Is USC on the rise academically?

tseliottt · July 9, 2012, 5:45am

For the record, pretty sure USC engineering isn’t top 10.

docfreedaddy · July 9, 2012, 5:49am

beyphy–you can Google both Get Rich U/New Yorker Magazine and Stanford, Inc./Washington Monthly. Research to prevent cavities has great value. The author of Get Rich U. contends the majority of start-ups he references from this high science ranking university have little or no societal value. I would be interested in your comments if you read the articles.

wisdomsomehow · July 9, 2012, 6:28am

I’m just surprised so few people know who Henry Kissinger is… or in what era he would have given the quote about the difference between UPenn and Chicago (here’s a hint, he died in 1977, so before that!)

Fickle · July 9, 2012, 8:43am

docfree… no (reputable) ranking includes the number of start-ups a university produces when compiling a list of the top science schools. Maybe you have some Luddite view of science and how it’s ruining our society, but no one really cares. The fact is that schools like Stanford produce far more research and top graduates than USC, and thus is perceived to be the better STEM school.

Also, Henry Kissinger didn’t die in 1977… he’s still alive.

ModernMan · July 9, 2012, 10:47am

Everyone on here knows I’m a die hard Trojan, but it is true that USC needs to improve in the STEM fields. Although USC is very good in tech and engineering, it needs to significantly improve in math and science to achieve elite status.

STEM is the present and future. Universities that are strongest in those will be considered the elite.

Now in USC’s defense, I have no doubt whatsoever that USC will significantly improve in the STEM fields and will be the leading university in the Southern California by 2020 - surpassing UCLA and UCSD and being a true peer to Caltech.

The 6 billion dollar campaign is the game changer. In no way will Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD and even possibly Caltech are able (or planning) to surpass that amount by 2020. Money talks and holds power; and you better bet USC is going to use that money very wisely.

grabbit · July 9, 2012, 11:59am

So, for example, you think that University of Virginia, University of Pittsburgh, and Case Western are elite?

docfreedaddy · July 9, 2012, 2:34pm

Modern Man,

I agree that money is a necessary element for building and maintaining a great university, but it is not a sufficient one. The key is vision. Vision is what has fueled USC’s rise over the past decades. The endowment to date has been relatively small.

Silicon Valley is a nexus of power and money. Stanford is as well, along with being a leading STEM university. Stanford of late has embraced a bold vision of entrepreneurship which differs greatly from USC’s vision articulated in the recent USC mission statement:

<a href=“http://strategic.usc.edu/USC%20Strat...Dec%202011.pdf[/url]”>http://strategic.usc.edu/USC%20Strat...Dec%202011.pdf</a>

Some argue cogently that the current direction of Stanford and Silicon Valley is misguided and damaging, especially to Stanford. For those involved in STEM, especially, it is an interesting and valuable read:

[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)

The contrast between Stanford’s vision and USC’s is striking and useful to review to appreciate the breadth of USC’s vision and potential pitfalls for STEM education for all universities.

SeattleTW · July 9, 2012, 3:41pm

Harvard is not considered a STEM powerhouse. Neither is Yale or Princeton. The fixation on the Silicon Valley is as laughable as it is nearsighted…

grabbit · July 9, 2012, 3:44pm

Im not sure what all this comparing with Stanford is about still. We’re not on the same level as Stanford.

But, the key is not only vision but investment. USC has to invest in people, buildings, etc and it has. They’re listening to what students/faculty want. Good evidence is what they’ve done at the Health Science Campus. In just a few years they’ve built new hospitals, cafeteria/restaurants and a gym, and research centers. Check this one out:

<a href=“https://news.usc.edu/files/2012/07/Broad-CIRM-Center1.jpg[/url]”>https://news.usc.edu/files/2012/07/Broad-CIRM-Center1.jpg</a>

And they’re not done either. More research buildings are on their way. The fact that changes are taking place is a really good sign. The USC president could have been greedy and decided to increase his salary a lot. A lot of institutions do this (cough UC’s). CEOs of private companies do this all the time, leaving a lot of workers unhappy.

USCs investment shows that it cares about its people and that’s a great quality to have.

Harvard is considered a powerhouse in almost everything.

ModernMan · July 9, 2012, 4:40pm

Linked below is the master plan for the health science campus
<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/community/hscmasterplan/private/docs/HSCMasterPlan_030711.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usc.edu/community/hscmasterplan/private/docs/HSCMasterPlan_030711.pdf</a>

Think about it this way if the entire endowment for UCLA is 1.8B and UCSD is 570mm (which they are considered to have better medical centers) what power can ISC do to recruit the best faculty, students, and build the best facilities when they plan on raising 1B just for the medical school.

tseliottt · July 9, 2012, 4:43pm

Wrong.
10 Characters.

grabbit · July 9, 2012, 4:46pm

Sorry I have a really hard time understanding this sentence. Please use better english.

ModernMan · July 9, 2012, 4:47pm

Pitt, UVa, and Case are not elite and are not powerhouses in STEM. I don’t even know why you brought them up.

The universities I consider elite in STEM are:
MIT
Stanford
Berkeley
Harvard
Chicago

docfreedaddy · July 9, 2012, 4:48pm

grabbit,

I agree with all you said, but want to clarify I am not comparing USC to Stanford, quite the opposite–using Stanford as a contrast in vision, values and stated mission to USC. The New Yorker article, Is Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley? :

<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta[/url]”>Stanford and Silicon Valley | The New Yorker;

and USC’s mission statement,

<a href=“http://strategic.usc.edu/USC%20Strat...Dec%202011.pdf[/url]”>http://strategic.usc.edu/USC%20Strat...Dec%202011.pdf</a>

provide clear and authoritative references to these differences.

I think USC has been remarkably successful in shepherding its economic and human capital and will continue its rise because of this. One particular strength for USC as its STEM areas develop is the existing balance offered from its established humanities, journalism/communication and social science programs, as well as an insightful, globally oriented administration.

ModernMan · July 9, 2012, 4:55pm

Sorry, I’m on my cell.

Since USC is planning on raising 1 billion for health science campus alone (which will be used to recruit the best faculty and students; and build better facilities -see link). I suspect that USC Keck will surpass UCLA and UCSD as the southlands top medical centers.

USC Keck’s endowment will be in excess of 1 billion. Where UCLA and UCSD’s entire endowment is 1.8 billion and 570 million respectively.

SeattleTW · July 9, 2012, 4:59pm

How many engineering majors are at Harvard?

grabbit · July 9, 2012, 5:02pm

I see what you mean.

Thanks for posting the PDF to the proposal. I hadn’t seen that before. Honestly though, that is a HUGE undertaking and I will be surprised if they build HALF of the buildings they’re proposing. I don’t even think UCSF or Washington University’s medical campus is as expansive or has as many buildings shown in that proposal. If they can manage to build all this, though, then I agree: I think they will overtake UCSD and UCLA.

That is definitely a ballsy proposal though, haha. I love it. It’s a healthy sign. But something like this looks like it’ll take at least 10-15, probably 20 years to complete. I mean look at the World Trade Center. NY has money, they’re under immense pressure as the whole world watches, and they don’t have to consider earthquake-proofing, and it’s still going to take them another 10 years at least to complete.

The link you continue to provide does not work. You have another?

simba9 · July 9, 2012, 5:10pm

Harvard, Yale and Princeton are not known for engineering, but they’re among the very best when it comes to most things. They can be characterized as having a large number of great departments with a handful of merely good departments. USC, on the other hand, has a large number of good departments, but only a handful of great ones.

grabbit · July 9, 2012, 5:12pm

Found it:

<a href=“http://strategic.usc.edu/USC%20Strategic%20Vision%20Dec%202011.pdf[/url]”>http://strategic.usc.edu/USC%20Strategic%20Vision%20Dec%202011.pdf</a>

ModernMan · July 9, 2012, 5:15pm

A large portion of those building are either being constructed now or are in the planning process currently. The entire project is suppose to be complete by 2030.

The following is from the most recent Trokay Family Magazine:

Health Sciences Campus

3.88 net million square feet of development
Major campus beautification effort (phase I under construction)

ACADEMIC

Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Educational Building (in the planning phase)

RESEARCH

HSC Research Building III with bridge (in the planning phase)

CLINICAL

Healthcare Consultation Centers III (breaking ground in 2012) and IV (in the planning phase)

UNIVERSITY SERVICES AND ATHLETIC SUPPORT FACILITIES

HSC Student Housing (breaking ground in 2013)
HSC Hotel and Conference Center (in the planning phase)

Is USC on the rise academically?

CONNECT WITH US