<p>yes............</p>
<p>... is not declining. Rather, I foresee it heating up as more and more UCLA affiliated people accept the fact that USC is on par academically and in some areas, has surpassed it.</p>
<p>Surpassed? Surpassed?! Pshaw!</p>
<p>Okay, maybe.</p>
<p>But, we still have...umm...better dorm food. :p</p>
<p>I'm glad to see USC performing so well, because:</p>
<ol>
<li> It makes UCLA compete even harder. I would argue that part of what keeps Berkeley so competitive is Stanford.</li>
<li> It keeps more qualified students in LA.</li>
<li> It means more NCAA titles for LA schools.</li>
<li> More good hospitals for LA</li>
</ol>
<p>I mean, not only does LA have the best hospital on the West Coast, it now has two of the best engineering schools, close ties to JPL, and two of the three top performing NCAA Div. 1 schools. Not too shabby for "Hollywood" schools.</p>
<p>Haha, we'll surpass UCLA in dorm food the day our basketball legacy surpasses it. And yes, competition is great. Part of the reason we like (well, myself at least) to boast about our accomplishments is that UCLA is so often the benchmark by which we're measured. Having high expectations is never a bad thing.</p>
<p>Sempiterm,</p>
<p>there's a great thread in the Parents forum discussing schools "buying" students. Take a look at it: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=67235%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=67235</a></p>
<p>saw that thread, thanks</p>
<p>I dislike any merit aid, even those scholarships I was offered as well as those my alma mater gives out. I think colleges should only give out need-based aid</p>
<p>I believe that there is room for both, as long as the need-based aid is dealt with first. I mean, I know a lot of people who can "afford" college, but are still taking out tens-of-thousands of dollars in loans just to do it because they're too firmly in the middle class bracket.</p>
<p>I can't remember who posted it but the link to the statistics is old. It is a PDF of the student for the 2003-2004 year. Where is the statistics for the 2004-2005 incoming class . . . that should be replaced by the stats for the 2005-2006 incoming class when available in the fall.</p>
<p>It seems that USC has started to reduce the amount of information they release about their classes. Though I have heard through anecdotes that they have higher SAT scores this year than last which was higher than the stats listed in the link.</p>
<p>Most of the student newspapers usually have an article in one of their spring issues that contains the statistics of the incoming class. When I did a search on the Daily Trojan I did not find anything. Does anyone know where this data is? Other pointers would be appreciated.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>Agreed, I posted a number of comments to the buying students thread. It has always seemed to me that once a school meets 100% of the financial need of their students they should be free to spend their money however they please. The trouble I always have is what is the definition of 'need' because it is quite different from school to school.</p>
<p>True, but as long as a student can go to school and not have to rack up obscene debt, I think it's all kosher.</p>
<p>Granted, to some more than $100 is obscene debt, so that's subjective as well. If USC offered the kind of aid that Harvard and Princeton offered, they'd get student bodies to rival the Ivies.</p>
<p>Eagle79, as aforementioned, USC has not released its class of 2009 data yet because it does not know it. If you look at the link above, it has stats for applicants, admits, and matriculants. At this stage, USC has info on applicants and admits, but not matriculants and so it would be premature to release this data when not everything is in. To reiterate what was already posted, yes that link is old and for last year's but I don't see how you expect them to update it when the information is simply not available. Also, the years mentioned in the statistics reference (2003-2004) refer to applicant years; those students applied in 2003 and learned of their acceptance in 2004. It was this previous year's incoming class. The incoming class of 2009 which will start this August is the 2004-2005 class as referenced by admissions.</p>
<p>sempitern, you're a honorary trojan in my book ;)</p>
<p>themegastud,</p>
<p>Sorry, I think you are mistaken. The link refers to the sophomore (rising junior) class at USC not the current freshman (rising sophomore class). Note the reference in the top left corner of the document:</p>
<p>
[quote]
2003 Entering Freshman Class
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I had heard the the following class, the 2004 entering freshman class, had better stats and a lower acceptance rate, something like 25%.</p>
<p>With the most recent admissions cycle completed the link is almost 2 years old. They should know the applicants and admits column for the current incoming class (2005 Entering Freshman Class). Further, they should know the matriculant numbers for this year give or take a few students that may change their mind over the summer.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that's a misnomer. If you look at the statistics themsleves, they are for this past year's class. USC had 150 national merit scholars two years ago, and 158 this past year. Also notice in the bottom right hand corner, it says when Fall 2004 classes begin.</p>
<p>aww thanks afterhours:)</p>
<p>themegastud,</p>
<p>You are correct that it says when Fall 2004 classes begin. However, this is under the grey box header "Important Dates and Deadlines", which is under the major header "2004 Freshman Application Process".</p>
<p>This document is the same one provided last year as part of the 2004 Freshman Application Process.</p>
<p>So, here is an update, my son got a mailing from USC yesterday. It lists the 25%-75% SAT scores for the incoming class of 2004-2005 as 1280-1420 with a median of 1350. Note, the profile posted on the USC web-site lists 1270-1420 so I am assuming that it is for the class of 2003-2004.</p>