<p>Is USC primarily focused on admitting transfer students from California community colleges? That is the feeling I get from reading the posts here. What if you are a high-achieving high school student who applies, but gets rejected? Do you have a hope of transfering from your less-than-stellar-but-still-good college on the east coast?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you have a hope of transfering from your less-than-stellar-but-still-good college on the east coast?
[/quote]
Yes from what I've heard. For example, one year of 4.0 from ASU state is still very good. I think one CCer got accepted as a sophomore into USC Business school despite lackluster high school GPA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC has to compete with excellent public schools(a lot cheaper) who also accept a lot of transfers. And some schools are in better location. I think USC does a pretty good job considering the competition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does that have to do with the decision to admit transfers? How does admitting transfers allow USC to compete with the UCs? I see no connection. My cynical view is that this is a dollars & cents thing coupled with desire to manipulate the rankings to further help the dollars & cents math.</p>
<p>USC has a certain amount of fixed cost, whether they enroll 1,000 or 10,000 students. Even if the average tuition payment covers only a portion of the actual cost of instruction, enrolling more students lowers the overall cost of instruction by spreading the fixed cost over a larger base and allowing the university to use less of its endowment to fill in the gap. Same principle as any business with high fixed costs, which is why when GM's sales fall 10% they swing from wimpy profitability to obscene losses.</p>
<p>Controlling the freshman class size allows them to move up in the rankings, which attracts more transfers AND better-qualified freshmen who flock to USNWR like flies to honey and other "bio-inspired" materials. The two form a virtuous cycle that feeds on itself. I would not be surprised if the average transfer pays more tuition than the average freshman admit, after all they typically face stiffer odds at most schools, and tend to not apply to 10+ schools like the typical freshman. </p>
<p>This is not intended to imply that transfer admits are somehow of lower quality than freshman admits. I have no data to make a decision either way. I am in violent agreement with the statement that high-school achievement is a poor predictor of undergraduate achievement, which in turn is a not-so-good predictor of post-graduate achievement, which in turn is a so-so predictor of professional success (assuming that one even goes through the entire chain).</p>
<p>to reiterate, i think the transfer admit thing isn't any malicious manipulation of rankings, it is just a difference of who applies to the school. think about it, 10 years ago USC's transfer rate and admit rate were approx the same i believe. now there are a lot more people trying to to get in as freshman admits and not nearly as many more transfer students are applying. what are they going to do, admit fewer transfer students than before to make the freshman feel better? as odd as it may seem i sincerely believe it is just an artifact of the old system that can't be corrected. you can't force more transfer students to apply and you can't simply admit fewer transfer applicants than before to match to the fall rankings.</p>
<p>Anyone has historical data on the size of the graduating class? All the drum beating about the reduced size of the freshman class can be interpreted as a genuine intent to increase class quality by becoming more selective if it actually translates into a reduced size of the graduating class. Otherwise it is all window dressing.</p>
<p>Until they substantially increase the # of on campus housing units, they will have a hard time increasing the # of freshman acceptances.</p>
<p>Point #1. Many here are assuming that "transfer student" means community college. But looking at the fall 2008 transfer profile indicates that only 66.9 % of all transfer students came from community college/2-year schools. The rest came from 4 year schools, including UCs, including a staggering 17% from non-california 4-year schools.</p>
<h1>2. I don't have any hard data to support this, but I believe that USC's class size has decreased steadily over the past 10 years (both transfers & freshmen) as part of a concerted push by the president.</h1>
<p>Most likely if you look, USC enrolls fewer transfer students then in 1998 - it's just that freshmen class size has decreased faster. And why shouldn't they? If you're measuring university quality by freshmen selectivity, then that's the first thing to target. </p>
<p>I don't believe USC is admitting more transfers to compensate for more freshmen selectivity. USC has always admitted a lot of transfers and they're simply focusing on freshmen first.</p>
<p>Transfers may cost a tiny bit more because there's no merit scholarships, but by-and-large the cost is the same. Transfers receive financial aid the same as freshmen, and since many of them are older & independent, sometimes end up paying far less.</p>
<p>USC wants $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$</p>
<p>
[quote]
Controlling the freshman class size allows them to move up in the rankings, which attracts more transfers AND better-qualified freshmen who flock to USNWR like flies to honey and other "bio-inspired" materials. The two form a virtuous cycle that feeds on itself. I would not be surprised if the average transfer pays more tuition than the average freshman admit, after all they typically face stiffer odds at most schools, and tend to not apply to 10+ schools like the typical freshman.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have not read the series of following post after this post. But just want to respond to this point. USC is doing what other high end UCs are doing, they are controlling freshman size and admit a lot of transfer students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What does that have to do with the decision to admit transfers? How does admitting transfers allow USC to compete with the UCs? I see no connection. My cynical view is that this is a dollars & cents thing coupled with desire to manipulate the rankings to further help the dollars & cents math.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's the competition that USC has to deal with, other high end UCs are doing the same thing.</p>
<p>"doing what other high end UCs are doing, they are controlling freshman size and admit a lot of transfer students."
UH ,the UC's are REQUIRED by Calif law to accept transfers from Calif CC's. USC is not required to accept transfers, any more than Stanford is. In fact, it is USC's goal to become the "Stanford " of S Calif.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"doing what other high end UCs are doing, they are controlling freshman size and admit a lot of transfer students."
UH ,the UC's are REQUIRED by Calif law to accept transfers from Calif CC's. USC is not required to accept transfers, any more than Stanford is. In fact, it is USC's goal to become the "Stanford " of S Calif.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, it is not a straight line to the top as far as the college game is concerned. While getting there, it must be successful in competing for students with the highend UCs, especially for the students that don't receive any kind of aid.</p>
<p>Even for Ivy league colleges such as Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown, they also have to compete with high end UCs.</p>
<p>"Even for Ivy league colleges such as Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown, they also have to compete with high end UCs." Yes, but you are comparing apples and oranges here. Other top tier Colleges[ Dartmouth, and Brown, etc ] each year have only a handfull of spots available for transfer students and the only way those spots open up is when a current student transfers, withdraws or drops out.
The higher education system in Calif was set up to permit qualified CAlif CC students to transfer into a UC to complete their BA/BS. Most private top tier colleges that "compete" with seniors who also apply to UCLA, UCB, UCSD, etc. fill their class allocation with first year freshman. Only a few top tier colleges save spots for transfer students- U of Chicago is one.
I think that USC would LOVE to increase the size of it's incoming freshman class, now that it has started to attract more and more higher Stat students[ much as Stanford did in the 70's]
but they have severe space constraints and have recently been fighting a nasty legal battle with a for profit local company that owns hundreds of nearby housing units over plans for more new housing that USC has been building for students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the UC's are REQUIRED by Calif law to accept transfers from Calif CC's.
[/quote]
USC is not required to accept transfer students but it has to compete with other UCs for freshman students. Selectivity is part of the equation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Other top tier Colleges[ Dartmouth, and Brown, etc ] each year have only a handfull of spots available for transfer students and the only way those spots open up is when a current student transfers, withdraws or drops out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most students look at freshman statistics to compare data between colleges. Most students prefer to go to their chosen college in their freshman year. The transfer rate to selective college like Dartmouth/Brown/Cornell is not part of the equation when freshman makes a decision. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but they have severe space constraints
[/quote]
USC used to be able to accept 3300 students and President Sample decided to reduce by 500 slots to focus on the quality of freshman education. I'm sure before that decision was made, it must have enough spots to accept 3300 students. I'm not aware if there was a requirement that all freshman must live on campus?</p>
<p>"I'm not aware if there was a requirement that all freshman must live on campus?"
There wasn't one because in the "old days" when USC = "university of spoiled children" USC was primarily a commuter school for SCal students. These days, USC is trying to climb the rankings and be perceived as a nationally recognized "top" university, in the hope of extending it's appeal to UG students [ and their parents] across the US. And to be competitive with other top colleges, who DO have guaranteed housing for undergraduates, they have to have housing guaranteed for as many years as is possible. So now they guarantee on campus student housing for the first 2 years. More will be coming.</p>
<p>Part of the reason transfer admission at many top private colleges is so selective is because some schools simply prefer to have all of their students come through the same program.</p>
<p>Another reason is infrastructure. Many states are nowhere near as organized as california is, in terms of building the system to funnel people though california community colleges into Cal States and UC's. Why shouldn't USC tap into this system? </p>
<p>It's an enormous amount of work for some place like Harvard or Dartmouth to coordinate articulation agreements all over the northeast (at a minimum) encompassing many different states's public colleges, deciding on what courses are equivalent.</p>
<p>The california community college system is obviously set up in such a way that UCLA and Berkeley are receiving well qualified students who take community classes that are UC standardized/monitored/transferable at least to some extent. Even if USC has higher aspirations, it's not terribly bad to keep buying into that system, at least until freshmen selectivity is where they want it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The california community college system is obviously set up in such a way that UCLA and Berkeley are receiving well qualified students who take community classes that are UC standardized/monitored/transferable at least to some extent. Even if USC has higher aspirations, it's not terribly bad to keep buying into that system, at least until freshmen selectivity is where they want it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with the above. USC admission policies seem to be similar to the UCs vs other top private schools. For example, ED admissions to other top colleges like Dartmouth, Cornell, and Northwestern. These colleges pick up a lot of highly qualified students through ED. USC could use ED to its advantage, but it currently does not.</p>
<p>Frankly I'm glad USC doesn't play the ED game. Sure it helps people who know exactly where they want to go, and it helps other colleges by reducing the number of applications they need to sort through of people who will never attend anyway, but mostly it helps the college doing the ED.</p>
<p>"Part of the reason transfer admission at many top private colleges is so selective is because some schools simply prefer to have all of their students come through the same program."
"It's an enormous amount of work for some place like Harvard or Dartmouth to coordinate articulation agreements all over the northeast (at a minimum) encompassing many different states's public colleges, deciding on what courses are equivalent."
Whoa! Hold on. You are imagining that TOP PRIVATE colleges with 6-10 X's the number of qualified applicants to actual freshman openings are looking to avoid the extra work involved in working up articulation agreements- and THAT is why they accept more freshman and take in so few transfers??? Top private colleges would have no problem in offering acceptances to thousands more freshman students with the same stats and qualifications as those they DO accept! They don't because don't have the extra beds . It has nothing to do with trying to avoid the "hassles" of accepting transfer students! And because those colleges do know with 98% certainty each year how many students they will matriculate, it makes financial planning that much more manageable.
A big part of the allure of going to at a top private elite college is that a student [ or parent] doesn't have to worry about where he is going to live all 4 years! Guaranteed housing for 4 years is what is expected at most top private colleges. For USC to make the leap to the elite level that they aspire to, they will have to provide a lot more housing for undergrads, especially now that they have reached a far more selective level of freshman acceptance /applicant ratio[ 22%] .</p>
<p>I didn't really say that, in fact, look at the first thing I said. Why bother admitting high qualified people from other schools when you can admit freshmen and have them go through your 4 year program instead.</p>
<p>I was more along the lines of saying, if USC was in the northeast (i.e. was some place "LIKE harvard or dartmouth"), the transfer situation would be a lot different then it currently is in california. It would be a LOT harder for USC to feed people in via transfer if they were sitting in boston next door to harvard.</p>
<p>USC is building an enormous amount of university-owned housing - just google "USC master plan" to see some of the almost ridiculous stuff they're proposing, including narrowing jefferson to two lanes and expanding campus boundaries north.</p>
<p>Also most top private colleges in California also prefer to take transfer students from CC vs other 4-year college. For example, for years it's easier to transfer to Stanford and Pomona from CC.</p>