<p>When do you think USC will break into the US News top 20 ranking?</p>
<p>When the endowment is at least 10 billion…</p>
<p>Next 5 years. That’s going to happen but what matters is the other rankings relating to the quality of the research outputs, especially in the hard sciences.</p>
<p>When the admit rate hits 15% and we cut the size of the transfer class by two thirds.</p>
<p>Sounds like a $money ranking afterall…</p>
<p>but if it is, then SC has more hope…</p>
<p>Rankings can be both subjective and controversial. If the original poster was referring to U.S. News rankings, there are 16 indicators of academic quality tabulated. It is not just scores, selectivity and acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Some of the indicators are: </p>
<p>Academic reputation index
Graduation rate
Freshmen retention rate
Classes under 20 percentage
Student faculty ratio
Selectivity
Acceptance Rate
Faculty resources rank
Alumni giving rank
Average alumni giving rate
Freshmen in top 10% of high school class
Full time faculty percentage</p>
<p>The U.S. News is the one that we all focus on but it’s not the only ranking. USC still lags (and rightly so) in other rankings like Shanghai Jiao Tong, Times Higher Education, etc. and that’s where we don’t have the research that other schools do and USC’s strengths in its professional schools (i.e. Marshall, Levinthal, etc.) which are not so research-focused means that we lag behind UCLA, Berkeley, and even schools like UW and U of A.</p>
<p>That said, the academic reputation is the biggest section of U.S. News and I believe it counts for 22.5% of the overall score - such a high percentage for something so intangible. There, frankly, it would be nice if the stupid ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT didn’t have so many stupid scandals. I’ve been fuming about the deflated footballs from the Oregon game for more than a few days. I don’t mind losing so long as we do it honorably but that kind of thing, frankly, speaks to a lack of integrity in the school. It’s not funny. If we’re going to beat the #2 team in the country (at the time), then we should be able to do it on the field, fair and square. Deflated footballs, recruiting scandals, O.J. Mayo, etc. just disgust me all around and when that kind of stuff happens time and time and time again then it only hurts the reputation of the school and of MY DEGREE. People kid you about that stuff at work all the time and while they’re right, it makes me genuinely angry at the administration that this kind of stuff keeps happening over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. At some point, Nikias and Haden need to do their stupid jobs and make sure that athletics are a subset of the university and not the tail wagging the dog.</p>
<p>Nikias needs to go, number one. He’s allowed the athletics program far too much license to do as they please. And his infatuation with foreign enrollment at the expense of quality is disturbing. He needs to stop trying to covert USC into a Costco equivalent. The only reason he became president was to hide the skeletons in Sample’s closet in connection with the NCAA scandal.</p>
<p>lol the athletic stuff is nonsense. It’s not even relevant and it happened under one regime… USC is no different than other school, it’s about getting goverment money so they can overpay its administrators and stuff. at least USC doesn’t have billions of unfunded liabilites like some other places. </p>
<p>“research” is a codeword for people who sit around collecting huge paychecks and writing garbage no one reads.</p>
<p>Xmaster, USC has been in trouble with sports several times. The administration doesn’t seem to care. And I agree with your other statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only after Kiffin is replaced.</p>
<p>Sorry, I just stopped screaming at the TV. 6 downs from the 1 and no points?</p>
<p>Resume your regularly scheduled kvetching.</p>
<p>well the problems with the athletic department happened under Carroll/garret/Floyd and they are all out and obviously Kiffin is not the greatest hire in the world.</p>
<p>Rankings tend to align with endowment funds.</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Rearrange this ranking by endowment size and it’s more up and down than you think. Several public schools (UT system, Michigan, etc.) have large endowments but of course they’re constrained by virtue of being public schools. Meanwhile, some fancier private schools (Caltech) have much smaller endowments than you’d think.</p>
<p>[List</a> of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment]List”>List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>The other thing with endowment funds is that a lot of that money comes in the form of restricted gifts, so the colleges/universities can only use specific funds for specific purposes, which is why unrestrained gifts are the mother’s milk of fundraising.</p>
<p>Oh and where Sample was right (as he was with so many things) was that the per-student endowment is what really matters. Even if USC has a fairly large endowment in absolute terms, by virtue of having so many stupid students now (37,000, rather than 28,000 or 30,000) that means that the endowment resources are spread thinner over more students. Contrast us with, say, Princeton or Amherst and you see what I mean.</p>
<p>Never, the metrics are simply not there. Our endowment is tiny, our undergraduate enrollment is too large, our transfer classes are massive and our graduate programs, with few exceptions, are undistinguished.</p>
<p>Seattle,
You do not define what you call distinguished. Not all the graduate schools or programs are ranked by U.S. News. Some are ranked by associations, other magazines or ranking services. After a search my opinion is these graduate schools or programs, in some cases, could be called distinguished. If a top tier reference is your criteria these qualify:</p>
<p>Occupational Therapy #1
Physical Therapy #1
School of Public Policy #6
Ostrow School of Dentistry
School of Social Work #11
School of Pharmacy<br>
School of Engineering #12
School of Architecture
School of Cinematic Arts
School of Dramatic Arts
Davis School of Gerontology
Thornton School of Music
Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism</p>
<p>I truly admire those who attended USC graduate programs, and in fact our professional schools carried USC through some tough decades in our history. But my focus is on the college because that’s where our foundation should lie as an institution. The higher USC is ranked as a college, the greater will all of our graduate programs be regarded, across the board (e.g., Princeton). Thus, it’s in all of our interests to support the college.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s an about face.</p>
<p>Metrics are not there:
- PACIFIC CENTURY
- Strategic location open to both Asia and Latin America
- Strong programs in growing fields (film/tv, computers, multimedia, video game design, etc.)
- Good urban university with strong professional programs (top 20 virtually across the board, but not enough top 5)
- Loyal alumni base
- Strong professional networking
- For better and for worse, sports teams extend the brand and, so long as they compete honorably, give the university advantages over schools like Pomona or Caltech</p>
<p>Endowment is tiny:
- In absolute terms, one of the largest university endowments in the world. Not Harvard, but respected.
- Growing the endowment has been a key strategic initiative of the university for almost 10 years and was only interrupted by the recession as austerity and fundraising generally don’t mix.</p>
<p>Undergraduate enrollment too large:
- I disagree. I think it’s big enough and shouldn’t get any bigger but doesn’t necessarily need to be shrunk.
- Small class sizes and student/faculty ratio gives students relationships with teachers and the resources of a larger school. USC does this <em>very</em> well.</p>
<p>Transfer classes are massive:
- I agree that they should shrink the size of the transfer class.
- USC is different here because CA has by far the best community college system in the country and many top students deliberately start in community colleges today. USC ignores those top students at is peril when its brand (and the brand of all the other top privates) becomes associated with wealth and privilege rather than talent (Horatio Algier versus University of Spoiled Children).
- A red herring for other pressing issues (research output, medical school, etc.)
- Colleges across the board are on the receiving end of the horrible K-12 system which has been failing the country for 2-3 generations now.</p>
<p>Undistinguished graduate programs:
- Professional schools, undergrad and graduate, are almost all top 20
- Graduate =/= professional
- Many of USC’s arts schools (film school) can’t be ranked by traditional metrics.
- Weakness is liberal arts and hard sciences across the board, both undergrad and graduate.</p>
<p>BTW this is what I meant by an “about face”:</p>
<p>Post #16:</p>
<p>“our graduate programs, with few exceptions, are undistinguished”</p>
<p>Post #18:</p>
<p>“I truly admire those who attended USC graduate programs, and in fact our professional schools carried USC through some tough decades in our history.”</p>
<p>I’m thinking you’re confusing graduate and professional. It is possible to get a professional degree on the undergraduate level (business administration, accounting, etc.) and not all graduate programs are professional programs. Anytime people have asked me about USC I’ve always said that USC is not a New England liberal arts college where you go and (as a guy) grow your hair long, drink coffee, play rugby, study philosophy, and question the nature of man. USC is a school that you go to to get a business degree and join a fraternity. It doesn’t have to be a business degree and it doesn’t have to be a fraternity but that’s the mindset. That’s also why, historically speaking, UCLA may have had better students but USC grads have always made more money.</p>