UCLA vs. USC

dyip10 · May 10, 2006, 10:59pm

My point is what happens after you get the job? Once you land your job, the future of your job is entirely in your hands. You will get promoted and raises based on your performance compared to your peers not based on your USC diploma. Yes, the “academic argument” of UCLA is that UCLA can better educate and enrich an individual to succeed in the long run. Okay, so maybe USC might help you find your first job but in the long run what happens? USC will help you again when you decide to change companies? Recent grads make nil unless you’re doing investment banking. If you’re doing accounting or finance for a Fortune 500 company, you won’t make $100,000 your first year.

What opportunities has UCLA given me? Well I’m a fall admit, so I would have to say none. But as an Alumni Scholarship recipient, I have dealt with the UCLA Alums at different Alumni events I have been invited to even though I am not even a student yet. You have your Trojan family, I have mine.

UCLAri · May 10, 2006, 11:08pm

dyip,

I was an Alumni Scholar as well, and did some work with the mentor program. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.

Please. :)

dragon17 · May 10, 2006, 11:57pm

MrTrojanMan, I think you are preaching to the wrong crowd. Making such unjustified and unsubstatiated statements like “USC has more resources than UCLA” only reflects poorly on the true caliber of USC students.

flopsy · May 11, 2006, 1:32am

I wish I had the patience to reply to myself nine times in a row… :rolleyes:

donmesw · May 11, 2006, 1:58am

^ yeesh…amen to that.

DRab · May 11, 2006, 2:56am

MrTM, anything I’ve written is a response to something you’ve said. You should be able to figure it out with your superior USC education. I even use your diction to make it clear for you. Sorry if you can’t understand.

MrTrojanMan · May 11, 2006, 2:48pm

“The “money argument” is not moot, because for most people, UCLA is cheaper. Sure, some cases are different, but the major is important.”

that does nto make sense. how is “the major important”? and didnt you juts say yourself that some cases are different? does it suck that i probably pay less for my education than you do? or that i live in a much more normal city with normal people?

“Living alumni is important, but alumni connection to each other is of more importance, as long as they are in enough places and high enough.”

that doesnt make sense. living alumni are important but the connection to each other is of more importance huh? the connection to each other…thats so elegantly articulated.

“Westwood is not ritzy suburbia, really. It’s not a suburb, it’s part of the spread out city of LA. It’s fairly ritzy, sure.”

if westwood isnt a suburb do you mind telling us all what it is.

“USC law isn’t even the top echeloned of law schools, the top 3/10/14. It is right below 14 or so, though, but considered more regional than national.”

yes, captain obvious, USC is not a tip top law school. the point i was trying to make is that the affinity my gf has for USC is so powerfull that she was willing to for go columbia, yale, nyu (nyu accepted her in jan, two weeks after she applied), and even harvard to attend USC (a much lower ranked program). she wrote an adendum to USC saying that she would go to USC over columbia (before she got accepted to harvard) if she got full tuition. the dean called her personally, letting her knwo she would get full tuition. but wait, back to the point… 3/10/14, huh? man, what the blood are you trying to say? nevermind dont even bother.

“So being Harvard grads makes them good, impressive people?”

YES. and it makes them a credible source of info. like when somebody is choosing between USC and harvard. like when my gf asks these people whats right for her. atleats they would give better advice than you.

DRab · May 11, 2006, 4:20pm

Yes, here I was unclear. I meant for the majority. Most people pay less at UCLA than USC. Yes, some do not, but most do. It is a case by case basis, but so is academic program quality.

My style is solely for the purpose of pleasing your polite self. I am saying that two things are important- 1. how many living alumni you have and 2. how high these alumni are in the fray of the world, as in how high they are in the corporate ladder and in positions in which they can help you. If you have 6 alumni and theyre all presidents of countries and CEOs, they probably dont do so much for the schools alumni as a whole because there are so few, even though they are in high positions. USC has a good amount of living alumni and theyre supposedly well distributed in good companies. UCLA has more and they seem to be distributed in a fairly similar way. Id say the difference is really the identity- many Trojans think of themselves as Trojans before thinking of themselves as other things, as if its a crucial part of them, more so than Bruins do. Get my point?

IRVINE.

It is not obvious that USC law isnt top tier- thats why I brought it up. I think her motivations may lie in more than just her affinity for USC. I bet they involve you, her living in LA of the (at least) past four or so years, money, where she wants to live and work afterward, the social environments of the law school, the surrounding area of the law school, distance from family. Dont oversimplify things too much for your point.

3/10/14 law schools represent three different ways people think about law schools. In some systems, the top three are the top echelon. In some, the top 10, in some, the top 14. USC is in none of these, excluded from the top 3,10, and 14 law schools. Get it?

What bad advice am I giving exactly? What a naive view if you think that getting a Harvard JD makes you a good person. Is my bad advice that USC law isnt a national law school? That Westwood isnt a suburb (of what? Itself?) I would probably go to USC law over Harvard law, especially with full tuition.

dyip10 · May 11, 2006, 4:40pm

The alumni connection is not as important as you think it is. The alumni connection “Trojan family” will help you land jobs. It will not help you rise in the ranks of the company unless a lot of the upper management are Trojans. Well the majority of upper management in companies is not composed of Trojans in LA. Until recently, USC has been far behind in academics compared to UCLA. All your upper management graduated 30 or 40 years ago. They’re a lot closer now academically but 30 or 40 years ago, UCLA crushed USC.

UCLA’s living alumni is of little importance? Well if there are 3x more Bruins than Trojans, and (a generation ago) Bruins were better than Trojans, then isn’t it more likely you will encounter a UCLA boss? Even if this is not the case, you cannot say it is more likely you’ll encounter a USC boss. Chances are you’ll encounter a boss who graduated from another college.

In 2001, UCLA was ranked #25, USC was ranked #44. That was only 5 years ago. In 1996, USC was ranked #44. That was 10 years ago. Hey, argue all you want but if USC is not the “University of Second Choice” now, it DEFINITELY was 30 years ago. The upper management have a better impression of UCLA than USC. Do you really think every single manager keeps up in US News rankings? Not to mention, UCLA is still ranked higher than USC today.

You don’t care about reputation? Really? Even though you’ll encounter more non-USC bosses, than USC bosses? Are you happy that you will land a good job without promoting? Now I’m not saying you’re unintelligent or that you will no succeed in the “real world” but I am saying that your claim that the USC alumni will help you in the long run is bogus. UCLA has a fairly strong alumni itself. It doesn’t need to brag about. So if UCLA’s living alumni is 3x bigger than USC’s, don’t you think there are a lot of devout Bruins? Maybe percentage, USC has more active alums, but UCLA wins in sheer numbers.

I doubt 100% of USC’s alumni are active, so UCLA only needs 33% of its alumnis to be active to be equal to USC’s. If USC’s alumni is stronger, it won’t be by that much. Again getting the job is one thing, keeping it is another. Why else people go to Caltech to study engineering when they could have went to UCI for less tuition and a similar starting salary? Could it possibly be that they think that Caltech will better educate them and prepare them in the long run so they can become top engineers for whatever companies they work for?

dyip10 · May 11, 2006, 5:02pm

So you didn’t get into UCLA as a freshman admit?

In your dreams…

CA2006 · May 11, 2006, 6:14pm

Dyip10: MrTrojanMan was a UCLA reject!

dyip10 · May 11, 2006, 6:16pm

For the Trojans out there, get over it. UCLA is ranked higher than USC. You are going to USC for two reasons.
1)The more common reason is that you could not get into a top 25 school so accept the fact that you’re going to a nontop 25 school. USC is still a good school stop your whining.
2) The second reason is because you are going to USC for reasons that are not US News ranking. In that case, stop trying to argue that USC is a top 25 school if you never cared about rankings in the first place.

Hey, if a person decides not to go to UCLA to go to UCI because UCI offered more money does it make UCI a better school?
USC has a few good majors that’s about it. For those in one of these good majors, know that US News considers the whole school not one department. There is a reason why NYU is ranked 37 when it’s business school Stern is superb.

dyip10 · May 11, 2006, 6:46pm

Speaking of UCLA’s “academic” reputation, UCLA graduates, on average, are smarter than USC graduates in the business world.

In this post, I proved to your fellow Trojan that UCLA not USC dominates in numbers: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2372706&postcount=794[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2372706&postcount=794</a>

UCLA sent 10 people to Wharton Business School in 2004, USC could not even send 5.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2237616&postcount=4[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2237616&postcount=4</a>
Do keep in mind, a lot of students from west coast schools such as UCLA, Cal, Stanford and USC may go to their own business school (Stanford Business School, Anderson, Haas, Marshall).

Before you tell me USC is very strong along the Pacific Rim for business, visit Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, and Japan. I think your trip will tell you otherwise.

ATLien · May 11, 2006, 8:09pm

Well, before I say anything I will admit that I am going to USC as a freshmen in the fall. I also did not bother applying to UCLA because I thought my chances out of state were slim, otherwise I probably would have applied.

I think it is really impossible to say which school is “better”. Yes UCLA is ranked a little higher in USnews overall but rankings are simply rankings and the difference, whatever it is, is not great enough for an undisputed “better school”.

However, I think UCLA around the world is a more prestigous name, definitely. Here on the East coast and in the South when I tell people i’m going to USC about half of them think University of South Carolina, and its annoying. However, I think USC has more room for improvement. If you have noticed it has been steadily getting more selective as well as gaining attention for its academics (In part thanks to the football team getting more attention on the school in general). Without limitations because it is private, it can draw from a larger and more diverse group of applicants. Thanks to this I think it is making a climb which UCLA cannot really make because it is public. Really though, that makes the school UCLA has built all the more admirable and deserving of its name. I really think both are great schools and USC is in a sense the private school version of UCLA. They are very comparable in many ways and to really argue over which is “better” is pointless because they are different but there is in my opinion no denying that they are both very good schools.

dyip10 · May 11, 2006, 8:21pm

Yes both are very good schools, and I understand why you would go to USC if you are out of state.

However, in my posts I intend to refute MrTrojanMan and his claims that USC is better in the business world.
In my rankings post it is directly towards the Trojans who go on College Confidential <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2378519#post2378519[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2378519#post2378519</a> and post that they should be higher ranked than UCLA and Cal. Seriously, it’s just really annoying. Everyone knows Dartmouth is a good school in the Ivy League. You don’t hear them trying to prove that they are as good as Princeton whether it’s true or not.
Only a Trojan would start this post: “Will USC ever crack top 20?”
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=188261[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=188261</a>

UCLA and USC’s rivaly comes from an athletic rivalry. USC does not need to keep on proving it is equal or better than UCLA academically.

QW553 · May 11, 2006, 8:56pm

What I saw was a confident Trojan and bickering UC students with a few exceptions I respect very much, including Drab even though he wrote confusing posts sometimes:)

Kidding aside, I do think a few points should be made.

<ol>
<li>USC elevates your profile, and gives you opportunities. Isn’t that what a good education should do? Now think about how UCLA helps you smart people. For all the smartness you guys claim to have, if you go to a better but a little more expensive school, could you guy do significantly better? Then think about if MrTrojanMan stayed in UCI, where would he end up? This is not saying UCI is as good as UCLA, but could be a question for you guys to think if UCLA wastes some of your talent.</li>
<li>UCLA has a lot of alumni doing well, but not proportionate to the total number of the alumni in business and engineering world. I have an impression they do really well in academia, maybe that’s where all your smartness could go. </li>
<li>UCLA’s education is great, but lacks in one thing in that it does not aim at preparing the students for a career right out of school. Of course it has some good professional majors but far from enough. It is both a good and bad thing. I am actually promoting liberal arts education, but some students don’t want to waste more time in school when they have a clear idea in mind, or if they can do part-time degree while working. You are proud that UCLA has more grads into graduate school, there is a reason to that: maybe they have to. Don’t ever think you can beat up an opponent easily if you are late to the game. That is probably also one of the reasons why BizEcon, Film, and Engineering are the most impact majors on campus.</li>
<li>As for UCLA’s number domination in grad school placement over USC, that should be a given. You have a double sized student body who is in much more need of a graduate degree to land a decent job. On the contrary, more than half of USC students can have a good career job after graduation. They do need to go to grad school if they want to achieve better thing, and many of them did. </li>
</ol>

dyip brought up a good point in that USC’s alumni 30 years ago were more “non-stellar” than UCLA’s that time. Let’s suppose this true (it should be true IMO), you will have hard time to expain how USC people achieved as good, if not better, things as UCLA’s. Don’t fool yourselves by simply saying not so without looking it up. As a very anecdotal source, the wikipedia.com can give your a rough idea to start. When you get into working force, you will have a better view. Now you can think about how will it be 30 years later when the current students at both schools are very similar in caliber, attitude, and aspiration.

I personally think a better education is one which can help you, and make you better than you can be, not one letting you sink and swim. And please admit some (not all) of you chose UCLA because it’s cheaper.

funnyman · May 11, 2006, 9:06pm

QW553, you bring up good points, most of which I believe are true, even though UCLA ended up as the cheaper school, I was very close to going to USC (because they gave me the presidential scholarship) I ultimately chose UCLA because of the better graduate school placement rates. I hope to go to medical school, thus, the UCLA medical center and its presence closed the deal for me.

I believe that USC definitely has better straight out of college job placement rates, if my goal was to get a job straight out of college than I would have become a Trojan, but instead I became a Bruin because I have different goals. USC is not the best option for everyone.

UCLAri · May 11, 2006, 9:10pm

Huh? How does UCLA “waste” talent? What, paying more for something automatically makes it better?

There are plenty of UCLA grads in the business world. In fact, there are some UCLA grads on the Forbes 500. But what difference does it make? UCLA grads do just fine out of undergrad.

I see tons of USC grads saying this as if they have some PROOF for their assertions.

I’d like, just for once, to see it verified. Until then, STOP.

Okay, let’s get a few things straight- professional majors don’t make a person succeed in business or any particular career. Look at the richest Americans, and see how few of them have undergrad degrees in business.

And we’re not saying that UCLA has more people in grad schools. We’re saying that UCLA gets more people into TOP grad schools.

Again, PROVE THIS.

OMG! Based on nothing, I know that UCLA grads don’t get jobs! LOLZ!

myk7000 · May 11, 2006, 9:23pm

Ah the controversial topic once again.
I am no pro of this topic, but I do have my own opinions, and the rivalry between USC and UCLA has actually been a big part of my life thus far, seeing as how my decision came down to USC or UCLA recently.

I chose UCLA.

Now there are plenty of different arguments as to why ucla or usc is better than the other, but I took into account a couple things that truly shaped my decision on where to go.

First of all, prestige.

Indeed UCLA is not an ivy league school, and unfortunately, it is not very high in the USNEWS rankings either (in relation to some schools that i do not think should be above ucla). However, it is known, and known for its academics. People in Southeast Asia find UCLA as one of the top schools in the nation; while they may have never heard of Dartmouth, they will have definitely heard about UCLA. Also, schools all over the United States KNOW UCLA, and respect the school for its abilty to provide such a good education at a public level. Now I am not saying the USC is not prestigious by any means, it is a well known school, both academically and through sports. However, UCLA has the clear-cut edge on prestige in this nation. (As someone pointed out, some people think USC is the University of South Carolina!) This prestige does help when it comes to working on the east coast or even in places on the west coast.

UCLA is more well-rounded.

UCLA is amazing in terms of its well-roundedness. Yes, it may not be the best at everything, but it does teach a variety of subjects well. For goodness sakes, I am a business major and chose BizEcon over BizAdmin at USC. There are reasons for that. First of all, I want to keep my options open in case business doesnt work out for me, and if I want to change majors, voila, there are thirty different programs equally rewarding and prestigious in UCLA. What does USC have? Business…Film…Football? Also, undergraduates can open themselves to so many choies and opportunities, something lacking in USC.

UCLA has better kinks.

Yea, it has it all. It is one of the most sociable UC’s, it has a great location in Westwood, It has the best food in the nation (or so ive heard), it has Public School prices for Cali students, One of the best Basketball teams in the nation, a strong sports base, a very large campus, location close to beaches and downtown la… etc etc etc.

Yea usc has them, but im sure that it doesnt have as many.

And last, but certainly not least, UCLA has hotter chicks.
Hah just kiddin.

dyip10 · May 11, 2006, 9:29pm

Getting accepted into an MBA like Wharton requires a couple years of great job experience. As a matter of fact, most business schools in the top 20 require a few years of good job experience. Therefore, if UCLA grads cannot get a good job after they graduate then they cannot get into a good business school.

As a matter of fact, I’m planning on majoring in biz econ.

Do you really think graduating from USC will land you a six figure salary right off the bat? UCLA graduates get jobs just as good if not better. Alright, a UCLA alumni will most likely not call you and offer you a job if that’s what you’re looking for. You might have to call him for him to help you…whoopie doo.

UCLA vs. USC

CONNECT WITH US