<p>Except that absolute numbers don’t really give you an accurate idea of the public’s perceptions of the school. Any time you hear about USC in the news, it’s something to do with sports, not an academic achievement. I just Googled “USC” and pressed the “News” button on the side, and every USC article on the first page is about football, except for one.</p>
<p>I didn’t say USC’s large enrollment limited the number of top students… that’s ridiculous. What I said was that the fact that it has such a large student base means it’s not going to have as optimized a class as a school like - to use a similarly ranked school as an example - CMU, which has a third the number of undergrads. In other words, USC gets to be less choosy. The brightest of high schoolers will go to a top 10/20 school, and the ones who are left would rather choose a school that 1) has a more favorable faculty to student ratio (USC is basically a public school in terms of how many undergrads it has) and 2) has less of a jock culture. Even if the second part is an unfair generalization, you can’t deny that’s how most people see USC.</p>
<p>Fickle, I do apologize. Yours was the first comment I read that I did single out, but at least it got you to post some opposing opinions. That’s what a thorough discussion needs.</p>
<p>It is interesting to read the comments of an apparent former USC student, USCalum05, and a self-described ■■■■■, Fickle. Both support my prior comment that USC’s rise has been so rapid that many are struggling to conceptualize it. In these cases there seems to be a bit of spillover of grudge issues present as well.</p>
<p>USCalum uses popular entertainment shows that provide caricatures of a wealth lifestyle in a strained oblique reference to USC and materialism. His rationale is that USC shares the same general geographic location where these entertainment shows are filmed. I find his comments especially odd since most alums would know USC has attracted the largest international student body of any US university for the tenth straight year ([USC</a> enrolls the most international students in the nation - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/local/la-me-1114-foreign-students-20111114]USC”>USC enrolls the most international students in the nation)) and 14% first time family college attendees. This is not opulent entertainment material, but a highly diverse economic and international student body.</p>
<p>Fickle makes reference to the brilliant founders of Silicon Valley, though seems unaware that much has changed in the past 40 years. Silicon Valley historians reflect on the emergence of pump and dump start-ups of little societal value overtaking earlier substantial contributions. The resulting deleterious influence on the mission and intellectual atmosphere are a prominent Silicon Valley university is probed in this and numerous related articles. [Is</a> Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley? : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta]Is”>Stanford and Silicon Valley | The New Yorker) </p>
<p>@docfree, my first post in this thread was trollish, I’ll admit. But if you think I’m actually a ■■■■■, take a look at the rest of this thread.</p>
<p>Also, your post is full of meaningless statements and contains no coherent argument as to why USC is “on the rise”. In fact, it contains no coherent statements at all… I have no idea what the point of your post is.</p>
<p>You described yourself as a “■■■■■”. As far as not deriving the meaning of what I am saying in response to your and Alum05’s criticisms, the issues are admittedly complex and not merely yours or my personal opinion. It will likely help you to read the articles I cite and USC’s mission statement, then comment.Simply put, the world and a university’s place in it are rapidly changing. USC’s response seems especially adaptive and has contributed to its rapid rise of the past decade or so and provides a basis for its continued rise.</p>
Maybe that has something to do with the sheer number of people who apply to USC. For the average student, of which there are many more than top students, USC may very well be their dream school.</p>
<p>
Uhm, ok, you sound like a PR agent with how many meaningless statements you’re making. Just read the part of your post I quoted, lol. You seem like one of those people who reads one negative article, and then starts making up conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>Fickle! Your response to my post is okay! But stop judging other posters based off their posts! A coherent argument over if USC is on the rise academically is all that is wanted in this discussion.</p>
<p>To go back to your original point, Hope4USC, yes the university is most definitely on the rise. On the undergraduate level now it’s fine. We’re not Harvard but we’re definitely on the map. If you’re looking at USC, other similar universities with similar programs and strengths are NYU and Columbia. Both offer the same “top university in a big city” experience with similar strengths in their arts and professional schools, though I don’t know that they’re focused so much on grinding out competent professionals as USC is… I gave those schools a good look but ended up not applying as for me they were on the wrong coast.</p>
<p>I think the big question for you is what you want to major in and where you want to go. I have no problem whatsoever recommending USC particularly for its professional schools, though I wouldn’t so much recommend it for a generic liberal arts education or for the medical school, as those are its weaknesses. They are still respectable, but there are other schools that do it better.</p>
<p>If you’re interested in coming to SC, it’s a good place to be and a good place to plant some roots. The region is growing and dynamic although it’s no longer the land of opportunity - that’s Texas. Southern California is becoming more calcified and elitist like the Northeast but all of the economic activity in our lifetimes is going to be on the Pacific Rim. Keep in mind also that universities like any other institution rise and fall over time. Stanford, Duke, Emory, etc. weren’t always considered as good as they are today, just as Miami of Ohio used to be one of the very best universities in the country. Not so any more. USC is perfectly positioned to continue its rise, and that’s where the endowment campaign comes in. They have a lot of things to take care of - housing, the medical school, redeveloping the University Village, hiring more top faculty in the sciences, etc. - and I have no doubt that they will. I’m proud to be part of the university community but as I said they still have a long way to go. But I absolutely made the right choice in coming to school here and I wish the same for you.</p>
<p>The only complaint I have heard from those completing the TO program is missing out on taking some of the rich core liberal arts offerings which TO substitutes for.</p>
<p>Time to dispel stereotypes and all-around stupid comments (funny how they’re all from the same person):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Comparing cities based on their sports teams? And they’re not even the same sport. “Showtime” does not equal “showboating.” They start with the same 4 letters but so do “showtunes” and “shower” You were barely born anyways. How would you remember the 80s Lakers? LOL. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an old stereotype and I always question how much someone really knows LA when they say stupid stuff like this. There are plenty of regular people in LA. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are about 100 medical schools “weaker” than USC and yet they’re all great schools. So you’re actually going to tell people who want to go to medical school at USC not to? I’d really like to know what you have against the medical school. Not enough research publications compared to others? Do you think it’s too expensive? You seem to point it out a lot but you never go beyond saying “they need to fix it.” </p>
<p>USC is classified as a private research institution and every professor in biosciences I’ve talked to outside of USC says it’s a good school. So as much as you try to denigrate the sciences at USC, it’s still a prominent institution in academia. “Respectable” might even be an understatement. </p>
<p>I’d really like to know what you do now. </p>
<p>Maybe my dad went to medical school at USC and is making over $350,000 year now. Just something to think about.</p>
<p>I never understood why not being in the top 10, 20, or 30 in a national rankings list is considered a weakness. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Truth is, I doubt any of you have worked with USC professors/doctors or even touched foot on the medical campus. In fact, based on what I’ve read, I doubt that any of you would even have the academic chops to do science/medicine/research! So I find it really odd for you guys to talk about things you don’t know.</p>
<p>And yet you are talking about our experience working with USC professors and our “academic chops.” I too find it odd for you to talk about things that you do not know. He is entitled to his opinion that medicine and the sciences are a weakness of USC just as you are entitled to your opinion that they are not. No need to speak irrationally here.</p>
<p>Haven’t started there yet, but I’ve interviewed with them, visited multiple times, and spoken with current students on just about everything. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s where you’re wrong though. It only takes a few seconds, or a few words, to put a false idea in somebody’s mind. I’m just setting the record straight.</p>
<p>It’s pretty laughable that you’re trying to discredit science as being “commercialized.” I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. Colgate, for example, funded research at UCLA which might eliminate cavaties within our lifetime. I don’t see what’s bad about that.</p>
<p>Additionally, you don’t even address UCB’s argument. His argument’s pretty simple:</p>
<p>Academics care about science
Academics don’t care about entertainment
USC is good with entertainment
USC is not good with science
If USC wants academics to care about it, it should boost it’s science programs.</p>
<p>Whether science is commercialized or not has no bearing on whether or not it’s what academics care about. And thus, has no relevance to whether it will increase USC’s reputation. Perhaps you’re arguing that they shouldn’t care about it. But it’s a fact that they either do or don’t care about science (and it seems they do.) And it’s also a fact that USC either does or does not need to boost it’s science programs if that’s what academics care about (and it probably does since they probably do.)</p>
<p>As an aside, some of your post (especially in the first paragraph) makes no sense. I have no idea what “(“Stanford Inc”, Washington Monthly)” is even supposed to mean. (i assume it’s an enthymeme)</p>
<p>I don’t have time to go back over all the arguments made here, so let me just go back to one of my original points, Hope4USC. Let’s let the rankings speak for themselves.</p>
<p>The latter ranking, frankly, is embarrassing. USC should be <em>much</em> more highly ranked than that. This is what I meant when I said that the liberal arts, science, and medicine are not USC’s strong suits. In terms of research (don’t care to thumb through all the individual listings), Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, and UCSD are all ranked much more highly.</p>
<p>By comparison, off the top of my head…
USC film - best in the world, or at worst usually top 3
USC business - top 10 undergrad, top 20 MBA
USC law - top 20
USC accounting - top 5
USC engineering - top 5-10
USC comm - top 5
USC theater - top 5</p>
<p>The difference is top 5-10 for most of those programs, versus #86. Ouch.</p>
<p>Again, different schools have different strengths. Note the age of Grabbitt. Before 2000 or so, USC was largely populated by bratty rich kids who couldn’t crack Stanford or the UCs. Around 1980, the university’s freshman SAT scores actually fell below 1000 (!!!).</p>
<p>BTW we have a few doctors in my family and they are doing quite well. No need to brag about how much money you make or don’t make… that would be the “in your face materialism” I was talking about. Drive a fancy car, live in a fancy house, and don’t have a dime in the bank.</p>
<p>Stanford, Inc. is an article in the Washington Monthly. It is a followup to the seminal article in the New Yorker Magazine entitled, “Get Rich U.” Get Rich U is a very well researched article worth reading. The point of the article and mine is that academic science is becoming trivialized in at least one high ranking institution due to the intrusion of short term economic goals (pump and dump startups) into the university setting. If you read and consider carefully the premise of the article, it substantially calls into question the validity of university rankings in science.</p>