<p>Seattle is 45 years old so I assume he or she graduated more than 20 years ago when it was much easier to gain admission to the university than it is today. He certainly seems to be very bitter. The generalizations that he makes for a whole group of “transfer” students is unfair and biased. I am a USC alumnus, having attended the university for 4 years. I have never had an employer ask me if I was a transfer student. The employers were interested in my grades and work ethic. I currently am employed in an office with 3 UCLA alums, all of which attended California community colleges for two years before transferring. I wasn’t “perceived more favorably” than they were because I attended USC for 4 years. They are successful professionals. I was a commuter student during my first two years at USC and therefore had a limited social life on campus. I compensated by studying hard and ultimately graduated with high honors. I clearly recall a number of freshman and sophomore students that I encountered in my classes at SC who were unprepared, regularly skipped classes and graduated as “C” students. Why are they perceived to be any better than highly motivated and ultimately successful transfer students? Lastly, my daughter just graduated from SC this past spring with high honors and is now enrolled at the university in graduate school getting straight A’s. Guess what? She transferred in as a sophomore and is proud of it. So is her mother.</p>
<p>My comments are right on. USC will never enter the elite ranks as long as we continue admitting thousands of transfers. In fact, USC also needs to reduce the freshman class size as well; thus, my ax would fall on high achieving high schoolers like myself. USC should be reserved for stellar high school students and a relatively few number of worthy transfers. That is the only way USC will crack the top 20.</p>
<p>I guess my question is why in the first place does USC have so much room for transfers? The Ivies virtually have no room, and Staford very few places. USC is a private university and can set its own standards, so no need to kowtow to policy mandates like the UCs who are public and are required to take CC transfers (UVA the same). Do tons of USC freshmen drop out, leaving places open that need to be filled by transfers? Why should there be so much room at all? Does USC take some internal policy stance that it wants and encourages transfers? Why? In Cornell’s case, which is somewhat similar, its New York State funding sources require Cornell to take some amount of New York State CC students. If you read the Cornell boards, they are just as upset about quality dilution (kids who never would have made it in as freshmen and who still have poor – relatively – stats as transfers). Cornell, they say, will always be the trailing Ivy because of its vast number of transfers compared to the other Ivies. USC is not under a Cornell-type mandate to accept CC transfers, so I ask again, why does USC accept so many?</p>
<p>Once again the problem is the endowment. It’s not big enough. It needs to be at least 10 billion. let me explain. USC is too expensive(as are most private schools) and yet USC is behaving like a public school by the amount of people it admits. IF USC was able to have another couple of hundred million a year to spend on scholarships for studens from lower income families it would be able to take 4-5 thousand kids a year and cut the transfers out. </p>
<p>IF USC was more affordable how many kids that end up at UC san Diego,Irvine, Santa Barbara or even UCLA would be going to USC?? many more in California… but once again that’s the endowment problem. The endowment/tution from richer students needs to be used to subsidise lower income studnets.</p>
<p>kelly,
You asked about SC’s freshmen retention rate. It is excellent at 97%. Incidentally, Harvard and MIT also have a 97% retention rate. Whatever the reasons are for taking transfer students it is not due to freshmen retention.</p>
<p>Do you have statistics to back up your comments that USC transfer students have lower scores than students enrolled as freshmen?</p>
<p>Kellybkk:</p>
<p>USC traditionally has relied upon transfers (and football) to increase revenue, period. Historically, USC had no significant endowment until the 1960s, when USC embarked on its first successful campaign. Until then, we relied on football revenue (as did Notre Dame, our chief nemesis) and transfers to help meet payroll. We were quite poor as an institution during those days, it’s hard to believe. </p>
<p>There is no mandate to accept JC students. The goal of increasing our endowment and sponsored research/grants is to rely less upon transfers to meet our financial obligations. I’m not opposed to worthy transfers; I just don’t believe in open back door admissions to anyone who wants to attend USC. That’s why I admire grad and professional school students who went to other colleges but chose USC to diversify their backgrounds. Undoubtedly, some of those post-graduate students did not get accepted to USC as undergrads or, for whatever reason, got in but did not attend. Grad and professional school graduates are among our most loyal alumni.</p>
<p>Thank you for drawing comparisons to Cornell; your comment is very informative and instructive.</p>
<p>I see both sides of the issue. </p>
<p>Some of my friends who are transfers are brilliant. They had financial issues; they came from other 4-year schools (i.e. to study something their old school didn’t offer); they came to USC for a variety of reasons. </p>
<p>But…and I hate saying this! I can’t lie. I attended a decent-quality CA public HS. When I saw a membership list for a club I’m in and noticed a number of my former high school classmates, I was a little frustrated. These students did not work as hard as I did back in high school, didn’t take hard classes, had questionable grades, etc. My only hope is that they all improved their respective work ethics during their year in community college.</p>
<p>So yes, I understand Seattle’s frustration–to a point. There are many, many worthy transfers every year. There are also some who seem, on the surface, unworthy. But who are we to judge “worth”? Is that even a fair or tangible marker? It sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel (and yes, before anyone asks, I’m somewhat sure I was the first person to actually say “worth,” but it’s been alluded to throughout the thread). </p>
<p>I think the best thing we can all do is work on our own academics and extracurriculars and avoid thinking too much about whether the people around us have equal qualifications to ours. It’s not necessary, nor is it our business, nor does it really, TRULY cause us any short- or long-term harm or problem.</p>
<p>Yes, not every cc transfer is worthy, but there’s situations where you just can’t attend USC at first. I was admitted to USC as a freshman and intended on going, but a family situation kept me at home. Luckily, my local 4 year institution readmitted me finally (the first day of classes, when they realized they didn’t have enough instate students), but I was ready to sign up for CC. I ended up transferring after two years, and I got into USC, but I chose a different school this time around. Let me tell you though, there’s a big difference between paying 10,000 a year and 55,000 a year (and an even bigger difference in cc tuition and sc tuition). </p>
<p>Sure, some people turn it around in CC. I would like to think that their hard work pays off. If they’re ready for USC now, then why shouldn’t they be welcomed. If transfers are consistently graduating with low GPAs/taking more time/dropping out/etc. then sure, this should be changed, but I don’t think they are.</p>
<p>SeattleTW, how’s it unfair to those who spend all four years at USC? Attending community college to save money is playing it smart. I wouldn’t pay tens of thousands of dollars just to brag that I attend a prestigious school, to have fun at football games, to party, etc. That seems like a waste of money to me.</p>
<p>SeattleTW is one deluded prick who believes going to a prestigious school means you’re above all. This is exactly why the value of education has gone to hell. People don’t even know why an education is important. They don’t want to get into colleges for the right reasons anymore. SeattleTW simply wants people to look at him as though he’s superior, but he’s really a pretentious prick.</p>
<p>SeattleTW, have you ever thought about the possibility that these transfer students got accepted into USC and UC Berkeley for freshman year, but they declined the offers due to financial reasons? Another possibility is that they got accepted into UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and UCLA, but they rejected those offers since their dream school is USC. Quit being a prick. You obviously never deserved to be a student at USC, or any college at all for that matter, if you’re such an idiot. If anything, you’re the epitome of a person who’s ruining USC.</p>
<p>Lol, oh the irony of your screed juxtaposed to your quasi-eponymous handle. Yes, I do believe that spending all four years at USC is the ideal, the goal and objective of USC admits, not the exception. USC needs to model itself after HYSP, not the U of C, in its admissions policy. We are private, regardless of whether you and others wish to ignore that fact.</p>
<p>Although his tone might be his his own destruction, I can see where Seattle is coming from.</p>
<p>Why do we expect USC to admit a large amount of transfers just because historically it has been financially dependent on transfers? If someone gets into Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton, but really wants to go to Yale, they suck it up and pick out of what they got into. Going from CC->Ivy is a lofty goal, yet at USC it seems to be the norm. In a school that is bursting at the seams with students, I feel like reducing the number of transfers should be one of the first targets in terms of reducing student body. Yes it might be “financially superior” to go to CC first ( or you could just put some effort into scholarship applications instead…), but I see the point that SeattleTW is making: USC, as most other elite colleges are, should be a 4 year experience that develops a person beyond just the textbooks but also in terms of involvement, leadership, amibtion, research opportunities, etc. It’s not just about taking the classes you need to graduate and getting the degree, it’s about being on campus and having spirit and getting involved. Transferring from CC might be a legitimate way of graduating with a USC degree, but I definitely would not say that transfers get the same experience as 4 year students do. I don’t think anyone would make that argument, no matter how quickly a transfer can integrate. </p>
<p>Simply put, I don’t see why USC should be expected to take transfers when HYPS etc hardly take any at all, regardless of the “worth” of transfer applicants. There is more USC (and good colleges in general) than a simple degree!</p>
<p>Then you might as well tell USC to lower the undergraduate acceptance rate. I dont see any HYSP’s out there having a ridiculously easy admittance rate of >20% Its just as easy to get into USC as into UC Berkeley, so why stop with the differentiation at the transfer level? Its also funny considering that Seattle attended USC when it had a 50% acceptance rate, and I do not find that prestigious or helpful to his argument at all.</p>
<p>If you read my other posts I am on record USC needs to cut the entering class size too. We need a larger endowment coupled with an overall reduction in numbers across the board, beginning with transfers. Nikias is doing USC a disservice in expanding the size of the undergraduate student body and trying to transform USC into a UCLA, Costco-type public school.</p>
<p>@Holden: Spending $ to attend USC all four years is a waste?? Completely disagree with you man. You can’t put a price tag on the experience you have at SC - on all the memories and friends you make your first few years there. It’s a problematic mindset to think of college as just some prerequisite to the rest of your life; it has value in itself and I wouldn’t trade any amount of $$ to have half of my USC experience chopped off for community college. </p>
<p>With that said, SeattleTW, c’mon bro. Just…C’mon… You come across like a freshmen who is dead set on getting a bid from DG/Kappa and will settle for nothing less. I mostly agree with you but please realize that your tone is being divisive and hurtful to fellow Trojans. In the future, yes, I think USC should accept fewer CC transfers, but until then, I’ll throw up two fingers to any Trojan I see in the airport etc. regardless of where they spent the first few years of college. I hope you’d do the same.</p>
<p>Mad, of course I don’t go around demeaning fellow Trojans, regardless of whether they transferred. But I’ve been beating this drum since Sample became president and I’m trying to make a point that changes are long overdue. USC needs systemic changes and it’s going to take a four year insider or one who appreciates the four year construct to make such changes to take USC to the top. Nikias is not that man, IMO.</p>
<p>I agree with Seattle.
USC will never make its break into the Top 20 US news so long as it accepts this absurd amount of transfers.
One way to start cutting down on transfers and really rewarding those high stat freshman who make it in strait out of high school would be financial aid policies. I’m sure I will get castigated for this, but perhaps USC should increase its generosity toward Fall Freshmen while every other class (Spring Admits/Transfers) sees their financial aid packages carry heavier loans or something of the sort.
This would allow USC’s endowment to work to the schools advantage in recruiting the high stat individuals that will allow the university to rise to the top. It would also discourage a lot of transfers who aren’t completely sold on the school.</p>
<p>This is just one possible strategy which could potentially be utilized.
No matter how USC does it, transfers, as well as the overall enrollment, need to see serious cuts.</p>
<p>I see why public schools will work with cc’s to hold spots for their students but it does seem odd a private school would do so. Not bad, just odd. Could it be USC uses the transfer system to help it’s USNWR ranking? Accept fewer freshman which increases selectivity numbers and inflates SAT/ACT numbers and allows more classes with fewer than 20 students, then fill up the class the next semester or next year with transfer studnets with weaker high school academic profiles. A “game the system” plan that improves USC’s ranking.</p>
<p>Bud, yes, USC is gaming the system when almost 40 percent of our undergraduates did not matriculate from high school. This has to stop if USC is serious about competing head to head with HYSP. I am one such serious alumnus and we need other four-year grads to lead the way. Nikias does not apprehend or care to address this issue squarely. Until he and other top administrators do, USC will rise no further in the rankings than Cal.</p>
<p>USC has an incredibly long way before it competes with the likes of HYPS.</p>