UC, CSU could learn from the rise of USC

This is a great article for those on the fence between a UC or USC.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/UC-CSU-could-learn-from-the-rise-of-the-Trojans-6655248.php

USC’s rapid growth over the past generation — from regional school to global powerhouse — has turned USC into one of the most influential institutions in California. In the process, USC has demonstrated what might be possible for California’s leading public universities — if they weren’t subject to the whims of our dysfunctional state government.

USC has capitalized on its flexibility as a private school to raise the school’s endowment and profile. Public universities are hamstrung in fundraising by the perception that they are state-funded institutions (even though state funding is a small fraction of their financing) and by wariness about gifts from politically unpopular donors. USC, without a meddling minority investor like state government, can raise funds as relentlessly as it likes. Its endowment, at nearly $5 billion, is one of the country’s fastest-growing.

Spending to boost diversity

And USC has spent aggressively — without the required disclosure and resulting second-guessing over big salaries common at public universities — to recruit a more qualified and diverse faculty and student body. As public universities in California were forced to make cuts during recent budget crises and the Great Recession, USC accelerated its growth.
Public universities can be prisoners of annual budgets and short-term thinking. Recall the fierce criticism last fall of University of California President Janet Napolitano’s thoughtful, multiyear enrollment and funding plan. By contrast, USC’s leaders have pursued a long-term strategy of better connecting the university to all elements of life in Southern California.
USC has secured effective control of the Los Angeles Coliseum and is developing the $650 million USC Village complex of housing, retail and commercial space. USC has gobbled up institutions elsewhere in L.A. (from a Glendale hospital to a Pasadena museum) and built a stronger presence in San Diego. USC has also been a big winner in two big L.A. trends — the revival of downtown (USC is just south of downtown) and the construction of new rail lines (Metro’s Expo line has three stops along USC’s campus).

More than a Trojan horse, USC is viewed across the region as a white knight. Many struggling L.A. institutions fantasize of being rescued by a USC takeover. These institutions include the Los Angeles Times, which, in my view, could find long-term viability by becoming a publication of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
At the same time it grows locally, USC has unabashedly prioritized global expansion, especially around the Pacific Rim. USC leads the nation in attracting foreign students, a fact it rightly celebrates even as the University of California system is bitterly criticized for adding foreign students (even though their higher tuition subsidizes lower in-state tuition for Californians).

California’s public universities, desperate to preserve their reputations for academic prestige, are quite traditional in their hiring. USC has few such hang-ups. Its strategic plan emphasizes real-world research and “entrepreneurial activities through flexible structures that allow faculty to move swiftly into new areas.” And USC has proudly opened institutes led by noted academicians like Dr. Dre and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Rooting for USC

USC has stepped on toes in pursuit of growth. The university’s recent effort to steal a major Alzheimer’s research project from UC San Diego was so brazen that the University of California sued. And as it catapults itself from mediocrity into the nation’s top tier of private institutions of higher learning, USC will face the same questions now confronting the Stanfords of the world — about whether its success contributes to widening inequality, and whether it should do more for those left behind by poor high schools and circumstances.

When UCLA and USC met on the football field this weekend, I was wearing a UCLA T-shirt for reasons personal (I grew up going to Bruins games) and professional (UCLA is a vital partner of Zócalo Public Square, which produces this column). But I root for archrival USC as a powerful example for California. Yes, our public universities have remained excellent despite all the cuts and constraints. But just imagine how much more they could do if the state stopped its meddling, and allowed our universities to fight on with all the flexibility the Trojans enjoy.

Interesting article.

Are Calif really upset about int’l admissions? I’m a southern cal native and UCLA seems to have had a high number of int’ls for awhile. I think that as long as they don’t receive aid, and have to pay a high tuition rate, Californians should view them as cash-cows that help subsidize UC grants. Heck, raise the OOS tuition even more. It’s not going to deter those determined to attend a UC.

Isn’t USC’s tuition & fees about $50k per year (plus room, board, books, etc)? If so, then increase the OOS UC tuition to the same or nearly the same…at least for the top 4-5 UCs. Maybe doing so would bring in enough cash to increase enrollment so that instate numbers don’t drop while accommodating OOS/int’ls.

It’s interesting to see that the UCs are now saying that they’re no longer going to provide grants to OOS domestic students that is directed to the “instate COA” amount. The UCs should never have been doing that to begin with…particularly w/o requiring CSS Profile with NCP info for those OOS students. Californians should have been outraged that aid was being directed to OOS students.

Calif’s who have lived here for decades and have paid into the UC piggy bank with their hard earned tax dollars are REALLY upset that it is MUCH harder for their kids to get into the UC’s because of a number of factors. These days, smart Calif kids, whose parents went to college, have little chance of acceptance at the best UCs, [ UC, UCLA, UCSD, }because 50-60% of OPENINGS are being SET ASIDE for college applicants whose parents did NOT go to college OR OOS applicants OR International applicants.

We dont need more cash cows- we need more spots for smart, hard working Calif students, regardless of whether their parents went to college or not.

That’s a long article that is easily summed up. USC has risen by spending a ton on marketing and by working the US News ranking system.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, in fact it’s admirable. It wasn’t that long ago that USC was an an academic joke, a total safety school for any decent or serious high school student. But they’ve done things like “buy” high SAT numbers with generous merit scholarships, spending tons on marketing to drive up applications, etc., which is geared to rising in the US News rankings. Which they did. They went from well outside the Top 50 to being tied with UCLA in a fairly short time. Their selectivity is nothing like it was 20 years ago.

Others have done the same thing, Vanderbilt, U of Chicago (who markets like crazy and has managed to drive their acceptance rate way down in 20 years), and others.

But the UCs, as government schools, are never going to make those kinds of efforts. They aren’t interested, don’t have to do it to survive, and there isn’t anyone in the system who has the incentive to do it. They have the built in benefit of low tuition for Californians, and that alone is always going to insure that UCLA and UCB are top rated national universities that get 100,000+ applications, and that the second tier UCs will also remain strong (and probably continue their rise).

But yeah, if they instituted a full court USC/Chicago style marketing campaign, geared to US News, UCLA and UCB would likely become Top 15 schools.

Northeastern University’s president Joseph Aoun was previously Dean of arts and sciences at USC. In the past 9 years he has raised Northeastern’s profile dramatically. Aoun learned well at USC. Unfortunately in Boston Harvard is an enormous vacuum cleaner sucking up most of the philanthropy.

<<<
because 50-60% of OPENINGS are being SET ASIDE for college applicants whose parents did NOT go to college OR OOS applicants OR International applicants.


[QUOTE=""]

[/QUOTE]

Well, if that’s true, then some are just going to lie and say that their parents didn’t go to college.

While it makes sense to give “some” consideration to First Gen, it shouldn’t be that high.

If there are more cash cows (int’ls and FULL PAY NO FA OOS) then why can’t the UCs expand to accept more students?

^^ it costs billions and billions of $$ to open new campuses- buy land, build , hire faculty and staff , etc, etc. i.e. expand.
Remember, Calif has the overall most expensive land costs of any state in the country, and most of the top UC’s are smack dab in the middle of big cities whose land prices exceed $1,000,000/ acre. And all new education construction must be built to withstand earthquakes- you cant just throw up new brick buildings in Calif and call it a day.
There is also no empty room to expand out in these locations- Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno,-and building UP is even more costly.

The full-pay, OOS students weren’t being admitted to grow revenues. They were being admitted to replace lost funding from the state. I believe the state only provides 10% of UC funding these days.

I agree @menloparkmom . I went to college out of state, but I’m a CA native, as are my kids, and I’ve lived here most of my life. It does bother me what the UCs are doing.

In the 1990 US News’ America’s best colleges (selected samples):

Ranked Acceptance Rate
1 Harvard 18%
2 Stanford 18%
6 MIT 30%
11 Univ. of Chicago 45%
13 Univ. of Penn 41%
13 UC Berkeley 37%
15 John Hopkins 48%
17 UCLA 43%
21 Univ. of Mich. 60%
22 Carnegie Mellon 64%
23 Northwestern 47%,
24 Washington Univ. 54%

In the next quartile (#26 to 50, no ranked order, selected sample):
Emory 55% acceptance rate
NYU 52% acceptance rate
UC San Diego 55% acceptance rate
UC Davis 69%
Univ. of Notre Dame 34%
USC 74%
Univ. of Washington 65%
Univ. of Wisconsin 72%
Vanderbilt University 58%

USC and some private schools (Northwestern, Wash. Univ., Emory, Notre Dame, and Vanderbilt) have come a long way from 1990 to where they are today.

@Student901: In the 1990 survey, USC was within the top 50 and to put things in perspective, other notable universities also had high acceptance rates.