Why is UCLA still perceived the better school when USC is ranked higher?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Southern California
41

<p>I have relatives that have lived in LA for the past 50+ years. Their kids all went to UCLA. My D (now a college jr) toured USC four years ago and when my aunt found out, she had a fit (particularly about the surrounding area.) “Why would you send her THERE?!” D ended up back east BUT my point is now that S has committed, her comment was “Great! That is such a wonderful school!” Perception, even among the old time locals (and Bruins) is changing rapidly as academically favorable to USC.</p>

<p>I think it does speak more to fit than anything else when students are looking at where they see themselves. S toured UCLA but just didn’t see himself there at all. Had nothing to do with overall academics but everything to do with program he was looking at and the social aspect of USC.</p>

42

<p>I promise you that USC will/is the Northwestern and Cornell of California. Where Stanford is the Chicago and Columbia. </p>

<p>UCLA is trending to be the Illinoise and NYU of the other mega cities.</p>

<p>Like Nikias said the world is turning to the West and the City of Los Angeles is going to shine.</p>

43

<p>Modern Man–please amplify the distinctions you are making?</p>

44

<p>I am sorry, docfreedaddy. I wrote that post on my mobile, so it might not be clear.</p>

<p>The point that I was getting at is that Illinoise, New York, and California all are very academic states, containing great universities. I know I said cities, but I was mainly focusing on the states and regions. </p>

<p>If one was to look at the stats of these states and their respective universities, some trends emerge.</p>

<p>For instance, there is the world-class university, which has a small student body, large endowment, excellent research and presitge that are not only regional but also global. These respective universities are UChicago, Columbia, and Stanford. </p>

<p>The next is trend is having a more “well-rounded” university, that has well-known sport programs, excellent professional programs, large and wealthy alumni base. Their research is good, but not on the powerhouse level as the previously dicussed private unis. Student bodies tend to be slightly lower than the extremely selective sister private and to be larger. These universities are also very aggressive with expanding and growing their reputation. These qualities are reflective of Northwestern, Cornell, and USC. </p>

<p>In regards to the UCLA being NYU and Illionise. There isn’t a direct correlation, but they are very large universities with established and well respected programs. They also educate the masses in the respective states and are pretty comfortable/stagnate with their growth. Although, NYU are pretty ambitious with expanding in the city. But again, my post was mainly geared towards privates.</p>

<p>BTW, Berkeley is an amazing university and truly is the crown jewel of public education. Berkeley is a positive exception to the rule.</p>

<p>Admittingly, USC still has a little while to go till it gets to Northwestern’s level, but if you compare Cornell 2011 freshman stats to USC 2012 stats, they are almost identical.</p>

45

<p>Also these states contain the US’ most influencial cities; Chicago, NYC, LA, and San Fran/Silicon Valley.</p>

46

<p>Why can’t we all just get along? </p>

<p>I think both schools are amazing and great. Like a few other people have mentioned it doesn’t matter the “reputation/ranking/prestige” as long as it is the school that fits you. I would rather go to a “lower ranking” school where I am happy with my college experience than spend money at a “higher ranking” school and have years of regret. Whether USC or UCLA is good at this or better at that it doesn’t matter if there not the school for you then don’t go. I have been admitted to USC and UCLA, and it’s frustrating hearing people convince me one is better than the other. In my opinion it is an honor to go to either school.</p>

47

<p>All I’m reading on this thread is a bunch of dumb, irrelevant debate. The real answer is this:</p>

<p>UCLA is actually a good school, from 1919 to 2012. People study here. They do great things afterwards and contribute toward human society.</p>

<p>USC, from 1880-1990s, was a school for rich, dumb kids who couldn’t get into a decent college so their filthy rich parents paid for them to go here. When you put a bunch of rich, dumb kids together, they do nothing but party and be dumb. In the end, they end up being successful anyways because they inherit daddy’s fortune 500 company. USC has only been a decent school since the late 1990s/early 2000s. At this point, I would say USC is comparable to UC Irvine or UC San Diego, with the UC schools being slightly better, but in the past, USC was worse than UC Riverside.</p>

<p>Example:</p>

<p>Student 1: So where are you going to college?</p>

<p>Student 2: I got rejected from UC Riverside…so that means I’m going to USC…</p>

<p>Student 1: Dude…that sucks bro…</p>

<p>Student 2: Seriously…but thank god my parents are rich. Trust fund, here I come.</p>

48

<p>Well said, bruin.</p>

49

<p>I think they call this a necro-thread.</p>

<p>Yeah, Neil Armstrong was a dumb, rich kid.</p>

<p>The reality is Notaznguy’s attitude is one that that lots of people have toward USC, and it will take awhile to overcome it. Likewise, most people outside of California associate UCLA with basketball rather than academics.</p>

<p>People do get too hung up on reputation and rankings. As mentioned before, no employer is going to favor a prospective employee because they went to USC instead of UCLA, or vice-versa.</p>

50

<p>Nataznaguy has so eloquently illustrated an important point. There is much prejudice against USC to the point its reputation likely does not reflect its stature. It is easy to dismiss bias in a post, but the same potentially biased reputation opinion likely operates to some extent in the USNWR rankings as well as College Confidential overall. Regarding USNWR rankings, to a large extent they are based on opinion of other faculty and guidance counselors who are subject to the effects of bias as well in their rankings submitted to USNWR. As far as College Confidential, USC is not considered a “Top University”. I also noticed cc is carrying a three year old post that has had no post in two years which is critical of USC as one of its leading articles–very odd.</p>

<p>UCLA is considered a Top University by cc. I will use it as an example since it is a subject of this thread. Examining 2011 SAT scores, UCLA scores at the 25th and 75th percentile are below USC to a greater extent than USC is below Stanford. In fact, it may well be that with 2012 scores, the difference between USC and Stanford may become statistically and/or practically insignificant while the spread with UCLA widens. While this is but one indicator, it is an rigorously objective one not influenced by “reputational bias”. USC is in an exciting phase of growth which it seems to be executing flawlessly. The bias shown by individuals and organizations reflects poorly upon themselves.</p>

51

<p>Although this thread was good for some laughs, please just let it die. Most of the posts are not worth arguing with.</p>

52

<p>Modern Man,</p>

<p>You raise some very interesting points above reproduced in part:</p>

<p>"For instance, there is the world-class university, which has a small student body, large endowment, excellent research and prestige that are not only regional but also global. These respective universities are UChicago, Columbia, and Stanford. </p>

<p>The next is trend is having a more “well-rounded” university, that has well-known sport programs, excellent professional programs, large and wealthy alumni base. Their research is good, but not on the powerhouse level as the previously discussed private unis. Student bodies tend to be slightly lower than the extremely selective sister private and to be larger. These universities are also very aggressive with expanding and growing their reputation. These qualities are reflective of Northwestern, Cornell, and USC."</p>

<p>Would you like to re-post as a separate topic? I think your perspective is well worth discussing.</p>

53

<p>Yes, I found the trends to be very interesting and undeniable as well. Considering there are no other states with similar university dynamics (not even Mass., because the H/MIT relationship is very unique.) What is also interesting is that these states are also home to our country’s most influential/populated cities. </p>

<p>Feel free to repost and put up for discussion, doc.</p>

54

<p>UCLA’s more like Cornell and Northwestern than USC is. USC and NYU are thought to be mirror images of each other, in terms of quality, reputation, and in their prestige crusades.</p>

<p>The arguments i’ve made in the past still hold now:</p>

<p>1) UCLA is consistently one of the world’s most cited universities. I don’t see how that results in it being ‘stagnate.’</p>

<p>2) Yes, UCLA tuition has been on the rise, but it’s still significantly lower than USC’s tuition (which, like many other colleges, also increases annually.) I’ve never quite understood arguments like “i might have to pay 13k at UC, so i’ll just spend 3Xk at USC.”</p>

<p>3) arguments which talk about a decline in UCLA’s quality have, at least in my experience, always been unsubstantiated. These arguments rely on gossip and lack evidence.</p>

<p>4) two points can be made with regard to rankings. USC’s current rise in rankings says nothing about its future rise. Many, myself included, were surprised that USC didn’t rise again in rankings this year. But going from the 40s to the 20s is much easier than going from the 20s, to the 10s, etc. So it isn’t that surprising if you think about it. Plus, everyone knows that some universities, e.g. WUSTL, just game the ranking system. And it’s pretty easy to see that USC’s just trying to do the same. </p>

<p>Also, since this is mostly opinionated/anecdotal anyway, let’s take a look at how a few perceptions of USC from people who don’t go to UCLA or USC (both, i believe, from Stanford grads):</p>

<p>“USC is more or less a public school at a private school price. Not much better than NYU.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13807615-post64.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13807615-post64.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"i don’t have much objective to add to this discussion except to say that UCLA’s prestige from its research reputation has been around longer. It also used to be more selective. I still remember the very first time when I heard of UCLA on a sketch on MadTv with the job interviewer asking him "what was what is UckLah college), and the job applicant responding it’s UCLA.</p>

<p>I still respect UCLA more to this day due primarily to the reputation of their grad programs. Also, while not particularly meaningful, is how UCLA doesn’t attempt to “buy” students as USC does by throwing vast amounts of money via their trojan scholarships to about 25% of their student body and then selectively admitting weaker students in their spring admits program and having their stats excluded from fall."</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14375424-post137.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14375424-post137.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Does this mean i hate USC/think it’s an inferior school? No. I think USC’s a great university. It just makes me mad when i read about how “UCLA is on the decline” or how it’s so much worse than USC now when neither are true.</p>

55

<p>^^ I am sorry, but if you look at the stats and numbers. UCLA is not their level. Although, UCLA is in some regards BETTER than those universities, but overall the dynamic and DNA of those universities are nothing like UCLA, but very similar to USC. </p>

<p>Also, I am not even talking about rankings. I don’t have time right now (but I will later, or someone else can for me, because it is not that hard to see) to post the stats and the points. </p>

<p>Break down my post and do your own research you will see what I am talking about.</p>

<p>If anything the Stanford-USC, Columbia-Cornell, UChicago-Northwestern relationship is like UCBerkeley-UCLA. However, that relationship, because they are both public and have similar missions/stats/DNA, does not fit the mold/trend/sequence.</p>

56

<p>Beyphy,</p>

<p>I have experienced and witnessed quite a few exchanges with the poster you cite above from Stanford. My studied opinion is that that particular poster and Stanford in general are worried about the USC footsteps they hear, but would be loathe to admit it. Stanford is losing very capable students to USC, not because of merit awards, but because of superior undergraduate humanities programs (thematic options), journalism/film schools to name a few and especially the vibrancy of the campus atmosphere and administration.</p>

<p>The Stanford detractors will cite rankings and present a transparent condescending superiority which belies justifiable insecurity. USC is on the rise as you noted, yet I seen nothing to alter its trajectory. It is stil underrated. While once a victim of its detractors (University of Spoiled Children), it now actually benefits from its suppressed status as these hollow criticisms become untenable. At the same time substantial improvements occur at USC together causing USC to rise like an undervalued stock in an overvalued market.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>It isn’t because it doesn’t want to be. That’s the sole reason. If UCLA or Cal were private universities, they would be leaps and bounds ahead of many others, including USC. But, as you noted, they have different missions, and their mission includes admitting students which may not be deserving of their quality.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not really. Stanford and USC aren’t really comparable. It would be like me trying to compare UCLA to Oxford in virtue of them both being public universities. the only private California university that can compete with Stanford academically is Caltech; (although USC can probably compare in terms of sports.) </p>

<p>columbia and cornell aren’t really comparable either. There are large gaps between both, this can be scene in consensus of rankings, recruiting, etc. Berkeley and UCLA are comparable, but that’s because they’re similar in quality. If “prestige” isn’t taken into account, both universities rank pretty similarly, although Berkeley usually has the edge. Chicago and northwestern are also fairly comparable, despite the supposed gap that USNWR implies.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think they’re too worried. USC probably loses the vast majority of cross admit battles with Stanford. Stanford’s peers are HYPM, not USC.</p>

<p>I could see USC winning a cross admit battle over film. But i don’t think it beats Stanford in any, or maybe very few, humanities.</p>

<p>The argument that USC is on the rise doesn’t mean much. Chapman university’s on the rise too, that doesn’t mean i see it being on USC’s level anytime soon. Same applies wrt comparing Stanford to USC.</p>

58

<p>You completely missed the point. Congrats.</p>

59

<p>I think Stanford has a lot to worry about. Their ascendancy paralleled the rapid growth and dynamism of Silicon Valley. Stanford prides itself on entrepreneurship which means a close relationship with Silicon Valley industry. They nominally attempt to portray the entrepreneurship in areas outside of Tech/Medicine/Engineering/ Computer Science but the claim falls rather flat. </p>

<p>Stanford has the climate of a Tech school. The campus seems to many not a university but an industrial park or like a Microsoft campus. This is not only due to the structures but the lack of a cohesive campus center and the preponderance of non-humanities majors. </p>

<p>Both Stanford and Silicon Valley have matured and with maturity the dark side emerges. This is interestingly tied to the tech, rather than balanced, focus of Stanford and of course Silicon Valley. Whereas Apple was once an exciting growth company, it is now coming to light less than ideal overseas work conditions. Moreover, it recently came to light that Apple maintains a 5 person office in Reno, specifically to avoid paying billions in taxes to California. That is correct billions with a “B”. Those tax dollars are very much needed for public education including UCLA. Yet, Stanford recently accepted 50 million dollars from Apple. Google is causing a concern with privacy issues and its maps, Facebook with privacy issues and it will continue with others. While Stanford’s close association with SV was once a boon, the association and its disproportionate tech focus may no longer serve it vis s vis USC.</p>

<p>As far as USC, I have made the point that is carries the vestiges of a poor reputation which seems to be kept alive by its competitors. Every aspect of USC is being reworked. The 2011 SAT’s were not substantially different than Stanford’s and I expect 2012 to be more similar. Once you start to approach the 2400 ceiling, vibrancy, enjoyment, student-student and student-teacher relationships become more a deciding factor. USC does very well in these areas. I expect if there were surveys of USC and Stanford students satisfaction, USC would not pale in any way. The students are very happy while at USC and have a rich alumni network upon graduation. Check out the USC SAT’s and perhaps revisit the USC-Chapman rise analogy.</p>

60

<p>Are there as many USC posters who habitually/frequently post opinions about UCLA over on the UCLA forum as there are UCLA students who post opinions about USC here?</p>