<p>Peals,</p>
<p>To answer your original question that's the subject of this thread... it's so easy to subscribe to stereotypes (which have become outdated) and accept hearsay instead of actually conducting objective observation and forming one's own opinion.</p>
<p>I know, because I once subscribed to the whole "Spoiled Children" thing? Why? Because in HS I was a dead-set on UCLA. I was on Jeopardy's Teen Tournament and in my interview with Alex Trebek, I even talked about how great UCLA was. And in being so pro-UCLA, naturally it followed that I should be anti-USC, even though I knew nothing at all about the school. It was just the cool thing to do... especially for a UCLA, or in his own mind, future UCLA student (notable exceptions and kudos go to UCLAri and kfc4u for keeping open minds).</p>
<p>On a whim one day after visiting UCLA while still in HS, I thought I'd stop by USC on the way home -- and was impressed. I gradually read more and more about the school, did research, etc., and eventually came to the conclusion that USC was better for me. I gave all my UCLA shirts to Goodwill and that was that.</p>
<p>Whenever you debate someone about USC's merits, you can always tell whether they really know anything about the school by what their arguments are. What's a good anti-USC argument? It's historically only focused on its preprofesisonal programs and not its core liberal arts curriculum. (Let me point out though that USC College is spedning upwards of $100 million on star faculty recruitment for the College, even earning high praise from the Journal of Higher Ed.). What's a bad USC argument? It's the U of spoiled children. No - more than half are on financial aid... much more than the likes of Duke, Stanford, and Vanderbilt (all around 47%) yet you never hear their students disparaged so. </p>
<p>You'll find that when people take the time to objectively consider facts, they won't subscribe to generalizations that are plain wrong. I'm convinced that if a Daily Bruin writer, as well as the Daily Bruin's own Editorial Board, can accept that fact that USC is indeed an institution of considerable academic quality, anyone can... as long as they take the time to read a little bit instead of ignorantly waiving their keys about.</p>
<p>Overpriced? Another poor argument. A pro of USC's many successful (coincidence?) and philanthropic alumni means USC has superb financial aid. Its admissions are need blind, and it meets 100% of need -- which the UC's don't despite having a much smaller gap to overcome. I know plenty of kids who came here over 'LA and Berk because they received better fin. aid offers... and no, I'm not factoring in merit-aid. People see the price tag and figure that everyone pays $30something thousand a year to go here and fail to do the research that tells them that this isn't how financial aid works. They're probably the same people who can't pick up a normal college guide and read about what's great at USC.</p>
<p>As a former anti-USC student, I can sympathize with those who lived in the dark and would discredit our alma mater for downright misinformed reasons, Peals. That's okay -- I'll just work the network for a job (of which, the largest USC network outside of CA is in NYC, Icarus, believe it or not - <a href="http://www.nytrojans.org)%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytrojans.org)</a>, enjoy an early January game at the Rose Bowl next year, watch USC become even more selective, watch the endowment grow, watch it steadily rise in the rankings (all of this is underway right now)... and ultimately, watch the public perception of USC change. </p>
<p>Perhaps in some years, a thread with your title would seem preposterous on CC.</p>