<p>Neither I nor Georgia Girl have been “put out there” by USC, and USC certainly does not have a dungeon somewhere where they keep discontents. I have absolutely no official connection to USC, and yes, the vast majority of the student body support their university with great enthusiasm, which is the reason USC is known as having such a wonderful alumni network (from which my student has already benefited). </p>
<p>Accepting several students from such a fine private high school school does not seem a negative feature to me. My student, however, did not attend a private school - hers was a very ordinary public school. I don’t know how you will interpret that (one has to assume you would feel that was a wonderful feature, since you view students from top private schools negatively), but rest assured she achieved outstanding test scores and was valedictorian of her class, as well as having many other fine accomplishments of which I am very (understandably) proud.</p>
<p>I am very sorry recent changes in those meaningless rankings have upset you so much.</p>
<p>sorry drax, but my speculation as to ‘Why a college does not publish its CDS?’ is just a pure guess, which may have nothing to do with the truth. Such colleges maybe totally transparent and above-board with their reporting, but I’m a cynic when it comes to spin, so I just don’t buy it. Heck. 'SC’s refusal could have nothing to do with Frosh admissions per se; instead, it could have to do with transfers, or financial aid, etc. Or just gender. Perhaps its gender bias, i.e., easier to get admitted to Arts & Sciences for guys?</p>
<p>Well, NRC rankings. USC is lower than UCSD and even lower than UCSB and UCI which I believe is accurate. USC knows how to play the game as far as USNEWS rankings go.</p>
<p>No, this doesn’t “belong” to the SC forum anymore than this belongs on the UCB forum. In the process of searching for a college donated monies that may bring new scholarships, specialized programs that are financed by new donations may influence someone’s choice of schools. The false bravado (and stupidity) of the trade school remark, the Harvard/Westlake comments (everyone knows that the real “failures” at LA prep schools go to ASU, Boulder or “small LACs”…not) indict the poster and not the kids. And, as one who graduated from UCLA and remembers well the lockstep political and social mentality, I definitely get where you’re coming from. </p>
<p>But I think that one’s inability to either thank someone for the information (should it prove helpful), leave the subject alone rather and read on rather than the immediate snarky retort(s) says much more about you than the OP, USC, your education and upbring then the subject at hand.</p>
<p>I didnt say that it was. Its an admission policy similar to other non-elite private universities in the country. And just so youll know, I dont consider UCLA (or Cal) elite either.</p>
<p>If you read my initial post, I stated in reference to all the prior posts, something to the effect:</p>
<ol>
<li>Congrats on the donations.</li>
<li>Didnt believe the average USC incoming frosh would have an unweighted 3.8, which is top 5% generally, and at others top 10% definitely.</li>
<li>Could believe that USC reports a median/mean SAT of 2100, because of superscoring and cherry-picking, fishing, etc, for those with high scores along with a lesser regard for class rank and gpa.</li>
</ol>
<p>(Elite) Private schools have lower enrollments -> If a university accepts and enrolls many from these hss, the u would have to dip into class-rank significantly -> enrolled students from these hss at the u wouldnt have anything near a 3.8 uw gpa being that a 3.8 would probably be a very high ranking student. Now, how they would mix with the other students from public schools and their quals would be the question. As Georgiagirl stated USC takes > 40% from private secondaries. Lets do some simple algebra:</p>
<p>40% from privates average gpa, say, 3.5 uw (just a guess, could be wrong on the minus side)
60% from public schools, average gpa X
100% students, average 3.8</p>
<p>What gpa would public school grads need for the whole student body to average a 3.8 uw? Answer, 4.0 in the above scenario.</p>
<p>Doing the same except, the average uw gpa for private-school kids, is 3.6 -> average gpa of public school kids would have to be a 3.93 uw, which I wouldnt see as being feasible for 60% of USCs public-school class.</p>
<p>A 3.6 at a typical private high school would be ~ 65-70th percentile if my eyeballing statistics seems reasonable based on a normal curve (I dont think private hss would have a flattened out curve and grade distribution would seemingly be pretty tight, no real lows like public hss, eg, 2.0’s, etc…) and a mean gpa of, say, ~ 3.4. The 3.6 could possibly where USC lives for most private hss, and I really do think this would be reasonable and at some high schools topside if they are elite.</p>
<p>Private hss would dole out more high grades, but wouldnt have the A/P that public hss would have, so theres a trade off - higher unweighted grades at private hss, but lower weighted for the very top and down to those who are allowed to take AP at public hss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(one has to assume you would feel that was a wonderful feature, since you view students from top private schools negatively)…</p>
<p>I dont understand where you received that notion. Im having to repeat myself often, but, the only thing that I could have said that might have even slightly been construed as negative towards them is my stating that they have a huge advantage in many cases buying their high sat scores becuase, again, theres a high correlation between having wealth and scoring well. Buying becuase the large increases in score improvement can be readily attained by, say, an SAT tutor, even if the student hasnt really upped his/her scholastic aptitude. A person who is at the top of his/her class would naturally score better generally without the need of expensive help, so therefore he/she would show forth in a naturally high scholastic aptitude.</p>
<p>Regarding your daughter:</p>
<p>You should indeed be proud of her, especially if shes a first generation, which is the impression I would guess by the way you speak of her. But by all means, dont feel compelled to answer this.</p>
<p>Im not referring to the true bottom dwellers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, whatever…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was posted on the general board, not USCs. Therefore its open season on this post and any subsequent post propping USC. You dont see any other posts run through unscathed when the OP chooses to prop his or her school do you?</p>
I do not feel compelled to answer this, but it doesn’t bother me a bit to do so. No, she is not a first generation college student. Both parents are college graduates.</p>
<p>i had a 3.83 UW gpa with an IB diploma and i felt pretty average at USC. perhaps it was because i was in a hard science major filled with pre-meds (bio major). </p>
<p>i would propose that our lower gpa’s aren’t due to what drax12 is suggesting, but rather because of our prestigious portfolio and audition based programs such as cinema, fine arts, and music performance. usually top ranked universities aren’t as strong as USC in non-academic fields.</p>
<p>personally i’m willing to trade slightly lower gpas for having these amazing programs that add to the diversity of students in my university.</p>
<p>Wrt the high school I presented, undoubtedly an elite private, if a 3.8 would be 90th percentile, and a mean of around 3.4, then I would would adjust a 3.6 gpa to around 70-75th percentile (from my previous 65-70th) , say 73rd. This would allow about 10% of the class in the rarified air of the top to the low of 3.8 in that group (also works well with my proposed intervals of .2 gpa, maybe a bit too convenient), with 17% of the class to the next interval 3.799…-3.6, with the low of 3.6, which is where I propose where USC mainly lives at these schools, and another 23% to the mean of 3.599…-3.4. That would seemingly be a pretty fair curve wrt proportions. </p>
<p>Wrt Public high schools, there are more highly qualified students to fill ones frosh class, but a definite more flat distribution which would have say a 3.8 at the 95th percentile, with maybe a mean of 3.0-3.1. Again, private schools, esp, elite ones, dole out higher uw grades but dont generally allow the out-of-hand inflation of grades due to AP in public ones, say, Torrey Pines (and I’m not denigrating TP because it’s one of the best hss in the nation, with outrageous proportions attending UC). And I do like uw grades to show the students true achievement. And the uw grade scale at TP would be ratcheted upward over other public hss because it is an elite public school, so it may be a step up from what I stated here. </p>
<p>josebiwasabi:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree, undoubtedly life-science majors, engineering, at all universities would have higher standards than those who come in, say, undeclared.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This would probably apply to all universities also wrt the Arts. But unless youre saying that USC has an unusually large % of arts students, which it may have, then that portion may not affect calculations much.</p>
<p>A 3.8 uw gpa is excellent; my point is I dont know if this would be verifiable for USC. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I appreciated arts students too, as long as they didnt make themselves stand out too much with their multi-colored hair, etc, lol.</p>