<p>This is probably true. But I don't go to school to party and do keggers (I just enjoy them as a byproduct.) Since I plan on doing research in the long-term, I have to make sure that I mingle with big names in my field, and unfortunately, I just couldn't find them at USC.</p>
<p>To many, USC is the ultimate college experience, and I can completely understand why. However, for a research experience, UCLA has an undoubtable leg up.</p>
<p>"To many, USC is the ultimate college experience, and I can completely understand why. However, for a research experience, UCLA has an undoubtable leg up."</p>
<p>true that. go to a uc if you want a master's or a PhD. even thougha school like USC has plenty research oppurtunity, the UC system is a research power house. you would understand if you went to one and actually tried to find some research.</p>
<p>USC is world-class.. I've now convinced myself :)</p>
<p>I haven't worked in DC, but UCLA can play with big "boys". Also in research circle, USC was said to have connections with defense, security, etc. USC's ISI has an east institute, pure federal money. On USC campus, they have IMSC, ICT, Center for homeland security ... </p>
<p>If you are in research, you probably know that USC is catching up faster in this department. Please read thecenter.ufl.edu. The budget cut hurt UCs the most in faculty hiring. Anyway, UCLA still stole big ones from USC to boost some of its departments.</p>
<p>As far as I've know, USC grads go on to be a tenured or tenure-tracked professor at MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, Caltech, Princeton, Brown, CMU (computer science), and a countless of other schools, including UCLA, UCI, UCSB,UCSC, UMich, UMaryland, etc. Some who did PostDoc, or ever worked at USC went on to be the big man in their field. I happen to know these because some are in my field, some are known by my friends, a lot of whom are actually professors in these universities.</p>
<p>define "world-class":)</p>
<p>What do you see in it that makes it world class intelliot? I'm not arguing with you, I think extremely highly of USC, just wanna know your opinions.</p>
<p>Well, I'd say that one of the HUGE differences in favor of USC is that in USC no classes are taught by TAs. Every class is taught by a professor. And even though there are some big classes at USC, the average classes are much smaller (20-30ish students) as opposed to the multitudes of HUGE classes at UCLA. So if you want more personal attention, I'd say go with USC for sure.</p>
<p>TAs do not teach classes, they teach sections. There's a difference.</p>
<p>However, TAs teaching sections is a byproduct of the research focus. You get it at big research giants. I'm not defending it, just explaining it. I've had GREAT TAs though, so don't think that just because a TA is teaching that the quality of education is less. In fact, some of my TAs taught me lessons no professor ever would/could.</p>
<p>From a diehard Trojan's perspective (addressing the Washington DC/perception outside of CA thing):</p>
<p>The perception is that UCLA is more prestigious than USC. This is rooted in USC's dismissible history as always being second best, more expensive, and simply a football school. Fortunately, we all know that isn't true anymore. The University is doing a superb job of getting the word out, and even ran a full page ad in the Washington Post on January 5 (the day after the Orange Bowl) showing how USC has more National Merit Scholars than both MIT and Princeton, as well as which government branches currently fund USC research. Unfortunately, that's how things have always been (up until the latter 90's) and that's how people who don't follow these things (and really, the only people who do are college students who are affected and local recruiters) still see them. The majority of the public does not know that the average SAT for USC's 2005 admitted class was 1395, nor that the endowment has grown to 2.7 billion.</p>
<p>However, few can dismiss that USC is one of the rising stars among higher education institutions (perhaps the fastest rising star) and has set a trajectory for growth that is unequaled. At the same time, due to budget constraints, UCLA seems to remain stagnant, with good news only coming from the slight improvement of the caliber of this year's class as well as the Chancellor's push for private funds (Carnesale's taking a page from the Steven Sample playbook).</p>
<p>Yet perception is sometimes reality and most will agree, no matter how much arguing we do, many people will still think that UCLA is more prestigious. Thankfully, with the course USC has charted, this may not be the case in ten years or so. </p>
<p>Then we will be satisfied.</p>
<p>themegastud,</p>
<p>I think you hit it right on the nose. However, if I can do anything about it, your 10 year plan shall be foiled! Bwahaha! </p>
<p>Good luck Trojans, competition improves us both!</p>
<p>Oh yeah, to actually get back to what the poster wanted to hear,</p>
<p>The doors of Leavey Library, the 24 hour good-place-to-study/ultra-modern library, is literally a 30-second walk from the doors of Birnkrandt, a major res hall. From New/North, one minute. From Pardee, 3, from Marks/Trojan, 5. The inverse holds true for Doheny Library, the "in your face I'm old-school looking" majestic library: one minute from Marks, three from Birnkrandt.</p>
<p>I'll concede many things to UCLA, but when it came to campus layout, namely NOT sequestering the dorms in the corner of campus and adding insult to injury by putting a track stadium, IM field, and gymnasium in between, USC clearly opted for common sense.</p>
<p>Indeed Ari, I'm sure that one of the reasons why USC's administration has been so zealous is because they're tired of playing second fiddle to Westwood (though they'll never admit this).</p>
<p>Again, I concede that to you. UCLA, as I have fondly described it, is a Satanic punchbowl, whereby both your walk to and from class is an arduous trek uphill. Nobody believes me when I say that I go uphill to and from class, but a brief tour of Bruinwalk teaches them a lesson!</p>
<p>To be honest, I don't know why UCLA opted for such a strange layout, but I suspect it has to do with Pauley Pavillion...</p>
<p>Well, I think that USC, with its endowment, could stand to improve its academic reputation quite a bit.</p>
<p>However, remember that UT has a huge endowment, and still lacks in research reputation. Berkeley is always on the low end of endowment, but is still considered a beast in the research university world.</p>
<p>I suspect that both UCLA and USC are going to grow in the next decade, with UCLA under the leadership of Carnesale, whose goals more closely match that of a university of UCLA's caliber than that of Chuck Young.</p>
<p>Yeah,</p>
<p>Carnesale's former post was provost of Harvard so he not only knows how to fundraise like a private Ivy-Leaguer, but he also knows what to do with the money.</p>
<p>I'm done with UCLA, so I'm getting more "removed" so to speak, but I think that Carnesale is a boon. I'm just waiting to get milked, though...:-P</p>
<p>Thank your lucky stars that you're not registered as a USC alumnus then.</p>
<p>So what conclusion have we come to. I think USC is better.</p>
<p>I still say its department specific. One is better than the other in different areas. Overall it would be tough, I'd have to go with UCLA, but in a few years I think it will be undoubtably USC.</p>
<p>I'd like to say that's the likely outcome, but like I said before: Berkeley has been a giant for decades on an endowment the size of a pea.</p>
<p>There's more to it than money, it seems. USC needs to foster an environment that can pull big name profs and grad students. Once I see the departments that matter filling with big names (it's starting) then I'll be worried. :-)</p>