<p>I’ve read a lot of posts by beyphy and g0ld3n, and I actually find their posts in this thread to be more reasonable and easier to agree with than their usual posts. Both of them seem to be acknowledging that USC is an excellent school which is set to keep growing in reputation.</p>
<p>My personal hope is that USC will rise to the level of universities like Duke and Northwestern and Ivies like Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth sometime in the next 10-20 years. Such schools have national prestige. At USC’s current rate of advancement, I believe that this is very possible.</p>
<p>USC is a state school, it has lots of regional recognition. All 50 states have state schools, most have multiple schools. USC is a special unique snowflake, just like the 100’s of other state schools.</p>
<p>ModernMan, can you be a little more specific as to which posters in this thread you are referring to as “pathetic UC boosters?” I’m wondering who it was directed at since your post was vague and it would help me come up with a respectable answer to your comments. </p>
<p>For the record, USC is not a state school. It’s actually considered the epitome of a rich private school here in California, along with Stanford and maybe a few other expensive private schools.</p>
<p>@modernman: i’m done making these petty arguments on this forum. I don’t see the point when people like you clearly don’t see the contradiction you’re creating by saying that the UC system is crumbling before our eyes yet saying “The UCs are excellent universitie no one is disputing that.”</p>
<ol>
<li>USC (Southern California) isn’t a state school</li>
<li>USC (South Carolina) is a state school.</li>
</ol>
<p>“1.” is considered the rich private school, which is why it’s usually spelled U$C.</p>
<p>Well the money is being used wisely - recruiting, tech, renovations. And offices in the Asia Pacific. Dont think any other school has an office in like HK, Shanghai etc. This is where the big money is gonna be in a few years time.</p>
<p>Okay, sorry for resurrecting a somewhat old thread, but I just needed to put in my 2 cents.</p>
<p>USC does have prestige outside of California, but it’s not as big as UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford. Coming from someone who lived on west coast and migrated to east and midwest, the west coast is definitely where the most people know of USC. Back in Washington, and often Oregon, lots of people know USC and respects (except for Husky fans). People in the east coast do know of USC, but often confuses it for University of SOUTH CAROLINA (Also known as USC), but most people always double check and ask, “Wait, the one is California, right?” before they assume it’s S. Carolina.</p>
<p>I realize someone resurrected an old thread, but I had to respond. USC has been in the Princeton Review’s Top 10 dream schools for at least the last 3 years. (For what it is worth, I don’t think Berzerkeley made the top 10.). Clearly, USC has prestige among colllege applicants , parents and guidance counselors. I’ll grant that most older people still see it as a football school. (I still think it is kind cute when older men refer to USC as “Southern Cal”.)</p>
<p>LOL, unless USC changes its
“double”-misleading-name → “U of Southern California”,
most or many non-Cal people will always view it same series
as state-public-regionals, --></p>
<p>U of Southern Mississippi
U of Eastern Michigan
U of Western Virginia
…
…</p>
<p>And even if taking out “Southern”,
SC is still the only(?) school along with U of Penn
that are privates instead of public in the nation along
with likes of U of Virginia, U of Wash, U of Oregon…</p>
<p>But since changing name is not feasible,
SC will just prove that it will build its brandname
from regional to national-elite AS IT IS.</p>
<p>I am positive most people with average intelligence knows that southern California is a geographic region and not a State. Thus knows that USC is not a State school. </p>
<p>If that was the case people will confuse other regionally named universities: Northwestern, NYU, BU, BC, Caltech, MIT, Chicago, Georgetown, ect.</p>