USC from parents point of view

Parents Forum
41

<p>RD, either you misread or I was unclear: I asked for a paradigm to describe why students doing online reviews would be harsher regarding USC than Stanford, UCLA, and Cal. </p>

<p>My general sense is that one should be wary of on-line reviews, particularly as uncorroborated single sources, but that the biases in the reviews should, systemically, cut in similar directions from school to school. The student-reported Academic Quality ratings of 8.1., 8.1, 8.0, and 6.8...the last being for USC...might give one pause. I'm asking for a paradigm to explain why USC would be unfairly rated compared to the others. </p>

<p>The comments from the profs I know are not politically based or based on lack of tenure. In fact, the most vehement is from a long-term tenured prof. I wish I could share his specific comments but some of those might lead in the direction of which courses he teaches or where his previous experiences were and I perceive the need to keep the serial numbers filed off...his sharing of views with me should not constitute sharing the same view with the entire community.</p>

<p>I agree with Tsdad that you're overstating the politics. And in fact, the film/TV, theater, and music programs are all programs where my response to a student going to such would be "congratulations" instead of "I'm sure you'll be very happy there."</p>

<p>Fwiw, my D's single-sitting SAT differential is 100 points. I suspect that's on the high end but I read something somewhere a while back that 50-80 is fairly common.</p>

42

<p>Reasonabledad, it is only one school, but the link shows more top students apply to Berkeley and UCLA, go to Berkeley and UCLA, and there are weaker students that are accepted and go to USC than Berkeley and UCLA.</p>

<p>As far as the multiple sittings go, it is obvious that you will have lower SAT scores if you take one sitting against multiple. I don't know how much, but I would bet that 20 points you mentioned earlier would be made up. Since you are using the SAT scores to state it can be argued that USC is the third best school in Cal, you tell me how you can use that number when SAT scores at the different schools are figured out differently.
If the UCs used multiple sittings and USC used single sittings, do you really think USC would have the higher SAT average compared to UCLA and Berkeley?</p>

<p>I'm up in Northern California. There are very bright students that want to go to USC. When I look at the caliber of students going to USC, I have a feeling that the school is becoming a very strong school. Overall, Berkeley and UCLA get more strong students, and it doesn't matter which numbers you are trying to manipulate (Which is what you are doing).</p>

<p>There is a book "Private High Schools of the SF Bay Area" by Susan Vogel which lists where students matriculate. These kids go to the top private schools in the Bay Area. More kids go to Berkeley and UCLA than USC. </p>

<p>If you want to take some time, you can go to <a href="http://www.berkeley.edu%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.berkeley.edu&lt;/a>
There are a lot of studies on the web site about the SAT.</p>

43

<p>Reasonabledad: I appreciate your efforts in trying to keep this dialogue based on objective data rather than murky subjective perception.
On another note:
Has anyone given consideration to the time lag behind 'reputation' and reality? That is, posters are citing the fact that more "smart' kids either apply or go to the UC's than USC. if a study was made of GC's across California, I suggest that a finding would be made that the GC's are largely operating from historical 'reputation' (as some posters on CC here are as well) rather than the reality - you'd have to spend some time on campus yourself to know the reality - and are still counseling kids about where to go based on yesterday's 'reputation' rather than today's reality. The 'reputation' thing, by the way, goes two ways. If the quality of some of the UC's is deteriorating due to budget cuts - the historical reputation will outlive the reality - for a while. It takes time for reality to catch up. Just a thought.</p>

44

<p>It's a fallacy that subjective data is necessarily less valid than objective data. Something I managed to learn after I left engineering school. I used to not trust intuition, either.</p>

<p>Cross-checks are always good.</p>

45

<p>papabear, you crack me up.</p>

<p>Reasonabledad is the one distorting objective numbers. Or do you like using SAT numbers and don't care how they are compiled?
If USC used single sitting and Berkeley and UCLA used multiple sitting, USC would have lower SAT scores than Berkeley and UCLA.</p>

<p>Give me a break...objective sources. :)</p>

<p>If you look at the real numbers Berkeley and UCLA get the better students on average.</p>

<p>I provided two "OBJECTIVE" sources that use real students. There are thousands of sources that will back this up.</p>

46

<p>dstark ~ A couple of thoughts. First, I found one CB report that does allow us to estimate the effect you describe from the multiple sittings of the SAT I (the old test from 2004). The link is here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2002/pdf/sixB.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2002/pdf/sixB.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Bottom line on this; from this data one can estimate the maximum effect possible from multiple sittings vs best sitting, but not the actual effect. After some calculations, the difference in reported SAT scores is somewhere between 0 points and a maximum of 21 points. Without the real underlying data I don't think the "gap" can be determined from this chart, but somewhere previously I have seen a distribution of scores (plus and minus for each incremental test). So I'm going to guess from my memory of this table and the link above that the "gap" is worth about 15 points.</p>

<p>In other words, you are right, Berkeley is almost caught up with USC on average SAT I scores. Given that the US News showed scores to the nearest ten points, we really can't tell if Berkeley is caught up. Hell, Berkeley could be ahead by a couple of points! But the rest of the pack listed in my earlier post do not match up with USC.</p>

<p>Was it Senator Moynihan who said everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts? I'm not trying to manipulate numbers: I am definitely trying to solicit reasons (and I'm a quantitative kind of person) for thinking that USC is weaker than it seems, because my son is considering the school seriously for 2006. Like all of the parents here, I don't want to be a flawed advisor for my kid...</p>

<p>You wrote that "the link shows more top students apply to Berkeley and UCLA, go to Berkeley and UCLA, and there are weaker students that are accepted and go to USC than Berkeley and UCLA."</p>

<p>I was hoping to step around this sort of comparison and keep the discussion more general, because this is where I get flamed by the UC partisans, but here goes.</p>

<p>For your quote, well, of course there are more smart kids going to UCLA and Berkeley than to USC. All three schools are "full," that is not expanding much any more. They have their planned admission profiles in place. Again, the objective numbers are:</p>

<ol>
<li>Berkeley 23,206 undergrads, 89% in-state</li>
<li>UCLA 25,715 undergrads, 95% in-state</li>
<li>USC 16,381 undergrads, 67% in-state</li>
</ol>

<p>What this means is that UCLA and Berkeley (between them) have 45,082 "seats" which are, other things being equal, destined for smart California kids. USC, on the other hand, has only 10,975 "seats" destined for smart California kids. so when you tell me that you more of the smart kids in your local NoCal area applying and attending UCLA and Berkeley, I am completely certain that you are right. But this does not mean that the two UCs are better: not at all. It means they are bigger, that's all.</p>

<p>Now the second part of your point was that weaker students are accepted and go to USC than to the two UCs you cited. Two things need to be mentioned here: first, that the SAT data don't seem to confirm this idea. I don't want to be rude, but can you sustain this point with some data? I'm not asserting that you are wrong: I am asserting that I don't see objective evidence that you are right! and that the SAT data seems to be showing the reverse, in fact, at least for all the UCs except Berkeley.</p>

<p>The second point on this "weaker students go to USC" concept is that USC makes powerful use of the Pell grants program to recruit a more economically diverse student body than many California schools of similar quality. I think this is laudable. But what this would seem to imply to me is that, at constant levels of economic resources, USC must be recruiting better students than it's peer group at the UCs, because USC still comes out third in the SAT rankings for the state.</p>

<p>Also, I would again wonder how the price differential between USC and the UCs impacts the decisions of talented California HS seniors. For USC to routinely recruit higher average SAT scoring students, year after year, at a higher price for the education, suggests that in the education marketplace buyers are seeing more value at USC than at the UCs.</p>

<p>[covers his head with his arms and sadly announces "let the flaming begin"]</p>

47

<p><a href="http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2004/freshman_admit_profile_2004.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2004/freshman_admit_profile_2004.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Berkeley 1350, LA 1346...</p>

48

<p>reasonabledad, I don't think USC is weak. My son may consider this school; although, I will look at USC more carefully if this is the case.</p>

<p>I'm a quantitive type of person. What really gets me going is when people use something like the SAT to compare schools when that number is measured differently at different schools. The SAT data you use doesn't prove that USC students have higher SAT scores than Berkeley and UCLA students because those scores are derived differently.</p>

<p>USC is not third in the state in SAT scores.</p>

<p>I will bet you any amount of money that the difference between single scoring and multiple scoring is not 0.</p>

<p>There are more students with Pell Grants at Berkeley and UCLA than USC, percentage wise and in total numbers.</p>

<p>Weaker student bodies than Berkeley and UCLA doesn't necessarily mean the student bodies are weak.</p>

<p>reasonabledad, I gave you data (Just one school). If you look at the scattergrams of the three schools, the little green spots represent matriculated students. The blue spots represent accepted students. The data does confirm what I said. I live in California. You said you don't.
Don't believe me. I live here and I see what is happening.</p>

49

<p>RD, recruiting higher scoring students is simple: USC can afford to throw more money at them. They guaranteed a minimum 50 percent scholarship at my D and they do it for far more students that can receive the UC's Regents scholarships.</p>

<p>The subtler point is that high scoring students does not immediately translate into academic culture. As someone pointed out before I jumped into this thread, a serious student can certainly pursue serious academics at USC. But that does not address the academic culture, or lack thereof. You get SC students talking about the omission of academics in what they like about the school and you get a lot of variants of "But we have so many other things to do." A response for one kind of valid college experience but not one that conveys the sense that academics are indeed a priority. Which in turn is supported by students own ratings of USC and other schools...unless someone can offer a plausible reason why those rating USC would be so much more negative than those rating other colleges.</p>

<p>And another note about subjective data: I can read two essays and can know which is clearly better; that the opinion is subjective doesn't invalidate it. Finally, which is more true: a photograph or an Impressionist painting?</p>

50

<p>Lower SATs at USC merely reflects the fact that almost 30% of students are low-income Pell Grant recipients. (roughly 4 times what it is at Harvard). Wash out the impact of low-income, and raise the median score 75-100 points. This is true at UCLA and Berkeley, too, except that in-state tuition is already so much lower to begin with, as to make the comparison suspect.</p>

<p>The thing is, however, that there are in fact, relatively few students from middle income families at USC. More than half the student body pays their own way, which means family incomes of roughly $155k/year minimum (and most higher), and 30% are Pell Grant low-income students, leaving less than 20% for the 35-95th percentile middle. There are percentage-wise, many, many more middle-income students at Berkeley/UCLA.</p>

<p>Statistically, there isn't another private institition like it in the country. (The closest is Occidental, but it is much, much smaller, and and has a much higher percentages of middle income students, making the comparison meaningless.)</p>

51

<p>Just a thought, but aren't we falling victim to the same thing the children do elsewhere on CC and judging the worth of a college and students by the SAT scores? I think the issue here is not which of the schools is better, but rather that USC has made a huge academic leap in the last decade. Its SATs are now pretty much the equal, or better (USC's administration believes they are better, which amuses them) than those of UCLA and UCB. In the fall of 1991 the average USC SAT scores were 1070. For 2003's entering matriculants the middle 50% scores were 1270-1420.</p>

<p>Frankly, as a USC parent and an easterner I have always found this discussion tiresome. I know exactly what my son is getting. This is not a zero sum game. Well, perhaps it is in California, but from my view USC can become better without diminishing UCLA or UCB.</p>

52

<p>R-dad:</p>

<p>the point about SAT's is how many times a kid takes the test, but how do the schools count the scores. The UC's count the highest composite scores from the same sitting, whereas most private schools take the highest math and the highest verbal from different sittings. Thus, comparing UC's scores to other schools is somewhat apples and oranges.</p>

<p>While I don't know of any data source, I think we can presume that a kid's total composite score ends up higher by using different sittings.....otherwise, the Ivies et al would not use them in effort to raise their own test score reports</p>

53

<p>tsdad, it is not a zero sum game. You can get a good education at USC. It just gets me going when I read the "my school has a better SAT average than your school BS". I know some really strong students that are hoping to hear soon if they were accepted to USC.</p>

54

<p>BigBrother ~ thanks for the link. I see where you get your data now, and I agree that this source shows 1350 and 1346, exactly as you suggested. However, this does not mean that Berkeley and UCLA are ahead of USC, because this data is not centered in the same way as the USNews data. For the numbers I gave earlier were simply the arithmetic average of the median range (25%-75%) of the admitted students. When these numbers are compared, the UCs come up short. Now you have uncovered the actual median score (which is a different beast) for the UCs. If we had the actual median score for USC, we could determine something about ranking, but we don't have it.</p>

<p>The numbers I reported earlier were all on the same basis, as reported by USNews. When we get the median USC number, we can look at this again. But for now, the UCs still don't quite match up, apples to apples. Berkeley is not too far behind, though, with a range of 1190-1440 compared to USC's range of 1250-1420.</p>

55

<p>I request that several of you re-read the first two posts on this thread. I don't think I've been delving off into any attacks on the UC system, despite many invitations to do so. I'm completely disinterested in who's on top. But the OP asked for a parent's view of USC, and whether grads are employable. I'm a parent with a kid looking at the school, and a grad, and a potential hiring manager. I think the position of USC is very strong, and the trend is upward, toward top 15 in the country over the next 20 years. Others are free to disagree, but there is a body of objective information that supports this view.</p>

<p>End of story.</p>

56

<p>I, personally, am not too concerned whether Cal or UCLA or USC is #2 #3 or #4- they are all good, but you need to find the one which fits you. My H is a UCLA alum, but my DD applied to USC, got in and we almost chose it, we just did not want to make the financial commitment with 2 more kids coming along and the much more attractive pricing at the UCs.</p>

<p>If I were from out-of-state, I would probably choose USC over UCs- yup, even UCLA and UCB!! I like the possibility of more attention from a private school and the underlying realisation that the student is a customer who should be satisfied, the UCs are typical govt bureaocracy, they are still good schools, but if I were coming all the way to Cali from somewhere else and had to pay the OOS tuition difference at the UCs, I would seriously consider USC.</p>

57

<p>duplicate post</p>

58

<p>be as unreliable as one can get. So probably does all those things you mentioned in proving your assessment of USC, if the prof you know is long-tenured enough to be OLD. If you ask, one of the reasons why USC gets lower rating on that site could be because there are too many UCLA people there:) exactly like here on CC where USC gets bashed all the time. UCLA people can be really nasty at times (shh, my boss is a bruin:)</p>

<p>My family members and a lot of friends went to USC. I personally think USC is good school, not that good yet, but on par with UCLA. I know 2 kids did quite well at USC, but I can not imagine they can be that successful (one goes to Harvard, one goes to MIT for graduate school) going to UCLA without the cares they received from professors (granted they paid the money, or earn the scholarship). This should be the way assessing a school - whether the school can raise your stock or not. If USC get all the good (undergrad) students who went to UCLA and UCB, I would venture to say the three shouldn't be mentioned in the same class.</p>

59

<p>The score is for students who got admitted. I am not sure if the usc score is the same thing.</p>

60

<p>Someone:</p>

<p>Agreed. UCLA and UCB cost nearly as much as USC and are nearly impossible for most out-of-state students to get into. They are pretty much irrelevant to most non-Californians. UCSD will be getting there shortly.</p>