Hey, if i may ask what was your major that you applied to USC with. Also, did your extra curricular a make up for the low stats? / What extra curricular were you involved in?
The hs seniors I know, who were respectively rejected by USC this past cycle, scored 1500 and over 1500 (cannot recall exact number) on their respective SAT’s. Both applied as engineering majors and…wait for it…BOTH APPLIED FULL-PAY. To wit, any poster claiming USC’s is lying about being a need-blind school is simply trolling and spreading false information.
I have two sons. One attended MIT and the other attended USC.
First, USC offered the superior undergraduate experience.
Second, the USC son had higher SAT’s (1600 vs1580).
However, the son at MIT was studying physics, so what can you do? MIT physics is pretty good.
@geomom, all I can say is, “wow.” OK, guess I can throw in a “congrats” on having two extremely intelligent sons.
May I ask you, parent to parent, when (as in year in hs) did your boys take the SAT? :)>-
Just a guess but USC is big on sports and top athletes may not have the top SAT/ACT scores of some other highly selective schools?
The weather does not hurt in drawing a lot of applicants. And I doubt the number of athletes hurts the averages. Stanford is a big sports school and they don’t seem to be having trouble maintaining high average test scores.
@intparent. completely accurate re sports. USC’s major rivals in non-revenue sports are UCLA, Stanford, and Cal. Unless basically everything I’ve learned on CC (and speaking with other parents and actual hs seniors) is completely and utterly false, all four of those schools could basically fill their respective freshmen classes with 4.0+ GPA/very high SAT applicants.
Being competitive in intercollegiate athletics doesn’t seem to be hurting them much. lol.
Re: athletes test scores, i remember a few years back that Norte Dame was complaining that their minimum academic standards for admissions were higher than most schools and therefore they were not getting some of the top athletes to be super competitive in football anymore. For example, much higher than say UF or FSU.
Notre Dame was just looking for excuses.
Stanford does have a much higher academic bar for athletes than USC. If USC wants a football player, they don’t make them take AP classes and get a certain score on the SAT like Stanford does. But I don’t think there are enough recruited athletes to bring down the average. I do think USC is truly holistic, plus they have the creative schools where the portfolio or audition is of the utmost importance, as long as you meet a bar. For SCA, the bar may be more like a 30 ACT whereas engineering that would not cut it. So the averages mean less. The fact that the enrolled class still likely has a 34 ACT as the 75% percentile is still super impressive. One thing I heard at admitted students day was from the dean of admissions. He said the admissions process is a very affirmative process, in that they are looking for the right people to fit and admit as opposed to looking for the people to reject. And that even with the huge increase in apps, they still read them all multiple times. All the admissions officers were there and I saw many of them at the scholarship get together and they just all seem like a wonderful bunch of very positive people.
@WWWard Well said…
Thanks, @Thouger
No need to walk that back : Among private U’s that’s a big deal. Harvard had ~43000 applicants, Stanford had marginally more at ~44000. So, 64000 applicants to a private school is a big deal.
My D is a freshman presidential scholar. Her stats were good but not tippy top. When she interviewed for the scholarship she was not asked about her academics at all but about her activities and leadership in them.
We attended Explore with her and talked with several admission officers. We were told that each application is read by three people- regional AO, a Dean in their intended school and can’t remember the third. I feel USC is extremely holistic and they are looking for fit and to create the class.
My D is now working in the admissions office. Her regional AO came up to her and said, hi it’s cool that you work here now. She had only met him briefly during Explore. But he remembered her which leads me to believe they are looking for kids who make an impression.
USC gives 50% off tuition, I believe, to NMFs, which brings down its cost to in-state UCLA level. I wonder if most kids who apply to USC also apply to UCLA or Berkeley, or vice-versa? I notice many kids wanting to study business apply there.
USC COA is $75K (prob closer to $80K in some cases) and UCLA is 32-35K (which can be closer to $40K in some cases). Even with the half off, USC is not at the UCLA cost level, however factoring in taking 5 years to graduate UCLA does get it closer. My guess is many do apply to all three, there are also those that are strictly looking for a private university experience. We felt any difference was totally worth not dealing with the issues of public schools. Getting into classes, being able to change majors easily and avoiding triples (and no room mate matching like at UCLA) were our prime factors for wanting privates for our kids.
USC takes holistic more seriously than most universities, they love interesting students, not just stellar stats.
“I wonder if most kids who apply to USC also apply to UCLA or Berkeley, or vice-versa?”
At my kids’ HS almost everyone who had a chance of getting in applied to the UCs. So I’m pretty sure the (more limited number of) USC applicants applied to UCLA and/or Berkeley too. But the reverse wasn’t true and the handful of people who chose to attend USC didn’t get into either of those two.
One point not made above is that USC is a better place to apply to from out of state if you want to be in California, because it may well be cheaper than UCLA or Berkeley which don’t offer financial aid to OOS students.
But I expect that USC would be wise to engage in yield protection by turning down many of the high stat full pay in-state kids they aren’t going to give a scholarship to, unless they are in some unique program (e.g. film or dance) or have expressed significant interest, since most of those kids will end up choosing Berkeley or UCLA at less than half the price.
Every school has it’s own interesting persona. Virtually no one from my kids (private) high school applied to UCs, although we did just to see what would happen (and considered them for a few days anyway). Mine were accepted to both UCB (EECS) and a UCLA (CS) but chose privates (USC and Harvard). UCs were less money, but certainly not half the cost of the privates. In education, our feeling is ya get what ya pay for. Per my counselor friends at our local public high school, they said way too many students with no chance of getting accepted applied to USC because of “illusions of grandeur of themselves and a misplaced perception” in the ease of getting scholarships (actually noted that on my phone over wine with them). They said it was a train they could not stop because USC’s popularity and their student’s desire to attend there went crazy in recent years. They mentioned USC and dream school are heard together way too often.
^ i think ya get what ya put into where ever you are at school. for many, many people private high schools and private universities are not options financially or philosophically.
For a number of reasons, I always had a personal bias in favor of private colleges and universities versus public. But after attending Johns Hopkins, I also wanted much more than what I had experienced in college there for my children. I wanted them to attend a private university that was academically elite and challenging but also one that offered much more… a broader and richer overall college experience than what an university like or on par with Hopkins offered. From my personal perspective, that narrowed the candidate schools down to USC, Stanford, Yale, Brown, Princeton, UVa (yes I know its public - the one exception), Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Emory, UMiami and Vanderbilt.
Over time, my daughters both narrowed their top five list down to USC, Stanford, Yale, Brown and Princeton. I understand that many would not consider USC to be on par with those four others, but my family clearly did so. Thankfully, both of my daughters got into USC and then also decided to attend there. For my older daughter, the decision was really easy, as she failed to gain admission to any of the four other targeted schools. For my younger daughter, the decision was clearly tougher, but she still chose USC over Princeton.
Every family and each individual applicant really needs to come to their own decision, both in terms of where to apply and where to attend. Hopefully most choose wisely, applying to a good mix of reach, match and safety schools. And even more importantly, hopefully most have quality options to choose among by April. A well-grounded final decision likely requires thorough research, an in-person visit, a financial plan that makes sense for the family and a strong personal connection for the incoming freshman to be.
Choose wisely. It is a four year decision for most. And if you choose well, it should also be a lifelong commitment as a supportive and appreciate alumnus.
Thankfully, both of my daughters had zero buyer’s remorse. One graduated in May, and the younger remains there as a sophomore. Both have loved all that is USC and were truly thankful for their own decision. The best thing about USC, in my opinion, is its tremendous diversity in terms of options and opportunities - within and without the academic shpere. Those who fully embrace USC & all that it offers can make the most of their college experience. If you can imagine it, you can make it so at and through USC.
Good luck to all those going through the application/admission process this year. Hopefully you each have what you are seeking in-hand by May 1st.