I think both programs are absolutely top notch and offers basically everything you want from a residency program. This is the feeling I got from both programs:
UCLA seemed like an awesome place from the start. Their little campus is definitely very pretty. For research, there are a lot of faculty so I'm sure you'll find interesting research to do. Clinical training is great with a variety of training at VAs, counties, and academics. The fellowship match is great but from the handout they distributed about where graduates are working, many people end up in private practice. Plenty of all star faculty but I felt the stereotype of hierarchy held up with a pretty formal relationship between resident and attending. Not 100% negative, but I felt like USC had a really close relationship with their faculty especially the PD and associate PD. I also got a sense that the residents weren't the tightest knit group because there are so many training sites. One of the residents told me that she never had a rotation with one of the other residents until the end of PGY-3. Lastly, everyone always talks about all the driving to the different sites. I heard so many different things about there's really never traffic or there's a ton of traffic. I have a friend that did residency there and, after some coaxing, finally said that there will always be traffic in LA and the commute does get long often.
USC seems to offer an awesome residency program, too. I thought their presentation of each sub-specialty was nice and there seems to be a ton of interesting projects for residents to join. Clinical training I think is pretty similar with UCLA because USC residents seem to see loads of pathology with a VA, county, and academic practice. Great fellowship match as well. I think the biggest difference between USC and UCLA for me were the interactions with the faculty and the interactions I saw between the residents. I really liked my interviews with all the faculty and can see myself really enjoying interacting with them. The residents absolutely seemed like they knew each other well and I liked that they all worked a centralized location. I think the UCLA residents were cool and awesome people too, don't get me wrong, but I just liked the vibe I got from USC.
In terms of the split USC seems to be doing pretty well after going separate ways with Doheny. From listening to what UCLA and USC have to say about it, it seems like USC retained most of their big faculty (people like Sadda and Sadun are gone though) but still have people like Varma, Humayun, and Puliafito. Apparently, Doheny might try to do its own residency program in the distant future but nothing set in stone yet. I don't think the UCLA residents actually interact with the Doheny faculty too much since they are at clinical sites pretty far from UCLA.
In the end, I think UCLA and USC are both no brainers to be #1 on any rank list. Training in LA weather? Unbeatable. Both programs can get you anywhere you want to go in ophthalmology and train you very well surgically. The biggest difference I noticed was, like I mentioned, the resident-friendliness that I thought was better at USC.
