USC the best of the schools ranked 20-25?

[Anonymous]

Is there really a difference between 20 and 25? or between 15 and 25 for that matter. They are all good schools and your DC will get a solid education at any of them if s/he applies themselves.

You also need to be careful comparing admit rates between state universities and private universities. If you want to make that comparison you need to focus on the OOS admit rate of the state universities, not the overall admit rate.

[Anonymous]

About 10 years ago, USC hired the best teachers from the UCs and CalSates and gave them about 30% raise.
Tuition went up to $50.000 per year for undergrad which was the highest at the time.
USC is known for having excellent teachers.
Instruction in big public schools, no matter how selective, is a hit or miss depending on the instructors. My DS had a terrible semester at his highly ranked research public. All of his classes were being taught by unexperienced graduate students. Tutoring sessions were a waste of time. This would never happen at USC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best does not necessarily = most selective.

And most selective does not necessarily = lowest acceptance rates.

wut? how come?

Many colleges entice large numbers of students to apply to boost their rankings and/or get application fees. Tulane is a great example of this. My daughter got AT LEAST 2 emails every week for a year from them plus many postcards in the mail. Indeed, their acceptance rate is only 12%. But that doesn't mean much because you don't know what their applicant pool is like. They are notorious for getting low stat/unrealistic applicants to apply just to reject them. Selectivity of the candidate pool is the first and most important factor. You can have a rock bottom acceptance rate but if it’s from a mediocre candidate pool, then your results will still be mediocre.

Limestone University, Ottawa University in Kansas, and Jarvis Christian College have lower acceptance rates (14%) than Tufts (15%), UVA (24%), and Notre Dame (16%). That doesn't mean they're better schools or more selective. Their applicant pool is probably just bad.

Yeah but everybody plays that game.

Certainly not to the same extent. Chicago played it massively and Tulane has been recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best does not necessarily = most selective.

And most selective does not necessarily = lowest acceptance rates.

wut? how come?

Many colleges entice large numbers of students to apply to boost their rankings and/or get application fees. Tulane is a great example of this. My daughter got AT LEAST 2 emails every week for a year from them plus many postcards in the mail. Indeed, their acceptance rate is only 12%. But that doesn't mean much because you don't know what their applicant pool is like. They are notorious for getting low stat/unrealistic applicants to apply just to reject them. Selectivity of the candidate pool is the first and most important factor. You can have a rock bottom acceptance rate but if it’s from a mediocre candidate pool, then your results will still be mediocre.

Limestone University, Ottawa University in Kansas, and Jarvis Christian College have lower acceptance rates (14%) than Tufts (15%), UVA (24%), and Notre Dame (16%). That doesn't mean they're better schools or more selective. Their applicant pool is probably just bad.

+1. Also in the case of state schools, many of the applicants are prescreened by the state high school counselors whose job it is to route the students to the state institutions best suited for that students. Hence a lot of students who are applying to public like UCLA know that they don't stand a chance of getting in and apply to UCIrvine, etc. That's why the percentage of acceptances is higher for state institutions. They get a better and more selective application pool. Usually, the exact stats required are made public. .The high school counselors (also state employees) have good Naviane track records and can show the students and their parents where to get the best bang for their application buck. Also, most state institutions don't play the marketing games mentioned above (doing everything possible to get as many applications as possible so as to reject as many as possible) simply because they are public institutions and don't have huge, fancy admissions offices and visiting teams.

In California, you can just check a box next to the UC to apply to it. This undoubtedly drives up applicants to schools like UCLA. They also get a lot of people applying from OOS and internationally thinking of sun and palm trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best does not necessarily = most selective.

And most selective does not necessarily = lowest acceptance rates.

wut? how come?

Many colleges entice large numbers of students to apply to boost their rankings and/or get application fees. Tulane is a great example of this. My daughter got AT LEAST 2 emails every week for a year from them plus many postcards in the mail. Indeed, their acceptance rate is only 12%. But that doesn't mean much because you don't know what their applicant pool is like. They are notorious for getting low stat/unrealistic applicants to apply just to reject them. Selectivity of the candidate pool is the first and most important factor. You can have a rock bottom acceptance rate but if it’s from a mediocre candidate pool, then your results will still be mediocre.

Limestone University, Ottawa University in Kansas, and Jarvis Christian College have lower acceptance rates (14%) than Tufts (15%), UVA (24%), and Notre Dame (16%). That doesn't mean they're better schools or more selective. Their applicant pool is probably just bad.

Interesting experience on that front: My kid got an email from Wooster and clicked through to see what the supplemental essay question was. He instantly got an email that said, "
Thank you for starting your application at Wooster..." So I guess he's an applicant for statistic purposes, even though he has no intention of going further.

[Anonymous]

This person is just making things up. Ottawa University in Ottawa KS does not have a 14% acceptance rate. I didn’t look up the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This person is just making things up. Ottawa University in Ottawa KS does not have a 14% acceptance rate. I didn’t look up the others.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ottawa-university-1937
I just picked three random colleges from US News’ “Colleges with the lowest acceptance rates” list. Take up your issue with that publication, I guess, because that’s what Ottawa’s acceptance rate is listed as.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This person is just making things up. Ottawa University in Ottawa KS does not have a 14% acceptance rate. I didn’t look up the others.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ottawa-university-1937
I just picked three random colleges from US News’ “Colleges with the lowest acceptance rates” list. Take up your issue with that publication, I guess, because that’s what Ottawa’s acceptance rate is listed as.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

Elsewhere it is listed as being 78%. Seems more accurate. The ACT range is 17-21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This person is just making things up. Ottawa University in Ottawa KS does not have a 14% acceptance rate. I didn’t look up the others.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ottawa-university-1937
I just picked three random colleges from US News’ “Colleges with the lowest acceptance rates” list. Take up your issue with that publication, I guess, because that’s what Ottawa’s acceptance rate is listed as.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

Elsewhere it is listed as being 78%. Seems more accurate. The ACT range is 17-21.

Ok. I apologize for not double checking. Hope it didn’t cause too much distress.

[Anonymous]

To the OPs question. No.

[Anonymous]

USC is a good school, but it’s not ranked in the 20’s. I’m not even sure that it’s ranked in the top 100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UCLA is better school than USC. But it’s a public so. UCB is better school than UCLA if that matters.

+1. You cannot compare the selectivity rates of public vs. private schools. They are completely different entities with different missions. Plus the applications to the publics are self-directed by the public high school counselors (also public employees) whose job it is is to make sure the students pick good matches. It makes no sense to have a student apply to UCLA when their stats would place them at Cal State Long Beach. That is the job of the public high school counselor. Also public universities don't have the huge admissions offices to play the USN&WR marketing game of encouraging students to apply only to reject them. There is a lot of literature out there on this subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USC is a good school, but it’s not ranked in the 20’s. I’m not even sure that it’s ranked in the top 100

You are thinking of the wrong "USC"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best does not necessarily = most selective.

And most selective does not necessarily = lowest acceptance rates.

wut? how come?

Many colleges entice large numbers of students to apply to boost their rankings and/or get application fees. Tulane is a great example of this. My daughter got AT LEAST 2 emails every week for a year from them plus many postcards in the mail. Indeed, their acceptance rate is only 12%. But that doesn't mean much because you don't know what their applicant pool is like. They are notorious for getting low stat/unrealistic applicants to apply just to reject them. Selectivity of the candidate pool is the first and most important factor. You can have a rock bottom acceptance rate but if it’s from a mediocre candidate pool, then your results will still be mediocre.

Limestone University, Ottawa University in Kansas, and Jarvis Christian College have lower acceptance rates (14%) than Tufts (15%), UVA (24%), and Notre Dame (16%). That doesn't mean they're better schools or more selective. Their applicant pool is probably just bad.

+1. Also in the case of state schools, many of the applicants are prescreened by the state high school counselors whose job it is to route the students to the state institutions best suited for that students. Hence a lot of students who are applying to public like UCLA know that they don't stand a chance of getting in and apply to UCIrvine, etc. That's why the percentage of acceptances is higher for state institutions. They get a better and more selective application pool. Usually, the exact stats required are made public. .The high school counselors (also state employees) have good Naviane track records and can show the students and their parents where to get the best bang for their application buck. Also, most state institutions don't play the marketing games mentioned above (doing everything possible to get as many applications as possible so as to reject as many as possible) simply because they are public institutions and don't have huge, fancy admissions offices and visiting teams.

+1 I went to school in CA and this is absolutely true. Counselors spent a lot of time directing kids to apply to specific UC and CalState schools based on their stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This person is just making things up. Ottawa University in Ottawa KS does not have a 14% acceptance rate. I didn’t look up the others.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ottawa-university-1937
I just picked three random colleges from US News’ “Colleges with the lowest acceptance rates” list. Take up your issue with that publication, I guess, because that’s what Ottawa’s acceptance rate is listed as.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

Elsewhere it is listed as being 78%. Seems more accurate. The ACT range is 17-21.

Ok. I apologize for not double checking. Hope it didn’t cause too much distress.

Why so rude? I was just clarifying that you are right that US News seemed to have it wrong....I was agreeing with you. I don't care enough to take up the issue with US News as you suggest.