Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 12:49     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:In 1911, a "top tier" school was where rich kids went. So country club school for mediocre rich kids wouldn't be a misnomer.


Same as Harvard.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 10:07     Subject: Re:University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Do kids who get into HYP choose USC due to $$$


No. It's a peer to UMich and Tulane, and in-state kids that can't get into UCLA or Berkeley.


in exactly which department is it a peer of Michigans?

Not a Michigan booster btw - but USC is honestly a regional school.
. That's because there are so many opportunities in LA so graduates stay. Kind of like NYU in NYC.
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 11:38     Subject: University Southern California
Re UChicago. As a university, yes -- but not the College. At its nadir (in the 1990s), UofC was admitting just over 70% of those who applied.
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 11:21     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:Ahh, but "things change" (and rather quickly) was the whole point of invoking the 1970s. Stanford was nowhere near competitive with Harvard for top undergrads (couldn't even compete with Berkeley) only a generation ago.

UChicago has made a fairly spectacular climb wrt college rankings in a couple of decades. USC, at this stage, seems similarly poised for ascent. I think it's the University of Spoiled Children/shithole folks who need to catch up.


UChicago has been a top 5 school in the nation for well over 50 years.
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 11:01     Subject: University Southern California
In 1911, a "top tier" school was where rich kids went. So country club school for mediocre rich kids wouldn't be a misnomer.
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 10:21     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Ahh, but "things change" (and rather quickly) was the whole point of invoking the 1970s. Stanford was nowhere near competitive with Harvard for top undergrads (couldn't even compete with Berkeley) only a generation ago.

UChicago has made a fairly spectacular climb wrt college rankings in a couple of decades. USC, at this stage, seems similarly poised for ascent. I think it's the University of Spoiled Children/shithole folks who need to catch up.


Balderdash. A generation ago, i.e. 30 years ago, Stanford was the top ranked school in US News. Average test scores were the same as Harvard's and Princeton's.


Stanford was a top tier school in 1911. These rankings are very sticky, and they are useless for fine grained distinctions.

https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2014/08/06/persistence-of-the-old-regime/
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 10:13     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:Ahh, but "things change" (and rather quickly) was the whole point of invoking the 1970s. Stanford was nowhere near competitive with Harvard for top undergrads (couldn't even compete with Berkeley) only a generation ago.

UChicago has made a fairly spectacular climb wrt college rankings in a couple of decades. USC, at this stage, seems similarly poised for ascent. I think it's the University of Spoiled Children/shithole folks who need to catch up.


Balderdash. A generation ago, i.e. 30 years ago, Stanford was the top ranked school in US News. Average test scores were the same as Harvard's and Princeton's.
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 10:03     Subject: University Southern California
Ahh, but "things change" (and rather quickly) was the whole point of invoking the 1970s. Stanford was nowhere near competitive with Harvard for top undergrads (couldn't even compete with Berkeley) only a generation ago.

UChicago has made a fairly spectacular climb wrt college rankings in a couple of decades. USC, at this stage, seems similarly poised for ascent. I think it's the University of Spoiled Children/shithole folks who need to catch up.
Anonymous
Post 12/30/2016 09:16     Subject: University Southern California
Stanford is the top US university at the moment, considered the Harvard of the West Coast.

You people from the 1970s need to catch up. Things change.
Anonymous
Post 12/29/2016 21:10     Subject: University Southern California
Sorry, should have said that URL is to a Forbes article about Stanford admissions in the 1970s.
Anonymous
Post 12/29/2016 21:05     Subject: University Southern California
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/04/03/what-if-stanford-admitted-31-a-journey-back-to-the-1970s/#59cc615a5b19

Cf UChicago. Both in terms of rapid change in % of students admitted and in high rankings with comparatively low endowment.
Anonymous
Post 12/29/2016 20:36     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:USC's endowment is $4.5b
Stanford's $22b (half the student body, too)

Calling it the next Stanford is cute. It will continue to improve but let's not get crazy.


I think the PP said "the Stanford of So California" not the next Stanford. Pretty impressive endowment - I had no idea.
Anonymous
Post 12/29/2016 14:23     Subject: University Southern California
USC's endowment is $4.5b
Stanford's $22b (half the student body, too)

Calling it the next Stanford is cute. It will continue to improve but let's not get crazy.
Anonymous
Post 12/29/2016 12:35     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Great merit aid for HYPS level kids. Up-and-coming (likely to be the Stanford of SoCal in the not-too-distant future). Lots of $$ for facilities and faculty in the recent past, while the UCs faced budget cuts.


in your dreams. it would take a couple centuries for that to happen


Stanford changed dramatically over the course of 20-30 years. It was a mediocre rich kids country club school when I was in HS.


When were you in HS? The 1920s?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070905010206/chronicle.com/stats/usnews/index.php?category=Universities&orgs=&sort=1983


In the 1970s. And none of the smart kids went Stanford rather than Ivies or Cal or even Northwestern. Stanford had even less drawing power outside of CA. So things can change fairly quickly. Silicon Valley and USNWR had a profound impact on Stanford's prestige.

USC has now had a couple of decades of fundraising, building, and faculty recruitment at a time when flagship publics (both in CA and elsewhere) have faced funding woes. Now there's an overabundance of undergrads with excellent credentials, a national ranking system, and an increasing number of young people interested in living in cities. So, yeah, USC's moving up. Its name recognition, strength in medicine, its location, and proximity/ties to entertainment/communications industries all make it an attractive option for both US and international students. Generous merit aid (for NMSF and other highly-qualified students) is helping the school raise its stats and build a strong cohort. Definitely worth looking at.



I agree. USC has done a lot to improve academics and the campus. The surrounding area will inprove also after USC village is complete. Developers don't have a lot of land to work with around LA. Westwood where UCLA is small. The area around USC will be booming soon.

Anonymous
Post 12/29/2016 11:25     Subject: University Southern California
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Great merit aid for HYPS level kids. Up-and-coming (likely to be the Stanford of SoCal in the not-too-distant future). Lots of $$ for facilities and faculty in the recent past, while the UCs faced budget cuts.


in your dreams. it would take a couple centuries for that to happen


Stanford changed dramatically over the course of 20-30 years. It was a mediocre rich kids country club school when I was in HS.


When were you in HS? The 1920s?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070905010206/chronicle.com/stats/usnews/index.php?category=Universities&orgs=&sort=1983


In the 1970s. And none of the smart kids went Stanford rather than Ivies or Cal or even Northwestern. Stanford had even less drawing power outside of CA. So things can change fairly quickly. Silicon Valley and USNWR had a profound impact on Stanford's prestige.

USC has now had a couple of decades of fundraising, building, and faculty recruitment at a time when flagship publics (both in CA and elsewhere) have faced funding woes. Now there's an overabundance of undergrads with excellent credentials, a national ranking system, and an increasing number of young people interested in living in cities. So, yeah, USC's moving up. Its name recognition, strength in medicine, its location, and proximity/ties to entertainment/communications industries all make it an attractive option for both US and international students. Generous merit aid (for NMSF and other highly-qualified students) is helping the school raise its stats and build a strong cohort. Definitely worth looking at.