I’ve been wondering why USC is ranked rather low. I know it has a good rank on U.S. News and Niche, but most others are not too great. For example, Bloomberg ranked the business school 28th. Also, Forbes says its rank 44 and QS calls it rank 132 in the world.
I find this surprising, because the school seems so popular with students, as proven by its record number of applicants and an acceptance rate of 13%. There are a few negatives that I can think of: Surroundings, Dorms/Food and Class sizes. However, I feel that the Village has added a lot of improvements to the dorm and food situation.
“QS calls it rank 132 in the world.”
many rankings give great weight in their rankings based on the strength of a colleges Graduate School Programs, and USC is know not to be nearly as strong in those areas- Med school, Law School, Business School, PhD programs, etc- as other more highly ranked universities.
One of my best friends from childhood worked in higher ed on the recruiting side for a few years (since left) and he said that the reason why colleges and universities hate the rankings is because they’re accurate.
Rankings like U.S. News reflect the quality of the undergraduate program (inputs mostly, not outputs - that’s the Washington Monthly rankings) and Niche reflects the quality of the overall undergraduate experience, but some of the other rankings you’ve cited focus on a university’s research, and that is NOT USC’s strength. USC has always had a practical bent to it (i.e. most popular major on campus is business) and not focused on research as much, and that’s reflected in the rankings.
Rankings ultimately depend on what’s being evaluated and that’s where research is not USC’s strength. Many of those global rankings focus on research, which is why so many of America’s flagship state schools perform so well - because they really are research powerhouses, with great doctoral programs in STEM. There, USC’s programs are often very good but not great, and that’s the difference. But on the undergrad level, USC has much smaller classes with top notch faculty and some of the best students in the country, and that’s also reflected in the rankings.
One other thing is that USC’s core strengths in media, arts, communications, the professions, etc. generally are given very little consideration in the global university rankings. Julliard is a powerhouse school, but you never see it in any of those rankings, probably in part because it doesn’t have a medical center or an engineering school. Universities are angular in other ways, too - Caltech consistently ranks as one of the best universities / technical institutes in the world, but some of the documentaries made about their basketball team (i.e. not winning a game in their conference in 20-25 years) are downright hilarious.
if you look at other world rankings such as ARWU, there are some notable schools (such as Brown, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, Rice, Georgetown, Emory, etc.) not ranked in the top 50 or top 100. USC does have high ranked professional schools (Business, Law, Engineering, Health (Pharmacy, Dental, Occupational/Physical Therapy, Medical), etc.) usually ranked in the top 20 or top 30 to 40. Many of USC’s L&S programs which is tied to research and PhD’s are not as highly ranked as some traditional notable schools like Stanford, some Ivies, Chicago, etc. USC with its huge endowment is working on strengthening some of these programs, especially in the STEM (engineering excluded, since USC Viterbi is already highly regarded and ranked).
All one has to do is to look at the methodology used by the rankers. That will immediately tell you why 'SC ends up where it does in thier rankings. For example, QS is huge on STEM research.
Many high ranking schools are members of the Association of American Universities (AAU). USC has been a member since 1969. Membership is by invitation only and generally for research universities. UC Berkeley was one of the original members (in 1900). Other high ranking UC’s (i.e., UCLA, UCSB, etc. did not become members until after 1970. USC has been recognized as a leading university since the late 1960’s by its invitation to be a AAU member.
I would simply ignore or at least dramatically discount such rankings when selecting your choices among colleges and universities to consider and apply to. Applicants should be prepared, when applying to elite programs, to demonstrate a single passion and to then explain it well in essay(s). Also of critical importance is the Why ____? explanation. Explain with as much specificity as possible why you are applying to USC, etc. What specifically about the individual schools and its offerings attract you. And those reasons or rationale best not be boiled down to rankings or the general perceptions of others. You need to do the research and demonstrate that you have done so.
Conversely, what specifically or potentially uniquely do you bring to that college or university. With the total # of applicants soaring, you need to find a way to stand out in a crowded field of quality applicants. And that reason or rationale for accepting you cannot these days also be simply quantifiable in terms of grades or test scores. They want it to be told to them more specifically and intimately via your personal statement(s) and/or demonstrated via your background, leadership experience, ECs, etc.
As for perception… over the last few cycle’s, USC has turned down 3K+ applicants with 4.0 unweighted GPAs and test scores in the 99th percentile. With 65K applicants, and an admit rate now of only 13% or so, they are forced to turn down tens of thousands of stellar applicants who are then baffled that they did not get in. Most of those being rejected likely considered USC a match school incorrectly. These days, every Top-30 college or university needs to be considered a Reach school by definition. USC, for example, chose to turn away more kids with nearly perfect stats than Princeton even admits overall (3K+ vs only 1,990).
USC could thus of course choose to only admit kids with top stats, potentially increasing some of their rankings in the process. But USC is instead looking to craft a diverse and well-rounded freshman class. Both of my daughters chose to attend USC, by-passing many schools with perceived better rankings - including Princeton. The key thing is choosing the right school for you.
Whatever the old and lingering perceptions of USC may be, that is clearly not the USC that I know well now. Over the last decade, they have changed dramatically from what they once were… and all for the better in my opinion.
Good luck to all of those in the upcoming admission cycle…
USC is ranked lower in some rankings because it accepts thousands upon thousands upon thousands of transfer students, which concerns many of us who matriculated as freshmen.
Now that Max Nikias has been fired – thank goodness!!! – USC can and should emphasize a smaller undergraduate student body. Alumni far and wide have been clamoring about USC closing its doors to transfers who, unintentionally, dilute the student body and hurt the educational experience of those who start directly from high school.
Also, is there a way to start an entirely new section on CC for transfers? Thank you.
UCS follow the CA public system in its policies for transfers which is somewhat odd. The behemoth to the north (Stanford) hardly accepts any. USC would like to think its a rival to Stanford in southern California, but when it cant even do that in football………
@vistajay not just the fact that USC used to be relatively easy to get into, but the lack of institutional oversight, especially with the athletic infractions and the scandals that led to Nikias’ resignation has given it a not so savory reputation.
@Seattle
“USC is ranked lower in some rankings because it accepts thousands upon thousands upon thousands of transfer students”
If they didn’t accept transfers, then they’d accept more freshman, which in turn would hurt ALL rankings. So actually accepting transfers helps the rankings.
“dilute the student body and hurt the educational experience”
Just because they didn’t go to USC for four years doesn’t mean that they are inferior. There are a good number of students that transfer from schools like UCLA, UNC, and even NYU. CC students have proven that they can compete on the same level.
“entirely new section on CC for transfers”
There is.
I am a transfer and I am tilted at your response because frankly, not everyone is fortunate enough to take the easy path. I would’ve taken that path if I hadn’t struggled with bullying, depression and my fathers passing. I worked hard to do well in CC while being completely independent. My point is that transfer students contribute to USC’s diversity. I agree that the majority of CC students are not on USC’s level. However, that majority also didn’t get into USC.
Also, another thing to consider is that a substantial number of transfers are coming in through TTP. About 1500 transfers were accepted and I am willing to bet that at least half are guaranteed transfers. To be honest, any good high-school student could get hit with the TTP, so I wouldn’t even consider them transfer students in that sense.