<p>… of middling private school students scoring well:</p>
<p>A student, say in his jr year knows he or she won’t be graduating top 10%. </p>
<p>To become marketable to the highest level university he or she can - one of the reasons he or she attends a private school, he or she takes the SAT and makes that his or her concentration, his or her best foot forward.</p>
<p>Being that he or she has teh resources, meaning, mom and dad have the monetary means, he or she can retake the SAT over, say, three times to score well, coupled with SAT tutors (very costly) and prep courses (relatively so).</p>
<p>The wealth factor is the main reason why elite private school kids do well on the SAT. At some of these schools, the mean SAT is > 2100.</p>
<p>Becasue of the above, there’s a(n) extremely high correlation between scoring well on the SAT and having money.</p>
<p>Add to the above that most private universities including USC superscore the test, which means replacing component scores with the best regardless of sitting.</p>
<p>I say ‘apples and oranges’ because the data presented may not be a flat-out lie but certainly manipulated. Say, for instance, if 75% and 25% medians are reported, what is hiding out in the lowest 25%? I don’t have time right now, but any data presented on any supposed “common forms” can be just as much toyed with.</p>
<p>Yeah, I get all that drax. But to move up in the rankings, 'SC will have to displace the privates (and/or Cal & UVa). Thus, 'SC’s real competition is other private schools where the data is the same: ~50% full payers, many of whom attended small, private high schools; all of whom superscore.</p>
<p>btw: how many high schools have an SAT mean that exceeds 2100 and are feeders to USC? Oxford Academy, arguably the top public magnet in SoCal is “only” 1950. Harvard-Westlake just clears 2000. The point being, that some west coast high schools --primary feeders to 'SC – might be that strong, but they are rare and statistically, would not make a dent in 'SC’s overall numbers.</p>
<p>SC does publish a complete set of date about each freshmen class on their website in the undergraduate admissions section. It lists scores, diversity numbers, academic distribution, GPA and other admissions data.</p>
<p>Private universities do take the best SAT scores for admittance purposes. SC, Cal and UCLA also use the ACT. All use the same system for the ACT. Here are the ACT scores from last year from College Confidential UCLA Combined ACT—27; UCB Combined ACT—28; USC Combined ACT—30. The UC system releases their admissions data in November, so the new information is not available at this time. </p>
<p>In the enrolled class 59% are from public schools and 41% are from private/parochial schools. Harvard-Westlake is the private school that sends many students to SC. Punahou is second. However, also represented in the class are students from Hotchkiss School, Phillips-Andover, Groton, St. Paul’s, Pace Academy, Deerfield, Bryn Mawr School for Girls, The Athenian, The Buckley School, St. Lucy’s Priory, Bentley School and Lovett Academy among others.</p>
<p>I do not think the above are “middling” private schools.</p>
<p>For UCBChemGrad,
George Lucas did donate $175 million to SC. Of that amount about $100 million was spent to build the new USC School of Cinematic Arts. Yes, SC has received donations to support their art schools. However, there have been huge gifts to support other academic endeavors.</p>
<p>Keck Foundation
Donated $110 million for the medical school.</p>
<p>Alfred Mann
Donated $112 million for the Mann Institute of Biomedical Engineering</p>
<p>Ming Hsieh
Before his $50 million donation on Friday he gave the Viterbi School of Engineering $35 million.</p>
<p>Steven Spielberg
Donated $10 million to the Shoah Foundation, which is preserving video recordings of Holocaust victims. Also donating to this foundation were NBC with $3 million and Universal Studios with 3 million.</p>
<p>Dornsife Foundation
Has given 21 million to support the study of neuroscience.</p>
<p>Flora Thornton
Donated 4.5 million to Keck School of Medicine</p>
<p>Annenberg Foundation
Donated 5 million recently for Keck School of Medicine scholarships.</p>
<p>There have been others, but this is a sample of donations apart from the art schools.</p>
<p>I thought I established that USC takes numerous students from elite private schools. These schools would be the largest feeders to USC, as you stated, Harvard-Westlake and Punahou.</p>
<p>Its partly how I phrased things oddly, certainly; for instance, I stated middling elite private-school kids, when I should have stated middling elite-private-school kids, or middling ranked kids from elite private schools… in anyway, what I stated about gpa and USC fishing for lower-tiered students with high scores from these elite schools, should have set my point correctly if there were any doubts. </p>
<p>If USC takes 40 kids from Harvard-Westlake, out of, say, a graduating class of 300, with the top 10-20% scraped off the top by Yale, Harvard, etc - because these schools would never dip below the top 20%, say - then where does that place the 40 kids to USC? One could probably place the top 60 or so to various Ivy Universities and other elites, and hammer the USC kids below them at the very best. A small number of high-ranking students might take USCs offer of acceptance and enroll there, but the majority matriculating at USC would probably have middling rank from this school.</p>
<p>I could make a similar argument for the 50 or so that USC takes from Punahou…</p>
<p>UCLA used to take a lot of these middling kids from H-W, but to be fair to other hss, most if not all lower ranking, the university imposed essentially a quality-blind admissions wrt the high schools. This wouldn’t be entirely true as UCLA would indeed dip into class-rank at some outstanding high schools but not anything generally lower than the 80th percentile, whereas before it would be a lot lower. This doesn’t apply to athletes which can be minimally qualified to UC’s index, at say, Corona del Mar, which UCLA and all UC’s include in frosh statistics. </p>
<p>More GeorgiaGirl:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And USC would indeed fish for high scorers by sacrificing class rank and gpa. Therefore, I dont doubt the SAT/ACT scores at USC are legitimately higher than UCLAs and Cals.</p>
<p>Neither UCLA nor Cal place a great emphasis in scores because as the UC administration states: The grades (class rank) one attains shows a more long-term accomplishment than SAT scores, the latter an ephemeral accomplishment of a few months, as opposed to grades, etc, which are years accomplishments.</p>
<p>Also, for both to meet their diversity indices, both have to place less emphasis on scores because under-represented students score lower on the SAT because they are poorer. I cant fault either university for this, being both are public, but I agree with those who state that both go too far in seeking those hidden gems with lower scores and even lower grades becuase their high schools are severely limited and they dont have the funds to take a top-notch prep course at the worst (… and correcting one of my prior posts, which should have stated undeperforming high schools and not in reference to the students there). Both universities undoubtedly spend a lot of money getting these students up to speed and competitive with the rest of the student body, with some of these students dropping out, which is costly to the state.</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My mistake…</p>
<p>I thought Harvard-Westlakes mean/median SAT for graduates would be > 2100.</p>
<p>… for those kids who are interested… even if I am not a grammaticist (as one can probably tell)…</p>
<p>‘Neither UCLA nor Cal place…’</p>
<p>s/b</p>
<p>‘Neither UCLA nor Cal places,’ </p>
<p>because the ‘nor’ separates the two nouns in question similar to an ‘or’ to a singular reference, as well as ‘neither,’ which is also singular. Likewise, the noun ‘none,’ is singular even if it references nothing.</p>
<p>??? What in the world does any of this nonsense have to do with the wonderful donations that USC has received? With the tremendous benefit those donations will have for current and future USC students?</p>
<p>Congratulations to the University of Southern California!</p>
<p>In the 2010 enrolled class at SC there are 23 students from Harvard-Westlake and 19 from Punahou. </p>
<p>There are 1,397 high schools represented in the freshmen class. Twelve per cent of the freshmen enrolled are the first generation to attend college.</p>
<p>The states after California most represented in the class are in this order:</p>
<p>Texas
Illinois
New York
Washington
Massachusetts</p>
<p>Yes they do. But, USC still refuses to release its common data set (which is clearly their prerogative) so we really don’t know how inclusive their posted ‘data’ is…</p>
<p>Of course, a few other top colleges refuse to post their CDS as well; Penn, for example. It is my (fact-free) contention that such colleges do not post their CDS bcos they have something to hide (or think that us consumer ‘can’t handle the truth’ ala Jack Nicholson). :)</p>
<p>I am amazed and bemused by the outpouring of vitrole for USC. And yes, for the record we have sent two kids to SC. I attended SC, graduated UCLA. My husband went to an ivy. So, in a sense I have a dog in this discussion, but I also have some perspective. </p>
<p>My first one is the question of what is a “trade school” (educated or not)? Cinema/Television…hmmmmm entertains, informs, educates millions. Engineering…makes life better by invention and innovation. Medical school, which does produce men and women in a trade of healing…Philosophy…you can go to the market and prove that the meat exists…Sorry, bs. ALL schools of note (and not) produce under this trade school mentality, people in trades: Hopefully intellegent kids who make money healing, educating, in the arts, and in business.</p>
<p>As for the additional nonsensical discussion of whether SC accepts the lowest kids in outstanding public and private schools: So glad that you’re privy to admissions applicants and their stats. I’m delighted that you have the audacity to cast doubts on the admissions process/applicants/and their qualifications of ANY university. </p>
<p>The one thing that I have always found in intellectually limited people: the lack of ability of understand a situation, credit those positives and negatives, understand how the situation can affect you…and then move on. USC’s good fortune doesn’t take anything away from your university. It does however smack of the jealous ugly stepsisters in Cinderella. The donation does put USC in the position of providing society with more educated people who can benefit all of us. I don’t recall hearing that, UCLA for instance, has to kick in $20 million or two cents to USC. Or conversely that money, earmarked for UCLA was somehow diverted to USC.</p>
<p>I, for one, will say thank you to all the men and women out there who feel that their education and success was, in part, due to their education at their university, and decided to pay it foward.</p>
<p>Who stated anything about the ‘lowest kids in …’?</p>
<p>I stated that USC fishes for high scorers (SAT) and often dips into the class-rank of a high school. And since schools like Harvard-Westlake generally send their top students to Ivies, and like elites, say top 20%, that leaves USC (and UCLA and Cal) with the leftovers, relatively speaking. Only thing is, USC would gladly take these students because they undoubtedly score well, whereas UCLA and Cal generally have class-rank floors from which to admit.</p>
<p>There’s a way that USN can verify whether some schools are trying to work its metrics and climb the rankings artificially. Because let’s face it, there are undoubtedly a handful of schools that are trying to ascend the rankings quickly. Since many schools, mainly private, would never reveal the processes and data to their admitting students, all the publication has to do is contact the high schools and see where their students matriculate at, and at its various class ranks. It’d be a very large task, but otherwise, how would USN know who’s telling the truth?</p>
<p>And there are undoubtedly some high schools, usually private, that reveal this information on an anonymous basis in posting class rank and scores to try to promote their schools and attract more students.</p>
<p>Look at the weights USN gives to “selectivity”: Acceptance Rate 10%; Class Rank in top 10% of HS, 40%; SAT, 50%. </p>
<p>Lo and behold, USC is working these specific sub-variables to pump up its rankings. Wrt acceptance rate and class rank, USC has and does admit to spring to bypass reporting these numbers. Also it sends students off to community college for a year and takes them in deferred. (Lest you state that Cal and UCSD admit to spring… just remember that both report these numbers, and both are extremely transparent.) Why has USC gone to SAT as a primary factor? Simple, becuase scores have the largest weight in USN’s selectivity. It isn’t faintly obvious to you that USC is trying to work these numbers? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said anything negatively about the donations? Yes, Dr Mann approached UCLA, his alma mater, but he and the administration couldn’t come to terms, so he went to USC. These things happen.</p>
<p>Moving this paragraph back a bit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what you consider ‘intellectually limited people’? What about the sense, intelligence or otherwise, to be able to discern bs? It isn’t faintly obvious to you that USC is on some huge public-relations campaign?</p>
<p>Goodness… everyone at the school is trying to get people to buy into the greatness that is USC: mothers and fathers of sons and daughters who attend or attended, students who currently attend, the administration, et al. I”ve never seen so many people trying to pat themselves on the back. </p>
<p>Yeah, I’ll give USC credit: Nice job of taking in donations; nice job of promotions by all concerned. Yeah, the administration there cares; whereas the adminstration at UCLA generally sucks. All I see from Chancellor Block is a man who’ll give spiels about diversity, and “UCLA being a public school so it should be about community service.” He’s someone who’s unimaginative, boring, and sounds tired and washed up, and someone who’ll just hold the job until someone else takes his place.</p>
<p>But with this said, I don’t care how much USC takes in, it’ll be UCLA and Cal and the rest of UC that’ll produce the far greater and higher ranking MD’s, attys, businesmen, and professionals, in the state of CA. Stanford alums tend to be more national and international in addition to their not being as many of them. I can’t see USC displacing UCLA or Cal wrt prestigious grad appointments either. Do I consider USC a sunk cost? No, but I don’t think the return there is nearly as good, and the university is a money sieve.</p>
<p>But otherwise nice job, as I said earlier. Just don’t hurt yourselves in patting yourselves on the back.</p>
Well, this certainly is true! Anyone connected with USC loves it - and for very good reason. It is an amazing school filled with unlimited opportunities.</p>
<p>Just to be fair, there are other top colleges that are rankings-obsessed: WashU established the practice (which 'SC has followed); but also Emory, Vandy…are all buying top test scores with merit money. The, of course, Penn has made great strides using ED since it cannot offer merit $.</p>
<p>Good for them and good for the students who are good test-takers!</p>
<p>Corrections from my prior post (I’ve been called ‘anal,’ but not so much so as to edit my posts before entering them):</p>
<ol>
<li>I used a ‘their’ when the word should have been a ‘there.’</li>
<li>A mismatch or two of nouns/verbs.</li>
</ol>
<p>georgiagirl, a couple of followup questions wrt your last post:</p>
<ol>
<li>how many Harvard-Westlake and Punahou students did USC enroll from 2009?<br></li>
<li>What was the acceptance rate for USC undergrads in 2009 and this year 2010?</li>
</ol>
<p>I want to see if the numbers that you present match other possible sources.</p>
<p>alamemom:</p>
<p>Certainly, the persons like yourself who promote and defend the university tend to be in lock-step. USC does a good job of putting people out there who will promote the unversity, like georgiagirl, and keeping the discontents under wrap. But c’mon, do you think all 35K students would be in agreement of the greatness of USC? Fight on, indeed! ; )</p>
<p>What portions of the CDS would be problematic for USC if it were to present one to the public?</p>
<p>I find that most universities that don’t care to reveal the data to the request presented in the forms just ignore it entirely…and as I believe to which you alluded.</p>