<p>as california’s debt grows worse, cal will only get worse along with it…</p>
<p>Just in the two years since my acceptance to USC, I’ve noticed a lot more respect from people on the East Coast when I tell them I go to USC (it’s already well-respected on the West Coast).</p>
<p>I don’t personally wish for other colleges to do bad, just for USC to do well. In fact I want to live in California so I hope that economy turns around. But while it’s down it definitely can and will set the UC schools backwards at least temporarily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a few reasons why I believe this happens: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>USC is a private school. Many people, especially students/parents who’ve done public school they’re whole life, get googly-eyed over the idea of private school. Maybe it’s about money or smaller class sizes - there’s something intriguing about it to them.</p></li>
<li><p>USC is located in a global city, like NYU or Northwestern. People will be immediately drawn toward it because people are drawn toward big cities. In a global city, you get top-rate internship or research opportunities. Schools with the backyard of a major metropolis prove you don’t have to live in the middle of nowhere to get a good education. </p></li>
<li><p>Sports. As much as we hate to admit it sometimes, sports gets our name out there. Take Duke for example; a school with crazy good sports teams yet one that still thrives at academically. People watch college sports from young ages, the school names stick, and eventually when it’s time to apply to college they realize “wow that school’s pretty selective…they must be good!” Not all top sports schools are difficult to enter (ex/ LSU). </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Most universities don’t have these 3 “legs” to stand on. Some don’t need any (Harvard). USC is fortunate to have all 3 and it’s one of the reasons USC continues to attract undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty from all over the world. </p>
<p>Now there’s 2 other reasons in my mind that make a school popular, that I didn’t mention</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Celebrity-factor. When a celebrity (or child of one) chooses to go to your school, you know the school is taken seriously. A guy like Schwazenegger wouldn’t let his kids go to a crappy school, and a guy like James Franco wouldn’t waste his time at NYU when we know he could be doing a billion other things.</p></li>
<li><p>Academics. Pure academics is by far the hardest quality to achieve and only a handful of schools do. I believe USC can use the 4 qualities above to get as close as they can to becoming a pure academic school.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“What I’m saying is that you can’t say ‘USC is good for undergrad, but it’s grad programs have a long way to go.’ That’s just not how it works. You have to have a good grad program in order to have a good undergrad program.”</p>
<p>I disagree. When judging the quality of an undergraduate program, people tend to look at the entrance statistics of the students who attend - GPA, SAT, ACT, etc. In that regard, USC has gotten pretty good.</p>
<p>When it comes to ranking graduate programs, people look at things like quality of research produced, research spending, Nobel prizes, professors on the Discovery Channel (most important)… Every so often I hear of good research coming out of USC, but it’s still not close to the level of places like Stanford, Cal and UCLA.</p>
<p>When I think of purely academics, I look at the overall research output of an institution as measured by journal citations. Sure some will argue that this unfair, but amongst academias, most will probably agree that the list below is an accurate representation of academic prowess. This is why USC has a long way to go as many have mention. The top 20 are all well regarded in academia. Noticeably missing are Caltech, Cornell, Duke & Chicago. </p>
<p>While there are a host of other prizes (Fields, Turing, etc) that I would consider just as prestigious as a Nobel, most people just look at Nobels. Let’s keep our fingers crossed this October for SC. </p>
<p>Based on the following 22 fields below:</p>
<p>Agricultural Sciences
Biology & Biochemistry
Chemistry
Clinical Medicine
Computer Science
Economics & Business
Engineering
Environment/Ecology
Geosciences
Immunology
Materials Science
Mathematics
Microbiology
Molecular Biology & Genetics
Multidisciplinary
Neuroscience & Behavior
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Physics
Plant & Animal Science
Psychiatry/Psychology
Social Sciences, general
Space Science</p>
<p>The Most-Cited Institutions Overall between 1999-2009 are:
Rank Institution Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
1 HARVARD UNIV 95,291 2,597,786 27.26
2 MAX PLANCK SOCIETY 69,373 1,366,087 19.69
3 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV 54,022 1,222,166 22.62
4 UNIV WASHINGTON 54,198 1,147,283 21.17
5 STANFORD UNIV 48,846 1,138,795 23.31
6 UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES 55,237 1,077,069 19.5
7 UNIV MICHIGAN 54,612 948,621 17.37
8 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY 46,984 945,817 20.13
9 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO 36,106 939,302 26.02
10 UNIV PENN 46,235 931,399 20.14
11 UNIV TOKYO 68,840 913,896 13.28
12 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO 40,789 899,832 22.06
13 UNIV TORONTO 55,163 861,243 15.61
14 UCL 46,882 860,117 18.35
15 COLUMBIA UNIV 43,302 858,073 19.82
16 YALE UNIV 36,857 833,467 22.61
17 MIT 35,247 832,439 23.62
18 UNIV CAMBRIDGE 43,017 811,673 18.87
19 UNIV OXFORD 40,494 766,577 18.93
20 UNIV WISCONSIN 50,016 760,091 15.2</p>
<p>[The</a> Most-Cited Institutions Overall, 1999-2009 - ScienceWatch.com](<a href=“ScienceWatch.com - Clarivate”>ScienceWatch.com - Clarivate)</p>
<p>As far as well roundedness, USC is difficult to beat and some will argue unparalleled. While not exactly perfect, USC has a lot going for it. I identified the alumni network, location, weather, breadth and depth of its academic programs, facilities, as some of USC’s strengths. </p>
<p>As mentioned above, sports is extremely important to many universities. There is a strong correlation between the performance of the football team and alumni giving. If this is true, then I am expecting a large increase giving after this season. </p>
<p>Ten years ago, I would have never even consider USC for grad school. When 2010 rolled around USC was the only school I applied to in the first round. NYU, Oxford, UCSD were my backups.</p>
<p>Grabbit, those factors may work for attracting undergrads, but top profs and grad students want to work with other top profs and grad students. A stellar faculty and grad programs create an academic pedigree that academics would like to take part in.</p>
<p>So the undergraduate education must be way better at UC San Francisco than at USC, right Sicilian?</p>
<p>When Henry Kissinger graduated from Harvard years ago, he was offered positions at Penn and Chicago. He reportedly complained that Chicago had prestige but no money and that Penn had neither prestige nor money. USC has money if not prestige and will buy it if needed. We are succeeding in buying stellar faculty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LMAO!! :rolleyes: This is thread is getting ridiculous. Of course USC isn’t going to be on this list, or even anywhere close. That’s an international list of TWENTY top-tier schools!! And yes, you’ve demonstrated that Berkeley and UCLA are more academic than USC. I never said they weren’t.</p>
<p>Look USC is a good school. What more do you want? It’s not Harvard but it’s not Slippery Rock University either. If you work REALLY hard at USC, get good grades, make connections w/ faculty, publish in good journals (yes, it happens despite the list above), then you’re probably going to get any job or post-doc position you want. USC is good enough and well-respected enough that it’ll set you up for success if you work at it. That goes for any mid-tier university. It’s what you make of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I noticed reading comprehension is not your strong point. I’ll just leave it at that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is exactly what is going. It’s a brilliant strategy. For instance, USC poached Mcfadden (72) and hired Gell-Mann (82) recently. However, purchasing prestige is much different than earning prestige. Both men above are in the twilight of their careers and it is probably unlikely that either men will produce much more significant research. That said, I still think having them sign on is better than not having them. </p>
<p>USC is also aggressively hiring talented young faculty. This investment will help create the necessary critical mass to attract the best and the brightest and push USC to the next level. Again, this process may take decades. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we agree here. I personally think USC is a great university or else I would not be here. I just find it silly that some people talk about USC surpassing Berkeley in academics (specifically graduate academics) is amusing. Look at the stats on the link below and you will understand.
<a href=“http://alumni-friends.berkeley.edu/fightingback/laureates_publication.pdf[/url]”>http://alumni-friends.berkeley.edu/fightingback/laureates_publication.pdf</a></p>
<p>As far as research is concern, the academic powerhouses in this state alone are Caltech, Stanford, UC’s (LA, SD, SB, Berkeley). One can even make the case that on a per capital, no in the world can surpass Caltech.</p>
<p>[QS</a> World University Rankings - Topuniversities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/citations-per-faculty/]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/citations-per-faculty/)</p>
<p>It is important to know exactly where USC stand because it makes us less complacent and more hungry. Everyone wants to be the best. The most prestigious universities are all making similar investment. Surpassing the top tier schools (who usually have larger endowments), and who are making similar or more substantial investments, will be extremely difficult if not impossible. </p>
<p>I agree with you that USC has the resources to help students succeed. In the end though, it is really up to the individual.</p>
<p>^Agreed. Except I might not call SB a powerhouse. It ranks with Irvine, Davis, and USC in my opinion.</p>
<p>Also in an episode of the Big Bang Theory last season, USC is mentioned by name in a joke. Sheldon is shopping for jewelry for Amy with Penny. Penny says to the jeweler something about him having trouble with his girlfriend. He replies “Great; trouble with girlfriends is what’s putting my daughter through USC.” </p>
<p>Small, I know. But trust me, once you’re mentioned in BBT, you know you’ve made it. ;)</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For every argument you have here, I can make a counterargument.
- Private, yes, it has that factor, but USC is notoriously known to be the “University of Spoiled Children” and most of the people it attracts are people who have money, more noveau-riche. Also their ratios and class sizes aren’t THAT much better compared to its school across the street, UCLA. </p>
<p>2) If you have been to USC’s campus, it is not really close to “a global city” like NYU or Northwestern’s “playground.” It’s closer to the ghettos of LA with a very stratified socioeconomic background and no real place for cultural exploration a la Chicago and NYC. I’d also go out on a limb, being a Southern Californian native, that LA is far less of an intellectual breeding ground like NYC and Chicago. You can get great research opportunities here, sure, but it’s not the most fertile of growing intellectualism. </p>
<p>3) Sports =/= prestige, academics. BUT USC does a fairly good job of being competitive with the PAC-12, outside of football and basketball as well. It does make a school popular, but it doesn’t extend much for prestige.</p>
<p>4) Celebrity factor, imo, cheapens USC. The celebrities that have attended USC aren’t known to be celebrity with genius brains like James Franco. You know who went to USC? Rob Kardashian, yes, brother of Kim Kardashian. Again, it goes with the Spoiled Children, nouveau-riche image.</p>
<p>5) Academics…USC is solidly middle, 2nd-tier college. It has strong business, journalism, film programs, but engineering and sciences are a bit weaker. </p>
<p>Another thing I’d like to add–USC is very well-endowed and heavily recruits National Merit Finalists and those kinds of students. They offer half-tuition to these kinds of students, and generous amount of full-rides as well. That being said, I know lots of students who turn down these scholarships for Berkeley, UPenn, Stanford. The fact that USC has to invest so much into getting these cream-of-the-crop students and yet still have people turn them down, imo, is a better litmus test of USC’s academics and perceived prestige. Still a long way to go.</p>
<p>^I was just providing a possible explanation as to why that person was getting impressed reactions from some people on the east coast. What was the point of yours other than arguing for the sake of it. By the way I agree with most of what you said. But again you like others compare USC to Berkeley, Penn or Stanford. That needs to stop lol. USC is nowhere close and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except both of those schools have more prestige, higher endowments (both at +6b) and higher endowments per student than USC does. </p>
<p>I also never understood people speaking of Penn as if it was an unprestigious university. No, it doesn’t carry the reputation of HYP, Columbia, or even Wharton, but it’s still a damn fine university. (and does fairly well in rankings)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t buy prestige. No one in academia’s impressed that USC can buy a faculty member or two who earned a major prize at some other university. That academic adds prestige to either the universities he attended earlier on, or the one that he was affiliated with when he received his award. They don’t add prestige to the ones that they’re associated with afterwards. </p>
<p>For example, Tefleo Ruiz, was associated with UCLA when he received the national humanities medal; Terrance Tao was associated with UCLA when he received the fields medal; Judea Perl was associated with UCLA when he received the Turing award, and so on. These people are the ones who add to the prestige of the university.</p>
<p>What USC can do, and IS doing, is hire young, impressive faculty on tenure track who will earn it awards, and afterwards add to its prestige.</p>
<p>Ok everybody let’s see if we can drag this one out at least 5 pages longer than the one from 2 or 3 weeks ago. SeattleTW & Beyphy aren’t you tired yet of these ridiculous ■■■■■ topics? They really do nothing for the usc/ucla forums.</p>
<p>Penn is not that prestigious. On the East coast, the perception is if you can’t get into hysp, you might as well go to any other school, including Michigan…</p>
<p>^ Fascinating insight… :rolleyes:</p>