<p>Just curious as to what the relationship is between these northern and southern universities.</p>
<p>ucla has a rivalry with USC
ucberkeley has a rivalry with Stanford</p>
<p>But of course the uc’s private counterparts are better
LOL</p>
<p>Private university is to Private university as Public university is to Public university</p>
<p>also, for academics: UC Berkeley>UCLA (arguably) and Stanford>USC (unless for film or something else pretty specialized). </p>
<p>And… for basketball (I think. I’m not really a pac10 fan): UCLA>UCB and USC>Stanford (based off last year).</p>
<p>The main difference, I think, is that Stanford and Berkeley are much more equals than USC and UCLA. Academically, USC is not really in UCLA’s league at all (although the fact that UCLA has such a large student body tends to dilute that at the level of individual undergraduates). Whereas Stanford and Cal are certainly in the same league academically, with Stanford probably having a slight but definite edge.</p>
<p>Or, to look at the question in the OP: USC is the top private university in Southern California just as Stanford is the top private university in Northern California, and UCLA and Berkeley stand in the same relationship as public universities. But the gap in quality between USC and Stanford is probably greater than the gap in quality between UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>It really depends on what you’re comparing. I agree that USC has historically lagged academically, but they have programs (other than cinema) that are ranked consistently in the top 5 nationally.</p>
<p>Hey, I didn’t say USC was worthless. I said it wasn’t as good, taken as a whole, as Stanford or UCLA (or Berkeley for that matter). There aren’t a whole bunch of universities anywhere that are as good as Stanford, UCLA, and Berkeley; that doesn’t mean that the universities that fall short should just lock the doors and send everyone home.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Where do you get off saying that USC (27) isn’t close to UCLA (25)'s level? They are ALWAYS spoken in the same breath. US News typically ranks them with a 1 or 2 spot difference. In 2008, USC was 26th where as UCLA was 25th. Where Stanford (4) and Cal (21) have 17 spot difference. Perhaps, your accusation is correct on a graduate level, but even then USC and UCLA are equals. You should probably read a little more and see that USC broke its old stereotype a while ago.</p>
<p>Maybe I “get off” by not giving a crap what USNWR says. Too many non-academic factors in its rankings that systematically suppress the rankings of public universities and boost that of smaller privates. USC has made great strides, true, but so has UCLA. In my book, UCLA and Cal are underrated at 25 and 21 (although probably not by that much), and USC significantly overrated at 26 (although based on its location and access to donors, I expect it to continue to upgrade and to do well). I’m also influenced by the random areas I know best, where UCLA is clearly superior.</p>
<p>I’m not going to debate numbers. I’ll even admit I may be wrong. You come from SoCal, I don’t. People in SoCal think USC is great. Everyone there sees USC and UCLA as equivalents, at least, and maybe they are right. From a distance, UCLA looks more impressive.</p>
<p>JHS-</p>
<p>[The</a> Daily Bruin - UCLA can learn from USC?s path to prestige](<a href=“http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/jan/26/emucla-can-learn-uscs-path-prestigeem/]The”>http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/jan/26/emucla-can-learn-uscs-path-prestigeem/)</p>
<p>[The</a> Daily Bruin - Bruins beware, Trojans ranking on the rise](<a href=“http://dailybruin.com/news/2007/nov/21/ibruins-beware-trojans-ranking-risei/]The”>http://dailybruin.com/news/2007/nov/21/ibruins-beware-trojans-ranking-risei/) </p>
<p>The Bruins are taking note. So should you.</p>
<p>Also, Princeton Review rates UCLA academics at an 80, and USC at an 87. If you feel those are false, you may feel Stanford’s 99 and Berkeley’s 91 are unjust as well. </p>
<p><a href=“College Search | Find Colleges | The Princeton Review”>College Search | Find Colleges | The Princeton Review;
<a href=“College Search | Find Colleges | The Princeton Review”>College Search | Find Colleges | The Princeton Review;
<p>Well, I can’t read the Princeton Review stuff. The recent Daily Bruin piece practically makes my argument for me. Having more of an emphasis on career training and preprofessionalism does not make me more likely to consider USC a top-rank university.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. When I went to college, I had just about 0 respect for USC, and I thought UCLA was a distant second to Berkeley in the UC system. Both of them have come up in the world a lot during my adulthood.</p>
<p>The top private in SoCal is probably Caltech, which is very much in the league of the LA/Berkeley/Stanford schools. </p>
<p>Yes I know that excludes about 99.99999% of all majors given its focus, but still – when I think SoCal, that’s the school that jumps out at me. </p>
<p>Back in the day, it wasn’t as crazy as it is nowadays, I think (knowing a few Stanford, Berkeley and LA alumni). If you were a good student, you generally got into Stanford, Berkeley and LA without any problem at all. The way schools do admissions has changed with the times, especially as people have started entering the college race in greater numbers, along with the fact some schools probably changed the core of their admissions philosophy.</p>
<p>getting into Stanford was very hard for a very long time; on the level of the hardest Ivys. The competition is now much tougher but much of that reflects greater number of applicants (50% more than a generation ago). UCB and, to a lesser extent, UCLA have also been very competitive for generations since they have been the most elite of the UCs. You would need to be in the top 5% of your class roughly for them (10% for the UCs in general). Berkeley is currently probably as hard to get into as Stanford was in the 1960s but not as hard as Stanford was after then.</p>
<p>I don’t know JHS, I see it as the difference between Stanford and USC is a whole lot greater than the difference betwen UCLA and UCB.</p>
<p>My humble opinion: UCLA=USC=<UCB<<Stanford.</p>
<p>The =< means that Berkeley is slightly better than the other two schools, but not by much really.</p>
<p>But of course, I’m biased =)</p>
<p>
That’s approx. true when looking at undergraduate admission stats.</p>
<p>However, Berkeley and 'furd are much closer rivals when considering the entire academic realm (faculty achievment, grad schools, etc.).</p>
<p>And for undergrad majors, USNWR ranks engineering and business.
In engineering, Berkeley scores higher than Stanford, but both are <em>somehow</em> tied at #2.
In business, Berkeley Haas ranks #3…Stanford doesn’t offer an undergrad biz degree, but if they did, it’d prob be ranked higher. </p>
<p>Considering this, I’d say in my humble opinion:
UCLA=USC<UCB<=Stanford</p>
<p>But of course, I’m biased. ;-)</p>
<p>This is probably not a good forum to get unbiased information about comparison of schools. An alum is always going to put his school in the best possible light. Nothing wrong with that as it is just human nature.</p>