USC’s reputation has dramatically improved over the last 20 years. Why?
Huge endowment. One of the top schools in the country relative to billionaire creation. Great weather. Profs of note. Great engineering screen and business schools. California wealth and the internet. Selectivity increase due to application volume. And the incredible move of the UCs up the food chain nationally. California is bigger than most countries and it’s the best private school in the block.
Just some of my thoughts but just subjective and no data.
1 Like
They have done a very good job of investing in their academic departments. The graduate department reputations flowed down to the undergrad rankings. I’m told now they have stalled recently but nonetheless it’s a huge improvement from the 1980’s.
They have done a great job of playing the USNWR game of selectivity but encouraging more applications and relying more on transfers that don’t count towards the stats.
They have always had the inherent advantage of the weather and the geography (not the actual campus location though which is in a marginal area)
They became strong enough to be a safety behind Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA for those that wanted California and then desirable enough to be a choice between themselves and the UC system (which had underinvested) but still well behind Stanford.
With an admit rate of now only 11.4%, I do not see how anyone can consider USC a Safety period. It is now clearly a Reach school for everyone. This year, a staggering 58,640 applicants were rejected. And I am quite sure that many of those applicants considered USC an university that they would likely be admitted to. But among those 58,640 rejections, there were also 4K+ with 4.0 unweighted GPAs and 99th percentile test scores. They especially were likely shocked at being rejected.
This also demonstrates the differences in terms of spheres of influences. On the east coast of the U.S., at least in my sphere of influence, no one even considers Berkeley or UCLA. They simply consider Stanford and USC in terms of applying to elite California colleges and universities. I am quite sure that the UC system is well thought of in California, but that respect does not necessarily spread across the U.S. as those out west would expect. I personally know that Berkeley and UCLA are great schools, but neither of my daughters even wanted to apply there. They had zero interest in attending those public universities. The only one they both applied to was U of Virginia.
I meant in the past it was considered a safety (though for the students that can get in to HYPS it’s still basically a safety so we disagree there. I interview for several schools including an Elite Ivy and there is a difference that goes beyond gpa and SAT). Now it’s a peer to Berkeley and UCLA when in the past it wasn’t. Stanford still is ahead (though candidly in the past Berkeley was just as strong if not stronger in many departments).
When I went to Stanford, USC was far down on the pecking order. It’s moved up now and is similar to Vanderbilt which is also an excellent school that has really moved up. UVa was above both of those in the past and no longer. Having said that, they are all so good that it’s individual performance at the school that really matters not which school (except in a few industries like investment banking and consulting perhaps).
USC’s current academic reputation doesn’t extend to the northeast. Or rather among the older generation (the employers) it still has some of that prior reputation which no doubt is changing quickly. Berkeley is still a power house there. I believe in most departments Berkeley and UCLA are still academically stronger but perhaps not as socially cool. The YouTube and Instagram generation. I get it - my son would have picked USC over either those too. That decision wasn’t based on the academics but the overall sports and party vibe as well.
That high school kids in Florida aren’t aware of how good Berkeley and UCLA and Pomona and Claremont are really doesn’t say anything. I’m sure in a few years after working with graduates of those schools they will gain more respect for them!
But again, all these schools are really good and therefore it’s what the student makes if the opportunity that matters. Some paths may be slightly harder or require more persistence but all goals will be reachable. The school will not hold them back. Graduate school strength will matter more.
In the Midwest, USC still has a reputation as a football school. UCLA has a reputation as a basketball school. UC Berkeley has a reputation as a hippie school full of commies.
1 Like
Well, over my past 5-6 years of reviewing posts here on CC, I have certainly seen scores and scores of posts from shocked USC applicants who were admitted to one or more of the colleges/universities in the Harvard/Yale/MIT/Stanford/Princeton grouping, but then were also rejected by USC. Even my own daughter got into Princeton, Rice Emory and USC, etc. while then also being denied by Stanford, Yale and Brown. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a safety or even a match anymore when applying to elite colleges or universities. She was even rejected by Duke, UVa, Vanderbilt and Northwestern. By your assumption, students that can get in to any of the HYPS grouping should be able to get in everywhere… but that is simply not the case anymore. With the advent of the common application and the trend of most students applying to 10+ or even 15+ schools, all bets are now off. It really is a crap shoot. And it more likely comes down to how each applicant applies for each college or university.
In the case of USC, for example, I believe that it is more important to consider what USC is actually seeking from you before you apply and hit send within the Common Application. These days, it is virtually impossible for others to predict what may or may not occur in your specific case. With an admit rate now below 12% and falling, and with thousands of stellar applicants getting rejected each cycle, one’s success as an applicant will instead likely depend on too many potential factors for anyone to correctly evaluate… making predicting admission nearly impossible. That is why I contend that no one should look toward USC as anything but a reach these days.
USC is after all seeking to craft a well-rounded and diverse freshman class comprised of those who actually have a strong affinity for or connection to USC. They do aim to admit those who they project will thrive well at USC and bring something unique to the campus environment. One’s individual admission decision will likely come down to a composite and holistic analysis of stats coupled with writing ability / essays, ECs, potential leadership roles, potential other unique qualifiers (URM, First Gen, geography, demographics, etc.), the applicant’s Why USC? explanation/reasoning, etc. And that “Why USC?” explanation is likely the most important single component of the application. Applicants do need to provide a well-thought out and well-researched answer as to why attending USC is truly significant and important to you specifically. And moreover, USC does want to gain a sense as to what an applicant will be uniquely contributing to the greater USC community if admitted.
Before applying, I suggest that all applicants read through the very helpful insider’s guide to USC admissions…
https://tfm.usc.edu/a-guide-to-uscs-college-admissions-process/
The advice or suggestions that they provide can most likely also be applicable to the admissions process when applying to many elite college and universities.
Your contention is that USC still basically remains a safety for those applying who are bound to gain admission at one or more HYPS caliber schools. I respectfully but strongly still disagree. USC quite simply does reject many of those applicants, and they do so likely because those applicants approached their applications as if they were assured of being admitted. They likely thought as you also contend. They likely relied mainly on their stellar stats/grades and then therefore assumed that they would be admitted period. They likely did so without effectively aiming to convince USC why they belong there and moreover what USC might be gaining in turn by admitting them.
I concur that USC is now a peer to Berkeley and UCLA and that Stanford is still ahead. But that being said, both of my daughters, for example, would have turned down Stanford to attend USC. One did in fact turn down Princeton to do so. The mindset of each applicant is unique. I also agree that USC was far down on the pecking order back in the 1900s… and even through maybe as late as 2005. I also agree that USC is now similar to Vanderbilt… and likely also in the same grouping as Northwestern and Duke. UVa may be down, but they still rejected both of my daughters.
My daughters’ mix of admissions and rejections alone serves as a cautionary tale. While they each had the stats/grades, ECs and leadership roles and even the essays (in my opinion) to get in almost anywhere, they went a combined 13 and 19 in terms of admissions versus rejections. So my advice to future applicants is to assume nothing.
Just because you can and even did get in to an HYPS, that does not mean that you will get in everywhere. My daughter who did so still only went 8 and 7.
And yes… all these schools are really good. Hopefully applicants will choose wisely and apply as if they are assuming the worst and hoping for the best. Assume nothing and apply as if you need to truly convince each school – and especially your top choice – that it is the right school for you. And remember to also share with each of them what they will be getting from you in return. Applying is a two-way street. Admissions officers want to know why you are applying there… and what you may be bring to their campus should they decide to admit you.
Good luck to all those applying to USC this cycle…
Very thoughtful response!
I think we are saying the same thing. It’s such a luxury to be able to consider attending top 20 universities too!
Your daughter maybe supports my point as she got in to a Princeton and also USC; if she hadn’t gotten in to USC that would be more telling. Her essay as to why USC no doubt was compelling and clearly sincere. Probably an easy decision for admissions.
You are making a great point though which is the “why USC” needs to be taken seriously. My believe is that many who think they will get in to their HYPS favorite almost take USC for granted and it does come across to admissions. USC will then realize it’s not a top choice and will probably reject if nothing else to yield protect. Treat each application very seriously since as you point out nothing is certain
My only caution is that for the first job out of college most universities are stronger in a certain region than nationally. Especially due to the legacy alumni who hire. they may be known nationally but not as well established of a pipeline.
Thanks.
I agree that many who may be looking to USC as a back-up should they not also get into their dream college likely take USC for granted. And as you suggest, USC Admissions likely sees through that. I also agree that USC is likely prone to yield protection if they fully suspect that USC is not really your top choice.
I also agree with you about regions. If you truly wish to end up in the northeast for your final career destination, for example, USC may not be the best collegiate path for you… unless you are considering one of the SCA programs that are clearly ranked top-five… like SCA, for example. If your future path includes grad school, then such may make less of a difference… but then you may wish to choose a grad school that also better corresponds to the opinions of industry leaders in the region that you favor.