<p>I thought the SAT was more useful as a predictor, back before they changed it to satisfy the UC system (disclaimer: I'm probably biased, since I took the old one)</p>
<p>It says 1,500 enrolled, not admitted. Just because you're admitted doesn't mean you matriculate. USC is still very expensive, so the admit rate's a tad higher.</p>
<p>And in all honesty, who cares if you think the SAT should be removed? Each university has their own system in choosing who to admit and who to reject. GPA isn't a consistent indicator because every school is different.</p>
<p>Why include science? The ACT section for science requires virtually no real knowledge of science, but skills in reading charts and graphs and how to plug in formulas (which is already covered in the math section). What about the kids who don't have to take science? EVERYONE has to read, write, and know basic math.</p>
<p>With the national average SAT scores being so "low" I'd say it's a pretty good indicator of potential. Sure it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable standard to hold college bound students applying to top universities.</p>
<p>If you don't like your scores, try again. If you're a bad test taker, take a class or read a book on test taking strategies. That said, bright students can take the test after a long night of whatever and still do fairly well. Don't assume "if they got a good score, they must've studied forever!" You could've studied, too.</p>
<p>Colleges do weigh the other things you listed. But a lot of those attributes are very common in an applicant. Some kids with high SAT scores and lower GPA might not get accepted either. You don't know what they wrote for their essays. You can't judge them just on those two things.</p>
<p>The reasons why USC accepts so many Transfer Students is because they are kicking themselves in the rear because they didn't allow Spielberg in.</p>
<p>All it takes is one. :)</p>
<p>Spielberg didn't get in because he had a 2.0 in college, and the admissions policy is to not look at films, so he didn't really stick out. I think he applied thrice. I'm sure there are many potentially great applicants that get rejected.</p>
<p>Technically, you don't need a degree in film to do well in the industry, but any education surely helps.</p>
<p>Back to the question about "why USC admits so many transfers?"</p>
<p>Look up "USCMarshall" on youtube. You will see a video of an interview with the director of admissions for undergraduate programs. She states that the reason why is simply because USC values accessibility. </p>
<p>By the way, some of the trash talking against transfers is pretty outrageous here. The alum that offers you a job before graduation might have been a transfer student. If you don't have respect for ALL members of the trojan family (freshmen or transfer), you do not deserve to receive the benefits by being part of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I thought the SAT was more useful as a predictor, back before they changed it to satisfy the UC system (disclaimer: I'm probably biased, since I took the old one)
[/quote]
You're right, it is supposed to be a predictor. A predictor to assess a high school student's potential for success in college. CC students that are admitted to USC have already proven at least a very large portion of that potential. This is why I was trying to differentiate IQ and SAT exams earlier in this thread. SAT exams don't measure mental dexterity, and thus the whole "cc transfers are lyk s000 dumb omg im smart!" notion falls flat on its face.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, some of the trash talking against transfers is pretty outrageous here. The alum that offers you a job before graduation might have been a transfer student. If you don't have respect for ALL members of the trojan family (freshmen or transfer), you do not deserve to receive the benefits by being part of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I applaud you.</p>
<p>This is a really heated forum, I don’t get what the need for all this tension is. Why is it anyones prerogative to try and put down the efforts of CC’ers for trying to take on opportunities for greater success? I attend a 4 year university and I definitely am not calling myself an “elitist” (Read that in an earlier comment and laughed out loud). In my eyes, effort is effort. If you are willing to put in the time and dedication into studying at one institution, that’s enough credibility to substantiate your “deserving” to be at any higher educational institution such as USC. </p>
<p>if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all!</p>
<p>Very interesting forum. Grey- dude, great comments, totally agree. You too as well Zirc, oh and uscplease, I agree.</p>
<p>How is it justifiable for one to compare a Freshman level enroll, and junior level transfers in the level of “preparedness”. Or, is it the comparison of Junior level standing USC students that were there since they were Freshman, with Junior level transfers?
Obviously, junior level transfers are much more prepared than freshman enrolls, that’s not even something to question, lol.
If the question really is which one (freshmen enroll, or junior transfers) has more potential, the answer would be that transfers do better than freshman enrolls hands-down. Remember that transfers have already gone through rigorous college coursework, and know what college is all about. Transfers also understand the responsibility of being a college student. However, this is comparing apples with oranges.
Now, if the real question is: Does third year USC students do better than junior year transfers?
In average, (again, without any evidence) it’s logical that they do to some respect…But since tranferees tend to put forth a little more effort, it may as well be the other way around. Of course, I’m not saying that transfers cannot do well, history has proven that there were transfers like Obama who was among the top students in Yale, and Harvard, but we are at some disadvantage.</p>
<p>While it may have come across that way, I did not intend to insult transfer students personally. They are seeking out opportunities for greater success. </p>
<p>Rather, I am trying to be critical of the university. A school’s value comes in large part from its selectiveness. Harvard wouldn’t be Harvard if they let in 30% of applicants. </p>
<p>The more selective USC is, the stronger the brand of the university. Transfer admissions from community colleges are not nearly as selective as freshman admissions. There is no SAT required and coursework at a CC is truly a cakewalk. Therefore, USC is diluting its brand by not being as selective with cc transfer admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The videos are released to the public, and as a result, anyone who is interviewed has to be very PC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure I follow. I think SAT’s ARE a measure of intelligence, and I think they are framed as “a predictor of college success” for PC reasons. You get parents with the “No way that my kid is not intelligent, the test must be wrong” entitlement-factor mindset and so the universities need some sort of justification besides intelligence. So they claim it predicts college success.</p>
<p>And I think evaluating someones intelligence is an appropriate criteria for admission to an institution of higher learning.</p>
<p>So, anything an official says in public is a two-faced lie. Thanks for clearing that one up!</p>
<p>You don’t follow. </p>
<p>Define intelligence. By your implicated definition, a two-year-old that knows that 2+2=4 is just as intelligent as an eight-year-old that knows the same.</p>
<p>Also, please tell me what you think the difference is between SATs and IQ tests. I’ll step in and help you if you still can’t unravel that one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UChicago admits 34.7%. You’re neglecting self-selectivity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are failing to understand that matured cc transfers usually bring much more to the University than 17-year-olds, no offense to any of the young people here. The general freshman pool has a lack of life experiences which makes the necessity for objective measures obvious. In turn, transfer students usually have more of an edge in the subjectives of their applications, and thus bring more to the University than objective numbers. You’re comparing apples and oranges, and your conclusion is hasty at best, and fallacious by omission at worst.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…well, I am personally insulted by the fact that you find me unintelligent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and by the fact that you are unjustifiably correlating yourself as a man and me as a woman in your ingenious analogy.</p>
<p>grey_syntactics I don’t necessarily think that CC transfers have more experience. Many are just a year older. A bunch of really dumb kids at my school go to SMC for one year and then go straight to USC. These kids do not deserve to go to a school like USC when they messed around for four years and then tried semi-hard at a CC. How come the UC’s require two years of a CC before applying. USC should do something like that.</p>
<p>USC requires one-year transfers to disclose SAT scores and HS GPA for students who have completed less than 30 units. The dumb kids at your school must have had borderline HS stats if they were able to get in after one year at SMC.</p>
<p>Don’t think that USC will let a 1.7 GPA with no SAT get in after one year.</p>
<p>And “many” are one year older? Can you cite your source? Because I was assigned to housing with two 22 year olds, and 24 year old (I’ll be 21 in September), all three of which are transfers.</p>
<p>Maybe the “dumb kids” at your HS are the basis of your assumptions, but how many of the ~2000 admitted students do you know?</p>