Bell’s analysis is very refreshing. US News’s analysis is merely a warmed-over rehash of American “contemporary wisdom” – Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are the best, and so on.

The Washington Monthly, by contrast, ranks UCLA third, behind UCSD and Berkeley. Their criteria are much more geared to “what does this school provide to its society?” Consequently, ROTC numbers, Pell Grant recipients, 4-year graduation rates, and research funding figure into their rankings.

Props to UCLA for maintaining its commitment to service and social mobility.

For more info, check out the Washington Monthly’s rankings:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/

Go Bruins!

And yet it seems hypocritical to completely disown the rankings after touting them as proof of superiority over the Trojans for years. Washington Monthly’s rankings have UC-San Diego at No. 1, in front of Stanford. Somehow, that smacks as less than reputable.

Instead of placating yourself, why don’t you encourage UCLA to boost its game — instead of stagnating at No. 25. USC’s rise in the rankings in the past decade (more than 25 spots) has been drastic. UCLA has hardly budged, (except, of course, for the recent step back).

I’m a rising fourth-year and I never paid US News much mind, college-wise.

Frankly, I’m more concerned about UCLA “boosting its game” in ensuring affordability and access for first-generation, non-traditional, working-class, and under-represented minority students.

What does being #25 in one magazine or #3 in another matter if we can’t guarantee all Bruins benefit from the resources offered here?

I agree with the said comments above. But USNWR also uses endowment figures in ranking these schools, so obviously UCLA would’ve dropped a few. But as a UCLA student, I think the school is losing its luster. Resources are too few and it’s showing. There’s no reason that a science lab should be held up 3 hours because there are only 3 pipet bulbs and 1 weighing scale available, every single week, for a class of 25 students. As a Bruin, I think we all ought to collectively reassess how the future’s gonna look for our namesake and alma mater.

I will get straight to the point:

*10 yrs ago, the debate between USC and UCLA wouldn’t even be debatable. Today, things have changed. It’s quite amazing what USC has accomplished.

*USNEWS is the most credible ranking because it ranks UNDERGRAD quality only. UCLA has more nobel prize winners? That’s nice. UCLA publishes more research? Fantastic. Do these things affect undergrad education? Obviously, no. As an undergrad teaching institution, UCLA is relatively low quality….big class sizes, apathetic profs., budget cuts etc etc DO affect the quality of undergrad education. USNEWS may not be perfect, but its better than AWRU (more on that later). Also, USNEWS is not biased against publics. If anything, it is biased towards publics. But unfortunataley, public unis don’t seem to effectively manage their budgets (which are state sponsored). Public Unis should have HUGE endowments.

*AWRU is not a credible ranking. Any ranking that ranks UC Riverside on top of Dartmouth probably sucks. Ask yourself: is UCR a better undergrad teaching institution than Dartmouth? No, Dartmouth has small classes, engaged profs., and a big endowment to spend. Now ask yourself: are the ranking metrics that AWRU employs more credible than USNEWS? No, obviously not.

*USC is a better undergrad-teaching uni than UCLA. How would I know this? Because I transfered from UCLA to USC. I was a UCLA student and I eventually grew frustrated with UCLA’s inept administration, poor management of resources, apathetic profs, consistently increasing fees, budget cuts, quarter system etc etc etc the list goes on and on. When my second yr came around, it was either USC or Cal. Cal was more of the same, but USC offered me a great financial aid package that made it cheaper to attend than UCLA….imagine that. I made the switch and I couldn’t be happier. I am also and employed recent grad because of the Trojan Network.

*Is USC better than UCLA? That depends…in what way? Do you want to become a scientist? Probably UCLA. Do you want to own your own business one day? The USC. Do you want to go to a school with a couple of noble prize winners? Do you want a hi quality undergrad experience? blah blah blah you get the point.

*Finally, the margin between USC and UCLA is razor this. At least for now. If USC is truly better than UCLA, we will see in future rankings. But for right now, they seem pretty equal…ESPECIALLY is you compare student bodies (where USC has a slight edge over UCLA in terms of test scores btw). Just that fact that the 2 are comparable shows how hi quality USC really is.

Jason, regarding your last point, do you actually know that UCLA and USC measures SAT scores differently? USC combines the highest scores for each subject even if the they’re from separate sittings. Any intelligent person understands that whether scores are taken from different sittings makes a difference. If USC measures SAT scores the same way as UCLA, its scores probably would not be higher.

LA, did you know that the way USC measures SAT scores doesnt make a difference?

I know I know, the super-scoring argument. I have heard that one before.

Basically, you are saying that kids score hi on one part of the exam and when they retake the exam they score lower on the other part and hi on the other part…which doesnt happen.

When I retook my SATs, I increased my score on both sections. That is what happens 99% of the time. Its rare when kids do well on one part and then dont do as well but score well on the other part.

Even if you entertained the notion that super scoring makes a difference, it woudlnt make a significantly difference. After all, how much of a difference can super scoring make? 100pts? 200pts? Not even.

USC deserves it 110%. Bravo, USC. Let this also serve as a wake up call to our state legislation. We as a state (a powerful one at that) need to invest in our public education. Yes, we have the number one higher educational system in the world, but we are still experiencing great tragedies due to our lack of funding and support of not just state officials, but from the public as well. The affordability, accessibility, and quality of the UC system need to be reevaluated.

A legacy of waste in UC Berkeley Chancellor’s Office: easily grasped by the public, lost on University of California’s President Yudof.
The UC Berkley budget gap has grown to $150 million, & still the Chancellor is spending money that isn’t there on $3,000,000 consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the consultants “thinking, expertise, & new knowledge”.
Does this mean that the faculty & management of UC Berkeley – flagship campus of the greatest public system of higher education in the world – lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, skills to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years?
The consultants will glean their recommendations from faculty interviews & the senior management that hired them; yet $ 150 million of inefficiencies and solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor & Provost Breslauer were doing the work of their jobs (This simple point is lost on UC’s leadership).
The victims of this folly are Faculty and Students. $ 3 million consultant fees would be far better spent on students & faculty.
There can be only one conclusion as to why inefficiencies & solutions have not been forthcoming from faculty & staff: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility & the trust of the faculty & Academic Senate leadership (C. Kutz, F. Doyle). Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants’ recommendations – disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy – the underlying problem of lost credibility & trust will remain. (Context: greatest recession in modern times)
Contact your representatives in Sacramento: tell them of the hefty self-serving $’s being spent by UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer.
Let there be light!

I’m afraid this writer is mistaken. We have a lot to fear for our namesake and my future alma mater. I don’t forsee any reversal in state cuts on UC funding and it’s honestly time that we students begin advocating for a public-private transition, because we’re obviously not in good hands. As a fourth year, I’ve seen severe declines in the quality of education I’m getting here, supposedly a world class institution with all the facilities one could imagine. Never have I experienced having a lab section delayed 2 hours over class time because there were only 2 pipet bulbs (simply because there were none available throughout the building for loan) for a class of 25 students and a single working mass scale. It’s patethic. Deficiencies like these should be pointed out by the writers. Our chemistry labs don’t even have lab practicals like most other campuses, most likely because we can’t afford them. Instead, we students are forced to demonstrate how our knowledge of experimentation through a paper test. How convenient.

Rankings may not mean much, but it’s about time that we left our UCLA bubble and advocate for change.

Yay Stanford! Consistently top five in most college rankings. 7% admit rate. Oh, and a 35 – Zero victory at the Rose Bowl. Go Cardinal!

absolutely great article. I’m a student and my answer: funding. It’s time people to wake up and smell the money flowing around USC, and possibly sprinkle some spices on UCLA to ameliorate the growing problem for public universities. Reprioritize education!!!

Can we all agree that “high” refers to level or amount, whereas “hi” is an American slang greeting?

It’s hard to argue that USC is “hi” quality or that kids score “hi” on one part of the SAT. You defeat your argument from the get-go.

Either way, I think it should be known that USNWR rankings most commonly looked at for undergraduate rankings is very skewed towards private schools. I wish there was more transparency as to what exactly they’re ranking. Nothing will ever convince me (nor, I would imagine, most people outside the So. Cal. area unaffiliated with either school) that USC is a better institution than UCLA. That being said, the UCs schools across the board are cutting corners, stripping resources, and undermining their strengths and it’s downright tragic.

As a senior at Stanford, USC is highly regarded in academics, but hated for their superiority in football. UCLA is respected, but it is definitely not on the academic level they like to think that are at. USC’s academic quality and life is comparable to Cornell, NYU, and Georgetown. Where as, UCLA’s is comparable to UC Berkeley, Wisconsin, and Texas. It is very important to always compare apples to apples. Private and public universities have different missions, which most people tend to forget.

As to the idea that USC is highly regarded in academics, that may be true in certain spheres, but as an alumnus of UCLA (B.A. ’98) and Georgetown (Law ’03), I can tell you that people in DC certainly don’t think of USC as a prestigious academic institution.

Funny how U$C just woke up a decade ago and started playing catch up with UCLA! They had a 39 year head start, so this proves that, for most of its history, the Trojans have not cared about academic quality.

As for the Trojan posing as a Stanford “senior”, you’re an idiot. No one out of south central LA thinks that USC is comparable to Cornell, NYU, or Georgetown.

Also, USC just can’t help cheating both on the field and in the classroom. The University of Second Choice was clearly caught falsifying data to manipulate academic rankings and that is just shameful. At the same time, U.S. News has also demonstrated itself to be journalistically corrupt by not verifying information before publishing material upon which it is based.

Here is the link to the story in from Inside Higher Ed:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc

Stop bickering. They are both great universities. The quality difference is so minimal.