Will this massive influx of cash translate to undisputed prestige? What are your thoughts?
“A generation ago USC was lauded for its film school and athletic programs, but the private university was dismissed by many as a safety school for wealthy kids who couldn’t get into UCLA. Within a relatively short period of time, thanks to a staggering amount of money, USC has rebranded itself as a top-tier university, the kind with Nobel Prize-winning professors, celebrity faculty members, and headline-making donations that rival those of endowment heavyweights Harvard and Stanford.”
“This is the ultimate goal,” Nikias says, “to really set up this university academically, where there is no question that we belong in that pantheon of elite universities.”
It’s funny how the L.A. Times presumes that those of my generation couldn’t get into UCLA, as though USC was full of UCLA wannabes. I had no desire to attend a public college, including UCLA, and didn’t apply to it. And at least three of my friends, including a roommate, transferred from UCLA to USC in the 1980s. Especially for many out of state students, UCLA is just another public school, just like the University of Washington or Berkeley.
Like other private colleges, USC is full of rich kids. Harvard and Stanford probably have more than we do, per capita. So USC needs to catch up in that department.
It’s not politically correct to say rich kids want to hang with rich kids, so it’s easier to say it’s for kids that didn’t get into UCLA. AT USC there is plenty of diversity, so if you want to meet all types great, but the wealthy can certainly find their social circle. It’s how society works and nothing wrong with that actually. USC is really trendy right now with students, I think the prominence of LA in society has as much to so with that as academics. But they are doing some great things, and it seems money is what is making it happen.
Interesting that USC did not rank in Princeton’s Top 25 Alumni Networks. On the west coast it was Stanford and Gonzaga that did. Is this another case of USC thinking they are the greatest, but public perception being different?
I agree with you. Another point is that L.A. Magazine’s founder, a UCLA alumnus, and other UCLA alumni who created this stereotype, forget that USC is a private school that naturally should be expected to have affluent kids, and that the majority of USC students never applied or chose UCLA as their first choice college. That is a false assumption. The Cal students say the same thing about Stanford (or did when I got in). I’ve never met Stanford or Harvard or Princeton kids call USC a school for spoiled rich kids because they all have their share of spoiled rich kids.
And to your other point, Gonzaga is a Jesuit school and if they have the number one network in America, it’s of no moment to me or most other USC alumni. But I question the review’s validity.
Ya not a big rankings person either, but since alum network it is one of their biggest marketing messages, just surprised they aren’t in there somewhere. I do think USC is walking a fine line trying to be everything to everybody which often proves costly to overall quality and will lead to a student body of extremes only (then comes other problems). I think they are alienating large segments in the efforts and reaching a tipping point.
Yes, Nikias is focusing too much on increasing the international student body and grad schools when he should be focusing on the undergraduates (e.g., reducing spring admits and transfers) Also, I checked out the methodology of the ranking and it focuses on value, student debt and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whether a school has a valuable alumni network.
Well, Steven Sample not only publicly stated his goal of making USC the “Stanford of Southern California,” but he also set out on a methodical approach to attain this goal. Nikias recently inherited this juggernaut, and he is beholden to expand on it.
Through strategic steps of first strengthening individual graduate departments, and attracting community investment; to then changing the value proposition of the undergraduate school, Sample raised money, hired incredible people (who in turn have won prestigious awards), and offered strategic investments in scholarships and departmental funding. He also increased the sense of interdepartmental competition for prestige and funding.
I think Nikias is carrying forward with this strategy, and is succeeding in the goal. The new build-out of the acquired property across the street will really enhance and unify the campus feel. A generation ago, the place was deserted on the weekends as the predominantly southern-california students went off to parents’ places in Palm Springs or to the beach, now it is a vibrant place with a larger international and nationwide presence.
If, as you assert, Nikias wants to add value to the undergraduate experience, then he needs to stop treating spring admits like second class citizens. Was his daughter a spring admit? At $60,000 per year, our freshmen deserve better. And in the 80s, USC wasn’t deserted on the weekends. I lived there with many other out of state students and enjoyed the relative solitude of the weekend campus. Some people think USC just got its act together since Sample. USC began its upward climb in 1962 or so since Norman Topping, continued by Hubbard, Zhumberg, and accelerated since Sample.
One element of the “Stanfordization” that will be hard replicate is Silicon Valley. If you look back in time, Stanford wasn’t always a rival to Harvard. To my knowledge, Stanford only recently became a true world class university and the university’s ascension paraelled the rise of Silicon Valley aka Tech. Don’t get me wrong, Stanford was always a great university but not at the level it is today.
USC does have a similar relationship with Hollywood as Stanford does with Silicon Valley, but unfortunately entertainment is not as academic as tech is.
With all that said, Nikias is doing a fine job with fund raising and recruiting stellar faculty. At this rate, I believe USC will be equal to the Northwestern, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Emory, and Duke within 10 years.
I agree he’s doing great raising money and hiring faculty. My focus is on protecting the unique USC undergraduate experience.
I am very impressed, however, with USC’s physical plant: USC looks and feels wealthier than Penn, Brown, Notre Dame, and other top schools insofar as the structures and layout. The transformation is simply stunning.
USC is hitting the point of diminishing returns with regards to improving its undergraduate programs. It needs to focus on improving its graduate and professional programs, which is what it seems to be starting to do.
I went to grad school at USC and don’t have direct experience being an undergrad there. What was so unique about the supposedly unique USC undergraduate experience?
I would submit that because of the weather, proximity to LA, school spirit, beautiful campus, and undeniably attractive student body, USC offers far and away the best social life of any of the academic elite (top 25) major universities. Beyond that, because of the vast resources and sheer size of faculty, students at USC have virtually unlimited opportunities for study and engagement.
He is destroying the undergraduate experience by adding another class (over 2,500 students since 1998, OMG); forcing marginal admits to enter in the spring, when they deserve to join their freshmen counterparts in the fall; increasing, when he should be decreasing, the transfer classes; and enlarging the number of international and graduate students. He believes, like his publicly-schooled administrative colleagues, that USC should resemble and mimic state schools like Utah, Georgia State, SDSU, and SUNY Buffalo. In short, the pressures of a huge student body are undermining the ability of undergrads to achieve a top shelf education in the context of a smaller social setting. USC is simply too large as a private college and the undergraduates are the ones suffering. The consequences include a housing shortage, larger classes, especially GE requirements, more social alienation and a lower endowment per student ratio, leading to less funds for scholarships. Nikias is pushing USC in the wrong direction. If you seriously want USC to achieve greatness like Stanford, and I believe we can, then stop copying the publics and start behaving like a private school. In that department Nikias and his cronies are either clueless or simply lack the will to do so.
Most grad students don’t receive financial aid…Isn’t the purpose of such a large graduate student population to raise $$$ for the school and thus improve the overall student experience?
No, the purpose is to educate grad students with a first rate education with stellar faculty and help them get good jobs after graduating. Focusing on raising money at their expense by enlarging the grad school size across the board dilutes the value of their degrees and USC brand, achieving the opposite effect. USC has reached the breaking point in size and the law of diminishing returns is taking hold.
This topic has come up quite a bit. USC’s strengths are in professional programs, a great campus spirit, and tremendous alumni loyalty. The main issue holding back USC is lack of research accomplishments in hard core academic disciplines. Money can buy top researchers, but developing and sustaining research accomplishments for USC to burnish its academic image will take a long time. It may never get there.
A lot of universities gained academic prestige by being in the right place at the right time…Stanford with Silicon Valley/tech, Berkeley and Chicago with the Manhattan project, for example. USC has historically strong programs based partly on location and history. For example, film and aerospace engineering are and were big industries in L.A. and that support helped attract talent to USC for those programs. USC has moved up by becoming more selective with undergraduate students - which has a lot to do with increased globalization and a demographic trend called “Tidal Wave II”, which floated a lot of university boats. Hollywood and L.A. may be the center of entertainment; but unfortunately for USC, entertainment is not viewed as very academic. Until USC builds research credibility in more academic subjects, it will likely remain as prestigious as it is today.
