@LoveTheBard, I agree that USC doesn’t have a very intellectual student body and that WashU would have the most out of USC/Vandy/WashU (I would have picked the U of C, BTW, but anyway, that’s a different discussion). The OP will have to decide if that matters. From a purely ROI perspective, turning down the full-tuition scholarship to USC is tough to justify.
Take money out of the equation for a second. No financial concerns where would you go, Harvard, Stanford or USC? And why?
Now add finances back tot he equation. Assuming Harvard / Stanford is the choice, can you make it work without significant hardship on your lifestyle, retirement, etc? If so, great. If not, USC (which is also great)
Big difference between “should I pay vs. could I pay?” If you’re fortunate enough to be in the “Should I pay” group, really think about the “why”. If it’s meaningful, pay, if not, don’t.
USC doesn’t have a very intellectual student body.
OP. Everyone has their own view on things but this is only personal opinion. There are many doctors researchers professors and other really smart and successful grads that come out of USC. If someone preferred to go to Stanford it’s understandable. But a candidate from USC could easily be in the same PhD program post grad with them and would be very intellectual indeed.
Will there be kids at USC that didn’t have the stats to get into hyps or even Chicago. Sure. But they might be just as smart and turn it on in college or they aren’t but they work hard and e d up starting the next Twitter. Who knows.
But a blanket statement that usc kids not being intellectual is just silly imho.
What did you tell your child when he prepared his list? Did you say “if you get into Harvard or Stanford, we can pay for it” or did you say " you can choose" or “you must walk away from Harvard or Stanford if you don’t get scholarship money?”
In other words, are you thinking of pulling the rug from under your child’s feet* or are you all hesitating, with your son and active participant in the discussion?
(* Yes parents do that in March or April every year.)
@privatebanker:
“There are many doctors researchers professors and other really smart and successful grads that come out of USC.”
That is definitely true.
“But a candidate from USC could easily be in the same PhD program post grad with them and would be very intellectual indeed.”
Yes, some USC grads do go on to get PhDs, but a far smaller proportion of the student body than at HYPSM or the U of C.
And yes, it’s an overgeneralization, but I think you’d find that a significantly smaller portion of the USC student body go there mainly or solely for the pursuit of knowledge. It’s definitely a pre-professionally focused student body, and there’s nothing wrong with that, nor do I think that’s bad for the OP, who seems pretty pre-professionally focused, but my impression is that a smaller proportion of the kids at USC go there to live the life of the mind compared to at the U of C or HYPSM.
I agree to the fine distinction you are making. But broadly saying USC doesn’t have a very intellectual student body is not accurate in my opinion. They may not be as intellectual as Stanford in totality. Agreed.
But Didn’t tiger woods go there. Not sure he’s up for a nobel in physics 
Op. The hyps schools are the most elite and broadly speaking, the smartest.
Good luck and let us know what you decide
@privatebanker, you mean Stanford?
Yes, both USC and Stanford would have several types. The proportions would differ.
BTW, I’m not using “intellectual” to stand in for “successful” or even “smart”. You can be both without being intellectual. Nor do I consider it to always be a positive (those who pursue the life of the mind may also be derided as eggheads). In any case, I’m not sure this even matters to the OP, who seems much more pre-professionally focused than interested in pursuing a PhD, anyway.
Ok. I understand. Yeah tiger woods went to Stanford before he went on to oxford as a Rhodes scholar
But I totally agree with your statement about people fetishizing undergrad and assigning this type of labeling seemed to fly inter face of that statement.
I would like to gently take some issue with the notion that students at Stanford are “really, really bright” or “brilliant” or “qualitatively different” from those at other top schools. I speak as someone who attended Stanford, albeit a few decades ago. I also served as a freshman advisor at Harvard College for many years, and got to know my students’ academic performance quite well.
At these schools, I found relatively few students that were truly brilliant. They were generally hardworking and motivated and had generally done well in the context of their local high school, or were likable enough that they could get A’s from their high school teachers. They obviously knew how to do well on standardized tests. Many had excelled in some particular activity, although typically at a local level, not at a state or national level. But I often wondered what the admissions office had seen to let some of these people in.
I was not particularly struck by students’ intellectual curiosity either. A large proportion of students were premed or prelaw or pre-business, which meant they wanted a high grade more than anything else, and often looked for the easiest courses they could take in order to achieve their goals. There were many recruited athletes, who were not always there for their intellect. Many students struggled with their course material. Dinner conversations were generally about mundane, everyday topics.
I don’t know how things are at other colleges, but I do know that at my medical school, some of the most accomplished people and those that received the highest scores on our tests came from places like USC. Also, the Dean of Stanford Admissions has said that they could have picked a second or third set of people that were equivalent to the set they admitted. I would imagine that the second or third set of students probably went to other top schools.
Anyway, I just wouldn’t put the student body on some sort of lofty pedestal. The students at these colleges are just like the people at your school like yourself who got accepted recently and are considering them now. You can use that as a basis for comparison.
@mdphd92 Thank you. And with your direct knowledge very important. Do you mind if I direct quote your post occasionally on other threads?
^ be careful when you use these comments: post 47 applied to the 80s and 90s, when when acceptance rates were triple what they are today, the competition wasn’t truly global, and no one had heard of either helicopter or tiger parents. That post is less true of the 21sr century and especially not of the past 10 years.
In addition, because she/he’s only been in contact with Stanford and Harvard students and now works at a med school, the poster has very little basis for comparison among teenagers, since she/he’s always been in contact only with tippy top students.
Ok.
^ I was going to make the remark that decades ago, Stanford’s student body was what USC’s is like now in it’s characteristics (and the Stanford students of that period haven’t done too badly–even though I wouldn’t have characterized the Stanford of back then as intellectual; heck, even now, I don’t see Stanford or Harvard undergrad as among the most intellectual student bodies).
We aren’t totally sure the date range. I didn’t see that in the post. and as a Stanford grad perhaps she gets back there and interacts. Our subjective analysis on things hold the same exact weight unless you’ve been a student there recently. And if you have it’s still a singular perspective.
So here’s the thing, @MYOS1634:
The competition to get in at the top has gotten a lot stiffer, but if you ask profs at those schools, they don’t actually see a significant improvement in the academic prowess of undergrads at those schools on average (some improvement, I think you would find some say, but not orders of magnitude different). It could be that a significantly greater percentage of hooked applicants are now let in (making it much harder for the unhooked pool) or adcoms aren’t selecting much for academic prowess (well, OK, we know that’s partially it under holistic admissions).
Very true @PurpleTitan
OP let us know what It decide. It’s an exciting set of opportunities.
Cheers to all!
@PT, USC doesn’t have a very intellectual student body? Really? Could you please expound on that for me?
@LovetheBard, did you also opine that USC doesn’t have a very intellectual student body? I missed that from you, but if you did say it, I’d also like to hear more details from you on this insight.
I was busy rubbing gravel into my head and referring to my son’s accelerated math program as “pretty neat”(he’s learning about equations and stuff, in addition to something they call pre-calcium–thought that would be part of chemistry, but who knew?!) when I saw @PT’s post. Later I’m going to go watch some Big Time Wrestling and drink Bud with a few of my USC homies. We’ve all known each other since we met at our internship senior year at Troy–a local meat-packing plant outside Newport Beach.
Glad I was able to check in on CC first, right after shooting a few more rats with my bibi gun out in the back yard…
Note for USC, he got full tuition not full ride or about 200k, not the 300k noted above. Still an awesome deal, and the one I would encourage my kid to take unless full pay at H/S was no hardship at all.
In terms of schools having an “intellectual student body”.
At many no-name high schools all over the country, the seniors most likely to get into Harvard and Stanford are the recruited athletes. Are they smart? Sure. Are they intellectual? Maybe or maybe not, but that has nothing to do with why they would get in and many smarter and more intellectual students would not. Often the middle class intellectual students are those who decide to take a merit scholarship. They are overlooked by the Ivies because being an intellectual does not necessarily translate into an outstanding college application.
Some, like LoveTheBard’s daughter, are so brilliant they easily stand out and are admitted to those schools. Most don’t stand out nearly as much as the wealthy student from the connected private schools who regularly send a significant number of students to those schools.
“Brilliant minds that are intellectually curious and that want to make a difference in the world. She saw a qualitative difference between the kids at HYPSC and those at the other top schools.”
It’s a bit like the blind men touching one part of the elephant and being certain of its shape based on the part they touched.
A family member went to Stanford and it is not “intellectual”. It has many students who ARE intellectual and it has students who are not and are very career focused. As does Harvard. As does U. Chicago. As do Wash U., Duke and USC. A student can choose to seek them out or not.
Making a difference doesn’t always mean starting a foundation with your family’s money or the connections they have to help you start it. It doesn’t mean developing an app that someone will pay you millions to buy. Making a difference may be those “dull” serious students working hard for As to get into medical school and be the doctors who save lives. Making a difference may be those “dull” scientists sitting in their labs examining some tiny aspect of mitochondria that will eventually lead to a cure for some disease.
Making a difference is not always an earnest “intellectual” student who loves to talk about ideas and even write about them.
I’m going to post later (real names excluded, of course) a few stats of two AMAZINGLY BRIGHT hs seniors who each got rejected to USC this cycle. After reading this thread, I now know USC evidently rejected them bc they were too intellectual (and in one case, her USC alumni MD parents, must also be too intellectual for a place like Troy…As the couple are both extremely intelligent, hard working, and respected doctors, perhaps USC should consider retroactively rescinding their respective medical degrees? Don’t want overly intellectual USC-trained physicians running around now, do we?!).