WOW! USC has made a huge comeback in college rankings, beating University of Michigan, Could UCLA be next?

<a href="http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2">http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2</a>



In the past, I have always thought of USC as a school you can buy yourself admission if you come from a family of money even with a 2.5 GPA. I am totally suprised to see that USC (Rank #26 Admission rate 21.9%) had a tougher admissions acceptance rate than (UCLA Rank #24 Admission rate 22.8%)this year. In the past ten years, UCLA and University of Michigan has always tied for Rank#25 with USC ranking far below in the 40s range. This year USC has beaten out Univesity of Michigan (Rank #27), and could UCLA be next in couple of years?



What is going with on with USC? The new caliber of Trojan freshmens are nothing to laugh at anymore, as they are practically at the same level as the Bruins.

I don't know how much you have been following the current state of education in the state of California, but it isn't good. My sister in law and brother are both professors in the UC system. They both believe that the public university system in California has been so decimated recently that it won't be long before the UC system loses most of it's credibility and it will be difficult to restore it for many years to come. The UC's are finding that they can no longer apply for research grants due to lack of matching funds, this will have a big impact on their reputation.

Tmare, perhaps some of the best professors at UCLA are moving to USC for better pay. What i am most suprised about is how did USC climb the ranks so quickly from a tier 3 (10 - 15 years ago) to a tier 1 school. Today, it seems that it just as difficult to get into USC now, than it is getting into UCLA. With my high school GPA and SAT scores, I'd probably get rejected to USC today, where this school would of been an easy back up school for me 15 years ago.



I dunno, perhaps when my kids are applying for college 18-20 years in the future, USC could well be the more competitive, better school than UCLA.

[quote author="PANDA" date=1252796403]Tmare, perhaps some of the best professors at UCLA are moving to USC for better pay. What i am most suprised about is how did USC climb the ranks so quickly from a tier 3 (10 - 15 years ago) to a tier 1 school. Today, it seems that it just as difficult to get into USC now, than it is getting into UCLA. With my high school GPA and SAT scores, I'd probably get rejected to USC today, where this school would of been an easy back up school for me 15 years ago.



I dunno, perhaps when my kids are applying for college 18-20 years in the future, USC could well be the more competitive, better school than UCLA.</blockquote>
Panda, you can't use just the rankings or what the avg. GPA and avg. SAT scores are to determine which school is better than another one. You have to look a little deeper and see how the major programs are ranked. Also, an intangible factor for colleges that some people overlook is the strength of the alumni network. From personal experience, USC's alumni network is 100x better than UCLA's alumni network (yes, you Bruin alums should be ashamed of yourselves).

I also have a hard time readjusting my own perceptions of college programs based on what they were like in the 90's when I was a college student. It's really quite impressive what USC has done in the last 20 years. You know what's going to blow people's minds? If and when USC passes both Cal and UCLA in the rankings. With the state of the government in California, it's not that far-fetched an idea...

[quote author="USCTrojanCPA" date=1252813405][quote author="PANDA" date=1252796403]Tmare, perhaps some of the best professors at UCLA are moving to USC for better pay. What i am most suprised about is how did USC climb the ranks so quickly from a tier 3 (10 - 15 years ago) to a tier 1 school. Today, it seems that it just as difficult to get into USC now, than it is getting into UCLA. With my high school GPA and SAT scores, I'd probably get rejected to USC today, where this school would of been an easy back up school for me 15 years ago.



I dunno, perhaps when my kids are applying for college 18-20 years in the future, USC could well be the more competitive, better school than UCLA.</blockquote>
Panda, you can't use just the rankings or what the avg. GPA and avg. SAT scores are to determine which school is better than another one. You have to look a little deeper and see how the major programs are ranked. Also, an intangible factor for colleges that some people overlook is the strength of the alumni network. From personal experience, USC's alumni network is 100x better than UCLA's alumni network (yes, you Bruin alums should be ashamed of yourselves).</blockquote>


T-man, I am sure that U.S. News took every criteria into consideration when they came up with the rankings. I am most suprised that the SAT median range was higher in USC than UCLA last year and the acceptance rate (%) was slightly tougher in USC than UCLA last year. I think the USC SAT range was from 1250 - 1470 whereas UCLA was 1170 - 1410. I don't know about you, but this really is a shock for me? I think what was once known as "University of Spoiled Children" is now turning into "Univesity of Smart Children" who comes from a family of money.



Another suprising fact is that over the past 20 years or ever since i can remember, UC Irvine was ranked the 4th best UC school after Berkelely, UCLA, and UCSD. Now, the school's ranking has dropped below UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara according to US News. My question is, "How did USC get so good and UC Irvine lose its #4 spot below UCD and UCSB? Did USC just get a new Kick A$$ Dean in the past 5 years determined to out rank UCLA? I know this may sound crazy now, but what if USC becomes the new "Stanford" of Southern Calofornia when our children are applying for colleges 13 - 20 years in the future. Who would of ever thought USC would come this far 20 years ago?

[quote author="PANDA" date=1252787344]<a href="http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2">http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2</a>



In the past, I have always thought of USC as a school you can buy yourself admission if you come from a family of money even with a 2.5 GPA. I am totally suprised to see that USC (Rank #26 Admission rate 21.9%) had a tougher admissions acceptance rate than (UCLA Rank #24 Admission rate 22.8%)this year. In the past ten years, UCLA and University of Michigan has always tied for Rank#25 with USC ranking far below in the 40s range. This year USC has beaten out Univesity of Michigan (Rank #27), and could UCLA be next in couple of years?



What is going with on with USC? The new caliber of Trojan freshmens are nothing to laugh at anymore, as they are practically at the same level as the Bruins.</blockquote>


It has to do with the recent graduating classes of USC. The last 4 graduating classes have been absolutely stellar! Truly a talented group of individuals.

It may not be a popular answer but I didn't really get anything out of UCLA job wise. I've been very successful from hands on experience, and not once has any employer said boo about UCLA. I have multiple degrees from the school but don't think I would have been in any better/worse shape had I gone to any other school. Unless you're going to an elite school like Stanford or Harvard it's all the same. My friends and family who went to those particular schools enjoy a robust alumni network. UCLA simply has too many people for there to be a substantial benefit.

Davis, SB, and Irvine are all close enough together that I don't think the USNews rankings mean anything. Irvine does have the 4th lowest UC acceptance rate after Cal, UCLA, and SD. I tend to look at acceptance rate as a proxy for how students themselves rank schools.

USC is fund-raising machine. If i remember correctly, during my years there (graduated in 99) they were trying to raise a billion dollars over five years and they did it with time to spare. Having access to all that cash to improve all of its programs and facilities has to be big reason for the increase in the rankings. When i was there they were in the 40's. I really dont think i would get in now. President Sample has done a great job overall with the school. The school looks much nicer now then when i graduated and it didnt look bad then.

I agree. I always thought USC was a decent school, but not that hard to get into. Trojan, I totally agree with you about the alumni network...USC is awesome for that. I didn't realize when I was applying to colleges how important that was. Not that I would have applied to USC anyway...too $$$.



And hey! My alma mater is the #1 public school...go UC Berkeley! Woot woot!

Two thoughts about USC's rise in the ranking:



1) The U.S. News reports is biased toward public schools because it factors in 1) alumni giving, 2) graduation rates, 3) class sizes, and 4) faculty to student ratio. Cal (also my alma mater!!! Go Bears!) has been the number 1 public school for years but has always been around no. 20 in the rankings. There is no way that Cal is the 20 or 21st best university in the country (its academic and reputation rankings put it in the top 5). Professors at Cal, Stanford (shudder when I type that name), Harvard, CIT, MIT, and Yale often rotate between these schools.



Public school do not have as much resources as private colleges and do not get nearly the same amount of alumni contributions. I think class size and faculty to student ratio are such pointless stats. The rankings also fail to factor in affordability as a gauge of schools...my tuition at Cal was $5000 a year!



2) USC has put A LOT of money into its graduate schools in the past couple of years. The rankings of its engineering, medical, and business schools have gone way up. This focus on graduate programs has a trickle down effect on the undergraduate (better professors and grad students).

I guess that in Southern California, the only schools that matter are UCSD, San Diego State, UCR, Chapman, USC, UCI, and UCLA.



UCSD has remained consistently highly ranked.

UCR is just in pretty crappy location - the Inland Empire.

UCI has a very bad reputation for being a dry, boring school.

UCLA has always been a top tier college.



As for USC, I think its focus on sports and graduate programs have made it much more desirable.

I have so many successful pharmacist friends who graduated from there simply because it was the most convenient location.

The success of these graduates and others enhances the image of the school.

But then again, I still know plenty of people who still have significant amounts of oustanding school loans from attending USC.

[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1253075497]I guess that in Southern California, the only schools that matter are UCSD, San Diego State, UCR, Chapman, USC, UCI, and UCLA.



UCSD has remained consistently highly ranked.

UCR is just in pretty crappy location - the Inland Empire.

UCI has a very bad reputation for being a dry, boring school.

UCLA has always been a top tier college.

</blockquote>


Where are you getting this list of the Socal schools that matter?

[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1253075497]I guess that in Southern California, the only schools that matter are UCSD, San Diego State, UCR, Chapman, USC, UCI, and UCLA.



UCSD has remained consistently highly ranked.

UCR is just in pretty crappy location - the Inland Empire.

UCI has a very bad reputation for being a dry, boring school.

UCLA has always been a top tier college.



As for USC, I think its focus on sports and graduate programs have made it much more desirable.

I have so many successful pharmacist friends who graduated from there simply because it was the most convenient location.

The success of these graduates and others enhances the image of the school.

But then again, I still know plenty of people who still have significant amounts of oustanding school loans from attending USC.</blockquote>


That list is way too long. The only school that matters in southern california is USC.

<a href="http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/rankings">http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/rankings</a>



That's an interesting observation regarding the USC's grad program. I see Marshall MBA program has jumped up 5 spots to rank #20 and Anderson School of Business has come down a little to rank #14. Perhaps in the near future they will meet some where in the middle. For some of you with an MBA from either UCLA or USC, do you think it has made a big difference in opening up new door and opportunities in the SoCal job market? Any advantages coming out of Anderson over Marshall, or are the job opportunities and employer's perception pretty much the same? Is the MBA alumni network stronger with Marshall than it is for Anderson?

.

SoCal also has a few awesome liberal arts schools that nobody knows about. I know I didn't know anything about the Claremont Colleges when I was in high school and I don't know anyone who even applied. It's a shame because they're really good schools.

TI

[quote author="Oxtail" date=1253707657]SoCal also has a few awesome liberal arts schools that nobody knows about. I know I didn't know anything about the Claremont Colleges when I was in high school and I don't know anyone who even applied. It's a shame because they're really good schools.</blockquote>


The claremont colleges are very good indeed. The valedictorian of our high school class ended up going to Claremont Mckenna, the guy was very book smart, got a 1510 on his SAT if i remember correctly. We both wanted ended majoring in accounting, the poor guy did not end up getting a job with the Big 4 and I did. Im guessing if he had gone to SC (which had a top 5 national accounting program at the time and still does i think), he would have gotten into the big 4. A large % of the big 4 are USC grads so of course you are going to favor your own. Because of the large SC network in the Big 4 i think this guy ended up getting shafted since he was coming from Clarement Mckenna not USC or UCLA, our lives are dramatically different now. So going to the right school in southern california (depending on the major of course) can be a very big deal.



I was heavily involved in recruiting in my Big 4 days and if candidates were pretty close i would just go with the SC person.



I really cant pin down why the SC alumni network is much stronger than UCLA's. For whatever reason from what i have seen SC grad's have a much more pride in their school than UCLA which contributes to the stonger connection between alumni.