<p>@UCBUS- You make many assumptions. Both USC and Stanford have curves for their science classes as well as Cal does. The curve at USC in most pre-med pre req classes is set at a B-/C+. This is also adjusted AFTER many students drop the class (making it even harder to be at the top). It is not EASIER to get an A or B at USC than Cal, and many students get C’s. The qualifications of the students taking these classes are similar at both Cal and USC and the curves are similar-- thus, why would the competition for A’s then be any stronger at Cal? This is just something Cal students like to tell themselves. </p>
<p>Stanford classes are also curved- although the set point may be slighter higher- which, given the even stronger qualifications of these students (vs. Cal or USC), makes the comparison of grades more difficult to make. I’d argue the curve should be set at a B at S to compensate for the higher level of students.</p>
<p>A 3.6 GPA is quite average for med school apps. You will find students from a variety of schools getting into UCD med school with this GPA in concert with a good MCAT, EC’s , LOR, etc… Not specific to a Cal 3.6 GPA at all. </p>
<p>Camomo: You are correct. My information on grading is based on hearsay from current and former Cal students. I apologize for the misperception and for offending any of the private schools (USC and the elite ones) people out there. You are right about med schools. They take a “holistic” approach by looking at gpa, mcat, ec’s etc. I believe coming from a school, like Cal, which has a reputation of being very rigorous helps.</p>
<p>Back to my earlier post: My comments about USC becoming an elite school in the mold of HYPS and even UC Berkeley will take decades to achieve. It takes time to bring in the brightest of the bright PhDs who will potentially be Nobel Prize Laureates associated with USC. It also takes time to erase public and media image of USC as a football school in the likes of Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, etc. who sacrifices academics for national championships. That is one of many reasons Haden is not the right person for the president position. I believe USC now is on the right track which started on the late 70’s and 80’s and later intensified under Sample’s and Nikias’ leadership. On sign of elite status happening is when USC moves up into the top 10 or 15 in academic rankings and when USC PhDs are in high demand by the elite universities.</p>
<p>One major impediment is that USC is competing with those schools for talent but makes merit aid selective versus automatic for certain stats. For some families that pull of significantly more renewable merit aid becomes compelling when looking at long term costs. Even for those who do get merit aid - a partial (half tuition, for example) package compared to a full ride at another school creates more pressure. I suspect that’s why 50% of the admitted class declines. It’s often an economic decision.</p>
<p>USC could also retain more talent if it created more merit aid for students who were not selected in the first year but based on grades were top performers after the first year. </p>
<p>With the push to continue growth (in terms of buildings and programs) I’d like to see more investment in “human capital.” Prestige comes from recruiting the best and retaining them. MIT has now a 7.7% admissions rate (out of 21,000 applications) with only a handful getting off the waiting list. Almost everyone excepted, enrolls. USC can and should strive for that type of performance. But tuition is also free for families below $75,000 which makes it easier for middle class families with gift students to afford it. Even Harvard is free below $60,000.</p>
<p>USC tends to really stretch the limits on what they want parents to pay and we’ve known students who walked away from the offer because the family couldn’t (not wouldn’t - but couldn’t) afford to take on that level of debt. </p>
<p>As you said - elite schools start with the products they produce. Take the best kids, fund them at more favorable levels, then reduce the number of acceptances as yield increases.</p>
<p>The graduate student enrollment in particular has basically doubled in size and USC pumps out more Ph.D.s than most schools. There has been an across the board dilution across all disciplines. The same can be said of the undergrads. Nikias needs to retire. I’ve sat next to Morty Shapiro at dinner years ago and we spoke at length. He would be a great president too. My point is that Nikias hurt USC in more ways imaginable by allowing the NCAA violations. He’s like Lane Kiffin to me. Some of you believe that simply because he’s a great guy he deserves to be president. In my private world he should be sent packing, along with Dickey, for not protecting USC.</p>
<p>Btw, my best friend from law school graduated from Chicago and I know it well. Hell, at Michigan Law there were about 18 from Chicago and 20 from Princeton in the early 90s. The smartest kids I met went to Princeton, and of the ones from HYSP, the ones from Stanford were no smarter than those I met at USC. But they all thought USC was a good school even then, based upon the reaction I received during my first year. Some of you think USC only became a great school a few years ago, lol.</p>
<p>Apparently, Morty Shapiro would be a good president to take USC to the next level. He has a PhD from an Ivie, U.Penn. However, he is currently president at Northwestern U., an elite private school almost in the same mold as the Univ. of Chicago. As I previously said, definitely Haden cannot be the one to take USC to the next level. He is too much connected to football and will only validate USC as a football school.</p>
<p>Some trivial information not related to this posting:
My former tax colleague in the corporate tax department was a Princeton engineering graduate and a Univ. of Michigan law graduate. He also has a NYU masters in tax law. We joke with him about grade inflation during the period he attended Princeton. Years ago I read (I think in the WSJ) that Princeton rectified the grade inflation problem or perception.</p>
<p>My good friend’s daughter graduated from UCLA and later went on to graduate from the Univ.of Chicago Law School. She worked for Morgan Lewis Law firm before getting burned out. Now she is with an insurance company.</p>
<p>My other friend’s daughter graduated from USC and then graduated from the Univ. of Michigan Law School. She went there for the intellectual property law. She went on to work for Morrison and Foerster law firm, got burned out and is now working for a federal judge. She was also accepted to the University of Chicago Law School and Boalt Hall (now UC Berkeley Law). We had advised her to go to the Univ. of Chicago. The Michigan Law choice turned out good for her.</p>
<p>Okay, so I also got into Penn Law, Northwestern and Columbia, BUT decided on Michigan because of the law quad, awe factor, it was in the top five or seven then, and it was suburban and I’d done the urban thing at USC. After my presentation in torts that was required, a few guys asked me to be on their moot court team, including my Chicago buddy. I’m good on my feet, thank you USC, especially in court. I went to Big Law immediately after graduation but now work in house at a Fortune 100 company. I credit my success to USC, especially my poli sci and philosophy classes some have derided. </p>
<p>I work for a Fortune 200 company. About 70% of the lawyers in our law dept., like you, have law degrees from the top 10 to 12 elite law schools. Many employees in our CFO, treasury and investor relations groups have masters degrees from the elite universities. The exception is in accounting and tax. In the acctg. dept., the cpa (not necessarily from a Big 8, now Big 4) is valued more than a degree from an elite university. Same with the tax department. A cpa, law degree (not necessarily from an elite college), or a master’s degree (non elite degree is okay) is recommented in order to work in the tax dept. I have a cpa from working in a Big 8 firm and degrees from UCB and USC, both considered great schools for business and accounting. I could have gone to lesser schools and done the same in my work career. </p>
<p>Since my twenties, I’ve been asked where I went to law school because law is such an elitist profession, followed by, where did you go to college. The irony is that USC is getting as much if not more wows than Michigan, something I began noticing in the late 90s, especially among the high schoolers I’ve met. That’s why I’m very concerned about USC’s reputation in the wake of the NCAA scandal.</p>
</p>