<p>This is why I often argue that at this point, not only are we all grasping at straws to figure out which is better, we’re comparing apples to apples.</p>
<p>my point exactly.</p>
<p>
Just to comment on the Thornton Music program, in general its music program utterly dominates UCLA’s, but in certain areas such as opera and wind ensemble, UCLA is catching up (In terms of opera UCLA is arguably currently ahead).</p>
<p>I was accepted to both schools, as well as several other universities with strong music programs (Northwestern, Oberlin) and a few conservatories (New England Conservatory, The Peabody School), and I am currently seriously considering going with UCLA for vocal performance.</p>
<p>I have until tomorrow to decide so if anybody knows something in particular that I don’t about the vocal departments at both schools, that would be awesome.</p>
<p>well i know someone doing opera (well thats that she sings, she may study another form of voice) at USC, and i also know an opera singer at oberlin who wants to go to USC Thornton for grad afterwords…thats all i really know…not really familiar with the music schools…</p>
<p>The programs/departments I left out wasn’t because I’m just hating on USC-I just went by what US News had.</p>
<p>As to the beaurocracy, I’ve seen/heard UCLA and USC students speak of, but exactly what is it cuz I have no clue? Wouldn’t you pretty much be a number at any medium-large university? I mean, if you really wanted professor’s attention, you could just go to office hours at any university. Like…what are some examples of beaurocracy at UCLA being negative? Thanks</p>
<p>Bad bureaucracy story from a Bruin- I had a terrible time getting my fin aid straightened out my last year.</p>
<p>Granted, I have a friend at USC for grad school who has trouble every year too, so I guess it’s like oranges and oranages.</p>
<p>Some comments:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>UCLA is still not comparable to Berkeley, definitely more insecure one of the two. Bruins (or to-be) assume bashing and unfounded attacks to validate themselves.</p></li>
<li><p>Students at UCLA have huge quality “gap” as most at public schools .</p></li>
<li><p>UCLA is still better in Science and Medicine than USC, but not much else.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>alwaysthere,</p>
<p>You a future Golden Bear?</p>
<p>I hardly incite any attacks on my sister school, for she is fair and beautiful in the sciences and arts. I just love my school. </p>
<p>The gap you perceive UCLA is fairly pronounced at Cal as well, if you look at the similar dropout rates and the different percentiles for admits. It’s simply a consequence of having a “state mission.”</p>
<p>Well of course there’s going to be a quality gap, it IS a public school. In my view, the quality gap is going to be inherent following the admissions policies of the UC’s where they’re regulated of who they can and have to accept. For the acceptees on the lower end in terms of academic performance, it may just be due to poor opportunities as a result of financial matters or local environment, and thus they deserve a chance to flourish in a good environment where they hopefully aren’t limited. Accepting these students is necessary, as everyone deserves a chance, but is also a risk if they fail. If they fail, they’ll fail outside of life anyway, but if they have even any hope, they deserve a chance. </p>
<p>As for ‘unfounded attacks’, in the latter portion of this thread, I don’t see too many of them, although there are a few scattered ones. Most of the responses have been constructive. However, simply saying UCLA is ‘definitely more insecure one of the two’ for the reason of validating themselves seems to be more unfounded.</p>
<p>For the record, I don’t think USC is anywhere as selective as UCLA or Berkeley. My SATs - which indeed isn’t everything - of 1190 landed me with rejection letters from berkeley and ucla, but an acceptance from usc. I also know some guy who got 1180 and got into usc.</p>
<p>Academics at usc are good, they are also good at usc
however, ucla and and cal, are better overall instituions. They are more difficult to get into and are rated higher overall (not by a lot but still higher). USC has just started to gain a high reputation. My dad, who has lived in southern california for 55 years, still thinks as USC as a very inferior to UCLA. I think this is the general consensus among most adults. The football team brings a lot of attention that would go unnoticed without it. I agree that it is like comparing apples and apples, but still mantain my opinion that UCLA is overall a better school.</p>
<p>LAri, you’re one of the most rabid fanboys I’ve seen. </p>
<p>I also love my school, but I dont make it look better by bashing other schools.</p>
<p>I toured USC a couple of weeks ago with my daughter and I am fairly certain the admission rep said they had a large increase in applications this year and that their admission rate for fall 2005 was under 20% (a first), and that the average SAT was 1395 and GPA was 4.0. So, in terms of admission rate, USC definitely admitted a smaller portion of its applicants this year than UCB or UCLA. As others have pointed out, admission rate and selectivity are not completely synonymous, but certainly there is some overlap. USC’s profile is rising which means that, in general, they don’t have to dip as far into their applicant pool to fill their class. USC may have more flexibility because they are a private institution (admission practices are not under the same kind of scrutiny). Also, unlike UC, they look at recommendations and do interviews, which probably provides more insight into the applicant as individual. There are always students who are considered strong applicants for reasons other than their test scores and GPA – at USC, as well as at UCB and UCLA. </p>
<p>BTW, keep in mind that the statistics on test scores and GPA from College Board, Princeton Review, Collegedata, etc. are for ENROLLED freshmen, NOT for all admitted students. The stats on the enrolled class can vary quite a bit from the stats on admits.</p>
<p>i thought we were going to stop doing the “some guy i know got in with XXX score” reasoning for something.</p>
<p>and of all the posts here, wouldnt just saying the two are better than the other by simple virtue of someones bias from the past and a perception of selectivity are the last things to put right after such a statement?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give me one good example of me “bashing” another school, and I’ll apologize. I have pointed out what I believe to be strong and weak points, but I have patently refrained from bashing other schools.</p>
<p>In fact, I think I’ve been fairly even-handed in pointing out what I think are weaknesses of my own school.</p>
<p>“The stats on the enrolled class can vary quite a bit from the stats on admits.”
They’re invariably lower. The lower ranked a school is, more likely someone will use it as a safety.</p>
<p>Yeah, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that UCLAri has been more evenhanded, objective, and fair than all of us.</p>
<p>I think he’s referring to LAri, my evil twin.</p>
<p>USC admitted around 25% this year. not 20% or 29%. end of story.</p>
<p>yeah bubbles, and ur subtle "we got HYPMS to worry about " **** doesnt reek of any ■■■■■■■■</p>