Is USC on the rise academically?

phantasmagoric · July 25, 2012, 9:53pm

^ So you have no response, as usual?

No one at Stanford ever uses the Marguerite to get to class; that’s not what it’s for. Given that the Marguerite takes Campus Drive, Palm Drive, Panama St., etc. it would take you longer to get to class on the Marguerite than to walk or bike (not to mention most of the routes are out of sync with the class schedule). The shuttle’s main purpose is to make it easier for people to go on/off campus, to the Caltrain station, to SLAC, to the medical center, etc.

If scoring well on a test (and the PSAT no less, not even the SAT) is what you and the admissions office consider “distinguishing” oneself, then I think we can agree that USC and top private schools have different takes on what “distinguished” means.

FWIW, it was menloparkmom who used that word, not me. (Persecution complex much?)

Considering that you constantly talk about USC’s rise (esp. in relation to other schools), then yes, that does make sense.

phantasmagoric · July 25, 2012, 10:11pm

Well, you aren’t likely to get gunned down at Stanford going from your dorm to the central part of campus. It’s not likely at USC either, but many have blamed USC’s graduate student housing for the recent student deaths. If USC could provide more close-by housing to students (grad or undergrad), the likelihood of this happening again would be less. So it kinda does matter where the housing is.

simba9 · July 25, 2012, 10:21pm

“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.”

It’s not unusual for schools to compete for the best students by offering financial incentives, and USC’s been pretty open that it’s playing the same game. Call it buying or bribing or whatever - I have no problem with it. It works.

b_amp_bsmom · July 25, 2012, 10:24pm

You are correct… iI should have said MANY, not MOST students take both tests. However…you can’t accurately assess the number of students that took both the ACT as well as the SAT from the charts that are listed above-because students can report EITHER the ACT OR the SAT OR both tests.They are NOT required to self report all of their test scores. For example, one of my children received a 36 on the ACT…he did not receive a perfect SAT score…it doesn’t require a rocket scientist …or a Phd candidate to figure out which test he reported to the universities. ;)

menloparkmom · July 25, 2012, 11:07pm

“many have blamed USC’s graduate student housing for the recent student deaths”

oh good grief. If a student is killed by a gunman it is the gunman’s fault. Would you say the same thing about the U of Chicago? which is also located adjacent to a “bad” past of town and which does not supply housing in “safe” areas for all of its 12000 grad students.? Was it Chicago’s fault that a gunman killed a grad student? Which did happen, a few years . Both Chicago and USC have large private campus security forces. Lets start blaming killers for killings, not colleges.

And Stanford suffered from a series of rapes in recent years by what I believe were non student perpetrators [if memory serves], which happened more often than not in poorly lit places on campus. Are they Stanford’s fault? Cause the entire campus is not lit up at night? Or the fault of the rapist?
sheesh…

madbean · July 25, 2012, 11:08pm

phantasmagoric, you seem unusually interested in college prestige and ranks. You have posted 19 times on this USC thread alone, and your long, rambling rebuttals and nonsensical interpretation of data seem to be less about setting forth your honest opinion than a highly defensive and heated bias towards your own school. Such threads often draw a lot of interest from naysayers with a grudge who appear angered that USC has gained in academic reputation and stature over the years. But perhaps it’s past time you retired from attacking posters here.

You long ago lost your objectivity and credibility, but your truly insensitive attack regarding the deaths that took place off-campus last year were unconscionable. As we know too painfully well, vicious and senseless crime may happen even in the most middle class neighborhoods in America. I found your comments on a thread that is aimed to talk about academic gains at USC to be reprehensible and think you owe this forum an apology.

menloparkmom · July 25, 2012, 11:29pm

"I found your comments on a thread that is aimed to talk about academic gains at USC to be reprehensible and think you owe this forum an apology. "
Well said. Its time phantasmagoric found another forum to post on.

SeattleTW · July 26, 2012, 12:49am

No, I welcome “phantom” and “i’m not an Asian guy, really i’m not,” and others like them; for you see, USC is the sun around which they gravitate…

compoopers · July 26, 2012, 12:57am

Now now, no need to resort to that.

I agree though, Phantasmagoric’s fixation on proving that USC is not as good as the rest at least shows how admirable his fighting spirit is.

phantasmagoric · July 26, 2012, 1:17am

^ oh you Trojans, getting all bent out of shape at the mere suggestion that USC has flaws as well as strengths; I notice none of you are even attempting to refute my points, and instead are going after me. If what I’m saying is so wrong, why has no one tried to refute it? You’re all exemplifying exactly what I said in post #238: when you have no response, attack the person. (Anyone who’s engaged in a debate with me knows I show the same “fighting spirit” no matter what the topic is. That’s because I won’t make a point that isn’t supported by facts and data.)

madbean,

And you base that on… what? My posts have nothing to do with prestige, and I rarely mention rankings themselves. Rather, I discuss the relevant universities in the context of hard data. So I will mention that USC is #25 in faculty salary pay; or that Berkeley has a larger budget. I’ll also mention that USC does have a higher average SAT score than Berkeley, or that USC has doubled its budget surplus in one year. All facts, nothing else. This thread is about USC’s rise, after all.

Yes, I post on many subforums, from MIT to college majors to Stanford to the parents forum to Cornell, and so on. <1% of my posts are in the USC forum, and as far as I know, there’s no reason that I can’t post here. Indeed, what originally brought my attention to the USC forum was several (4-5) USC people posting on the forum I frequent the most. I also have a close affiliation with USC (not myself), but that doesn’t matter, because you don’t need an affiliation to post on a school’s forum.

More importantly, if you don’t want to read my posts, don’t read them. I’ve brought more hard facts and solid analysis here than most, so that others can read it; many have found it informative. You can just skip my posts in the future. Same goes to you, menloparkmom.

How has my interpretation of data been nonsensical? Which data, specifically? What is your interpretation?

I assure you, I am setting forth my honest opinion. What have I been defensive about? What bias are you indicating? Toward which school? And what posts indicate that bias?

Ah, the “you’re just jealous” response. See #238.

phantasmagoric · July 26, 2012, 1:22am

Notice that I acknowledged “it’s not likely at USC either.” What I said was certainly not an attack, and I’m not going to omit a crucial fact simply because it’s an ugly reality. Guess what? Grad student housing was partly blamed from the very beginning of the ordeal - by many USC students and alumni as well. USC cannot house all its students, and many are forced to live farther away and in seedy areas. The higher crime rates of these areas are incontrovertible. So I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t relevant when discussing whether USC could do better to house its students on or very near campus. It was not an “attack regarding the deaths” and it wasn’t an attack on USC: it’s a pure and simple recognition of reality. If you don’t like it, tough - that’s how reality is.

Now of course, as I noted, it’s still not likely, and you’re right, menloparkmom, that other universities also have to contend with seedy neighborhoods that their students may live in. But that’s irrelevant: regardless of how common it is, wouldn’t it be better if USC could house all of its students? Wouldn’t that make them less likely to have to traverse a seedy area? That would be a better situation, as far as I can see.

jjalfonso1 · July 26, 2012, 2:26am

I don’t think that’s true. It’s the lack of “affordable” housing that causes students to choose to live as far west as Normandie.

Won’t matter how much housing USC builds if a student wants to pay $500 /mo. on rent.

As to refuting your points, the premise that a university with a higher operating budget is in a better financial position is faulty. During the recession, USC implemented a hiring freeze whereas UCLA imposed furloughs. And it’s UCLA that’s putting assets on the market (Hannah Carter Japanese Garden) in order to raise funds. UCLA has more employees than students, and salaries and benefits make up more than half of its operating budget.

You’ve look at the financials, but you missed the forest for the trees.

docfreedaddy · July 26, 2012, 2:32am

The neighborhood disparaged as “seedy” is actually a gentrified neighborhood the residents view as a safe neighborhood. The attack was completely random and done by two gang members, one who lives about 5 miles from USC, the other 60 miles from USC. The victims were foreign born students sitting in a BMW, double parked at 1:00 a.m. The motive was apparently robbery since items belonging to the students were recovered. It was reported by a witness that the students refused to acede to the gunmen. This will likely be confirmed at trial.

Below is the most thorough, recent overview of safety at USC and the surrounding area. A great deal of additional information can be obtained on the USC website or a Google search:

[The</a> Fictive Persona: Is USC Safe?](<a href=“http://thefictivepersona.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-usc-safe.html]The”>The Fictive Persona: Is USC Safe?)

i will not comment on the misrepresentations or motivations of a prior poster. Suffice it to say, he closely identifies with another fine private California university. The rapid ascendency of USC has been welcomed by most, but not all.

I think it is most important that prospective students and parents have a clear and unbiased understanding of the safety at USC and the surrounding areas. As the parent of an entering freshman, I have been greatly impressed with the emphasis USC places on educating students how to safely negotiate an urban environment, be it L.A., East Palo Alto, NYC, Rome or Paris. I think this education is as invaluable as the exceptional academic and social skills refinement USC offers.

SeattleTW · July 26, 2012, 2:58am

USC is paradise; the location, weather, people and experience make it a magical place in all of California!

beyphy · July 26, 2012, 10:27am

This essentially sounds to me like he’s saying “Caltech can only enroll 200 students, whereas we can enroll 550; that means kids who could get into Caltech prefer a USC education.”

What he isn’t telling you is that:

1) Caltech is significantly more specialized than USC, so most people don’t bother applying to it.

2) Caltech’s undergraduate class is like 17x smaller than USC’s. 200 students is a lot more at caltech (possibly the majority) than 550 is at USC. And (i could be wrong about this) but i heard Caltech is the most difficult school to gain admittance into in the country. If that’s the case, it’s unlikely that all of those students, counterfactually, would have been admitted to Caltech.

3) Lastly, there’s far more to Caltech students than just GPA and SAT scorse. Many of them, for example, compete (and do well) in the USAMO. I’m not sure if the same could be said of those USC students.

docfreedaddy · July 26, 2012, 11:42am

beyphy,

He is simply acknowledging Caltech is an excellent school with a stellar student body. His point, germaine to the present discussion, is that USC now has many students with similar peer standing. Like Caltech, USC is well known for selecting students for achievements and personal qualities in addition to GPA’s and test scores. That is as far as the analogy goes.

As you know, Caltech has a focused mission in STEM, USC strives for greater range in its focus. USC also has various focused honors programs which are extremely selective. The Thematic Options Honors selects 200 of the applicants from the 2650 incoming freshman (I do not know how many apply). The trustee merit award is provided to about 140 of the 46,000 applicants. Smaller, focused academic communities are thus created within a more diverse intellectual environment.

Caltech and USC are very different offering contrasting academic options for students to consider in addition to the campus and student body atmosphere which is the best fit for them.

BandTenHut · July 26, 2012, 11:55am

There are so many things wrong with what you just posted that it’s hard for me not to lose my temper.

He stated Caltech only enrolls 200 freshmen a year in that paragraph. Everyone knows that USC is significantly larger than Caltech. He’s not being unfair or dishonest.

This was very clearly addressed. There is no attempt to conceal this fact.

A lot of kids do! Is this shocking? You yourself said a lot of people don’t bother applying to Caltech; it’s not because they know they can’t get in, it’s because they don’t wanna go there!

Turns out you were wrong about this, Caltech is extremely competitive but a 13% acceptance rate is not the most difficult school to get into. You can look these things up you know.

The same is true of USC students.

You’re attacking EVERYTHING pro-USC, on the USC forum, whether or not you have a leg to stand on. You know, I hear there’s a lovely UCLA forum on this site.

docfreedaddy · July 26, 2012, 12:17pm

BandTenHut,

You are correct in what you wrote about beyphy and I am sure you have noticed obsessive, nearly irrational, attacks upon USC on this USC forum. Throughout history, similar attacks have been levied against newcomers of any established group. In USC’s case, the attacks are from those who consider themselves members of a group of elite universities. Just consider the biased or baseless attacks a reflection of other’s acknowledgement of USC’s rapid ascendency, desirability among prospective students and current status. Many have offered more adaptive commentary to the same effect.

Is USC on the rise academically?

CONNECT WITH US