<p>I would prefer that UCLA had an undergrad b-school, just for a segment of the school’s students. But the name of the U is such that it doesn’t need one, somewhat if not entirely like Harvard or Stanford because it doesn’t have the name as those two. </p>
<p>You’ll find that alumni connections come into play for those who graduate at the top of their class or significantly high. No venture cap firm of decent size and repute will take a chance on someone in the middle of his/her class or lower, especially since USC graduates 20-25% of its 5,000 grads with bus related degrees.</p>
<p>UCLA is a much better all-around U:</p>
<p>-Much better STEM U, top-10 in the nation in pure nos in bac to PHD completions. </p>
<p>-Much better MD producing machine, a good 3x’s more MD’s to m-school every year.</p>
<p>-Much better atty producing machine, ~ 2.5-3.0 x’s more bar-listed attys in CA</p>
<p>-Much more future MBA’s with placement into better u’s because these grads had better jobs to gain standing to enter better b-schools, with higher mean scores on the GMAT. Part of this is also because USC has undergrad bus with a lot more of its grads forsaking grad school.</p>
<p>Generally, with the rep that UCLA has, it doesn’t matter the major: English for future MDs, history for future JDs, Philosophy or Engineering for future MBAs. USC, on the other hand, is all about major, which they need to compete. CSU has vocations, too, for the same reason, because they need to entice people by these majors.</p>