<p>SAT scores (25th to 75th percentile):
USC: 1910-2180
UCLA: 1730-2100</p>
<p>wouldn't that mean USC attracts a greater number better students? fyi I'm a senior in high school...so there's not ulterior motive behind this thread, just curious because I'm applying to both and thought USC was the better school, but people have told me UCLA has a stronger reputation when it comes to getting jobs.</p>
<p>You’re assuming it is. I have to be honest, from my perspective here in the midwest, they are sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other and not distinguished from one another in any significant way. “The two good research universities in LA, with a lot of football spirit” pretty much sums it up. Not differentiated enough from one another in my opinion to term one more prestigious than the other.</p>
<p>These are both good schools, but with different relative strengths. UCLA is widely recognized as a great research university, but because it is much larger than USC it is less selective for undergraduates. </p>
<p>This is somewhat common to see when comparing private and public universities. Berkeley has some of the best research faculty in the world, but a top-ranked LAC might be more selective for undergraduates. Which is more prestigious? It all depends on how you define prestige.</p>
<p>"UCLA is widely recognized as a great research university, but because it is much larger than USC it is less selective for undergraduates. "</p>
<p>UCLA has about 40,000 students in total
USC has about 37,000 students in total</p>
<p>They are both quite large.</p>
<p>UCLA has a larger history of being more focused on research. The internet was born at UCLA, HIV/Aids (forgot which one but think the former) was discovered here, etc. I would have to strongly disagree that they’re equally seen as prestigious. Look at any prestige ranking and you’ll see huge differences between rankings in both universities, and they’re usually in UCLA’s favor.</p>
<p>Where you want to go to college, if you want to include prestige, should include how prestige will impact what you want after college. UCLA, for example, is probably way more prestigious internationally than it is in the United States. So if you wanted to get an international type of job it might be better to go with a UCLA degree; Planning on working in socal? USC’s alumni network would probably help greatly. It all depends on what you want.</p>
<p>UCLA and USC have similar amounts of students, but USC has significantly less undergraduate students, and significantly more graduate students. So you’d probably get smaller class sizes at UCLA than at USC. and USC’s Dornsife got a donation which is surely going to improve their programs.</p>
<p>USC may have a more competitive student body, but UCLA generally has stronger graduate programs, and hence stronger faculty usually. It all depends. It’s far too difficult to simply say that one university is ‘better’ than another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t expect people in the midwest to really be able to differentiate either two. I mean, how often would you guys really talk about them? (except maybe when both schools had their scandalous affairs earlier this year) I don’t think i’ve ever heard anyone from the westcoast talk about midwest schools. I doubt most people out here, who aren’t in academia/business can differentiate between Northwestern or UChicago (or have even heard of them)</p>
<p>rjkofnovi – Good point, but I was looking at undergraduates. </p>
<p>UCLA: ~27,000
USC: ~17,000</p>
<p>But you’re right in that they’re both quite large.</p>
<p>“UCLA and USC have similar amounts of students, but USC has significantly less undergraduate students, and significantly more graduate students. So you’d probably get smaller class sizes at UCLA than at USC.”</p>
<p>Are you certain that class sizes would be smaller at UCLA?</p>
<p>If you look solely at current stats, the two schools are very similar. UCLA has had a prestigious reputation for a longer time, so it edges out USC in many people’s opinions. </p>
<p>When Steven Sample became President at USC in 1991, he set out to raise the school’s status. As recently as 1999, USC’s USNWR rank was 41 (UCLA’s rank has held steady in the mid 20’s since this time). High school kids in the region perceived USC as a good school to attend if you were rich, and not smart enough to get into a UC. Under Sample’s leadership, the school’s academic rigor has increased greatly, and they have worked hard to attract students with higher stats. Their USNWR rank is now 20-something. The rise was quick and recent, so they still have to wait for people’s perceptions to catch up.</p>
<p>In the South, they are viewed as Jock schools in California. No difference between the two except who is better at football or hoops or is on NCAA probation.</p>
<p>Right. And I’m not at all offended by beyphy’s characterization of Northwestern vs U Chicago as being indistinguishable to those on the west coast. “Prestige” is ALL regional.</p>
<p>LDN101:</p>
<p>SAT scores only tell a part of the story. </p>
<p>USC is a private U that admits based more on test scores than UCLA does in addition to superscoring SAT’s; UCLA is a public U that admits more on where a student graduates within his/her high-school graduating class and does not superscore. </p>
<p>In addition, UCLA counts all ACT and SATI scores in the admitted and enrolled frosh-class statistics, with ~ 137% of the total students enrolled in 2011 posting both tests. I would imagine that most other U’s, especially private ones, would forward only the student’s best posted between the two for frosh stats if one or the either is deemed as higher, with a small portion being ~ the same. So this redundancy of reporting scores at UCLA would lower the median/mean scores the U reports for both tests in addition to the afore mentioned “superscoring.”</p>
<p>Here’s an example related to UCLA admissions:</p>
<p>Student A: SATI 2020, 2080, 2120, Superscore 2160; ACT 27, 28, 29 (Avid test-taker; not sure if private u’s superscore ACT composites)</p>
<p>Student B: SATI 1850; ACT 31 (Clearly switched to ACT to post higher score and quit after obtaining higher score in this.)</p>
<p>If both students were accepted to UCLA and enrolled, the following would be reported in UCLA’s enrolled class:</p>
<p>Student A: SAT 2120, ACT 29
Student B: SAT 1850, ACT 31</p>
<p>This is even though the SAT and ACT as separate ascended items helped Student A and Student B, resp, gain admission to UCLA. Again, this causes the means and medians UCLA reports for both tests to lower a marked amount if not significantly. </p>
<p>I’m guessing for most private u’s they would report the following in their CDS’s:</p>
<p>Student A: SAT 2160
Student B: ACT 31</p>
<p>This is despite the fact that both SAT’s and ACT’s are reported by students to these u’s at the overlapping %’s in the common data for all u’s and c’s. But the reporting of SAT and ACT medians/means don’t show actual numbers of students at various %-iles of enrolled frosh in the CDS form -> the probability of these u’s in reporting all reported SAT’s and ACT’s %-iles’s at the redundant %’s at these u’s would be low based on their trying to put their best stats forward. (Best stats forward -> ascend USN’s rankings.)</p>
<p>A question one might want to forward would be, why does UCLA intentionally seek to under-report scores for its frosh class?</p>
<p>If you don’t mind me answering my own question, this would be because UCLA is trying not to dissuade those from poorer economic background from applying to the U. The more applicants the U can encourange from poorer background, generally from underperforming schools, the more the admissions people from the U can let “holistics” which = generally a lesser-stats-is-more policy towards admissions have its play, in the U’s quest to maintain its desired diversity indices, which it feels it cannot maintain if stats were the largest consideration in this policy.</p>
<p>It’s true, those from poorer background will have a lot lower scores than those from wealthier background because higher scores do indeed run commensurate with wealth … wealthier students: more spent on prep courses, private SAT tutors. The act of taking the tests over and over would undoubtedly be more of a wealthy-student phenomenon also.</p>
<p>If you look at the students both USC and UCLA take from wealthier high schools, both public and private, UCLA enrollees have higher gpa’s and scores than their USC counterparts, sometimes significantly higher stats. Where USC catches up wrt stats and might surpass UCLA regarding scores is because UCLA takes more from poorer background from really underperforming high schools that USC wouldn’t even consider.</p>
<p>Counter to this, UCLA wouldn’t consider an applicant unless he/she is top decile of his/her graduating class. For UCLA, all high schools are generally on the same footing; there is no (or there is less) noting of how great a high school is in the admissions process. This is, again, to give the poorer kids a chance to compete with kids of wealthier background.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement seems to be flawed and contradicting in itself.</p>
<p>Let me add this to the latter part of my post: all u’s and c’s fudge on the top-10% (decile) of students statistic in the CDS.</p>
<p>UCLA reports ~ 97% top 10%, USC ~ 86% or so?</p>
<p>The actual is UCLA ~ 80% and USC ~ 50-60%.</p>
<p>Both schools have different orientations: UCLA sends a lot more to M, L, B school; USC is more of a trade oriented undergrad U.</p>
<p>From my area in CA, USC is seen as the better school, but UCLA has more name recognition world wide.</p>
<p>LDN101, both are excellent universities, and many students apply to both and make their decision after acceptances and scholarship/financial aid information has been received. They are close enough in prestige and reputation that it seems almost silly to base your opinion on an overall tiny difference one way or the other in test scores or perceived reputation rather than on how the particular program(s) you are interested in fit YOU at each school. Many California applicants find UCLA to be the better choice in terms of costs, but if you are (as stated in one of your threads) an international applicant, the overall costs will be similar at both schools. For OOS domestic students, financial aid at USC will often be a bit (or a LOT) better than at UCLA.</p>
<p>Good luck at both!</p>
<p>P.S. your post history is confusing. In this thread you call yourself a senior, in another you state that you are a junior (2 weeks ago), in another you say you are a 17 year-old from London (which makes sense with your screen name) applying this year, and your profile lists you as 21 years old. It makes it difficult to give meaningful answers to your questions when you provide inconsistent information.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/summer-programs/1244836-4-week-course-vs-volunteering-abroad.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/summer-programs/1244836-4-week-course-vs-volunteering-abroad.html</a>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/1216484-chance-me-usc-marshall-nyu-stern.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/1216484-chance-me-usc-marshall-nyu-stern.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, clearly Harvard’s prestige is only limited to New England :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never should have attempted to try to fool the astute reasoners found in CC 
It was a typo. I’ll revise my statement</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA has had a more distinquished faculty and research from many years. USC is changing but has a long way to go in that regard. Much easier to attract/buy some good students than top faculty.</p>
<p>In conclusion, lest I ruin my Saturday posting on CC, and despite my disjointed posts, which would have reflected better if I were to have combined them in one ;), we can conclude that:</p>
<p>1) Don’t read into general overall statistics what should be taken in parts because again, the way you printed them will not tell the whole story.</p>
<p>2) Don’t believe everything you read – not majorly intended USC’s way because all u’s fudge on CDS numbers. There are various ways a u can report statistics, and an apples-and-oranges situation can occur, such as here the difference in the way a public and private u report things.</p>
<p>I would say this though, not to offend alemom: I think UCLA’s students show forth greater potential than USC’s because USC’s would probably be topped out wrt SAT test-taking and have lower grades; UCLA hunts more for lower scorers (not lower grades) who could be significantly higher scorers than they reflected and based on diversity, which would hold a higher precedence than stats in this instance for sake of diversity, which the U holds highly. This is reflected in the admissions of UCLA students (compared to USC’s) to the various grad programs around the country, as those from poorer less stat-qualifed background do tend to catch up … and as UCLA has an excellent academic services department taht gets the lesser qualified students up to speed. </p>
<p>In a post you had earlier, UCLA’s BusEcon program is stellar wrt placement. This is because there is a barrier towards entry in one’s third year – as beyphy explained very well, which means only the brightest can enter the major from the pre as well as 3.90+ from community college … not as high as the comm program’s 3.92-3.94, though. This may not help you as you mentioned UCLA’s econ program, though, which is fairly tough also.</p>
<p>UCLA students have an inferiority complex and will swear up and down that their school is #1. While USC, Berkeley, Caltech, and Stanford students could not care less. Wow, but all those universities are ranked higher. Shocking!</p>
<p>Numbers don’t lie.</p>
<p>UCLA has (when compared to USC):
Significantly Lower SAT scores
Higher Faculty to Student Ratio
Lower Endowment (and consistantly shrinking)
Less CURRENTLY teaching and researching Nobel Faculty
Higher Cost of Living
Lower Job Prospects
40% of Student Population is from Community College
Lower Performing Sports</p>
<p>Neither is prestigious.</p>