<p>Drax12, Disagreeing with me never offends me (but misspelling my screen name does!).</p>
<p>And I would have to disagree with you that one of those university’s students show more potential than the other’s, mainly because of the significant number of cross-admits among California applicants between the two. It is also important to remember that UCLA’s GPA figures reflect a “UC GPA,” which is a weighted figure, while USC’s admission statistic for GPA is unweighted. In terms of diversity, remember that the UC system is barred by California law from considering race in admissions, while USC, as a private university, can and does consider ethnic diversity in their admissions process. </p>
<p>Please do not read my comments above as an endorsement of either university over the other - I consistently maintain on these boards that these are two fine universities and that students admitted to both have a difficult, yet wonderful decision to make.</p>
<p>You can’t go wrong with either.</p>
<p>Note: in your fifth paragraph, it is clear to me that you are not addressing me, but I am afraid you used very unclear language and others may be confused: I have made no posts regarding UCLA’s BusEcon or Econ program, as I am not familiar with either.</p>
Harvard is the exception, not the rule, as it is without doubt the most prestigious college in the country (if not the world). Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford also have good name recognition in most parts of the country. </p>
<p>Other colleges are more uneven in name recognition and prestige – unlike Harvard, which elicits a “wow!” anywhere, most of the other top colleges will get a “wow!” in their home region and a “oh, that’s a good school” or “I’ve heard of that” elsewhere. Wake Forest is well-known and respected in NC, but many don’t know it on the west coast. I was surprised that many Californians don’t know that Duke is in NC, whereas they’re aghast that I didn’t have the faintest idea where Pepperdine is. You get the idea. </p>
<p>
Accurate assessment. I’ve run into people who confuse UCLA and LA with Louisiana (I kid you not) and confuse USC with the college in Columbia, SC.</p>
<p>OH, numberS, in the plural? you mean like every other ranking than US news which ranks UCLA higher than UCLA? you’re right, they don’t lie. Including the ranking that says that UCLA does way better worldwide in jobs than USC does.</p>
<p>Not sure if that is true. The following list from a high school (not a magnet or charter school, but in a very economically high end demographic area) in southern California shows a lot of UCLA reject USC admit students, but not the other way around:</p>
<p>UCs do not use class rank in admissions, and ELC (GPA > historic top 9% GPA at your high school) is probably only relevant for UC Merced. But UCLA may emphasize GPA more relative to test scores than USC does. Within the UC system, Berkeley is said to be much more “holistic” than UCLA is said to be.</p>
<p>But note that UCLA (and Berkeley) both have about 31% Pell Grant recipients, unusually high for state flagship-level universities (and probably about double that of USC). Perhaps this is the seeking of students from lower economic backgrounds.</p>
<p>One of my biases against UCLA (and all UCs) stems from the fact that they do not accept LORs from counselors or teachers. Whether that matters to an applicant or not is a personal preference.</p>
<p>Your original question was on repuation and that is a very very different question then actual quality of the school or how difficult it is to get into the school. I realize that in the days of USNWR kids think they are all the same, but they are not – well let me rephase --in schools that are not the IVYS or near IVYS, where repuatations are still growing and changing there is often a disconnect between repuation in the community, and how difficult it has become to get in. In the case of USC there is a big disconnect.</p>
<p>USC’s reputation in the community locally (I grew up and live in So Cal, although went to school at Berkeley) hasn’t quite caught up with the current reality that its a real class university. Among the older/ parental crowd - unless they are USC boosters - there is still a very, very stong perception of USC as a school which will take anyone who can pay the tuition. University of Spoiled Children was a well earned moniker. Things have changed greatly in the last 30 years and that is absolutely not true anymore, but I can tell you that it was my “safety” for college 30 years ago, and safety for grad school and repuations change slowly. Now that I have college age kids, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve patiently had to explain to my peers that no, USC is not easy to get into anymore, yes it really is a class school now, etc. I realize that students don’t carry the baggage of this history, but when you ask about reputation, that is the fact. Additionally, when USC was the university of spoiled kids, it really was populated by a very wealthy, economically entitled, snobby, rabidly pro-USC student body which was really not very likable. You could see how the (then) much more intellectual UCLA students, not to mention a lot of the community who didn’t attend UCLA, absolutely HATED USC. I don’t mean USC wasn’t their favorite school, I mean HATED USC with an absolute passion. You’d be surprised how many people still feel that way. </p>
<p>Having said all that, UC’s are in serious economic trouble and I’m certain you’d have more luck “getting” your classes, having smaller classes, and graduating on time, at USC than UCLA. Times are a-changing. On the other hand, you will get much more economic diversity at UCLA (USC is still a haven for smart private school kids), will have a much bigger greek life at USC, and you’ll roam a physical campus about 3 times the size at UCLA. Bottom-line, the school’s personalites are so different, they only share the same city and since they are both great schools, a student should pick the school that is the best fit, and not worry about the rest.</p>
While I agree that there are many well-qualified students from excellent private high schools who choose to attend USC, USC is need-blind in admissions and provides excellent financial aid, so there are even more students without that background. For the 2010-2011 school year, USC had a financial aid budget or 365 million and approximately 60% of undergraduates received need-based aid. In addition, 24% of entering freshmen received merit aid. [Facts</a> and Figures | About USC](<a href=“http://about.usc.edu/facts/]Facts”>http://about.usc.edu/facts/)</p>
<p>For California students who do not qualify for need-based aid, UCLA costs significantly less than USC. In my four years of answering financial aid questions on College Confidential, it has been my observation that when choosing between these two outstanding universities, those who have to pay full price (among California applicants) sensibly choose the school that costs significantly less. They did not get to be wealthy by paying twice as much for similar products.</p>
<p>Lower-income applicants (in California) often find the costs at the two schools to be very similar after aid is applied and can choose based on other factors. </p>
<p>For OOS applicants, high-income families tend to be full-pay at both universities (and UCLA is >$50,000 for OOS) while lower-income students find the aid at USC to be far superior.</p>
<p>alamemom: The fact that only 60% of the student body at USC gets need-based aid actually supports the opinion that it’s mostly rich kids. USC’s cost of attendance is very, very high (~ $50,000/yr with housing and all that) so if 40% don’t even qualify for any need based aid that’s a very rich school. Besides, the ones that do qualify may only qualify for a few hundred/thousand bucks, etc.</p>
<p>I also disagree that low income students from California would find the schools to be about equivalent. I’m a low income student (EFC of near 0) and UCLA was way cheaper.</p>
<p>According to the USNWR link posted upthread, USC does have a relatively high percentage of Pell Grant students among USNWR top universities – but that percentage is only 19%, far less than the 36-37% of UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>So whether USC is getting a lot of students from low income families depends on the basis of comparison. If it is in comparison to USNWR to universities nationally, then it is. But if it is in comparison to UCLA and Berkeley, then it is not.</p>
<p>arcadefire1027, I am sorry your costs at USC and UCLA were not similar and so you were unable to attend USC, but what a wonderful alternative you had in UCLA! As a financial aid applicant to both, I am sure you are aware that USC uses the CSS/Profile in addition to the FAFSA, so families with significant assets that are ignored by the FAFSA (such as home equity or all assets in the case of the Simplified Needs Test) find that the aid may differ. For families without those assets (truly needy families) the aid is indeed very similar.</p>
<p>
Please double-check the definition of “mostly.” 40% is not “mostly.”</p>
<p>The collegeboard data paint a different picture of USC:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only 38% of the incoming class were offered aid, which of course means that 62% were full-pay (or maybe merit recipients?).</p>
<p>Determining FA numbers are tricky, because we don’t know whether USC counts the full-pay students who take out the unsubsidized Stafford loan (available to everyone), as those receiving aid.</p>
<p>Its prestige is certainly <em>highest</em> in New England and the mid-Atlantic states. But the extent to which smart students are just up-and-dying to attend Harvard is, to some extent, regional in nature.</p>
<p>When students of School A “hate” School B with an “absolute passion,” it’s not School B that looks bad. Honestly, you’ve got to be more than a little off to “hate” people who are attending some other school that isn’t yours.</p>
![http://i.imgur.com/7NNmu.jpg"]Haters](http://i.imgur.com/7NNmu.jpg%22%5DHaters){kind=link}
![http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/052011/hater-prime.gif[/url]](http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/052011/hater-prime.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
