<p>The campus has changed so much in the last few years.</p>
<p>Yes… I visited when son interviewed for scholarship when he applied last year. I can’t recognize some of the new buildings that once was a parking lot.</p>
<p>Disagree. Recent / ongoing capital improvements have related to much needed upgrades. E.g., student union (Tutor Campus Center), health services (Engemann) and athletic facilities (McKay).</p>
<p>In my view, USC is finally getting the amenities it’s been needing for a while.</p>
<p>According to a campus video SC has more green space now than it had many years ago when streets ran across the campus. Many of the new buildings are replacing older and outdated structures. The university plan includes planting of thousands of trees, more landscaping for the Keck School and other improvements such as the enhancements to Hahn Plaza.</p>
<p>When University Village is completed it will add new academic buildings, shopping, boutique hotel, dorms and additional green spaces.</p>
<p>I see the concern, but I don’t see it as an issue. It might seem like the campus has changed a lot in a short period, but all of the changes have been useful/helpful. I’m certainly not complaining!</p>
<p>Academically, no. Campus-wise, no. Student body-wise, absolutely. Why on earth do they now have 37,000 students? They didn’t have enough housing when they had 30,000 students.</p>
<p>IMHO USC is becoming like America Online was in the 1990s - too many customers and not enough underlying infrastructure. Finding housing on or near campus is like trying to find street parking in Manhattan.</p>
<p>I agree we have too many students. Nikias is over focused on foreign enrollment, IMO, one of the drawbacks of hiring a foreigner as president. We need fewer tranfers and grad students to enhance the learning experience.</p>
<p>SC has smaller campus than UCLA,
should it keep expanding its real estate
through gentrification with its surrounding district…?</p>
<p>“We need fewer transfers and grad students to enhance the learning experience”- how would reducing these groups of students accomplish your goal? What support do you have for concluding that they are reducing the learning experience at
USC?</p>
<p>USC is a research university, not a LAC. If you want a LAC experience, there are many excellent options across the US. </p>
<p>Grad students are integral to a research university and their presence allows opportunities for undergrads as well. For example, their grad level courses (which wouldn’t be offered without them) are available to undergrads, and they provide mentoring in many of the research labs on campus. </p>
<p>Selecting a medium-large size university is a choice. Some enjoy the opportunities that it allows. Luckily, if you want something different, it is an easy fix.</p>
<p>Seattle, I pretty much agree with you. CAMom, there’s a difference between quantity and quality. USC is becoming an ever larger school and I remain unconvinced that that’s a good thing. At 16,000-ish students the undergrad population is big enough but I fail to see why being so graduate-heavy is a good thing. Then there’s the issue of online learning, in which USC seems ready to whore itself out. As the other thread said, not everyone can or should be a Trojan.</p>
<p>BTW I selected USC for the program (film school), not the size of the school. However, everyone has to take classes outside of their discipline and that’s when size becomes an issue, as it does with housing, parking, extra-curriculars, social life, etc.</p>
<p>Has anyone thought that one of the reasons USC has a large student body is because it has so many schools that breakdown that student body to a smaller more manageable number. USC’s low student to faculty ratio and average class size are evidence of that.</p>
<p>Thanks USC alum05, finally someone who gets it. Nikias does appear less concerned about quality over quantity and he is pimping USC. He’s on a quest to internationalize USC by numbers and not achievements. We are larger than Cal!</p>
<p>SeattleTW, you seriously need to stop whining. You cry quite a lot on this board about transfer students and the size of the campus. However, none of your claims are backed up by any facts other than your opinion. </p>
<p>The faculty to student ratio is a lot more important. Would you rather go to a school that has 5K students and 15:1 student to faculty ratio or a school with 50K students and a 7:1 faculty ratio?</p>
<p>I will argue that it is stupid kids such as yourself that is holding USC back and not the number of transfers or total student population size. Do everyone here a favor and shut your face. No one want to hear your complaints. Besides, crying here will not achieve anything. Write or schedule a meeting with the administration and complain to them if you really think you have a valid argument. I am positive that Nikias and the rest of our trustees are much more intelligent than you and that the decisions that they make are for the benefit of the university.</p>
<p>^ how is it whining to bring up a flaw of USC? SeattleTW is one of the most hardcore Trojans on this board and rarely criticizes the school. I think it’s good to have a realistic/balanced view.</p>
<p>I also think USC could afford to downsize. The university gets a huge amount of revenue from student tuition/fees: around $1 billion/year, which I believe is more than any single institution in the country, if not the world. In the past this was necessary, since the university relied on student revenue for the operating budget. Now that USC has a pretty large endowment (remember that there aren’t many schools with an endowment larger than $1 billion), gets a lot more external funding, and is in the midst of a large campaign, I think it’s the perfect time to take the size issue off the backburners and reconsider it. Unfortunately, endowments are largely restricted, so in order to make up for the loss in student revenue (which is unrestricted by definition) as a result of downsizing, the unrestricted portion of the endowment needs to grow more than the restricted portion. But even if the entire $3 billion from the campaign were all restricted endowment, that would help, because the unrestricted portion would have less demand on it.</p>
<p>There are tangible benefits to downsizing, too: smaller classes, more access to the faculty, better housing (higher % would live on campus; fewer roommates per room), less competition for resources like facilities and internship funding, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on how the numbers break down; the # students and the student:faculty ratio are often poor indicators of actual class sizes. Even looking at the # classes in specific size ranges (as in the Common Data Set, which USC does not publish) doesn’t tell you much. You also need to know the average # classes that a student takes and the class size distribution, from which you can calculate statistics of the average student experience. In other words, it’s entirely possible that the latter would have worse class sizes than the former.</p>
<p>I’m laughing at Sicilian’s poorly written comment and can only conclude he’s not a USC-calibre student. USC is huge, becoming less exclusive and more dependent on transfers and foreign students than ever. Our admit rate is kept artificially but deceptively low with a massive influx of spring admits and backdoor transfers. No top university does this. Nikias is leading USC in the wrong direction, IMO.</p>
<p>SeattleTW, let’s keep it real here. You are the person on this board who thinks he is superior to his spring admit/transfer peers. Imagine how big your head would be if you actually attend HYPSM. </p>
<p>You are still planning to schedule a meeting to discuss your concerns with the administration right? You should be kissing their butts for what they have done for SC over the last few decades. </p>
<p>You are partly correct in guessing I am not a USC-calibre student because when I was applying for undergrad, I did not even for a second considered SC. Back when it was ranked below 50, USC stood for the University of Sucking C*ck and it was not even a safety school for me. Even today, it is still regarded as the fourth best school in the state. You are a joke kid, get over yourself.</p>
<p>Lol, let me guess: you are not a USC alumnus. I knew that by the quality or lack thereof of your comments. If you by chance are a USC alum, you could not have matriculated as a freshman. Btw, I got into USC and Stanford as an undergrad. And you’re wrong about the pecking order in California…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this difficult to believe because you obviously care a lot about prestige/rankings. So unless you received a full ride at SC, you are an idiot for choosing SC over Stanford. Maybe this explains why you post stupid comments on this board. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what would that pecking order be?</p>
<p>Stanford and USC were the same cost and USC was my first choice, though I admit friends who did not get in have said the same thing. I had three friends at USC who also got into The Farm, who cares? We all did well. I went to a private high school so to me, the order is Stanford, USC, Cal and UCLA…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So all of a sudden my pecking order should be aligned with yours? Genius! Most people will have to agree that the pecking order is Caltech, Stanford, Cal, then USC/UCLA.</p>