<p>Speculation based on limited data =/= factual statements.</p>
<p>Plenty of generalization / speculation, not many factual statements.</p>
<p>It amazes me the commitment of time some from Stanford and UCLA spend obsessively presenting data that is tangential to the topic and irrelevant to the needs of prospective students and parents. Data can be extremely useful in supporting a hypothesis, but readily misused in a transparent attempt to promote bias. </p>
<p>Even the trolls have agreed USC is rising academically and by their word count and content do appear threatened by the extent of the rise. Those more secure in themselves or their institutions would embrace the rise and help elucidate from an outsider’s perspective the change they observe for the benefit of prospective families.</p>
<p>Re how a university spends its money, anyone have insight on what portion of expenses go towards staff (not faculty) salaries and benefits? Would be interesting to see what differences, if any, there are among the flagship UCs and USC.</p>
<p>To help maintain the thread topic, here is some useful data, though a bit dated (2010/2011):
Here is a ranking by 75th percentile ACT for those schools with at least 30% of the incoming class reporting SAT.</p>
<p>ACT comp 25th, ACT comp 75th, school name, percent reporting ACT</p>
<p>33 35 Harvey Mudd College 40
34 35 California Institute of Technology 38
32 35 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 32
31 35 Princeton University 31
30 34 Vanderbilt University 65
32 34 Washington University in St Louis 63
31 34 University of Notre Dame 51
30 34 University of Chicago 49
30 34 Rice University 46
30 34 Duke University 44
31 34 Pomona College 43
30 34 University of Pennsylvania 38
31 34 Stanford University 37
30 34 Amherst College 35
31 34 Harvard University 32
30 34 Yale University 32
30 34 Williams College 30
31 33 Northwestern University 62
29 33 Carleton College 58
29 33 University of Southern California 42
29 33 Johns Hopkins University 40
30 33 Middlebury College 39
30 33 Reed College 39
29 33 Swarthmore College 37
29 33 Brown University 37
29 33 Cornell University 36
29 33 Vassar College 3</p>
<p>and more:</p>
<p>from US Dept of Education 2010-11 data (IPEDS)
selectivity based on SAT
SAT includes Critical Reading and Math</p>
<p>SAT 25th, SAT 75th, college name, percent of incoming students submitting SAT</p>
<p>1390 1590 Harvard University 91
1470 1580 California Institute of Technology 93
1400 1580 Yale University 91
1400 1580 Princeton University 91
1410 1560 Harvey Mudd College 93
1410 1560 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 93
1400 1560 University of Chicago 73
1380 1560 Pomona College 80
1370 1550 Columbia University in the City of New York 96
1360 1550 Stanford University 89
1350 1550 Dartmouth College 75
1390 1540 Washington University in St Louis 63
1340 1540 Amherst College 69
1340 1540 Rice University 87
1360 1530 Vanderbilt University 46
1360 1530 Northwestern University 75
1350 1530 University of Pennsylvania 87
1340 1530 Swarthmore College 87
1340 1530 Duke University 87
1330 1530 Brown University 85
1310 1530 Williams College 96
1320 1510 University of Notre Dame 49
1220 1510 Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art 95
1350 1500 Tufts University 71
1310 1500 Bowdoin College 70
1300 1500 Georgetown University 94
1300 1500 Carleton College 68
1300 1500 Cornell University 90
1300 1500 Carnegie Mellon University 94
1290 1500 Wesleyan University 74
1290 1500 Johns Hopkins University 85
1300 1490 Haverford College 88
1300 1480 Claremont McKenna College 77
1300 1480 Emory University 84
1290 1480 Middlebury College 79
1270 1480 Wellesley College 80
1300 1470 Hamilton College 56
1270 1470 University of Southern California 82</p>
<p>Two points of interest:</p>
<ol>
<li>Data allow comparisons of LAC and university undergraduate characteristics.</li>
<li>Scores are two years dated. It will be interesting to observe any significant changes in student score characteristics across time.</li>
</ol>
<p>^ Being a west coast school, don’t most USC applicants take the SAT? So why the ACT comparison?</p>
<p>Actually most students that are applying to selective upper tier universities take BOTH. The UC’s and all of the privates schools will utilize the higher of the two test scores. Doing well on one test does not necessarily correlate with the same level of performance on the other test. I assume that docfreedaddy is not utilizing SAT scores for comparison basis because some schools superstore the SAT, and others do not…so there would be the typical outcries from some CC frequent posters that this comparison is unfair.</p>
<p>I came across the data provided by another poster. A full list of LAC’s and universities can be found here (SAT):</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1364300-325-most-selective-schools-ranked-sat-75th-percentile.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1364300-325-most-selective-schools-ranked-sat-75th-percentile.html</a></p>
<p>and here ACT):</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1364300-325-most-selective-schools-ranked-sat-75th-percentile-3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1364300-325-most-selective-schools-ranked-sat-75th-percentile-3.html</a></p>
<p>I’m not disputing the data, but I think the data set from this current year’s admission season will boost USC a lot.</p>
<p>With joining the common app, the standard of admitted students went up a lot.</p>
<p>docfreedaddy,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See my post #238.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of this data is biased. These numbers are simple reality, which you apparently don’t like. Well, tough. (I notice that you haven’t even tried to interpret the financial data for yourself - only chiming in to hurl insults at others. Do you even have any substantive response?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what we’re doing, but we’re presenting it from our viewpoint, not from the rose-tinted glass that you have. It’s easy to get caught up in all the feel-good rhetoric as an insider. Others have a more realistic view, which you dislike.</p>
<p>For example, in an earlier post, ModernMan asserted that the campaign, upon completion, would make USC a “true peer” to Caltech in STEM fields (and surpass UCLA and UCSD). And it’s absolute nonsense: half of the money raised will go to the endowment, the other to physical plant growth. $3 billion to the endowment will add $150 million/year to its budget (which would still not match the budget of Berkeley and UCLA, possibly even UCSD). The construction plan for USC is mostly aimed at the health sciences campus and the Village, neither of which will boost USC to Caltech-level in STEM fields.</p>
<p>Since you want to refocus the discussion on the OP’s question, here’s my full response:</p>
<p>Some seem to think that USC is about to crack the top-15 or even top-10 academically (not according to US News, but the quality of faculty, programs, and research). Many don’t seem to realize that other top schools are also fundraising and growing aggressively; nor do they acknowledge that these schools are far smaller and therefore more nimble. Their size makes it far less costly to have a low student:faculty ratio. In order to match the top privates in that, USC would need to double its faculty, which would require an additional $6 billion in the endowment *just to pay their salaries<a href=“doesn’t%20even%20begin%20to%20count%20the%20costs%20of%20additional%20infrastructure%20to%20support%20these%20faculty%20-%20that’s%20where%20most%20of%20the%20cost%20is”>/i</a>. And that’s at the current salary that USC pays, which is #25 in the nation as of 2012, far below what top private schools pay their profs. By the time USC did this (it likely never will, since it just doesn’t have room on its campus for 6,000+ faculty), the endowments of top-15 privates will be monstrous, all in the 25+ billion range.</p>
<p>No one could deny that USC is on the rise and has made significant gains over the past 20 years, and it certainly hasn’t peaked. USC now does quite well at the undergraduate level, on par with the top UCs; getting to that point was the easy part of USC’s rise. But it’s going to be a long time before USC can compete with the likes of UCSD and UCLA in the quality of faculty, research, and programs. It’ll be decades before USC can compete with Berkeley and top-10 privates in that area (some USC posters have conceded this as well). At the undergraduate level, USC will never be able to compete with top privates if it maintains the size it is now. In departmental strength, USC cannot compete with such a huge faculty, which necessarily dilutes the average quality. No amount of feel-good rhetoric can change reality.</p>
<p>Since the above probably won’t get a substantive response from you, I’ll ask an open question to make the discussion fruitful: how likely is it that USC will become smaller, particularly in the student body? And, do you personally think this is a good or bad thing? (Anyone can give their thoughts)</p>
<p>IMO the main reason USC has so many students now is mostly financial - student income provides the majority of revenue for the operating budget. Once USC has a larger endowment, it’ll have more leg room to reduce the student body (even having 25-30k students would be better; that’s where Columbia currently is). And I think USC should do it, since it might be able to give all undergrads housing and more grad students housing, plus it’d have a better student:faculty ratio, smaller classes, and more elite departments. I’m surprised more attention hasn’t been given to this topic, since it’s really the only way that USC will ever crack the top-15.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so - source of that data?</p>
<p>^ you can actually figure that out with the data given above (based on the % who take the SAT and the % who take the ACT). According to that data, it certainly isn’t most. At Harvard and Yale, 21% took both; Princeton 22%; Stanford 26%; Caltech, Duke, Rice 31%; JHU 35%. Even at USC, only 24% took both.</p>
<p>It’s entirely possible that the majority of students applying took both, but that of the students who were actually accepted/enrolled (which the above stats are about), a minority took both. But that’s unlikely.</p>
<p>b&bsmom,</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I came across the 2010/2011 SAT and ACT scores on another cc post. I thought it was of interest because both LAC and university student test taking characteristics are available for comparison. With regard to the superscoring issue, I am curious if any university or other source has released data comparing superscores to non superscores, or if universities that do not superscore all treat scores the same.</p>
<p>The ACT may then be a more robust measure for comparison, though there may be issues with it affecting across sinstitution comparisons I am not aware of.</p>
<p>As others have noted, the change across time, especially for the ACT may be most instructive to identify changes in composition of students attending various institutions. The validity of these tests, what they are actually measuring or predicting, is yet another issue.</p>
<p>USC IS planning on providing all UG students housing on or very near campus.
[USC</a> University Park Specific Plan](<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/specificplan/]USC”>http://www.usc.edu/specificplan/)</p>
<p>“The project would also provide more than 5,000 new beds for student housing adjacent to the University Park campus.”</p>
<p>Currently USC guarantees UG’s on campus housing for 2 years, and with the new beds at this new center directly across from campus, in addition to the dozens of student rental properties they have acquired or built in the past 3 years, it wont be long before ALL UG students will be guaranteed 4 years of USC provided housing. That will go a long way to increasing USC’s “desirability”. At that point I believe USC plans on increasing the overall freshman class size, and greatly reduce the number of transfer students accepted. The overall UG population will probably stay roughly the same.</p>
<p>^ I meant more that undergrads would be provided housing on campus, not necessarily in other housing/apartments that USC owns or subsidizes; but you would know more about the specifics than I would. Regardless, reducing the # undergrads would allow USC to “unstuff” housing, i.e. provide better housing to the students it has. The residential colleges of Yale and the like contain more suites; many students get their own room; and there’s a ton of common spaces. That’s not to say that USC doesn’t have some of that, but not nearly as much as schools that provide great housing to undergrads. Reducing the undergrad population would allow USC to compete more directly with these top privates if it could offer prospective students the same benefits in housing.</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA people have argued quite a lot whenever the topic of reducing the student body is brought up, mainly because they are public schools whose mission is to educate more students. But USC has no such obligation, and I wonder if alumni would agree that USC should be smaller. After all, USC is nearly 40% larger than the largest school in the top-20, so I wonder whether USC could continue a rise if it broke into that group. (In US News, for example, Berkeley is the only school with more than 27,000 students that has broken into the top 20, which it did because of its high PA score. It also rarely breaks into that group. No other school of 27k+ has done that in over 20 years.)</p>
<p>This quote from Nikias’s 2011 faculty address jumped out at me:</p>
<p>“Our freshman class has three times the number of Caltech-caliber students that Caltech’s freshman class has! This is an extraordinary development. Caltech enrolls some 200 freshmen each fall. Meanwhile, USC enrolls some 550 students with the same SAT scores and grade point average as Caltech’s freshman class.”</p>
<p>[Annual</a> Address to the USC Faculty | Office of the President](<a href=“http://www.president.usc.edu/speeches/annual-address-to-the-usc-faculty/]Annual”>http://www.president.usc.edu/speeches/annual-address-to-the-usc-faculty/)</p>
<p>And some Berkeley people like to claim that it has X times the number of Harvard-level students, etc. That’s simply not the case. Some 50,000 students last year scored above a 2100 on the SAT; something like 16,000 scored above a 2250 (can’t be bothered to look the actual number up). The overwhelming majority of these students are not Caltech- or Harvard-caliber. It’s not particularly hard to enroll high-scoring students (there are so many of them), esp. when you offer them money for scoring high.</p>
<p>“Our freshman class has three times the number of Caltech-caliber students that Caltech’s freshman class has! This is an extraordinary development. Caltech enrolls some 200 freshmen each fall. Meanwhile, USC enrolls some 550 students with the same SAT scores and grade point average as Caltech’s freshman class.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure this is a meaningful statement, as it’s cherry-picking to the extreme. All big schools are going to get some Caltech-quality students, but they’ll also have a much larger number of students that wouldn’t have met Caltech standards, dragging the average numbers for the whole class down.</p>
<p>The USC University Park campus is very small and compact, relative to the number of UG and graduate students, as you well know, so to compare apples to apples, it doesn’t matter if some “official” USC housing is across the street or 3 blocks away from UP. Many Stanford students have to bike 1/2 mile to get to their classes from their Stanford provided rooms or apts.
If appts, or rooms are only available to USC students</p>
<p>All big schools are going to get some Caltech-quality students, but they’ll also have a much larger number of students that wouldn’t have met Caltech standards, dragging the average numbers for the whole class down. </p>
<p>Sure! I’m just pointing out that USC’s average SAT/ ACT scores are now comparable to Cornell and UCLA. That is quite a remarkable change from even 10 years ago.
And $$ is $$- regardless of what “guise” it comes in- extremely generous FA packages such as those available at a HYPS, or merit scholarships. Both “buy” students. And many top colleges use them , and or/ athletic scholarships, for that reason.</p>
<p>menloparkmom,</p>
<p>You make many excellent points and are keeping the discussion on topic in spite of “outside distractions”. Actually, Stanford has had to implement an on-campus bus system to shuttle students across its sprawling campus to get them to class on time and counter occasional inclement weather. </p>
<p>With regard to comparative ACT/SAT scores, the data above indicates as of two incoming classes ago, USC far surpassed UCLA’s SAT/ACT scores and pulled ahead of Berkeley at both the 25th and 75%tile. These quartiles seem particularly meaningful since they indicate (to the extent you judge sufficient validity to these tests) a quite able student body from the lower through upper quartiles.</p>
<p>I am most impressed that USC commits funds to supporting all students–those in need financially and those who have distinguished themselves regardless of need. Investing in students seems the greatest investment a university can make. To portray this as “buying” students, provides much insight into the motivations of one making such a comment. </p>
<p>What is important to note when considering test scores is that USC focuses as much or more than most universities on personal qualities in its applicants to accrue a vibrant student body. The quality of the everyday USC academic and overall experience is palpable and I suspect contributes greatly to USC being a top 10 dream school for both students and parents. It is important to note that an engaging, vibrant atmosphere is not for everyone. USC students have been drawn away from other top schools, while those who elect other universities may well desire a less engaging atmosphere. </p>
<p>All this is to say, it is pointless to argue on cc which college or university is #1, #15 or #25, especially at the undergraduate level. Obsessive attempts to do so likely reflect insecurity on the part of those making the argument. The key is to identify the characteristics of colleges and universities which are most enabling for a particular student. This includes student academic and social interaction characteristics. To the extent students and parents on cc can help make this differentiation for incoming students, a valuable service will be provided.</p>