It's actually getting "C" for teaching. I am just giving what are the facts out there.</p>
<p>US News 2007 Rankings:</p>
<p>UCLA Anderson: #10
USC Marshall: #29</p>
<p>Business Week 2006 Rankings:</p>
<p>UCLA Anderson: #12
USC Marshall: #21</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not ture. USC's Marshall is still nowhere near the top-10. It's UCLA's Anderson that's at or near top ten, according to US News. The latest Business Week's MBA ranking doesn't help USC either. It's actually getting "C" for teaching. I am just giving what are the facts out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think he was talking about UNDERGRAD business program.
Marshall Undergrad Business program is #9 in the nation.</p>
<p>yes, i was talking undergraduate programs since the predominance of discussion is for high school seniors and community college transfer aspirants. i also would suggest again that even at the graduate level the marshall school is swiftly on the move and could crack the top ten within a decade. i personally know marshall faculty who are at the very top of their fields, below nobody on the planet.</p>
<p>wrt the bashing of each other's school, let's step back for a moment and make an assumption. let's assume that america was discovered on the left rather than the right coast and that the pacific ten was america's ivy league. what we would have is the classic harvard-yale-princeton arguments here, among stanford-cal and now USC-UCLA. i am not an alumnus, professor, or student, at either institution so no known biases. what i see as a professor within the cal state system (who admittedly has taught part time at UCLA and is interviewing for full time at USC) is two incredibly distinguished faculties, departments, and student bodies separated by some 10-12 miles and enormous culture differences.</p>
<p>one began as the little brother public to a place called berkeley. it swiftly moved up the academic ladder, just as its little sister at san diego more recently has done, and soon reached the elite class in spite of on-again, off-again funding from the state. predictably, there was a time gap from when it really arrived in the club and when it was announced as so.</p>
<p>the other began as a private, late in the 19th century, fueled by new oil, real estate and agriculture monies and later from the blooming industries of cinema and later aerospace. as such, it became a bit of a country club for spoiled heirs to the newfound wealth of the golden state. football and other sports seemed to take center stage, and by the 1950s USC earned its national reputation as the west coast bastion of where to put notre dame on the gridiron and perhaps the place to go if you wanted to study cinema and make movies.</p>
<p>most recently, led by CEOs and provosts like current president sample, the university realized that it could be great in things other than sports. sample led a drive to raise almost five billion dollars thus far, the majority of which has gone into world class facilities, faculty, and most recently students. just as john d. rockefeller created the university of chicago from scratch by opening his checkbook, so too have thousands of donors, in gifts large and small, voted with their wallets to "buy" a seat at the ivy leaguesque table.</p>
<p>and those who have watched from near and far, those who know who the academic stars are, have seen USC continue to steal away leading economists, sociologists, historians, communicologists, and yes, students too...and create a world class institution.</p>
<p>the rub sadly is many who wear cardinal and gold brag about it a bit excessively, sometimes like when they score winning touchdowns.</p>
<p>but if anything you bruins should celebrate, not bash. and you trojans might want to tone it down a bit. it takes decades to reach the academic elite, not mere minutes as BCS computers spit out their final rankings.</p>
<p>UCLA - nice upscale trendy westwood area
USC - getto fabulous muggy area</p>
<p>Undergrad biz ranking is very misleading. Most top schools, including UCLA, don't have undergrad programs and this alone makes a lot of b-schools look a lot better than they actually are all of a sudden--3rd tier becomes 2nd tier and 2nd tier ones becomes 1st on the magazine. Recruiters know well what that's all about though.</p>
<p>^^^ this is very true</p>
<p>
[quote]
"UCLA students do a bit better in school"</p>
<p>that's not entirely clear considering 97% of UCLA's students come from public schools, while only 85% of USC's do, at a much higher OOS rate (and we all know how bad california high schools are, we even hear about it in the news all the way in the midwest)</p>
<p>so top 10% in a cali high school is not the same as top 10% in the private schools or OOS high schools matriculating to USC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the statistics posted said that 80% of UCLA's students come from public schools and 60% of USC's students come from public schools. And for this to be relevant you are making the underlying assumption that students who come from private schools are automatically (or even generally) better than public schools, something which really has little basis.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the argument that California has one of the worst public high school systems in the U.S. has a few holes in it. First, just because it is ranked low does not tell us how bad it is. It could have the worst high school systems and yet be only a little worse than the best state if the differences between all the high school systems in different states were minimal. The stats don't tell us anything about this.</p>
<p>Second, I would argue that because California's population is so large, there is bound to be a large portion of bad students dragging down the average. Yet it is hardly relevant for schools like UCLA and USC, which only admit the top small portion of California high school students. How does the fact that there are many bad students in California affect UCLA and USC if they only take the top ones?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Maybe USC's scores are higher because it accepts less students."</p>
<p>you make it sound simple and irrelevant but that actually IS the mark of a better school...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it? So less students equates to a better school? Going back to my analogy, do you really believe that my university of one person should be ranked #1 in the nation? Clearly less students do not imply necessarily imply a better school. As for test scores, I could argue that UCLA has more people with higher test scores. Which one wins? It's hard to say. I am just trying to prevent people from drawing conclusions too quickly after one glance at a particular statistic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
In the 1990s, I had a close friend that worked in university administration at an LA-area professional school. They got many applicants from graduating seniors at both UCLA and USC. Contrary to the "rich kid" stereotype, the average UCLA applicant had more family wealth to draw on than the average USC applicant. </p>
<p>It seems that for some reason, many upscale families prefer to send their kids to Westwood. In contrast, kids and families from less privileged LA neighborhoods commonly identify with USC -- despite the fact that UCLA is the "public" school. </p>
<p>The real "spoiled rich kid school" in LA is neither USC or UCLA. Not to name any names, but look a bit further to the west, in Malibu.</p>
<p>Again, lower acceptance rates isn't ALWAYS proof a better student body.</p>
<p>Like I say, Chicago has a higher acceptance rate than UCLA...but I wouldn't say that UCLA has a better student body.</p>
<p>Actually, if you are interested in meeting folks from other than CA, USC has a LOT more kids from outside CA & outside the US. In fact, it has the most international students of any college in the US, I believe.
It also gives a LOT more merit money than UCLA.
Both schools are considered good, but an advantage USC has over UCLA is that it doesn't have the same budget constraints that afflict CA state schools--you can switch majors & schools & get the courses you want so many students are able to graduate in 4 years rather than 6+. When we toured Berkeley, we were informed that it's VERY TOUGH to switch majors & schools because there funding has severely restricted mobility within the U & it's also tough to get courses to graduate in 4 years.
With merit aid, for many out-of-state students, USC actually ends up cheaper than the UCs.
We have been very impressed with the caliber of students we've met at USC & the profile of the freshmen classes at both USC & UCLA are roughly comparable.</p>
<p>Look at USC graduation rates and tell me how impressed you are. Additionally, there is a lot of mobility within Berkeley, but certainly there are some constraints. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A student is accepted only for the semester and program specified in the letter of admission. If a different semester is desired or if the student cannot arrive on campus in time for the specified semester, an Admission Application Update Request form should be obtained from the Office of Admission. This form should be completed and returned with a written explanation for the update request. If the update request is granted, the students application will be reviewed again for admission and any new academic records will be evaluated. This does not, however, guarantee readmission. Those updating their applications must meet all appropriate deadlines for admission to selected majors, financial aid, scholarships and housing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt the ease of switching into say, film at USC, for an example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's an amusing statistic which has never been mentioned on College Confidential:
18% of USC's incoming Fall 2006 freshmen are legacy admits.</p>
<p>It's hard to disregard USC's reputation as spoiled and self-serving when one out of every five USC students gets in partly because of his mom and dad -- Trojan Family, indeed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>AHEM...what about that statistic implies that "one out of every five USC students gets in partly because of his mom and dad?"</p>
<p>All that means is that kids of alumni are more likely to apply, and if accepted, attend, then the average student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at USC graduation rates and tell me how impressed you are. Additionally, there is a lot of mobility within Berkeley, but certainly there are some constraints.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>I doubt the ease of switching into say, film at USC, for an example.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's incredibly easy to change majors at USC...I would know because I've done it. :)</p>
<p>Practically, the only difficulties are changing into/between professional schools (true, film is hard to change into, and for engineering, you have to pass the prerequisite math/science semester first, for example)</p>
<p>The tour guide & orientation session we attended at Berkeley warned us that it is VERY tough to switch majors. We have no personal knowledge other than what we were officially told during this official tour. We never toured UCLA, tho that is the school the OP wanted to have compared with USC, not Berkeley. Actually, I have read that folks can transfer into the film school at USC, providing they meet requirements, etc.
USC prides itself in its high graduation rate, which is >80% for 6 years (as a parent, I'd like it to be a higher % in fewer years, but it's still considered quite high).
I have been told repeatedly by all the administrators at USC that switching majors & schools is not a problem. This includes several conversations with associate deans & similar folks. I have no reason to question this & have not heard from any kids that they've had trouble with any switches they desired.</p>
<p>Bottom line, USC & UCLA are both very good schools that have a lot to offer. How you define "better" is a matter of personal preference. </p>
<p>One difference to consider between the two schools is that USC has a large % of students living on campus or near (especially freshman & now sophomore year). This contributes to a lot of campus activities & a "campus feel." My friends who graduated from UCLA said it had much more of a "commuter" school feel to it than a "residential" feel. The racial composition & where students come from is quite different between the two schools too.</p>
<p>It is indeed somewhat tough to switch between some majors and other majors, and when you switch means it's easier or harder to graduate on time (like at almost any school).</p>
<p>I contest that Berkeley's current situation makes it very hard for students to graduate in over 4 years (instead of 4 or fewer), as many do indeed graduate in four or fewer years (58% or so), and many who do not choose to stay longer. The 6 year graduation rate at Berkeley is something like 86% (or a bit above). I also contest "it's also tough to get courses to graduate in 4 years." But USC does have some things I like better than UCLA, such as the campus feel.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bottom line, USC & UCLA are both very good schools that have a lot to offer. How you define "better" is a matter of personal preference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>Graduation rates (for interest/comparison):</p>
<p>UCLA</p>
<p>4 years or less:56.7%
6 years or less: 87.4%</p>
<p>USC:</p>
<p>4 years or less: 61%
6 years or less: 83%</p>
<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/screen.aspx?screenId=60%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/screen.aspx?screenId=60</a> (sorry CDS link wasn't working but it's the same year)</p>
<p>USC used to be known as the private school for spoiled dumb rich kids. </p>
<p>now that label belongs to schools like Miami, George Washington U, Boston University, Syracuse, Seton Hall, Loyola Marymount, and Pepperdine.</p>
<p>Yay, unsubstantiated generalizations. :)</p>