strange question, but which of these two iconic and outstanding universities is the most definiteitvely and practically screaming "LA!": UCLA or USC?

is it the older, private, tied-to-the-power-structure, connections-assuring, core-located, city-like campus, football rich institution south of downtown

-or-

the newer, pride of public education, trendy westside, campus is a world of its own, glamorous, basketball rich institutuion in Westwood

?????????????

I'll say USC because UCLA's area doesn't even feel like it's anywhere close to Los Angeles

I'll say USC because UCLA's area doesn't even feel like it's anywhere close to Los Angeles

not arguing about your response, aqua, but aren't there an awful lot of people who see the "real LA" more on the westside than in areas around downtown, mid-Wilshire, Hollywood, and other core parts?

I'd say UCLA with a knee-jerk response because it seems that USC loathes the area it is surrounded by giving the impression that it would rather be in another city. I get this feeling similarly with Columbia University in Harlem or whatever name they're calling that area of Harlem now. Though NYU screams New York City!

This is not a fair question>.These are both iconic Universities for the greater LA area. This would be like asking a Chicagoan, which is the more iconic baseball team, the Cubs or the White Sox? You really can't answer; a lot depends on which side of town you are living on. In short, USC is iconic for the East side, and UCLA is iconic for the West side. The Valley is split.

This is not a fair question>.These are both iconic Universities for the greater LA area. This would be like asking a Chicagoan, which is the more iconic baseball team, the Cubs or the White Sox? You really can't answer; a lot depends on which side of town you are living on. In short, USC is iconic for the East side, and UCLA is iconic for the West side. The Valley is split.

are you seriously suggesting the Cubs are not Chicago's iconic baseball team? svs, we've got to get you to make a trip to Chicago since you obviously have never been here.:banana:

This is not a fair question>.These are both iconic Universities for the greater LA area. This would be like asking a Chicagoan, which is the more iconic baseball team, the Cubs or the White Sox? You really can't answer; a lot depends on which side of town you are living on. In short, USC is iconic for the East side, and UCLA is iconic for the West side. The Valley is split.

For me, it seems like West LA people like UCLA while South Bay residents like USC. Also, most Jews like UCLA. I guess I kinda fit the stereotype becuase I live n West LA, I'm Jewish, and I like UCLA. I know tons of Jewish people and only two like USC, one of them lives in South Bay. At my school in the south bay, almost everyone likes USC, but the kids on permits that live in Westchester, Playa del Rey, Culver City, and Marina Del Rey like UCLA.

I think it would probably be UCLA for most iconic. Everyone knows USC for it's football team, but UCLA, besides all the Asians, has the stereotypical LA resident lifestyle. Also, UCLA has LA in it's name. If you asked a non-sports fan living in Montana or South Dakota or something where they thought University of Southern California was, I bet they couldn't tell you or would just guess LA since that is the biggest city down here.

are you seriously suggesting the Cubs are not Chicago's iconic baseball team? svs, we've got to get you to make a trip to Chicago since you obviously have never been here.:banana:

I grew up at 78th and Prairie, and attended Martha Ruggles elementary school before moving north. I root for both the Cubs and the Sox (as well as the Dodgers and Angels). I find I am unusual in this regard.

I have two very good friends on the West coast who grew up in Chicago and are big baseball fans. The one who grew up in Hyde Park is beside himself everytime the Cubs lose. (As you can imagine, he generally has a very pleasant summer.)

The one who grew up in Rogers Park went into mourning when the Sox won the series a little while ago. I couldn't believe it. You can give me all the bull you want about Chicagoans sticking together but the city is split right down the middle (or right down Madison) when it comes to baseball teams.

For me, it seems like West LA people like UCLA while South Bay residents like USC. Also, most Jews like UCLA. I guess I kinda fit the stereotype becuase I live n West LA, I'm Jewish, and I like UCLA. I know tons of Jewish people and only two like USC, one of them lives in South Bay. At my school in the south bay, almost everyone likes USC, but the kids on permits that live in Westchester, Playa del Rey, Culver City, and Marina Del Rey like UCLA.

I think it would probably be UCLA for most iconic. Everyone knows USC for it's football team, but UCLA, besides all the Asians, has the stereotypical LA resident lifestyle. Also, UCLA has LA in it's name. If you asked a non-sports fan living in Montana or South Dakota or something where they thought University of Southern California was, I bet they couldn't tell you or would just guess LA since that is the biggest city down here.

I am one Jewish guy living in Santa Monica who roots for USC.

For me, it seems like West LA people like UCLA while South Bay residents like USC. Also, most Jews like UCLA. I guess I kinda fit the stereotype becuase I live n West LA, I'm Jewish, and I like UCLA. I know tons of Jewish people and only two like USC, one of them lives in South Bay. At my school in the south bay, almost everyone likes USC, but the kids on permits that live in Westchester, Playa del Rey, Culver City, and Marina Del Rey like UCLA.

I think it would probably be UCLA for most iconic. Everyone knows USC for it's football team, but UCLA, besides all the Asians, has the stereotypical LA resident lifestyle. Also, UCLA has LA in it's name. If you asked a non-sports fan living in Montana or South Dakota or something where they thought University of Southern California was, I bet they couldn't tell you or would just guess LA since that is the biggest city down here.

and I am one South Bay guy who roots for UCLA.

I don't know, I didn't say my studies were a fact, those are just my small scale observations from school.

UCLA

Me: USC Trojan
Wife: UCLA Bruin

I actually think people associate different aspects of the "LA Lifestyle" with each respective school. The rich, spoiled, more attractive, and more flashy image of LA goes to USC. But the uber-intellectual, cultured, sophisticated, and more of a self-made image of LA goes to UCLA.

However, my wifes favorite joke is: "what do both UCLA and USC students have in common? They both got into USC." :lol:

It's funny, but when people ask me about school and I say "USC" I get LOTS of hater looks and comments. While on the other hand, when the wife's "UCLA" gets a more favorable response like, nice, thats one of the best schools. Or you can't get better than that.

I like to view UCLA as the brains and USC as the personality of LA.

Me: USC Trojan
Wife: UCLA Bruin

I actually think people associate different aspects of the "LA Lifestyle" with each respective school. The rich, spoiled, more attractive, and more flashy image of LA goes to USC. But the uber-intellectual, cultured, sophisticated, and more of a self-made image of LA goes to UCLA.

However, my wifes favorite joke is: "what do both UCLA and USC students have in common? They both got into USC." :lol:

It's funny, but when people ask me about school and I say "USC" I get LOTS of hater looks and comments. While on the other hand, when the wife's "UCLA" gets a more favorable response like, nice, thats one of the best schools. Or you can't get better than that.

I like to view UCLA as the brains and USC as the personality of LA.

I think there is much more of a "peer relationship" and commonality in the Cal-Stanford relationship than in the UCLA-USC one. Of course, the Bay Area pair grew up together in the same era (and paralleled each other's growth in innumerable ways*) where USC and UCLA are years apart in when they started. Cal and Stanford have a lot of mutual respect based on that ultimate-public, ultimate-private academic institution quality. Culturally there are major differences between more conservative and wealthy Stanford and more radical Cal, but the two really do a have a strong bond that I don't see the same way in UCLA and USC.

* from rich benefactors (Leland Stanford and Wm. Randolph Hearst), carillion towers (Campinille, Hoover), stadiums that were rushed to completion for competition between the two, the aura of the Big Game, and even the blue-and-gold and red-and-white fleets that ply SF Bay.

I grew up at 78th and Prairie, and attended Martha Ruggles elementary school before moving north. I root for both the Cubs and the Sox (as well as the Dodgers and Angels). I find I am unusual in this regard.

I have two very good friends on the West coast who grew up in Chicago and are big baseball fans. The one who grew up in Hyde Park is beside himself everytime the Cubs lose. (As you can imagine, he generally has a very pleasant summer.)

The one who grew up in Rogers Park went into mourning when the Sox won the series a little while ago. I couldn't believe it. You can give me all the bull you want about Chicagoans sticking together but the city is split right down the middle (or right down Madison) when it comes to baseball teams.

1. I was born in South Shore...and was a Sox fan

2. I lived in numerous north suburban locations...and became a Cub fan

3. Today I am both a Cub and a Sox fan...but definitely learn to the Cubs

4. The WS win in 05 showed Sox strength in Chicago

5. but the Cubs still are the more popular team. they can draw fans to a losing team in a way the Sox cannot. Yes, Chicago is a successful two team market, but to suggest that today (I can't speak for tomorrow) the Cubs are top dog would be ludicrous. And in a town where geography no longer has the same hold, there are far more South Side Cub fans than North Side Sox fans.

News out- Los Angeles Times- Dateline: Los Angeles- USC has the largest foreign enrollment in the country. Columbia second. NYU third. UCLA eighth. :)

I'm sorry, 6th consecutive year, wow!:cheers:

there are far more South Side Cub fans than North Side Sox fans.


Not trying to be difficult, but my impression is the opposite, more North side Sox fans than South side Cubs fans, but I really don't know for sure. It's an interesting question, do you have statistics or is that an impression?

I think there is much more of a "peer relationship" and commonality in the Cal-Stanford relationship than in the UCLA-USC one. Of course, the Bay Area pair grew up together in the same era (and paralleled each other's growth in innumerable ways*) where USC and UCLA are years apart in when they started. Cal and Stanford have a lot of mutual respect based on that ultimate-public, ultimate-private academic institution quality. Culturally there are major differences between more conservative and wealthy Stanford and more radical Cal, but the two really do a have a strong bond that I don't see the same way in UCLA and USC.

* from rich benefactors (Leland Stanford and Wm. Randolph Hearst), carillion towers (Campinille, Hoover), stadiums that were rushed to completion for competition between the two, the aura of the Big Game, and even the blue-and-gold and red-and-white fleets that ply SF Bay.

I think that may be due to the fact you lived up north and not down south. I think the relationship between SC and UCLA is pretty similar to Cal-Stanford and in fact I think the sports rivaly is stronger down here. UCLA most NCAA championships; USC #3; Stanford #2. Cal (where is it? but very smart atheletes).

UCLA, but i'm biased being a season seat holder.

Not trying to be difficult, but my impression is the opposite, more North side Sox fans than South side Cubs fans, but I really don't know for sure. It's an interesting question, do you have statistics or is that an impression?

i'm afraid that Chicago only exists in your mind. The Cubs, with an average team and a divisional winner that was out in three vs. the D'Backs, drew the largest attendance in Chicago baseball history...more than the 05 WS winning Sox and the year after when their season ticket sales were the highest ever.

The Cubs can draw just being the Cubs; the Sox need a winning team to draw. Even Sox fans, a chip on their shoulder, are painfully aware that the Cubs are the stronger franchise of the two.

Don't get me wrong; both franchises are pure Chicago and the Sox are a strong AL franchise. It's just the tilt goes to the Cubs. As in NY, where the Yankees have the edge over the Mets.

i'm afraid that Chicago only exists in your mind. The Cubs, with an average team and a divisional winner that was out in three vs. the D'Backs, drew the largest attendance in Chicago baseball history...more than the 05 WS winning Sox and the year after when their season ticket sales were the highest ever.

The Cubs can draw just being the Cubs; the Sox need a winning team to draw. Even Sox fans, a chip on their shoulder, are painfully aware that the Cubs are the stronger franchise of the two.

Don't get me wrong; both franchises are pure Chicago and the Sox are a strong AL franchise. It's just the tilt goes to the Cubs. As in NY, where the Yankees have the edge over the Mets.

Not arguing that the Cubs out draw the Sox, just that there seems to be very few Cub supporters on the South side. Some of the difference in support may be social. Cubs fans seem to be a little more up scale than Sox fans with more money and time on their hands. I just don't know many Cubs fans from the South side.

Not arguing that the Cubs out draw the Sox, just that there seems to be very few Cub supporters on the South side. Some of the difference in support may be social. Cubs fans seem to be a little more up scale than Sox fans with more money and time on their hands. I just don't know many Cubs fans from the South side.

Ummm... this has to do with UCLA vs. USC how?:nuts:

Not arguing that the Cubs out draw the Sox, just that there seems to be very few Cub supporters on the South side. Some of the difference in support may be social. Cubs fans seem to be a little more up scale than Sox fans with more money and time on their hands. I just don't know many Cubs fans from the South side.

trying not to run UCLA-USC into Cubs-Sox, but let me add: the old mix on the North and South sides of a generation past no longer hold to the old Madison Street division between fans. That's old Chicago. There is a lot of development going on on the South Side and America's fastest growing urban neighborhood, the South Loop, is loaded with far more north siders than south siders.

Ummm... this has to do with UCLA vs. USC how?:nuts:

sorry. i started the thread. i answered a response that svs (former Chicagoan; long time Angeleno) had on UCLA-USC with a comparison to the Cubs and Sox. And we carried it from there.

From now on, it if isn't a Bruin or a Trojan, it doesn't exist here.:banana:

California differs from other states insofar as it doesn't have that one (or two) institutions that seem to represent the whole state.

Don't get me wrong. Cal can be viewed as the flagship university. Or Cal and UCLA can be seen that way together. And both are as good as it gets in public education and both are wildly supported and loved.

But neither represent the state of California the way that, say, UW-Madison or UT-Austin represent Texas.

California is different. Cal is not LA's university. You're never going to turn to the LA Times and read about a Cal-UCLA or Cal-USC game and see the coverage of that game coming from the perspective of both schools being the home town team. Cal belongs to the Bay Area the way that UCLA belongs to LA.

If you buy the above (and you may well not), is there any sense throughout southern California, that UCLA is true representative flagship state university for the region or would the folks in San Diego or Santa Barbara laugh at the suggestion?

California differs from other states insofar as it doesn't have that one (or two) institutions that seem to represent the whole state.

Don't get me wrong. Cal can be viewed as the flagship university. Or Cal and UCLA can be seen that way together. And both are as good as it gets in public education and both are wildly supported and loved.

But neither represent the state of California the way that, say, UW-Madison or UT-Austin represent Texas.

California is different. Cal is not LA's university. You're never going to turn to the LA Times and read about a Cal-UCLA or Cal-USC game and see the coverage of that game coming from the perspective of both schools being the home town team. Cal belongs to the Bay Area the way that UCLA belongs to LA.

If you buy the above (and you may well not), is there any sense throughout southern California, that UCLA is true representative flagship state university for the region or would the folks in San Diego or Santa Barbara laugh at the suggestion?

I think in terms of sports, that's true at least. Neither UCSD or UCSB is much of a sports powerhouse.

USC since it accepts a greater number out of state hopefully that will be me.

UCLA.

I give it to USC because they accepted me at one point
whereas UCLA rejected me three times,
so It must be USC.

Me: USC Trojan
Wife: UCLA Bruin

I actually think people associate different aspects of the "LA Lifestyle" with each respective school. The rich, spoiled, more attractive, and more flashy image of LA goes to USC. But the uber-intellectual, cultured, sophisticated, and more of a self-made image of LA goes to UCLA.

However, my wifes favorite joke is: "what do both UCLA and USC students have in common? They both got into USC." :lol:

It's funny, but when people ask me about school and I say "USC" I get LOTS of hater looks and comments. While on the other hand, when the wife's "UCLA" gets a more favorable response like, nice, thats one of the best schools. Or you can't get better than that.

I like to view UCLA as the brains and USC as the personality of LA.


I get the same response regarding USC, but typically the source is a UCLA grad. I think USC's reputation is based on some very old myths as a school for wealthy offspring and professionally oriented. Coupled with it being a private institution helps perpetuate the image of a bastion for rich, spoiled kids.

The reality is that USC is a very diverse institution (economically and geographically) with a highly selective student body and I believe its acceptance rate is in the same range as UCLA. I also think I may have read the incoming freshman SAT's at SC are higher as well - not sure if that is true or not. Not to mention the very high ratio of students that volunteer in the surrounding community each year.

If you can dig through the stereotypes about USC and gauge it based on reality, I don't think the brains vs personality holds up.

USC is LA's first university and a major economic force in the heart of LA so I vote USC

..........

USC is LA's first university and a major economic force in the heart of LA so I vote USC

^^
I can't agree with you more!

UCLA is probably more iconic on the West side. But outside of West L.A., support for UCLA greatly diminishes(or so it seems). USC is definitely more iconic for most of the rest of L.A. and pretty much dominates the consciousness of many Southern Californians. SC's sphere of influence even extends internationally, as evidenced by USC having the largest population of foreign college students(more so than any other American university). For example, if you traveled abroad seeking a job in let's say - Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Shanghai, or Taipei and they find out you're a USC graduate, chances are they will treat you like God and hire you the next day. Much of it has to do with USC's renown in the international business community. USC's Marshall School of Business is recognized internationally and is well respected world-wide, especially in the Far East where many business corporations have alumni hailing from USC or Harvard. Well that's according to what my friend's Asian husband, who used to head an IT business solutions accounting firm in Taiwan once told me. The HR department at his firm made no discretions to hide how blatantly they discriminated against job applicants in their hiring decisions and practices, which often was based on whether a potential employee fulfilled the main pre-requisite of having a BS/BA/MBA degree from USC or Harvard.

Also, another that thing that is very conspicuous to me is the "SC pride" phenomenon, which is as ubiquitous as palm trees in SoCal. Try going to any city in Southern California and you don't even have to look too hard to find someone proudly displaying the cardinal and gold USC Trojan flag on their cars or at their homes, a phenomenon that isn't even on the same level for UCLA, which pretty much dominates the consciousness of West LA Angelenos. It also probably has to do with the fact football is America's # 1 sport, which USC dominates in that sector, whereas UCLA excels in the NCAA basketball arena. Many people in SoCal love to root for SC, which makes partial sense in marketing terms...being that SC stands for "Southern California". If you wanted to market yourself and grab a bigger market-share? You try to represent the biggest slice of the pie. The same way much of New England supports the Patriots in the NFL(even though Massachusetts is only a small part of New England) or even how when the Angel's owner, Art Moreno changed the Angel's name to what many thought was ridiculous at the time--"The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"...which admittedly, is very confusing and sounds redundant... but on the grander scale of things in the marketing world, that was a brilliant move on his part. Imagine a baseball-loving kid in Mumbai or Shanghai, questioning," where the hell is Anaheim?." But L.A? Who hasn't heard of L.A.? The name branding pretty much catapults that ball club into marketing contention with the other "Big Dogs"( L.A. Dodgers, New York Yankees, etc.) in the international consumer marketplace.

It's also pretty well-known that USC's alumni has really good connections, probably more so than any other non-Ivy league university West of the Mississippi River. Hypothetically-speaking, if you were at a job interview and your prospective employer was an SC alumni, and you are applying for a job in a job-applicant pool consisting of equally qualified UCLA and USC graduates, and you happen to just graduate from USC? Hands down you will get hired over any UCLA Bruin any day. A Trojan will always fight for another Trojan, which I can't honestly say happens with Bruin alumni. If you're an SC grad and in desperate need of a job, just look up an SC alumni..even if there are no positions available, chances are an SC alumni will take the time to advise and help guide you where you are going. Call me biased or whatever, I just call it as having better connections.

In my opinion, USC simply has a greater over all sphere of influence in Los Angeles and much of SoCal, whereas UCLA has a greater influence on the West Side.

In times of struggle, strife and war...a Trojan will always have your back!...you can guarantee that!!


Fight on SC!!![/QUOTE]

Prediction Time for the game tomorrow.

I am more of UCLA fan, however the game will be 35-10 USC

I want UCLA to win also, but I do believe USC has a better chance. But, you never know...USC was doing better last year and UCLA was doing about the same and UCLA won.

I want UCLA to win also, but I do believe USC has a better chance. But, you never know...USC was doing better last year and UCLA was doing about the same and UCLA won.

Lemme guess, you've never played any varsity level sports and you can't make a decision to save your life.

USC 38 UCLA 17

USC in the ROSE BOWL!!:banana:

^^
I can't agree with you more!

UCLA is probably more iconic on the West side. But outside of West L.A., support for UCLA greatly diminishes(or so it seems). USC is definitely more iconic for most of the rest of L.A. and pretty much dominates the consciousness of many Southern Californians. SC's sphere of influence even extends internationally, as evidenced by USC having the largest population of foreign college students(more so than any other American university). For example, if you traveled abroad seeking a job in let's say - Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Shanghai, or Taipei and they find out you're a USC graduate, chances are they will treat you like God and hire you the next day. Much of it has to do with USC's renown in the international business community. USC's Marshall School of Business is recognized internationally and is well respected world-wide, especially in the Far East where many business corporations have alumni hailing from USC or Harvard. Well that's according to what my friend's Asian husband, who used to head an IT business solutions accounting firm in Taiwan once told me. The HR department at his firm made no discretions to hide how blatantly they discriminated against job applicants in their hiring decisions and practices, which often was based on whether a potential employee fulfilled the main pre-requisite of having a BS/BA/MBA degree from USC or Harvard.

Also, another that thing that is very conspicuous to me is the "SC pride" phenomenon, which is as ubiquitous as palm trees in SoCal. Try going to any city in Southern California and you don't even have to look too hard to find someone proudly displaying the cardinal and gold USC Trojan flag on their cars or at their homes, a phenomenon that isn't even on the same level for UCLA, which pretty much dominates the consciousness of West LA Angelenos. It also probably has to do with the fact football is America's # 1 sport, which USC dominates in that sector, whereas UCLA excels in the NCAA basketball arena. Many people in SoCal love to root for SC, which makes partial sense in marketing terms...being that SC stands for "Southern California". If you wanted to market yourself and grab a bigger market-share? You try to represent the biggest slice of the pie. The same way much of New England supports the Patriots in the NFL(even though Massachusetts is only a small part of New England) or even how when the Angel's owner, Art Moreno changed the Angel's name to what many thought was ridiculous at the time--"The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"...which admittedly, is very confusing and sounds redundant... but on the grander scale of things in the marketing world, that was a brilliant move on his part. Imagine a baseball-loving kid in Mumbai or Shanghai, questioning," where the hell is Anaheim?." But L.A? Who hasn't heard of L.A.? The name branding pretty much catapults that ball club into marketing contention with the other "Big Dogs"( L.A. Dodgers, New York Yankees, etc.) in the international consumer marketplace.

It's also pretty well-known that USC's alumni has really good connections, probably more so than any other non-Ivy league university West of the Mississippi River. Hypothetically-speaking, if you were at a job interview and your prospective employer was an SC alumni, and you are applying for a job in a job-applicant pool consisting of equally qualified UCLA and USC graduates, and you happen to just graduate from USC? Hands down you will get hired over any UCLA Bruin any day. A Trojan will always fight for another Trojan, which I can't honestly say happens with Bruin alumni. If you're an SC grad and in desperate need of a job, just look up an SC alumni..even if there are no positions available, chances are an SC alumni will take the time to advise and help guide you where you are going. Call me biased or whatever, I just call it as having better connections.

In my opinion, USC simply has a greater over all sphere of influence in Los Angeles and much of SoCal, whereas UCLA has a greater influence on the West Side.

In times of struggle, strife and war...a Trojan will always have your back!...you can guarantee that!!


Fight on SC!!![/QUOTE]

I think that you'll find if you leave California, the perception of USC is not quite as rosy as you believe. USC is certainly well respected and well known due to it's football program, but when it comes to academics it's still widely perceived as being a school for overprvileged but underachieving students (whether or not this assessment is fair). UCLA has historically been the more cerebral institution, even if this is not true today.

certain schools have the reputation of "opening doors" in their own metropolitan areas for power postions in uppe echolon careers. USC is one of the best examples, an insitution reknowned across the nation for its ability for its grads to get ahead in LA.

As far as academic reputation of both schools for those of us outside of the LA area, you have to keep the following in mind: UCLA, as a public institution, gets tremendous recongntion of where it stands among the top state universities in the nation. Simply put, UCLA is consistently towards the top of the list. I think for many people, once you get past the Cal/UVa/Michigan trio, UCLA & UNC pop up next in mind. With the competition among private schools being much stiffer, USC, though greatly respected, doesn't always appear to stack up with the privates the way UCLA does with the publics.

Even in-state, the caliber of Cal and UCLA is much closer than Stanford and USC.

I give it to USC because they accepted me at one point
whereas UCLA rejected me three times,
so It must be USC.


I beg down on my knees and UCLA accepted me. :lol:

certain schools have the reputation of "opening doors" in their own metropolitan areas for power postions in uppe echolon careers. USC is one of the best examples, an insitution reknowned across the nation for its ability for its grads to get ahead in LA.

As far as academic reputation of both schools for those of us outside of the LA area, you have to keep the following in mind: UCLA, as a public institution, gets tremendous recongntion of where it stands among the top state universities in the nation. Simply put, UCLA is consistently towards the top of the list. I think for many people, once you get past the Cal/UVa/Michigan trio, UCLA & UNC pop up next in mind. With the competition among private schools being much stiffer, USC, though greatly respected, doesn't always appear to stack up with the privates the way UCLA does with the publics.

Even in-state, the caliber of Cal and UCLA is much closer than Stanford and USC.

For whatever its worth according to the latest US News college rankings.

Stanford #4
Cal Tech tied for #5

UC Berkeley #21
UCLA #25
USC #27.

The best(most prestigious) institution of higher learning in S. Cal is Cal Tech right behind Stanford. Not that much difference in the rankings between UCLA and USC. Privates score much higher than publics. At #21 Berkeley seems to be the highest ranked public University. But UCLA's rank is closer to USC than to Cal.

Historically, USC is the university representative of Los Angeles. But UCLA garners more prestige and recognition on the national/global level.