dt123

CC has long resisted calls to move USC up to its "Top Universities" page. U*LA is on that page already along with some Northern California diploma mills. It's a conspiracy to keep us Trojans down. A USConspiracy! The CC administrator who started this thread is pimping up the controversy about rankings as cover.

lockn

UC Berkeley: a diploma and Nobel Prize mill.

fortify

Guess the administrator does not consider USC a top university

mikemac

Sour grapes? I guess it will surprise nobody to find out that sfgiants is a regular poster in the USC forum, where he is apparently a student. See http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...rchid=17428389

lockn

Really though, the UC's are being a little shady about that number (this coming from an unbiased non-californian who would love to get into and afford USC or UCLA or Cal).

Nikara

This IS the USC forum. There are several of us who are posting on this thread as USC students, because it is our forum. That doesn't mean that our opinions aren't valid.

cc411

From one who posts almost exclusively on the USC boards to help others search for accurate information about USC,

I welcome this debate. I am pleased that Sam Lee and others took the time to research the background of rankings and other information about USC. Since USC has been steadily rising in rankings AS WELL AS in its popularity, statistics, etc., it is warranting more and more attention and discussion. Others have stated here that the USC CC forum has one of the most (if not THE most) number of posts.

Everyone always loves to try to take down Goliath

jbusc

So what? All he asked is that the UC schools be treated the same as USC.

QW553

This thread confirms my claim that CC is not a good place to ask for academic opinions, because most of posters are academic outsiders, including the site administrators unsurprisingly. The CCers here are even less qualified to assess a school's academics, besides his/her own, than sports fans talking their specific sports/teams on a fan forum.

Now get to my points. The writer for inside higher ed is unprofessional and unethical in the way he wrote the piece (this is a common problem of American journalists). Who has the right to accuse a school of rigging USNews ranking? Shouldn't it be U.S. News itself? The writer's article did not only charge USC unfairly, but also questioned the practice of U.S. News, and put their product in an less desirable light. Before the issue of (im)proper data reporting gets resolved between the U.S. news and those schools, this kind of sensational accusation should be considered slanderous.

I vaguely remembered the posts by Sam Lee from last year on the reporting discrepancy of USC's NAE number. She sounded very emotional and wrote in very dramatic tone. As a consequence, she over-exaggerated the "wrongdoing", and gave the impression that is the only way putting USC into a top 10 engineering school. She was being slanderous. I don't think USC will spend effort on this, but some student/alumni groups, or academic support groups of the school should be able to contact her to talk about the issue, with an outside possibility of a legal resolution. She deserves an explanation from a school she spent huge amount of time even without stepping on the school's actual campus.

About 6-7 years ago, when USC engineering first cracked into top 10, the number of NAE members they reported was around 20. So I am fairly certain, even if the current number is chopped half, the school is still a solid top 10. This is due to the extensive and excellent programs the school offers, the high quality research done by the faculty, and the fact that the NAE member is such a minor factor in this ranking. As I am going to USC right now, I know the exact reason why the school holds its high ranking for these many years, and adding a couple of more NAE members is FAR FROM it.

Even if I'd like to believe the inflated number is a misunderstanding between the school and the U.S. news (I feel the people who is doing this ranking business doesn't have a clear idea either), I disapprove the practice. By looking into the name list more carefully, I found most of questionable additions are from one department. I know the department chair, who is brilliant, enthusiastic, and ambitious. His department is indeed one of the most improved one
in the school IMO, and should be in top 10 sooner than later. Adding these part-time faculty appears unnecessary, even though those influential people does help the department going on the correct track. BTW, the rankings of engineering schools and individual departments are two different things, with different methodologies and metrics. So one of Sam Lee's arguments does not hold water.

Let's be frank, most of senior/decorated faculty of any school won't be as active as younger/less-established ones. If USNews wants to make this stupid NAE number thingy scientifically accurate, they may need to try beyond reasonable efforts. So, the conclusion of mine is, U.S. News won't get into this trap, let alone there is much more data in the ranking deserving investigation, as many other posters pointed out already. In the end, they are doing this business well, their product helps millions of confused mind, and their customers still like them. Why bother?

To all the naysayers, you will be disappointed that the next year's U.S. News ranking won't have much change.

QW553

I just found out what you guys are talking about. This Roger Dooley dude is an administrator. Why post this on USC forum? Why not on a more public forum? This is too shady and despicable.

LasMa

Not much, but a little. That's one of the many bogus things about rankings -- they have to change a little year to year in order to sell each new annual issue. Of course, the changes have little to do with what actually happens on the college campuses, and much to do with USNRW's ever-changing formulas, and shennanigans by the colleges. BTW, USC is hardly unique; colleges have been manipulating data for the rankings since at least 1994, when the Wall Street Journal exposed the practice.

One encouraging note: There is a small but growing movement among colleges to refuse participation in the surveys. When this trend reaches critical mass, the rankings will become meaningless. This will benefit all parties concerned except USNWR.

QW553

I disagree with some of you, and think Sam Lee is a little psychological.

Similar to my background, Sam Lee came from Hong Kong, went to Northwestern for an engineering degree, worked for an defense contractor in SF and LA for years while waiting for green card, and moved (temporarily?) to DC recently. To me, she has dislike towards USC at the beginning, and the dislike developed increasingly over the year to a degree of animosity, all during a long period of time she has never been to USC.

If that is not weird enough, she has a disgust of everything LA, and every place non-pubic transportationed. That is, to me, pathological.

I don't know why Roger-Dooley thinks her a graduate student, while she mentioned many times she has been working for many years. The more important question is who gave this lead to HigherEd, Roger-Dooley or Sam herself. If it is the former, I would say it is sad that Sam Lee is used by Roger-Dooley, or others from CC administration. In the other case, I would say bravo, Sam.

LasMa

Maybe because the article had to do with USC? I'm just guessing though.

QW553

LasMa,

If you believe the movement encouraging you will discourage USNews, and all other rankings, you should get yourself checked. Ranking is part of American business culture, and exists solely because of the people. How do you expect the American change to a degree they don't want media?

QW553

I think there should be better place for this thread, like the one for Clemson, Washington Stl, etc.