Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

My friend is going to USC. He said it better at USC since the students ratio to professors is low. And that all students who enrolled and made it to thier intended major are guranteed to graduate within 4 years not 5 years. He said talked aobut how at UCLA you can not get the classes you wanted due to overpopulation and too high of a demand for class. Also since the budget cut all UC fees are going up about 25%. WHile private school like USC remains the same with great resources. Also, he gets his own apartment- a real nice living area unlike the dreadful residence hall for poor students. Also,he get to have 2,145 dollars to eat anywhere on USC CAMpus for a whole semester. He said that is why USC is clearly better than public school like UCLA. He did not mentioned any sports related subject. So, what do you

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:13 am: Edit

excerpt about Business Major

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the business scholar distinction, in case you haven't noticed yet, is completely meaningless. I will wholeheartedly agree with you about Professor Ellis, but aside from that, you are misleading people with your comments on USC. First of all, the professors at the Marshall School's undergraduate program are hardly "amazing." Did you know that the VAST majority of tenured professors and acclaimed research directors have nothing to do with the undergrad program and are instead teaching in the MBA program or housed in research centers such as the Center for Effective Organizations? If you ever have the opportunity, I highly recommend a trip over to Popovich Hall. Post a msg after that regarding which program you think Marshall values more. Furthermore (back to professors), we are not even taking into account the sad state of affairs at the College of LAS, where faculty quality is dismally low. Take a look at the NRC or USNWR Rankings and you will be surprised to discover that the faculty at USC isn't even ranked in the top 10 or 20 for the overwheming majority of disciplines. Also, please do not lead people to believe that classes at USC are small ("At USC you are not just a number"). You might have been in 304 heaven as a freshman, but you really should know better as a sophomore than to make comments such as the aforementioned. Operations Management? 300 people. Business Law? 300 people. Fundamentals of Marketing? 300 Finance? 300. Applied Business Stats? Oh, you guessed it--300 people. I could go on and on about the size of core classes, but I'll save the viewers the energy and simply say that the Marshall School has 4,200 undergraduates. That is 30% of the entire undergraduate population! Take a look at any of the top business schools in the country--especially the publics--and you will see that they offer students an outstanding first-rate education at a much lower cost. Haas, Kenan-Flagler, and Michigan have populations of nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of Marshall's. Oh, and in case any board people were thinking that they could avoid being around 300 other students in a lecture hall at Marshall by enrolling in the Marshall Honors Program, forget about it. It will be cancelled in the fall and will not be offered to current as well as incoming freshmen.

I appreciate your Trojan pride USC--but I just wanted to let people know that initial observations can be quite deceiving. There are many advantages to attending USC over places like UCLA and Berkeley. However, you simply cannot compare an education at Haas/BizEcon @ UCLA to one at the Marshall School.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit

I believe that attending USC gives one an advantage in the graduate school admissions process (again, mostly those of the professional variety) because you are far less likely to face any meaningful academic competition at USC than at UCLA. And as for the UCLA class size issue, I have plenty of friends who have small upper division sections in their classes at UCLA. My point was particularly targeting UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, which graduates 1/3 of the number of students USC's Marshall does and has only 13% of the total students (Haas is a 2 year program). Haas has a number of upper division courses with only 100 students enrolled. In addition, USC should not be compared to more prestigious institutions such as Stanford and Harvard because those schools have nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of the amount of students. Hence, whether you go to USC or UCLA, you will find that you will typically have to have a discussion section and that your lectures will be quite large. Call me crazy, but I don't feel a lecture with 300 students to be very different from a lecture with 500 students

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:26 am: Edit

Excerpt

The USC alumni support and networking opportunities are a myth. And even if they weren't mythical, they're far from enough to bump USC over UCLA. This is what USC peeps always lean on when defending their school. When you hear this, your B.S. meter should go off the chart.

As neither a UCLA nor a USC alum, and as a practicing attorney in Los Angeles, I can attest to UCLA's superior reputation. Between a UCLA candidate and USC candidate with comparable grades, our firm would take UCLA.

No one in his right mind who gets accepted to both, would pick USC.



It's strong, and it's true

Author: hotchickpatrol Date: Mar 18, 2003 7:31 PM EST

"I guess since you haven't graduated from either one, you really wouldn't have a way of knowing about the Alumni support or the quality."

Yes, perhaps. But I am on the hiring committee of my firm, and I and others on the committee rank UCLA candidates higher than those from USC. My friends -- and, I'm sure, other hiring committees -- at other large reputable firms also agree. Not having graduated from either school makes me an unbiased observer, unlike yourself. I'm all for school spirit, but, with all due respect, you need to wake up, trojanbabe.

My statement is very strong, but it's very true. The only reason to choose USC over UCLA is if you get a full ride or near full ride from USC. Otherwise, there are no tangible benefits to making such an ill-advised decision.

Anyway, for argument's sake, let's assume all things are equal (which, I vehemently maintain they are not), why the hell would you subject yourself to being in scary downtown L.A. over the West Side? Reputation and quality of education aside, there's something to be said about safety, even

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:47 am: Edit

Prettynail, I've said this to you before and I will say it one last time: you will not find "small classes and personal attention" at any university where there are 15,000 plus students. For that, you go to a liberal arts college or a smaller university.

I do not understand why you continue to ask the same question over and over and over again about UCLA and the UC system. You have already stated that you're going to UCLA in the fall. The deal is done. Make the best of it. It's a great school and if you are willing to put effort into your education you will have a terrific experience. Stop asking the same question again and again hoping for a different answer. If you are truly miserable at UCLA, you can transfer after your freshman year.

By Prettynail (Prettynail) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:33 am: Edit

For your information Carolyn i just asking a question. My friend just had me curious- that all. I just want to help some people dispell the typical "myths" of the UCLA vs . USC. Anyway lsitening to other people opinion is great since it is a free country.Carolyn just relax. With Love- prettynail

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 01:33 am: Edit

The Lexus Gauntlet
Bruins Win Second Annual Lexus Gauntlet Trophy Race
Trophy presentation set for June 11


June 4, 2003

UCLA's victory over USC in NCAA men's tennis regional action on Sunday, May 11, clinched the race for the second annual Lexus Gauntlet Trophy. A news conference has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 11 at 2:30 p.m. in the lobby of the UCLA Athletics Hall of Fame in the Morgan Center. At that time, the Southern California Lexus Dealers Association will present the Trophy to Bruin athletic director Dan Guerrero and members of the UCLA athletic department.

The sport-by-sport scoring for the trophy ended with each school scoring 55 points. USC scored the final five points of the competition by winning in women's rowing on May 10 and forcing the competition to tie breakers.

The first tiebreaker is head-to-head regular-season matchups. The final tally in that area was 16-16, forcing the competition to the second tiebreaker - head-to-head post-season victories. With its win in men's tennis, UCLA increased its lead in that matchup to 4-0. With no other potential post-season meetings possible, USC could not catch UCLA in this category, thus clinching the trophy for the Bruins.

UCLA trailed 50-35 in late April but scored 15 points and secured 2.5 others on the weekend of April 25-27 to pull into a 50-50 tie. The Bruin men's track and field team won its dual meet, 82-81, and the Bruin women's track and field squad beat the Women of Troy, 104-59. In women's water polo, a 7-6 sudden death overtime win over USC not only secured a place in the MPSF Championship game but also secured the five points allotted to the season series winner, UCLA (3-1). A USC win would have tied the season series, thus giving 2.5 points of the five points to USC. In women's golf, UCLA placed third at the Pac-10 Championships, one stroke ahead of fourth-place USC.

UCLA's 27-stroke victory over Arizona in the Pacific-10 Conference men's golf championships on April 30 gave the Bruins a 55-50 lead in the race.

The Bruins and Trojans compete against each other in 18 sports. Five points are awarded to the winner of the each sport's season series or, for those sports that don't meet head-to-head, the team that places higher in the conference championship (10 points are awarded in football, men's and women's basketball and women's volleyball). The Lexus Gauntlet trophy winner needs 57.5 points to clinch the victory outright. If both schools end up with 55 points, a tiebreaker is implemented.

UCLA won the competition in 10 sports that award five points each. USC won the competition in seven sports, three worth 10 points each and four worth five points. The two schools split points (five each) in women's basketball.

The Southern California Lexus Dealer Association is the title sponsor of every USC-UCLA athletic competition. This is the first time the two universities have partnered with a corporate entity for complete rivalry sponsorship. In the fall of 2001, the schools signed a 4-year contract of undisclosed terms with Lexus, America's best-selling luxury automotive manufacturer for three years in a row.

Up-to-date releases and point standings can be found at www.gauntlettrophy.com.

By Lynn (Lynn) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I sense that this thread was started to continue the UCLA vs. USC debate, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. My daughter was accepted to both UCLA and USC, among other schools, but chose USC. She is very happy with the decision she made. I've known students who are happy with their decision to attend UCLA, too. You have to find the school that is right for you.

My daughter just completed her freshman year in the Thematic Options Honors Program. She also had a few classes outside of the program. The TO classes are limited to 25 students and are academically rigorous. Obviously, in such a small class, students receive personalized attention. Her classes outside of TO were never more than 35 students (beginning foreign language), with a couple of them under 25 students (classes within her major).

I don't know anything about UCLA's meal plans, but I am familiar with Westwood and there are more upscale and interesting places to eat in the Village than there are in the areas surrounding USC. I've never heard of anyone who is completely happy with their college meal plan because it usually involves overpriced food and requiring that too much be eaten to get one's money's worth. USC does have lots of options for food on campus: Wolfgang Puck, Carl's Jr., Betty Crocker Kitchen, Baja Fresh, Rice Bowl, a salad bar, Jamba Juice, Krispy Kreme, EVK, Ground Zero, and a bunch of others I don't know the names of (some grill restaurant and others). There is a Food Court in the University Village across the street from campus that houses many different ethnic food options. I would imagine that UCLA has similar food resources.

As for housing, both USC and UCLA have problems in this area. I heard from several students from UCLA that freshmen were routinely placed in double dorm rooms with two other roommates, making for a very cramped year. USC does a good job of housing freshman, but in subsequent years it all depends on your luck in the housing lottery. My daughter and friends are living in an off-campus apartment next year, but it is less expensive than living on campus. I don't know that UCLA even pretends it will house students beyond their freshman year.

I would not listen to the opinions of a person who did not attend either school. Law firms are going to be most concerned with where a prospective employee attended law school, not their undergraduate education. My husband is an attorney, and I would agree that UCLA's law school has a stronger reputation than USC's, but bottomline is that Berkeley's Boalt Hall and Stanford has them both beat. You must look closely at what both UCLA and USC have to offer in YOUR major. For my daughter, she was comparing a totally theoretical approach at UCLA to a technique-driven, hands-on technique at USC. She preferred the latter.

I wouldn't attend any school based on networking promises just because that isn't the biggest criteria for choosing a school. All colleges have networks. My dh and I didn't attend UCLA or USC, but our alma mater, though much smaller than either of these universities, had a decent network. USC's network is strong though. A friend of mine who is a USC grad and an attorney, made some calls for us when my daughter applied to USC just to find out her application status and info about the Trojan Marching Band and TO Program. He received return phone calls within the hour on all requests because, in his words, "That is part of the networking respect." My daughter is doing an incredible internship this summer with USC alumni who head up a corporation, and is being treated quite well in addition to attending some expensive per-plate functions (at no-cost to her) in which she is networking with even more USC alums who can help further her career.

If, as Carolyn has stated, you've already decided to attend UCLA, be happy with your decision. I'm sure you've already put considerable thought into your decision. If you haven't decided yet, then keep asking, but do your own homework, too.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

If you are smart enough to receive full or half scholarship, you should go to USC. They take care of you very well. (even dorms are separated from regular students).

Money talks.

But if you are not that smart,forget about it.

USC is very expensive and not worth it.

Campus comparison

・USC 140 acres with 28000 students.
(0.005 acres per student in a ghetto area)

・UCLA 420 acres with 35000
(0.012 acres per student in Westwood)

・Caltech 119 acres with 2000 students
(0.60 acres per student in Pasadena)
・Stanford 8000 acres with 20000 students
(0.40 acrea per student in Palo Alto)

By Greenmoo04 (Greenmoo04) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Why does your post have squares in it?

By Lynn (Lynn) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:20 pm: Edit

For someone who did not attend UCLA, you certainly spend an inordinate amount of your time pushing its virtues. Boy, my dh is an attorney, and he is too busy to spend time chatting on forums. What sort of attorney are you, anyway?

My daughter did happen to receive a half-tuition scholarship as well as additional grants and National Merit Scholarship. Your information about separating scholarships from the other students in special dorms is incorrect. These students have the OPTION of living in honors dorms and many choose to do so in order to be with "kindred spirits." However, just so no one gets the idea that this is special treatment, the Honors dorms are the oldest on campus and have the smallest rooms.

Comparing the number of total student population to campus space is also misleading. Of the approximately 29,000 USC students, only 15,000 of them are undergraduates and a many of the students attend the medical sciences campus, not the University Park Campus. USC is 185 acres, not 140. Though it is smaller than UCLA, and less populated, 65% of USC students live on campus while UCLA can only offer housing space to freshmen (and not even all of the freshmen).

If space and amenities were the only selling point for colleges, then Pepperdine would have it all over both USC and UCLA with 7900 students (just under 3000 undergrads) and 830 acres and abundant student housing on campus (spacious duos, all with a suite bathroom set-up, and many with a view of the ocean).

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 04:43 pm: Edit

>For someone who did not attend UCLA, you certainly spend an inordinate amount of your time pushing its virtues.

Same to you.

>Boy, my dh is an attorney, and he is too busy to spend time chatting on forums. What sort of attorney are you, anyway?

I don't know how you got an idea that I am an attorney. (the other post was an excerpt)


>My daughter did happen to receive a half-tuition scholarship as well as additional grants and National Merit Scholarship.

I was right. USC buys top students and top
Profs. As I said your D has a reason to go to USC. (and you are bought out by USC.)


>Your information about separating scholarships from the other students in special dorms is incorrect. These students have the OPTION of living in honors dorms and many choose to do so in order to be with "kindred spirits." However, just so no one gets the idea that this is special treatment, the Honors dorms are the oldest on campus and have the smallest rooms.

Nice try. everybody knows that USC separates
top students from the rest.

USC's three tiers.

・Top Students (Full or half Scholarship)

・Top Atheletes

・Suckers

>Comparing the number of total student population to campus space is also misleading. Of the approximately 29,000 USC students, only 15,000 of them are undergraduates and a many of the students attend the medical sciences campus, not the University Park Campus.

・So 14,000 students are Premed or medical 　　　students, right?

・How big is the medical sciences campus.
20 acres?

＞USC is 185 acres, not 140. Though it is smaller than UCLA, and less populated,

・USC 29000 185 acre
・UCLA 36000 420 acres

USC is less populated. Did you pass math test?


>65% of USC students live on campus while UCLA an only offer housing space to freshmen (and
not even all of the freshmen).

Which makes USC even more crowded.

>If space and amenities were the only selling point for colleges, then Pepperdine would have it all over both USC and UCLA with 7900 students (just under 3000 undergrads) and 830 acres and abundant student housing on campus (spacious duos, all with a suite bathroom set-up, and many with a view of the ocean).

As a matter of Fact, Pepperdine is getting better.

Well, 420 acres in Westwood vs 185 acres in Ghetto.

Your D got Half Scholarship and I believe that is one of the big reasons why you have sent your D to USC.
I think it was a wise choice.



As I said if you get full or half Scholarship,
go USC. They take care of you very well.
But if you don't get any. Don't go there, you will be a sucker at most.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 07:04 pm: Edit

>USC's network is strong though. A friend of mine who is a USC grad and an attorney, made some calls for us when my daughter applied to USC just to find out her application status and info about the Trojan Marching Band and TO Program. He received return phone calls within the hour on all requests because, in his words, "That is part of the networking respect."

Well her D was bought out by USC with scholarship.


According to LA Times,
USC grads average income was 68K while
UCLA was 75K.

68K is very weak considering 1/3 of UG are
B-major. End of good networking story.

>the Marshall School has 4,200 undergraduates. That is 30% of the entire undergraduate population!

>The USC alumni support and networking opportunities are a myth. And even if they weren't mythical, they're far from enough to bump USC over UCLA. This is what USC peeps always lean on when defending their school. When you hear this, your B.S. meter should go off the chart.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 11:25 am: Edit


University Second Class

Historically, it's been for academic doofi with well-heeled parents. For about the past 10 years, it's been on the up-tick and admissions is getting more competitive, though they still play games with some of their published comparisons...and aren't alone in this.

Some of the grad schools--Film, Music, Dentistry--are outstanding. The undergrad music is supposed to be pretty good. A lot of the undergrad business majors are weak stuff from what I've heard, including from students and employers.

There's virtually _nothing_ to do in the area around campus, which--while some of the crime reports are hysterically overblown--is not the kind of place that you want to walk around casually after dark; so you will want/need a car.

Greek life is fairly active. It's got to be one of the top ten most obnoxious colleges in the country with respect to its sports teams.

I'd demurr from Creatorcat's "obviously prestigious" (obviously expensive, yes) but go along with "reasonably good academics" (but not stellar)

By Lynn (Lynn) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 12:20 pm: Edit

{For someone who did not attend UCLA, you certainly spend an inordinate amount of your time pushing its virtues.}

>Same to you.Nice try. everybody knows that USC separates
top students from the rest.

Yes, did you? Speaking strictly by the numbers, UCLA is more populated. You are speaking of density. If UCLA is so "roomy," why can't they guarantee housing to even their freshmen, housing those freshmen who do get campus housing 3 students to a double room? Beyond the freshman year, UCLA students do not receive on-campus housing. Acreage means nothing--just lots of space between buildings. The teacher to student ratio is higher at UCLA than at USC, more evidence that UCLA is more populated.

>As I said if you get full or half Scholarship,
go USC. They take care of you very well.
But if you don't get any. Don't go there, you will be a sucker at most.<

Sounds to me like someone is sour grapes over not qualifying for a good merit scholarship at USC.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 02:20 pm: Edit

>Sounds to me like someone is sour grapes over not qualifying for a good merit scholarship at USC.

Your D is fine. She can take advantage of the situation. Your D will be treated very well on the sacrifice of other suckers.

I am saying that if students
are not like your D, don't go there.

Sour grapes?

For what?

Sounds to me like someone was bought out by USC
with money and is trying to justify the situation.

By Lynn (Lynn) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 03:16 pm: Edit

>Sounds to me like someone was bought out by USC
with money and is trying to justify the situation<

You seem to lack reading comprehension ability. Since this was explained in two other posts, I won't reiterate my daughter's reasons for choosing USC over UCLA again. She had a Regent's Scholarship at UCLA, so money had nothing to do with her decision.

By Lynn (Lynn) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Just noticed that my message to you that was posted this morning was truncated, so I'll try it again. It makes my response to your question of my math ability rather confusing. I won't post that part again.

For someone who did not attend UCLA, you certainly spend an inordinate amount of your time pushing its virtues.

>Same to you.Nice try. everybody knows that USC separates
top students from the rest.<

Since you do not go to USC and since my daughter does, I am more of an authority on this than you. USC does not separate top students from the rest. Two-hundred members of the freshmen class are selected to participate in the Thematic Options Honors Program. There are more than 200 top students. Not all of the scholarship recipients are in this program because it is not required. The Honors Dorms are an option, but many top students choose to live elsewhere. You may be referring to the students in the Residential Honors Program, a program for high school seniors in which they can complete both senior year and freshmen credits. They either commute or are housed together in the Honors Dorms. Given their age and the fact that this is a separate program, it is understandable that USC wants them housed together. If you think scholarship students receive other special treatment, you need to specifically state what you think that special treatment is.

My daughter chose USC over UCLA after visiting and interviewing at both campuses. She was offered admission to both with good financial aid packages from both. She chose USC because they have a stronger department for her major than UCLA does.

By Lynn (Lynn) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Well, it got truncated again. Can anyone tell me why this is happening? The preview post was all there. Interesting that it was truncated in almost the exact same place. Sorry, this makes the beginning of the post confusing yet again.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 05:46 pm: Edit

You don't have to argue with me.
Your D got a good deal. Your D is a fine .
You can brag about your D all day long.

What I am saying is that if students are not
like your D, they'll be suckers.
30K or more for USC is not worth it.

Period.

By Lynn (Lynn) on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. That is simply yours. My opinion is different. I have a hard time with any university education costing around $30,000, but that is the way it is in today's market. I think the cost is inflated so that the schools can then offer generous aid and get the number down to what you would spend if you were attending a UC school. USC is just as worth the $30,000 as any other private college and more worth that price tag than a vast majority of them. State Universities are less expensive--some are good and some are not. I just think it is wonderful that there are so many options and that everyone can find a school that fits their academic needs and their pocket book.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 02:40 am: Edit

My opinion

USC's three tiers.

・Top Students (Full or half Scholarship)

・Top Atheletes

・Suckers

Don't go there. Not worth it.

Lynn could defend it 'cause her D pay less than half the tuition.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 02:50 am: Edit

From Daily Trojan

Andrew Dalton

Confessions of a true blue-and-gold Bruin lover


I've got a secret. I've been living a lie. I've tried to make myself change, but I can't. I've been trying to hide the truth from my friends, my family and my fellow students.

But as bile is spewed around me, as the bonfires burn and the sleepy guards watch over Tommy Trojan, I just can't hold it in anymore. I've got to come out of the closet.

I don't hate UCLA. In fact, I really like the place. In many ways I like it better than our own fine institution.

There, I said it. I feel better already. Let me get a tissue, and we'll go on. While cardinal and gold suit me just fine, I'll admit, with my wintry complexion I prefer cool blue. It offsets my eyes.

Consider the price of the two schools. In-state undergraduate tuition and fees at UCLA came to $4,225 for this academic year, according to the school's financial aid office. USC's tuition and mandatory fees came to $26, 954 for the year. That's more than six times as much.

While USC has outperformed UCLA in football for the past few years and while academically USC has gained quite a bit of ground on its publicly funded rival, is USC six times better than UCLA in all these ways? Even the faithful of Troy can't make such a claim.


You, young Trojans, are getting ripped off. Or your parents are at least.


Some of you are proud that this place costs so much. You think it's proof of your social class.

If you enjoy paying six times as much for an education that is slightly inferior to the cheaper one, congratulations. I just hope you're not going to the business school.

And those of you who have had to pay your own way as I have might be humming a different tune than "Fight On!" when you're still paying off your student loans in 20 years.

By the way, isn't "Sons of Westwood," a catchier romp than our belligerent fight song? And the UCLA band doesn't show up on television wearing those embarrassing sunglasses, as though being in a marching band and wearing a fuzzy helmet weren't any different from being a rockstar.

And can the surgery-enhanced blondes that roam our campus really compare with the Pacific Rim beauties from UCLA? Maybe I've just got an Asian fetish, but I don't think so.

Consider also the political devotion of the two student bodies. A group of UCLA students went on a hunger strike a few years ago demanding a Chicano studies program. Now I'm not in love with the idea of a Chicano studies program, and certainly don't think it's worth starving yourself over, but you have to admire their sense of social responsibility. I tried to imagine such a thing happening at USC. What might our students go on a hunger strike for? Maybe for another Carl's Jr. on campus, one that doesn't close at 7 p.m. (A worthy cause, to be sure, but I think you get my point.)

USC squanders the advantages it does have. Consider the two schools' locales. USC is at least in the gritty center of Los Angeles, a true urban university, unlike the stuck-up West side that UCLA calls home.

But USC students don't appreciate their home. They go here in spite of, not because of, the neighborhood, and most would probably prefer spending a Friday night in Westwood with its vast entertainment possibilities and chain-restaurant dining options. USC students don't play up their street credibility, they do the opposite.

They sneer at Bruins for being poor public school kids. Many questions arise, I know, as you read all of this.


I hope that my coming out today will give others courage to do the same. I know you're out there, you who are at USC because it has a film school, or because your parents wouldn't have it any different, or because you couldn't get into UCLA. It's OK. You don't have to live a lie anymore. Take off that "FUCLA" T-shirt. We'll start a support group and get through this together.

By Tsdad (Tsdad) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 09:42 am: Edit

I really, really hate this stuff. It is so useless. My son is off to USC to do film. We visited UCLA and were mightly impressed. But being an out-of-stater there wasn't much hope of getting in. Plus the film program is smaller and doesn't start until the third year. It wasn't the right school for my son.

Neither my son or I feel it necessary to run down UCLA to make us feel better about USC. This whole thing is such a waste of time. It's worse than the Duke-Carolina stuff.

By Lynn (Lynn) on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Thank you, Tsdad. You'll notice that I haven't run down UCLA either. It is a good school, but wasn't the best for my daughter's major either. USC was better. For film, USC and NYU are the top in the country so your son made the right decision. I don't believe in the "one size fits all" theory for choosing a university. Since we are all unique individuals, we have to search for the school that best meets the needs of that particular individual. Stanford and Harvard are fabulous schools, but certainly not the best choice for everyone--even everyone who is admitted.

You'll notice that this particular UCLA troll is on many of the threads and has annoyed many people. He hasn't attended either school, yet uses other people's posts to try to support some idealized vision he has of UCLA. If we wanted to, all of us could use the search engine and look for posts from other people that trash UCLA. I'm sure they are there because, you are right, the UCLA vs USC rivalry has been going on for years. I just don't think it is right to use other's posts without their permission.

No matter what a person says about USC or one of the other UC schools, the UCLA troll will just say, "They are wrong, I am right"--argument that lacks both authority and validity. The saddest thing is that he'll probably respond to this post with some witty argument like, "So are you" or that horse he has beat to death, "USC is only good because you pay half-tuition." I don't mind a good debate, but I'm done with this one because the troll can't produce any good arguments, only arguments of the "so's your mother" ilk. We're on to you, Shitak... and no one is listening any longer.

By Shitakirimusume (Shitakirimusume) on Saturday, June 21, 2003 - 01:13 am: Edit

Nice try.

By Uschicka (Uschicka) on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 12:35 am: Edit

I will be going to USC and I am already caught up in the rivalry with UCLA. However, that does not mean that I am going to say UCLA is a terrible school- it isn't. That goes for USC too. It is a great school. Both schools have positive and negative aspects and everyone needs to stop saying either school is an awful school just because they don't like it.

I also will add that just because I am going to USC does not mean I am rich or feel superior to everyone else. I am NOT rich and I would love the school even more if it were cheaper. I am not going there because of the name or the price tag, but because I fell in love with the school: its academics, its spirit, its people, everything. Did you ever think there might be a reason someone goes to USC other than that they like the name or image of spoiled children? That they might actually just WANT to go to USC?

People also need to stop saying USC buys its students. I worked incredibly hard in high school- both in and out of it- so that I could get into the school of my choice. USC admissions is getting more and more rigorous, with its incoming freshman stats continuing to increase.

Another important factor: going to USC does NOT mean that I got rejected by UCLA. I didn't even apply- not because I didn't think I could; I got into Berkeley and other such schools. I didn't apply because they didn't have anything close to my major. That is just another of the many reasons I chose USC.

By Sctrojan (Sctrojan) on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 05:52 pm: Edit

I go to USC and love it there. If you are a prospective student don't let these comments scare you. You won't be a 'sucker' if you didn't get scholarships or aren't a perfect student. The campus is beautiful, there a million different groups to get involved in, students are upbeat and spirited, students take academics seriously, and the school is very connected to LA. As mentioned before there are definitely better departments to be in but that depends where your interests lie. I definitely disagree with comments stating that USC networking is a myth...a degree from this school carries weight.

Personally I think there is a lot of resentment toward USC out there because frankly people who aren't connected can't break into the circle. We're a tight-knit group and have pride in our university.

Parents who are sending your kids to USC, I can promise they're going to be presented with a lot of opportunities and will really enjoy themselves. Be proud to be part of the Trojan family.

By Uschicka (Uschicka) on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Amen.

By Nedwong (Nedwong) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 03:52 am: Edit

Except for the arts, UCLA is superior academically. There is absolutely no question. And this is not bruin-pride speaking here as I have not attended either school (Stanford), but I do have friends conducting research at both and these are my two cents.

Research monies/funding:
UCLA no contest. $800 million vs $400 million. yea, UCLA is larger, but can one really blame the discrepancy on the size of its student body? And the thing w/ funding is that the better the research, the more funding you get -> the more funding you get, the better the research. Its a cycle SC has been unsuccessful at cracking until lately. USC is just beginning to show signs of relevance as a research institution. By this criterion, USC is more in line with lesser UCs such as UCI or UCSB, the latter two of which also have more research productivity than USC.

Faculty productivity:
Again, UCLA by far. *FAR* more guggenheim fellows, AAAS members, pivotal publications occur at UCLA - see below.

Nobel Laureates:
UCLA: 5 faculty, 4 alumni
USC: 1 faculty(Olang - recently), 0 alumni

Academic Prestige:
UCLA. Ask anyone at Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc which is more highly regarded. Lets be serious, UCLA carries more weight. But SC is no chump either. SC carries weight of its own too.

Percent of Progams ranked in top ten nationally: UCLA without question. UCLA programs lead the nation in their fields. USC's faculty are generally mediocre, and the number of programs in the top of their disciplines is scant.

BUT - If you like architecture, cinema, music, journalism, and business - then USC is def a contender. Its very strong in the humanities. esp architecture and cinema.
If you are into cutting-edge science, law, etc; stuff that will get you into biotech, genetic engineering, physics, nanotechnology/chemistry, computer science/engineering, law/politics, english, medicine, - UCLA without question.

And I disagree about the Business-econ vs Business
alone thing. I am an econ major who got an MBA
(Kellogg). Matter of fact, econ majors get every bit the consideration business majors do toward grad school; maybe even more these days. econ is more of a "hard" science and has more direct relevance to finance/banking than "business".

I think the gist of my post is, beyond the quantifiable attributes of academic quality - of which there is simply no contest, whether USC or UCLA is better depends on the all-important "feel" alluded to earlier. See which fits you best.