USC's academics are higher than UCLA's- Princeton Review
Just curious, why hasn't anyone cited this before? Princeton Review is highly regarded and gave USC an 87 and UCLA an 80 in academic quality, 100 being the best. I mean they gave Berkeley a 91 and Stanford a 99. Seems pretty accurate.
How do they calculate these rankings? Some seem okay, but then some seem decidedly odd, or at the very least unexpected. I would predict special programs or honors colleges within schools might reflect differences, but still.
Jumping on the nerd train I'm putting them in ranking order so everyone can react!
How hard students work and how much they get back for their efforts, on a scale of 60-99. This rating is calculated from student survey results and statistical information reported by administrators. Factors weighed include how many hours students study outside of the classroom and the quality of students the school attracts. We also considered students' assessments of their professors, class size, student-teacher ratio, use of teaching assistants, amount of class discussion, registration, and resources. Please note that if a school has an Academic Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us a sufficient number of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline."
Could someone give an average academic index of private universities listed above compared to public universities. Seems to me the index is biased towards private univerisities. Do a survey of students. Typically that is biased based on grades received. Private univerisities must give higher grades (grade inflation) to help justifiy return on investment (otherwise known as tuition). So yeah, it makes sense that usc is higher than ucla...
Haha. You know what I love about Bruins? They absolutely cannot admit the truth, USC is better and will surpass them in the rankings shortly. That's why the Daily Bruin writes several articles about how they should be scared, because their public school system is deteriorating.
USC does not have a grade inflation. Really, get with the times. USC is a strong contender who consistently improves in leading research and academics. Does USC still hold some stereotypes? Hell yeah it does, but what university doesn't?
UCLA has been stagnate in the 25th spot for a while now. Sure, it's a great number, but what does that say about their university's progress? Furthermore, what does it say about UCLA that USC, once ranked 47th, in a very short time caught up with them? USC is an aggressive university and Bruins need to read for once and see that USC isn't inferior. Also, USC does not cook their grade books. USC is on the semester system which means we have more time, UCLA is on quarters which means you go through more material in a short amount of time. Just because we don't have midterms every week doesn't mean that our academics are sub-par.
@DJS3CA: Haha. You know what I love about Bruins? They absolutely cannot admit the truth, USC is better and will surpass them in the rankings shortly.
I was expecting better critical reading ability from a USC student like DJS3SA (assuming you are one). Please re-read my entire post. Since when I became a Bruin? I have not mentioned anything about UCLA. I am affliated with neither UCLA nor USC.
It is odd to see so many private universities having higher academic index per Princeton review compilation (academic index of Princeton review must be distinguished from academics of the university itself). Very few public universities show up there. Hence my question. I did not mention anything about UCLA or even USC in my post.