<p>“their applicant pool simply isn’t as good”</p>
<p>This brings up an interesting question. I remember USC released stats for their applicant pool - did the UCs do this also?</p>
<p>I think USC takes more white people and Berkeley/UCLA take more Asians…</p>
<p>that’s a bad generalization. Well shouldn’t there be more asians when the large applicant pool of California is diverse in color for UCs…since USC does not specifically cater to California, that’s why there is a greater non color populace.</p>
<p>" USC: 29.9% acceptance rate (2003 freshman class)
<a href=“http://afaweb.esd.usc.edu/USC-AFA/u...mages/ACF5F.pdf[/url]”>http://afaweb.esd.usc.edu/USC-AFA/u...mages/ACF5F.pdf</a></p>
<p>UC Berkeley: 23.9% acceptance rate
<a href=“Admissions | University of California”>Admissions | University of California;
<p>UCLA: 23.5% acceptance rate
<a href=“Admissions | University of California”>Admissions | University of California;
<p>So in terms of selectivity
- UCLA
- UC Berkeley
- USC</p>
<p>a related thread:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com…ead.php?t=48066”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com…ead.php?t=48066</a>"</p>
<p>Uscken the residet USC ■■■■■ you havent responded to awaken posts.</p>
<p>UCLA and UCB are more selective for the sole reason that getting a 1400< SAT makes you pretty much a guaranteed admit at USC but not at UCLA/UCB.</p>
<p>“that’s a bad generalization. Well shouldn’t there be more asians when the large applicant pool of California is diverse in color for UCs…since USC does not specifically cater to California, that’s why there is a greater non color populace.”</p>
<p>I wouldnt say that was true.In USC’s effort to milk as much money from alums which are more white than asian they have given legacies a big admissions boost and thats why I think its partly true.</p>
<p>um… er… USC? nah…
It’s really good for football, but academics? plenty of my friends didn’t even make UCSD and made USC… so bleh</p>
<p>Rexrun posted:</p>
<p>“dood, you don’t realize dat USC’s prestiege is going up pretty fast. Besides, I got into USC, UCB, and UCLA and our family has become divided because I want to got to USC, but my dad wants me to go to UCLA because of its closeness to our house and the $$.”</p>
<p>Rex, it makes a big difference if your driving to USC than UCLA two times every day in traffic. :)</p>
<p>[ol]
[<em>]UCB (38.4% Asian)
[</em>]UCLA (35.0% Asian)
[li]USC (21.0% Asian)[/li][/ol]</p>
<p>2005 Princeton Review Stats
USC- Caucasion 48%, Asian 21%
UCLA- Asian 40%, Caucasian 35%
Berkeley- Asian 41%, Caucasian 31%</p>
<p>i got rejected from the Architecture Program
GPA: 3.8 (pretty rigoruos)
SAT: 1430
Race: Asian
Portfolio: Pro
ECs:
2 sports (football, golf)
internship with an architecture firm, couple jobs, founder/vice pres of a club, over 300 hours of community service, more to lazy to list.</p>
<p>i got *****ing angry(dumb filter) when i got rejected, like really really angry (dumb filter).</p>
<p>i found out i got into usc today for the spring 06 term. i’ve been rejected by ucb, ucla, and ucsd. gpa 4.1w, sat 1290. i’m going to uc davis.</p>
<p>in my opinion, ucb and ucla are ahead of usc right now… but usc is rising</p>
<p>There are three fallacies everyone is making with their arguments:</p>
<ol>
<li>SELECTIVITY is not based solely upon admission rates. If this were true, then UC Santa Barbara (to further carry on the analogy), would be more selective than the University of Chicago. We all know this is not true. Stop posting that because Berkeley and UCLA have a lower admission rate, they must be more selective. </li>
</ol>
<p>Realize that there are lurking variables here, such as the fact that they are able to easily get more applicants because of the common UC app. To give an example, a student who is at UCSB-level academically - to quickly give an idea of his stats - wants to reach for Berkeley. All he/she has to do is check a box and pay another $55. If this same student wanted to reach for USC (or any other non UC school), he/she would have to fill out an entirely new application, write three essays, and so on. Applying to any private school outside of the UC common app takes work, and many who are not qualified don’t do it.</p>
<ol>
<li>The idea that no matter what the rest of your stats are, that if you have a high SAT, USC will take you. This is a great conclusion we’ve all come to. Did we ever consider the possibility that the UC’s just simply place little consideration on SAT scores (not just in relation to USC but the rest of higher education)? Notice that UCLA and Berkeley don’t just have offensively low SAT scores compared to USC, but compared to every other university level on their tier of academic prestige and some below (I believe even NYU has higher SAT’s - does this mean that NYU admits everyone with a good SAT)? </li>
</ol>
<p>That is likely why USC has surpassed UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<ol>
<li>The idea that “I know a friend who got into USC but not UCLA/Berkeley - therefore they’re more selective.” If you’re in HS and you’re saying this, you’re forgiven. If you’re in college, and heaven forbid if you go to UCLA/Berk and are saying this (read: flopsy), you should be embarassed. Consider taking a statistics class at your respective school (assuming it’s not been axed by budget cuts) to learn this is NOT how statistics work. Knowing a few people as an example out of tens of thousands is not convincing, empirical evidence to support your cause. Frankly, it just makes you look uninformed and uneducated (especially ironic when you’re trying to argue your own school’s selectivity). </li>
</ol>
<p>Personally, I know several people at USC who didn’t get into UCLA. Conversely, I also know several more people at UCLA who didn’t get into USC. But will you ever find me saying that because of this, USC must be more selective? No.</p>
<p>Berkeley is more selective than either school. USC and UCLA look at, and stress different things in their admissions process. End of story.</p>
<p>I can see your arguement, but this isn’t the statistics AP exam. The truth is all three schools are highly selective. Of course some people will be accepted to one school, and not the other; but how can you judge a person by numbers only?</p>
<p>I have no standpoint on this, as I was rejected by all three of the schools. I only ask you not to degrade flopsy. He has been most helpful in my (and I’m assuming others) college admissions processes.</p>
<p>Yours,
~shai</p>
<p>Thanks, shaiboy! :)</p>
<p>usc is the easiest of the three and usc is pretty non-selective anyhow…</p>
<p>all 22 people from my school who applied got in with SAT scores ranging from 1090-1410 (most of them fell in the 1200 category tho)</p>
<p>I did not only graduate from UC Irvine, but I am also attending USC for professional school. I am very familiar with the UC system, as well as USC. In short: USC is not as selective as UCLA and Berkeley…even with the advantages:</p>
<p>(1) Only half of the USC student population are undergraduate students. USC limits their undergradauate population. The UCs cannot do this because they are a public school and therefore, they are obligated to serve the growing California population and continue to accept more students each year. </p>
<p>(2) The UCs no longer place as much emphasis on the SAT I score because performance on the SAT I shows very little correlation with first year college grades, while it significantly correlates with family socioeconomic status (Please read “the UCs and the SAT” report). This would explain why USC students’ SAT I scores have been on the rise lately. </p>
<p>(3) USC offers early admissions. This means the applicants USC accepts will attend USC. Therefore, USC does not have to accept way over their capacity to get a smaller freshman class size. Many private schools do this so they would look good on the US News Ranking. The UCs do not offer early admissions. Many UCs have to accept 3x their capacity to get their freshman class size. </p>
<p>(4) USC offers many undergradate-graduate programs. For example, USC offers an 8 year undergraduate/medical school program. Those who are accepted to this program are guarantee admissions to USC medical school after they have graduated from USC undergraduate with a 3.0 GPA. This program attacts many top applicants, who are Harvard or Stanford caliber, to USC. Programs like this help USC attact many top applicants across the nation. </p>
<p>(5) USC, unlike the UCs, is not restricted to only accept a certain number of out of state residents. The UCs have to reject many top applicants not only across the U.S. but also around the world because they can only accept a very limited number of non California residents. In addition, many top non California applicants do not apply to the UCs because of this policy. This policy does not apply to USC. </p>
<p>Private schools like USC have many advantages over the UCs in terms of selectivity. These are just 5 examples. That is why everyone should take the U.S. News Ranking and admissions statistic with a huge grain of salt. </p>
<p>In terms of education, there is not much difference. Save your parents some money and go to UCLA. But in the sciences, the UCs are way ahead of USC. For example, USC is about 150 year old but it has only won 1 nobel prize while UCI is only 40 year old but it has won 3 nobel prizes. The USC campus is very beautiful but its surrounding just sucks. Frequently, students would receive emails of crimes against students. It is very disturbing to say the least. </p>
<p>I have probably offended many USC students. It is very different at USC. Students are taught on the first day to have pride in their school. USC develops this idea that their students belong to a very privelage club where its member will take care of each other. I guess I am breaking that tradition but I always call it as it is…good or bad. </p>
<p>P.S. In case you are wondering why I am attending USC…well because UCSF rejected me! hehe</p>
<p>*USC is about 150 year old but it has only won 1 nobel prize while UCI is only 40 year old but it has won 3 nobel prizes. *</p>
<p>USC only has one Nobel Prize? :eek:
UCB has eighteen. UCLA has nine.</p>
<p>*In case you are wondering why I am attending USC…well because UCSF rejected me! *</p>
<p>see, University of Second Choice :p</p>
<p>its also known as…</p>
<p>University of Spoiled Children lol</p>