Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

UCLA or USC?? (which should I pick?)


Replies to: UCLA or USC?? (which should I pick?)

  • nabilesmailnabilesmail Registered User Posts: 333 Member
    Umm @ SMCGUY

    More people denied? sure, cause probably 2 times more people applied,
    selectivity percentages? FALSE

    I believe USC was like 6 % more selective than UCLA for transfers, and that is including UCLA and their extremely competitive out of state requirements. But for the most part, most students who apply to ucla come from community college and isn't that like a 40%? acceptance rate? USC is like 27 or 28%. ON TOP OF THAT, you can tap to ucla which takes almost no effort and is a 90% chance to get in. I'm sorry but UCLA is NOT harder to get into than USC. USC takes that boat, USC ALSO has much higher average SAT/ACT scores than the freshman at UCLA and higher SAT/ACT scores than the freshman at CAL.
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member
    ... that should read: South Campus (sciences), North Campus (humanities, etc) at UCLA.

    I think California girls are 'hotter' than foreign girls, but that would definitely be a one of those differences.
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member
    You have to remember that UCLA and Cal are state schools, nabilesmail...

    Generally, for the better high schools, UCLA and Cal matriculants out-perform USC students; here are a couple examples PV HS and PV Peninsula HS. But both UCLA and Cal being public schools with a duty to educate the poorer students ... will both take students that USC probably wouldn't touch, for instance, the ones at the public high schools near USC.

    And I think there's something strange -- besides superscoring -- how USC computes SAT score. I don't see how USC's scores could be higher than UCLA or especially Cal's (though there's not much difference between the two UCs medians). I can't figure out by looking at profiles of matriculants at USC how the school can report, say, a median SAT of 2050+ or whatever it reports.

    Wrt acceptance rate from cc, UCLA's is in the low 30%'s. It's dropping every year, average gpa of 3.65+, about what USC's is. USC will admit more with less standing than either UCLA or Cal. I don't see a material difference in the quals of USC's and UCLA's (and Cal's), except for xferable units which is greater at UCLA.
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member
    Wrt your eariler post, nabilesmail, UCLA similarly takes in > $300M/year.

    Wrt OP, harophilip, who wants to attend law school, UCLA outperforms USC wrt attys in CA .

    There's a greater community of pre-laws at UCLA than at USC (adjusting undergrad for UCLA/USC: 1.5:1.0.)

    There a generally a lot more high-powered pre-professional types at UCLA over USC. A lot more future MDs -- probably 3-4 times more MDs come from UCLA undergrad, a lot more MBA types, because USC has a very good undergrad BuAD program.
  • nabilesmailnabilesmail Registered User Posts: 333 Member
    Didn't they do studies that show that superscoring only increases by a marginal amount like 5-18 points. USC is far above UCLA in that aspect. So Far I've met a few people who got into UCLA with 1700-1800 sat scores, which would be incredibly rare to get into USC with. USC wouldn't touch students that didn't meet their required stats, whereas UCLA/CAL do. I wouldn't say that USC won't touch the poor.
  • comaeternalcomaeternal Registered User Posts: 4 New Member
    I plan to transfer out to USC's business program for fall 2012. I currently have a 3.34 gpa and I still have summer, fall, and spring. With my low of a GPA is USC realistic? I was thinking of taking USCs GEs so that I have an upperhand in this, but will it just be a waste of my time. No ECs either...
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member

    There are kids, probably URM's from underperforming hss, who have/had 1700-1800 SATs who chose UCLA. Agree, USC generally wouldn't touch these kids. If the ones you know who have these scores aren't URM, then this would be highly unusual.

    Also, UCLA makes large-quanitity allowances for those who are athletically inclined also, probably moreso than USC.

    But then, looking at the PV Peninsula students who chose USC, I see a lot of underwhelming scores in the 1700 range also. And these are typically "rich" kids.

    The exceptions that UCLA makes are usually for "public good," to help educate those who don't have the means to seek a good hs from which to graduate, but have taken their hss to the highest level they could.

    USC, on the other hand, probably makes its exceptions, because it sees a full-tuition payer. I'm talking about the regular students, those who aren't enticed by merit (at either school).

    And we know that USC can dip lower into a hs class rank, which UCLA cannot do by state mandate.

    They just have different admissions standards; I think UCLA's shows forth in a better professional outcome becuase UCLA's students are hungrier for success, whatever that entails. Add taht USC has more undergrad trade majors; this adds up to UCLA students being more grad professions oriented.
  • harophilipharophilip Registered User Posts: 68 Junior Member
    haha this thread has turned into a USC vs UCLA battle. but yeah @nabilesmail, I'd love to go to USC. I'm not saying its a bad school at all. I probably wouldnt regret going to USC or UCLA. Both schools are so good, you really cant go wrong with either of them. I think its all just a matter of your preference, and more importantly your situation. For my situation, I think UCLA is a better choice. Mainly because it costs twice as less, and I can start taking upper div classes right away. Where as at USC ill still have 5 GE's to take, and that adds another semester or two towards the time it will take me to graduate.

    Also, thanks to drax12 for showing me the list of the top schools with the largest number of graduates admitted to the CA state bar! That pretty much seals the deal for me. Because, ultimately, going to Law School is my main goal. And it feels good knowing that more people have been admitted to the CA state bar coming from UCLA (as undergraduates) than any other school in the country! UCLA undergraduates are ranked #1 in # of people who have been admitted to the CA state Bar with over 20,000 people!!! thats amazing!! USC is not far behind, they are #3 with around 7,000 people.

    I know I already made up my mind on going to UCLA, but im officially sold now. haha thanks drax12!

    Also, can someone tell me more about the pre-law societies at UCLA and at USC? which is better? thanks!
  • nabilesmailnabilesmail Registered User Posts: 333 Member
    Doesn't USC admissions operate completely independently of financial aid. and UCLA is doing the same thing no? By increasing the amount of out of state students for full tuition. Plus USC has like the 12th highest pell grant recipients out of every university, doesn't this show that they also cater to underpriveledged students that DO have the scores?

    and remember USC is also much more hollistic in review than UCLA is. USC can dip below the top ranks by looking for outstanding individuals in extracurriculars or other life obstacles. UCLA is much more numbers driven.
  • nabilesmailnabilesmail Registered User Posts: 333 Member
    @ HARO

    I actually completely agree with you, it definate is not worth paying twice the tuition, I'd say its more of a debate if the cost were relataively the same, Good luck yo, UCLA will be a great school for you.
  • harophilipharophilip Registered User Posts: 68 Junior Member
    @nabilesmail, yeah seriously. If the costs for UCLA and USC were the same for me, and If i had completed all GE's for both of the schools, this decision would be A LOT more difficult to make. I'd probably lose sleep over it. haha.

    Because, cmon, theyre both REALLY good schools. You really cant go wrong with either one. There really is no WORSE or BETTER choice when it comes to just the schools themselves. Thats why its your situation or preference which helps to make the decision. But yeah, my situation just made it a bit easier to choose.
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member
    Call this my clean-up post, nabilesmail...

    1. USC admits w/o regard to financial status.

    I would think it would. But USC also regards better high schools in its admissions and takes more students from better high schools: the PV hss with ~ 25 from each, ~ 30 from Harvard Westlake, etc (the 30 from Harvard & Westlake would probably have good scores but have pretty pedestrian class rank and maybe gpa -- depends on that school's "grade inflation," smart kids undoubtedly.)

    Since USC is weighted towards the better (read: richer) hss, this reflects in ~ 50% of USC students (their parents) being full-tuition payers.

    2. UCLA and TAP from CC and high % of students being xfers.

    I think UCLA keeps TAP because it can use this to keep diversity strong. Otherwise, the average admit from cc or other u’s would be in the 3.85-3.90 range instead of the 3.65-3.70 range.

    The school is generally overly picky on class prereqs and will often shoot someone down if he/she is missing one class. And usually, UCLA will only take primarily those who are ready to step into their majors or are close to it.

    If the u admitted to strong grades and was less rigid on reqs, there wouldn’t be very many URMs.

    By accepting so many as xfers, UCLA is integrating the “master plan” of CA’s state college system.

    Three tiers:

    1. CC system
    2. CSU
    3. UC

    CC’s feed UC’s and CSU’s ... this keeps both systems’ schools from being overly lower-division heavy in the class-standing of their students...if students languish from frosh year on, which they do at CSU. (Not at UCLA where the four-year grad rate is 70% for those who enter as frosh.)

    Gives those an incredible second chance.

    Gives those with financial constraints a chance to save money.

    Gives internationals and oos students a side door to the U.

    3. Superscoring adds only 5-18 points.

    You might be correct...

    But I don’t know how USC still reports a mean/median SAT of 2050+. If you look at the profile of USC matriculants from various hss, I don’t see how USC can possibly report this high a score. But one, we know USC doesn’t report everyone. If we’re looking at 25-75% scores, there are a lot of people “hiding out” in the < 25% range.

    USC will typically take as much as a handful from a good school and give them excellent merit -> these students having high SATs and high class standing (top 5%). But the rest of the students USC takes from these schools are typically fairly pedestrian, with moderate grades and scores.

    With the two combined, I don’t know how USC can report 80% top-10% and 2050+ SATs.

    4. Holistics

    UCLA admits similarly with regard to holistics. The differences in admitted student stats, eg, the high v low, 1700-1800 scores, would be where holistics plays a part (just about all have to be top 5% at most schools, top 10% at some others...the good schools, so UCLA does make exceptions for those who attend schools like PV and PVP, but at a higher level of class rank). Diversity is also the main reason for holistic review instead of straight stats or formulaic admissions as UCSD used to employ.
  • nabilesmailnabilesmail Registered User Posts: 333 Member
    Note: I don't believe racial diversity plays a role in the process, itsn't affirmative action illegal?
    Also, the people that got into UCLA from my high school did not have any crazy extracurriculars or anything and had 1700 sat scores. All they had was a good gpa and fairly standard extracurricualrs ( a couple of clubs, no officer positions). Whereas a few people got into UCLA from my HS, only one got into USC which was our #1 who had a 1700 sat score. So USC seems like they admit less than average stats as well. Also, I wouldn't attack USC for attracting high quality students with their merit. Isn't that what stanford and duke did to get to their ratings as well? IMO its complete strategy and why USC has been rising faster than any university. Also, I think its unfair to state that USC can't possibly have an average sat score of 2050 just because a few people get in by "being rich", if you look on the USC freshman decision boards almost everyone has a 2000+++ sat, didn't see to many subpar candidates. And like I said before, UCLA serving california doesn't necessarily mean they are incredibly hollistic. Isn't it common knowledge that UCLA is more stats based wheres CAL is more hollistic while at the sametime maintaining the academic standards if not having higher stats. A few people got into UCLA from my school, only 1 got into USC and 1 got into CAL. And TAP should honestly be abolished, I finished my TAP with probably about 25 EXTRA hours over the normal by just doing contracts for classes and doing a powerpoint or so. TAP is almost a guarantee in and should not exist for such a great university. I do believe however, that UCLA could stand much higher than it does now if it seceded from the UC system and state mandations, but the fact of the matter is it is part of that system and that does bring it down.
  • IndieRockNRollIndieRockNRoll Registered User Posts: 304 Member
    I agree with the last poster. Of course UCLA takes somewhat of a holistic approach in reviewing apps as well, hence the lower SAT scores that are sometimes exceptions.

    USC and UCLA are just different. To be honest, I'm sure USC is an amazing school, but I don't want to go to a school that everyone praises primarily for sports. I see people wear USC merchandise all the time and when I ask them why they like the school, the answer is almost ALWAYS sports. You could backfire with a huge list of academic achievements from USC and I'm sure there is plenty, but it's hard to deny where most of the reputation comes form.

    The UC system has become so much more convenient for the transfer student. As the OP states, by completing IGETC, he has knocked out all of his general ed. If private schools had a similar plan that catered to transferred students more, USC might be a good choice.

    The fact that UCLA is part of the UC system, which requires those 60 units, general ed, and a large portion of pre-reqs completed does actually make it more competitive. I saw the thread for accepted USC transfer students and it was not much more impressive than the one for UCLA. Personally, I would have general ed to complete at USC as well and many pre-reqs for my major.

    It's obvious that in regards to the OP's own personal situation, UCLA seems to be a better fir. This is not the solution for everyone and I'm sure the circumstances are much different for entering Freshman as well.
  • IndieRockNRollIndieRockNRoll Registered User Posts: 304 Member
    You have to remember, not as many people may apply to USC. I do not know one person from my CC who is transferring who applied besides me. Even in high school, I don't recall more than one person who applied. It's not because of a fear of not being accepted, but rather that it's so much more convenient to go to a California public school for some, especially transfer students.
This discussion has been closed.