<p>This IS the USC forum. There are several of us who are posting on this thread as USC students, because it is our forum. That doesn’t mean that our opinions aren’t valid.</p>
<p>From one who posts almost exclusively on the USC boards to help others search for accurate information about USC,</p>
<p>I welcome this debate. I am pleased that Sam Lee and others took the time to research the background of rankings and other information about USC. Since USC has been steadily rising in rankings AS WELL AS in its popularity, statistics, etc., it is warranting more and more attention and discussion. Others have stated here that the USC CC forum has one of the most (if not THE most) number of posts. </p>
<p>Everyone always loves to try to take down Goliath :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? All he asked is that the UC schools be treated the same as USC.</p>
<p>This thread confirms my claim that CC is not a good place to ask for academic opinions, because most of posters are academic outsiders, including the site administrators unsurprisingly. The CCers here are even less qualified to assess a school’s academics, besides his/her own, than sports fans talking their specific sports/teams on a fan forum. </p>
<p>Now get to my points. The writer for inside higher ed is unprofessional and unethical in the way he wrote the piece (this is a common problem of American journalists). Who has the right to accuse a school of rigging USNews ranking? Shouldn’t it be U.S. News itself? The writer’s article did not only charge USC unfairly, but also questioned the practice of U.S. News, and put their product in an less desirable light. Before the issue of (im)proper data reporting gets resolved between the U.S. news and those schools, this kind of sensational accusation should be considered slanderous. </p>
<p>I vaguely remembered the posts by Sam Lee from last year on the reporting discrepancy of USC’s NAE number. She sounded very emotional and wrote in very dramatic tone. As a consequence, she over-exaggerated the “wrongdoing”, and gave the impression that is the only way putting USC into a top 10 engineering school. She was being slanderous. I don’t think USC will spend effort on this, but some student/alumni groups, or academic support groups of the school should be able to contact her to talk about the issue, with an outside possibility of a legal resolution. She deserves an explanation from a school she spent huge amount of time even without stepping on the school’s actual campus.</p>
<p>About 6-7 years ago, when USC engineering first cracked into top 10, the number of NAE members they reported was around 20. So I am fairly certain, even if the current number is chopped half, the school is still a solid top 10. This is due to the extensive and excellent programs the school offers, the high quality research done by the faculty, and the fact that the NAE member is such a minor factor in this ranking. As I am going to USC right now, I know the exact reason why the school holds its high ranking for these many years, and adding a couple of more NAE members is FAR FROM it. </p>
<p>Even if I’d like to believe the inflated number is a misunderstanding between the school and the U.S. news (I feel the people who is doing this ranking business doesn’t have a clear idea either), I disapprove the practice. By looking into the name list more carefully, I found most of questionable additions are from one department. I know the department chair, who is brilliant, enthusiastic, and ambitious. His department is indeed one of the most improved one
in the school IMO, and should be in top 10 sooner than later. Adding these part-time faculty appears unnecessary, even though those influential people does help the department going on the correct track. BTW, the rankings of engineering schools and individual departments are two different things, with different methodologies and metrics. So one of Sam Lee’s arguments does not hold water. </p>
<p>Let’s be frank, most of senior/decorated faculty of any school won’t be as active as younger/less-established ones. If USNews wants to make this stupid NAE number thingy scientifically accurate, they may need to try beyond reasonable efforts. So, the conclusion of mine is, U.S. News won’t get into this trap, let alone there is much more data in the ranking deserving investigation, as many other posters pointed out already. In the end, they are doing this business well, their product helps millions of confused mind, and their customers still like them. Why bother?</p>
<p>To all the naysayers, you will be disappointed that the next year’s U.S. News ranking won’t have much change.</p>
<p>I just found out what you guys are talking about. This Roger Dooley dude is an administrator. Why post this on USC forum? Why not on a more public forum? This is too shady and despicable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not much, but a little. That’s one of the many bogus things about rankings – they have to change a little year to year in order to sell each new annual issue. Of course, the changes have little to do with what actually happens on the college campuses, and much to do with USNRW’s ever-changing formulas, and shennanigans by the colleges. BTW, USC is hardly unique; colleges have been manipulating data for the rankings since at least 1994, when the Wall Street Journal exposed the practice.</p>
<p>One encouraging note: There is a small but growing movement among colleges to refuse participation in the surveys. When this trend reaches critical mass, the rankings will become meaningless. This will benefit all parties concerned except USNWR.</p>
<p>I disagree with some of you, and think Sam Lee is a little psychological. </p>
<p>Similar to my background, Sam Lee came from Hong Kong, went to Northwestern for an engineering degree, worked for an defense contractor in SF and LA for years while waiting for green card, and moved (temporarily?) to DC recently. To me, she has dislike towards USC at the beginning, and the dislike developed increasingly over the year to a degree of animosity, all during a long period of time she has never been to USC. </p>
<p>If that is not weird enough, she has a disgust of everything LA, and every place non-pubic transportationed. That is, to me, pathological. </p>
<p>I don’t know why Roger-Dooley thinks her a graduate student, while she mentioned many times she has been working for many years. The more important question is who gave this lead to HigherEd, Roger-Dooley or Sam herself. If it is the former, I would say it is sad that Sam Lee is used by Roger-Dooley, or others from CC administration. In the other case, I would say bravo, Sam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe because the article had to do with USC? I’m just guessing though.</p>
<p>LasMa,</p>
<p>If you believe the movement encouraging you will discourage USNews, and all other rankings, you should get yourself checked. Ranking is part of American business culture, and exists solely because of the people. How do you expect the American change to a degree they don’t want media?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there should be better place for this thread, like the one for Clemson, Washington Stl, etc.</p>
<p>QW553, The rankings craze was born because it sold magazines, not as a beneficial service or a grass-roots movement. The notion that an entire institution can be reduced to a single number is patently ridiculous.</p>
<p>There were some kind of college/gradschool ranking long before USNews. USNews made it a profitable business, which caters to people’s demand. </p>
<p>Second, it is not U.S. News intention to give a single number to each school. It is you, and all the people like you, to use it that way. Admit it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, they do exactly that. The very first column on the charts is the number, the magical ranking. They could very easily provide all of the other useful information, and sort the colleges alphabetically, omitting that one all-important column. It’s the rankings that sells magazines, and they know it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As long as it counts alums, trustee, president, part-time, adjunct, and retired professors, its %NAE is always a lot higher than it should be. Regardless of what exact number it sent 6-7 years ago, it enjoyed as much unfair advantage as it does now. The number overstated is clearly not just “a couple more”. When it hired a 94-yo (or 93?) NAE member a year ago, it’s reasonable to suspect getting as many NAE as it can is “the” strategic priority. </p>
<p>USN relies on numbers; USN has no capacity to judge how “extensive and excellent programs the school offers”. </p>
<p>It’d be nice if you can refrain from any personal attack. Your conspiracy theory holds no water.</p>
<p>To be fair, I highly doubt that appointing Ramo (the 94 year old) was solely motivated by boosting NAE membership - he is an incredibly successful and brilliant engineer & has been closely affiliated with USC for many years. It is likely more an honorary/recognition thing.</p>
<p>And surprisingly he’s still quite active. USC gave him some award and I went to hear him accept it - he could easily pass for 74 :)</p>
<p>What does it matter how old Mr. Ramos is? </p>
<p>Obsessing over how old he is age discrimination. </p>
<p>Anyone who reads his bio can see he is a brilliant man and has made tremendous contributions to the field of engineering. </p>
<p>IF USC has given him some type of academic appointment and is able to bring him closer to the university where students and faculty can benefit from his brilliance, more power to them!</p>
<p>I sure hope Roger is glad that he created this thread within the USC folder. Such productive conversation and debate. Unbelievable. The entire ranking process is a joke anyway. I suppose that we can debate for the next 6 weeks whether USC should be ranked as number 7, or 11, or 13, or whatever. Does it even matter at this point. Do people really choose a school because it is ranked number 7 instead of number 11, or 13, or whatever? If so, shame on them. </p>
<p>Shall we start a thread (next) about UCLA, or CAL, or Stanford, or UNC, or what ?</p>
<p>Can you all believe that we have been through 7 page of BS, and for what?</p>
<p>Have we agreed upon anything? Has anyone’s opinion of USC, or any other school been changes along the way. Definitely not. It’s like politics and religion, you can argue, present your facts, discuss your theories, present more evidence, and when all it is all said and done, no one has changed their opinion from where they began.</p>
<p>This is all just a sad, and bad joke. Thanks again Roger, for wasting all of our time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks of your school, right? Let’s be realistic here, when you’re choosing a school your opinions matter much less than the opinions of other people, because when you apply for a job or a graduate school it will be other people evaluating your academic history. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then that’s their fault for ignoring the evidence.</p>
<p>I indeed came across this thread only because it was in the front page. However, the reason I started reading it is becasue when I first saw the engineering rankings the fact that USC is ranked as high as Caltech caught my attention. This is hard to understand when you look at their peer rankings and student credentials, but more importantly when you look at the top 10 programs in each of the 10+ specialties listed in the magazine. Caltech, as well as schools like Michigan or Texas - both ranked behind USC – have multiple programs in the top 10 while USC doesn’t have any. (full disclosure: I have is a family connection to Caltech). </p>
<p>I agree with lovetocamp, it is hard to believe this is page 7 of the thread, but that is because most posts have been about whether the tread should exists, the forum it should be in, the CC member mentioned in the article, or if other schools do the same. I have seen very little in terms of arguing the substance of the article.</p>
<p>USC is an up and coming school that has a lot going for it. They don’t need to take shortcuts on the way up. The have the resources, now they need patience.</p>
<p>As far as rankings go, we keep taking shots at them but I bet most of the posters in this tread will be waiting to see what happens to USC in the next release.</p>
<p>
What you fail to realize is that UC has consciously (and publicly) chosen to admit students based primarily on grades, with test scores a distant second. (My own kids, with sky-high test scores but GPAs only around the 90th percentile at their high school, had to “settle” for a second-tier UC - where they lowered the “top 10%” figure but raised the average test score numbers - as a result.)</p>
<p>And the UC system knows the GPA and class standing of every California public school student (and many private schools as well) at the end of their Junior year of high school - exactly - because of the ELC program. All of the high schools report the numbers to UC for the “guaranteed admissions” of the top 4% - and they submit the transcripts of the top 12% of their students the summer before their senior year. UC campuses don’t need to “estimate” where their entering class stood as high school students - they know, at least for their in-state matriculants.</p>
<p>UC’s obsessive focus on high school performance, not test scores, is no secret. It’s the product of an overt policy. So it would actually be surprising if the more desired UC campuses didn’t have “top 10%” numbers in the 90’s. (Kids below the top 10% have a much higher likelihood of choosing to attend a school other than a UC for a variety of reasons.)</p>
<p>As to the perceived injustice of “ranking” the likes of UCSB in the top 50; I’ll simply note that that campus has more recent Nobel laureates on its faculty than “UT, UF, Penn State (flagship unis.), Tulane, GWU, and Miami” - combined. [Nobel</a> Laureates and Universities](<a href=“http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html]Nobel”>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html)
Nice beach, too. :)</p>