<p>I am amazed and bemused by the outpouring of vitrole for USC. And yes, for the record we have sent two kids to SC. I attended SC, graduated UCLA. My husband went to an ivy. So, in a sense I have a dog in this discussion, but I also have some perspective. </p>
<p>My first one is the question of what is a “trade school” (educated or not)? Cinema/Television…hmmmmm entertains, informs, educates millions. Engineering…makes life better by invention and innovation. Medical school, which does produce men and women in a trade of healing…Philosophy…you can go to the market and prove that the meat exists…Sorry, bs. ALL schools of note (and not) produce under this trade school mentality, people in trades: Hopefully intellegent kids who make money healing, educating, in the arts, and in business.</p>
<p>As for the additional nonsensical discussion of whether SC accepts the lowest kids in outstanding public and private schools: So glad that you’re privy to admissions applicants and their stats. I’m delighted that you have the audacity to cast doubts on the admissions process/applicants/and their qualifications of ANY university. </p>
<p>The one thing that I have always found in intellectually limited people: the lack of ability of understand a situation, credit those positives and negatives, understand how the situation can affect you…and then move on. USC’s good fortune doesn’t take anything away from your university. It does however smack of the jealous ugly stepsisters in Cinderella. The donation does put USC in the position of providing society with more educated people who can benefit all of us. I don’t recall hearing that, UCLA for instance, has to kick in $20 million or two cents to USC. Or conversely that money, earmarked for UCLA was somehow diverted to USC.</p>
<p>I, for one, will say thank you to all the men and women out there who feel that their education and success was, in part, due to their education at their university, and decided to pay it foward.</p>