<p>I kind of agree with 1, 3, and 4. Every time I’ve come across a student that didn’t seem to be quite on-par with the rest of the people here, they’ve been a spring admit, a transfer, or a legacy student. I’m not in the admissions office making the decisions, but it seems to me that these students weren’t held up to the same level of high standards as the rest of us. That’s not to say that all of those students aren’t qualified to be here, it’s just that SC seems to have let too many borderline students slip in by utilizing these policies. Also, yes. Sports are emphasized too much in comparison to academic areas like dramatic arts and certain languages. But that happens in many, many schools. It’s not just a USC problem.</p>
<p>That being said, 7 is horribly offensive and incorrect. I’m not going to go so far as to say it’s inherently classist or racist, but it’s certainly elitist snobbery. Like so many other commenters on this thread, I went to public school and I feel that many of my public school peers who went on to top-notch schools are just as intelligent and educated as people I know from private high schools.</p>
<ol>
<li>This is another controversy for another thread entirely. I’ll just say that there are some things about USC parties that officers need to let up on, and other things that they need to pay much more attention to when deciding whether or not to intervene.</li>
</ol>