<p>My D initially liked USC and UCLA equally but her Dad was very hesitant to pay OOS tuition at UCLA when she would likely need 5 years to finish because it’s hard to get classes. He’d rather pay the same price at USC and get the classes needed to finish on time. In addition, the alumnae connection at USC beats any school except perhaps Notre Dame. This can be helpful in the job market. Also, the student enthusium seems stronger at USC. Do a search on Facebook. You will find 4 page for USC freshman class 2016 and 0 for UCLA (there is a 2015 class page). The stronger the student enthusiasm for a school is, the more high quality students in will attract and subsequently will continue to rise in the much aligned rankings. BTW, to contradict a post above, my D did not get into UCLA but did get into USC which was her top choice at the end anyway. I think they are both great schools and if we were CA residents, we would have been pushing UCLA for the $20K savings. p.s. her Dad is a UCSD grad and strong positive feelings for the U of C system overall.</p>
<p>Did docfreedaddy just seriously compare USC to Stanford? Just wow. Stanford worried about USC? Stanford is as worried of USC as Harvard is of Boston College. Clearly docfreedaddy is not from the U.S. or at least has never been to college.</p>
<p>docfreedaddy says Stanford feels like an industrial park, but largely ignores the fact that USC feels like a concrete prison in the middle of a war zone that is South Central. There’s been like a ton of shootings and deaths the past few years at USC - and I’m talking about their students, not the locals. Yes, USC students actually have a higher chance of having something happening to them than at a campus like Stanford. Gee, I wonder why? And somehow goes off tangent to make the point that Stanford = Apple. Okay…sure pal…if Stanford’s success is dependent on Apple’s success, then I suppose USC’s success is dependent on the drug hoodlums that deal coke on the streets.</p>
<p>Really the only justification you have that USC is such a fantastic wonderful paradise is SAT scores. Because SAT scores 100% determines prestige right? Let’s not forget that USC superscores their SAT scores, admits weaker students in Spring admissions, while UCLA, for instance doesn’t do any of that 
Doesn’t Stanford have way higher SAT scores and GPAs than USC anyhow? How in Stanford worried? LOL</p>
<p>But seriously, I would LOVE if you walked up to anybody in this country and flat out said that Stanford is sweating over USC. Keep it coming. He’s here all week folks :P</p>
<p>P.S. I don’t know any sane parent who would pay the same price for their child to go to USC over Stanford, unless they were like, you know, fools or something.</p>
<p>Stanford:USC::Columbia:Cornell</p>
<p>Stanford:universities:
tech companies</p>
<p>Apparently, reading comprehension suffers when you drop analogies from the SATs. Kids these days. Smh.</p>
<p>
You would need to replace Cornell with Tufts or Notre Dame to make the analogy work. Cornell is an extremely strong research university, only slightly behind Stanford and Columbia. </p>
<p>USC is not nearly on Stanford’s level. USC’s reputation with the public and academia is crippled by its lack of significant research or graduate programs. It has high SATs, sure, and a few good art programs. For everything else, from engineering to English to psychology, it’s not even close. Stanford is one of the few universities with top 5 programs in virtually everything. Stanford is up there with Harvard as the best in US and one of the 5 best in the world. Cornell and Columbia would probably make the top 10-15 in the world too. USC might finally make the top 20 in the US if it’s very lucky. USC is a very good and up and coming university, but let’s not turn it into something it’s not. The Ivies and other elite universities as yet have little to fear from USC.</p>
<p>I wanted to clarify my analogy. </p>
<p>Stanford is to Columbia and UChicago as USC is to Cornell and Northwestern. Dispite what doc is saying I do not believe that Stanford and USC are equals. I am also not saying that Columbia and Cornell are or Northwestern and UChicago. </p>
<p>As previously stated in my post. NY, CA, and IL each have 2 excellent privates. One is world-class, extremely selective (under 10%), small student body, huge endowment, major research that changes the world, tons of nobles, ect (read Columbia, Stanford, and UChicago). </p>
<p>The other private is known to be more well-rounded. Sporting great althetics, excellent professional programs, large and wealthy alumni, deep desire to strengthen their reputation, good research but not on the same level as the previously meantioned research unis, slightly less slecetive (under 20%) and larger student body. These universities are Cornell, USC, and Northwestern. </p>
<p>Please do not confused what I am saying with USC = Stanford. I am saying Columbia=Stanford=UChicago>>Cornell=USC=Northwestern. Simply the connection with USC and Stanford is that they are two highly respected yet different PRIVATE universities located in a populated and influencial state CA (similar to NY and IL). It just so happens that the Stanford-USC relationship parallels Columbia-Cornell, and UChicago-Northwestern. </p>
<p>I know you bruins are upset with the NYU comment, but ignore that and try to see it as your big brother little brother relationship with Cal, but slightly different.</p>
<p>Please refer to this STANFORD blog to understand what I am saying. <a href=“http://tusb.stanford.edu/2011/11/in-defense-of-usc.html[/url]”>http://tusb.stanford.edu/2011/11/in-defense-of-usc.html</a></p>
<p>Modern Man’s analogy is particularly apt. </p>
<p>My focus in the Stanford:USC analogy is solely undergraduate education and in that regard it is apparent the capabilities of the undergraduate student bodies are becoming quite similar as evidenced by SAT scores/ACT/grades/HS class standing. The academic focus of Stanford (STEM) vs. USC (more well- rounded) differs markedly as does the atmosphere on campus (USC) vibrant, Stanford (quiet), and campus layout --(USC) well-developed campus center (Stanford) decentralized to highlight a few setting differences. There is clearly a different feeling on each campus which will likely attract different students.</p>
<p>A friend with a son (pre-med) at Stanford and a daughter at a LAC college expressed it well…“We sent my son to Stanford for the prestige factor. My daughter is getting a better education”. Others will of course feel differently, but there is an interesting point here.
A different type of student and/or family might be influenced to choose Stanford for its perceived prestige, while a different cohort might choose USC for its present day undergraduate programs and atmosphere.</p>
<p>The school are very different on an undergraduate level. Based on the students who are being drawn to USC of late, there is an ever narrowing difference in academic capability which is or will soon be negligible. However, the academic interests and personalities of students USC and Stanford draws will likely complement each other. The only caveats I see for Stanford are (1) if they perceive themselves as better for all undergraduates and (2) if they perceive themselves as better due to rankings (whose flaws are a topic in themselves) versus the quality and breadth of undergraduate programs and student satisfaction.</p>
<p>With all due respect to the frustrated bruins, what you are failing to grasp is USC’s high speed trajectory. The fact that USC and Stanford are being mentioned just 2 years after the Campaign for USC was launched is outstanding. What do you think this discussion is going to be like once the campaign is complete in 2017 or 2018? </p>
<ul>
<li>Our facilities will be newer and better. UCLA’s last capital campaign was in the 1960s and some in the 1990s. </li>
<li>The Village at USC will rival the vacant Westwood. </li>
<li>How many nobels will we have? Remember 2 nobels were acquired in 2011 alone. UCLA currently has 2 on staff and one is 94. God bless him, but do you really think he will do more pivital research on his 100th birthday in 2018? Likely not.<br></li>
<li>Our endowment will be $6 billion, while Cal (which will always have and had a larger endowment) is wrapping up it’s $3 billion campaign. </li>
<li>What discoveries will we have in that time? I predict something revolutionary with our Stem Cell Research Lab that is fully staffed and headed by HARVARD’s old team.<br></li>
<li>How will Dornsife evolve in L,A&S?</li>
</ul>
<p>Thought I’d provide a fall 2012 applicant’s view on this issue. I will be attending USC in the fall, and as much as I love it, I perceive Stanford on a superior academic level in most disciplines. They have the faculty, the long time prestige, and highly qualified students. USC definitely has great students, great faculty, and is working on increasing the quality of both, but the time it takes for changes in academic perception is decades. And to presume that after decades USC could be on Stanford’s level of academic prestige is beyond hopeful. That said, I think there are many redeeming qualities of USC than one could argue in deciding to choose USC over Stanford GIVEN the case that USC cost much less (ex. scholarships students). In regards to USC and Cornell, once again academic prestige takes the cake. The Ivy League name helps Cornell, but it surely stands on its own as one of the nation’s premier schools. Many of Cornell’s programs rank higher and have a better reputation than USC’s schools, and the student body on the whole is regarded to be stronger (despite similar SAT scores). And the argument of similar SAT scores and acceptance rates is kind of shot down by the large disparity in yield (Cornell’s hovers around 50% and USC’s is usually around 33% but is expected to drop this year). In regards to UCLA, both schools accept students of extremely similar aptitude and offer similar experiences (big schools, big sports, variety of programs). Outside of California, I think the UCLA name will take you farther, but I think it’s silly to argue over which one is better when they attract such similar students. Yet any person who thinks USC is better because it ranked two positions higher than UCLA on ONE ranking list needs to calm down. Bottom line, USC is a great school that offers great academic and a great college experience. Yes, it’s in a crappy neighborhood. Yes, it’s made great strides in becoming a premier university. But UCLA has a strong academic name, which is rightfully deserves, which will hardly blunder with California’s financial crises. Stanford is Stanford and has nothing to worry about. I really love USC, even choosing it over Cornell because of the scholarship they offered, but we have to be objective in evaluating its prestige and know what it is and what it isn’t. FIGHT ON!</p>
<p>Yes, USC continues to push onward and upward, but the rest of the field isn’t exactly sitting still.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a reason Bruins refer to their school as Under Construction Like Always. The renovated Pauley Pavilion will host its first game in November, with a USC scion leading the men’s basketball team. 
And UCLA has ambitious plans for on-campus conference space – beware NIMBYs, though. (At the same time, the school is being sued for trying to raise cash by liquidating donated assets: [Hannah</a> Carter heirs sue UC Regents over planned garden sale - latimes.com](<a href=“http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/hannah-carter-heirs-sue-uc-regents-over-planned-garden-sale.html]Hannah”>Archive blogs))</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the Village will exceed Westwood. Thanks to the Expo Line, the Village could become downtown LA’s de facto retail destination. Westwood Village is tired and can’t compete with the Century City mall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same can be said for Gell-Mann, who’s in his 80s and holds appointments at 3 other institutions. The hope for USC (and UCLA) is that having such bright minds around inspires the next generation of thinkers. But there’s a big difference between hiring and producing laureates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While California may be in trouble, the UCs can still rely on hundreds of millions of dollars a year of state funding. A large endownment isn’t as critical for publics as it is for privates. And fyi, Stanford just completed a $6 billion campaign. In order to match Stanford’s endowment per student, USC needs to raise more than $30 billion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>University of Stolen Colleagues. 
USC following a model successfully executed by Duke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Biden would say, that was a big effin deal. While USC has historically had outstanding professional programs – e.g., accounting (big thanks to Bruin Ken Leventhal), architecture, cinema and engineering (big thanks to Bruin Al Mann for biomed) – the college of letters, arts & sciences seemed unremarkable. USC is already using Dornsife funds to steal more colleagues.</p>
<p>USC is doing great things. No need to discount what other great schools are doing. But certainly plenty of reasons to be excited.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s been argued that stanford is quite possibly the most well rounded school in the world. Yes, stanford, is good at stem fields. But that doesn’t mean it’s inferior in its other fields. On average with regard to nearly any humanities program, it’s likely that Stanford > USC.</p>
<p>USC lacking a specialty (like berkeley and stanford) doesn’t imply that it’s more well rounded. Another interpretation is just that it isn’t particularly strong in many fields, which is why few stick out. But again, USC being good in film doesn’t imply that it’s weak in stem fields. Both fields are completely unrelated and have no bearing on each other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, i’m sure that Stanford, an educational institution, and one of the most prestigious schools in the world, became that way by producing many billionairre tech tycoons with its “inferior education.”</p>
<p>The LAC arguments typically rely on student to faculty ratios. Lacs however are a double edged sword. Their small student to faculty ratios mean less faculty, to teach less classes, which result in less majors. Lacs may have their advantages, but they’re far from perfect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes, it’s very clear that you love your alma mater. But, i’m afraid to say, your love is making you delusional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s not forget wasserman:</p>
<p>[Campus</a> plans world’s leading eye research and patient-care facility / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/campus-plans-world-s-leading-eye-159053.aspx]Campus”>Newsroom | UCLA)</p>
<p>EDIT: this thread, specifically the comments comparing USC to Stanford, actually reminds me of one about USC versus northwestern. Especially Sharkfin’s post, which still makes me laugh:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12374153-post9.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12374153-post9.html</a></p>
<p>$140 million for putting Pauley under glass isn’t a significant capital campaign. Also, that Luskin Center may not happen due to red-tape at the UC Regents and in Sac. </p>
<p>[UC</a> president backs Jerry Brown’s proposed tax increase - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/local/la-me-0329-uc-regents-20120329]UC”>UC president backs Jerry Brown's proposed tax increase)
[$140</a> Million Buys UCLA an Old Pauley Under Glass - Bruins Nation](<a href=“$140 Million Buys UCLA an Old Pauley Under Glass - Bruins Nation”>$140 Million Buys UCLA an Old Pauley Under Glass - Bruins Nation) </p>
<p>UCLA has a beautiful and mature campus. Really, there is no need for new buildings. However, they are crumbling and are in need of major renovation. I am taking extension classes in Haines Hall and when I go into that and other buildings I notice that they are outdated and falling apart. If I was a researcher/professor, I would want better working/researching/labs. Which USC will be providing, a la Village, Social Science Building, New College/Engineering building, journalism building, ect… </p>
<p>Yes, we have an old nobel too and have not produced a nobel since the 1990s, but neither has UCLA. But, point is that we have 3 (2 acquired in 1 year) which is now more than your 2. As the campaign progresses, we will get more and no doubt we will produce more as the years go by. UCLA cannot buy nobels, a la USC in 2010s, or like Stanford did with Harvard&Cornell or Berkeley did with Yale way back when. USC is just playing the game and winning, might I add.<br>
[Nobel</a> Laureates | About USC](<a href=“http://about.usc.edu/faculty-distinctions/nobel-laureates/]Nobel”>http://about.usc.edu/faculty-distinctions/nobel-laureates/)
[Nobel</a> Laureates | UCLA](<a href=“http://www.ucla.edu/about/awards-and-honors/faculty/nobel-laureates]Nobel”>http://www.ucla.edu/about/awards-and-honors/faculty/nobel-laureates)</p>
<p>The measure of a successful UCLA grad is his ability to send his kid to USC…That actually happened to one of my roommies. His pop loved bragging to his frat brothers that his boy was at SC. :)</p>
<p>Kind of like marrying or trading up…</p>
<p>I live in southern Indiana, and will be attending USC next fall, so hopefully I can provide a little bit out of outside perspective.</p>
<p>I go to a high school of about 500 students, and I know a girl two classes ahead of me that applied and got into UCLA. She wasn’t even in the top 10 percent of her graduating class. I’m the valedictorian of my class, and I was sweating my admissions decision from SC. </p>
<p>USC’s rapidly increasing selectivity (18% acceptance rate this year) illustrates their rise as a university as well as the growing desire of students to attend. I saw a thread posted on CC a few weeks ago that had SC listed in the top 10 most desirable schools for both parents and students. I believe Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, and MIT were the other five to appear in both rankings. </p>
<p>Granted, USC still has ways to go before its academic prestige reaches the level of these other schools. But you would be straight-up ignorant to deny that SC is quickly gaining ground. </p>
<p>And to all the UCLA haters… seriously? You guys have an awesome school with lots of tradition. We have an awesome school that’s quickly on the rise. They’re both on the same level currently. Get over yourselves and quit clinging to outdated stereotypes. Rankings for california schools:</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Caltech
3a. USC
3b. Berkeley
3c. UCLA</li>
</ol>
<p>Fight on!</p>
<p>“It’s been argued that stanford is quite possibly the most well rounded school in the world.”</p>
<p>By who and based on what? Stanford parents and students who are candid, and those looking carefully at the departments at Stanford do not conclude Stanford is well-rounded</p>
<p>“USC lacking a specialty (like berkeley and stanford) doesn’t imply that it’s more well rounded. Another interpretation is just that it isn’t particularly strong in many fields, which is why few stick out.”</p>
<p>Footsteps, I hear footsteps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, it’s doubtful that any serious research is being done in Haines. Most of the serious STEM research is being done in south campus which, i might add, has very nice and modern facilities. I’ve honestly never thought that Haines was outdated. If any building on campus were able to be accused of being outdated and lacking modernity, it would probably be Bunche.</p>
<p>The buildings, however, get updated routinely. We just finished updating one of our main library, The Young Research Library</p>
<p>[UCLA</a> Young Research Library renovations completed; usage levels have doubled / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/research-library-renovations-completed-229453.aspx]UCLA”>Newsroom | UCLA) </p>
<p>This is in addition to the faculty and grad student gym, FEAST at Rieber, and the new dorms, and the south campus court of sciences. All of which, i believe were done last year.</p>
<p>As JJ alfonso noted, these are in addition to the many other buildings under construction. Wasserman is in progress, so is pauley pavillion, and the new housing for graduate students, the new dorms, and new parking structures, are all currently under construction as well. All should be completed within the 2012-2013 academic year </p>
<p>And projects to be announced sometime in the future would include the engineering building that was demolished earlier, and the luskin building if it ever happens.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you can believe that UCLA is stagnate, when there is heaps of evidence to support the contrary. Or perhaps you’re just trying to spread misinformation…</p>
<p>Also, for a more accurate article on the changes to PP, you can read this article here (which includes a video.)</p>
<p>[First</a> glimpse of Pauley Pavilion as UCLA prepares for fall 2012 reopening / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“Newsroom | UCLA”>Newsroom | UCLA)</p>
<p>Beyphy, I’d challenge you to explain why incoming USC freshman, for the past decade, have had higher SAT and ACT scores than their counterparts at UCLA. You can rail on about how the ARWU rankings should be what counts (after all, some rag that puts ASU firmly above both Dartmouth and Brown is quite credible), but how can you explain away objective measures that suggest, loudly, that USC undergrads score higher, on average, than UCLA undergrads? Having more intelligent colleagues certainly makes for a better learning experience. And btw, navigating a bloated, underfunded, and impersonal bureaucracy doesn’t make for a phenomenal college experience, it makes you disenchanted. Why does UCLA even offer classes if having easy access to professors, advisers and other resources isn’t important? They might as well just hand new Bruins a library card and say: “good luck!” As a 2012 USC grad, I can say, however, that USC does have its flaws: having to graduate and leave this school is painfully bittersweet.</p>
<p>“Beyphy, I’d challenge you to explain why incoming USC freshman, for the past decade, have had higher SAT and ACT scores than their counterparts at UCLA.”</p>
<p>a) USC superscores SAT scores. UCLA doesn’t. b) UCLA, being a state school, has to take a more holistic approach in taking students. This means UCLA sometimes has to take some of those students from low income backgrounds who generally have lower stats. USC, being a private school, isn’t bound by that. c) USC has a spring admission. They admit their weaker #s in spring so it doesn’t add up in their reports. UCLA only has fall admissions.</p>
<p>I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: SAT scores are not a 100% determinant in whether a school is better or not. SAT scores can be easily skewed and manipulated, as evident by USC.</p>
<p>And excuse me, but are you even a USC student? My Trojan friends complain about the USC bureaucracy all the time. Stop acting like USC is a tiny private school with 3,000 students. The school has freaking 16,000 undergrads. It’s basically a public school disguised with private school tuition.</p>
<p>ModernMan, just for the record, because you are an ignorant Trojan, bruinsnation.com is a community blog website. It has no official connection to UCLA. That article about Pauley Pavilion is just an angry rant by a poster. That article has as much credibility as the delusional fool in this thread claiming Stanford is the equivalent of clown college.</p>
<p>Without further ado, this thread has been closed for outright ignorance. Thank you for your understanding and ****. UCLA wins.</p>
<p>Wow. Thanks for catching that one.</p>