<p>I want to preface and say that I am 100% just asking peoples opinions out of curiosity.</p>
<p>Southern California has no real current academic power houses like the North East does. I know that SoCal and NE isn't similar much in the way of life but I would say they both are home to very very powerful and intelligent individuals, which have in return caused amazing schools to develop (in the NE). Southern California really doesn't have that. Up North there is Stanford but down south there really isn't anyone super notable to compete with the HYPM of the East Coast like Stanford does up in norcal. I know UCLA and USC are currently about as good as you can get in socal (besides maybe the claremont colleges and Cal Tech) and it seems like USC has been gaining massive respect lately. Does anyone think that USC could potentially be a Stanford-of-the-south type of school? Or will it plato at it's current amazing-but-not-AMAZING type of school status?</p>
<p>To the original post… lol, no. Just because there isn’t a school like Stanford or any of the eastern powerhouses in the southern part of California doesn’t mean there WILL be one.</p>
<p>USC will need to increase its endowment and make sure that its prestige continues to grow, which is by its very nature a years-long process. It’s worth noting that most of the Ivy League schools have a huge head start (all except Cornell were founded before the Revolutionary War I believe).</p>
<p>Only time will tell if USC’s prestige will be similar to Stanford. Stanford has Silicon Valley/Tech and USC has Hollywood/Media. Tech is more academic than media and that is why I believe Los Angeles needs a second industry that that is more academically inclined. Once that industry is revealed, then I believe USC and UCLA will take leadership and their prestige will grow. </p>
<p>My Magic 8 ball app just said “Yes-Definitely.”</p>
<p>Aside from that, it’s already happening before our eyes, within a single generation in fact. In 1986 USC was ranked in the 50s in US News and its acceptance rate exceeded 70 percent. By contrast, UCLA has remained virtually unchanged, so yes, USC has the potential to achieve Stanford-like greatness within the next generation. </p>
<p>My mom sees Stanford, Cal Berkeley, USC, and UCLA as the “Ivy schools of the west.” I would agree with that. They are hard to get into, academics are high and programs are highly known, and their sports teams have been very successful. I’m going to USC and my mom graduated from UCLA, so there is some bias, but I still say the four universities can compete with the 8 Ivy schools. </p>
<p>The thing that makes HYSP so wonderful is that they are small enough to have greater professor student interaction yet large enough to have diversity and depth of extracurricular activities. In other words, you get to know your classmates yet can join groups that interest you while not feeling like you’re in high school. USC is the only school in California that has the potential to become like HYSP. I don’t subscribe to the idea of “public ivies” (an oxymoron, really) because by their nature large state schools lack small classes and student bodies that are fundamental characteristics of private colleges and that allow for intimate interactions among students and faculty. USC was a place where you actually could run into your friends and familiar faces on a daily basis without feeling like a number lost in a sea of undergraduates. I see USC being less intimate today in part because it is growing at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, USC today resembles a state school and is quickly losing its private school vibe. That said, I’m hopeful USC alumni like I will beat the drums to protect the intimacy of undergraduates that we experienced and cherished as freshmen. I want all freshmen to be taught by full professors, not TAs, and each student to be assigned one adviser exclusively, like HYSP. The two lonely senior administrators who went to USC and Stanford as undergrads understand my pain. On a positive note, USC is raising significant amounts of cash that will enable it to reduce its class sizes, hire better faculty and move to the next level of academic greatness.</p>
<p>Both of my sons (classes of 2013 and 2016) found a small group feel at USC. My oldest, in particular, benefited from a small (<20) cohort in his discipline, professors who invited him and his his friends to dinner, and small-group presentations with top-of-their field guests. One of his professors also made a few phone calls to get my son his dream job after graduation. I have no complaints about USC’s size, and the Trojan Family thing is very real.</p>
<p>I’m glad to hear that, which is helpful. There comes a point where a prospective student and parents ask themselves why pay $50k per year to go to USC when they can go to a state school of similar size for a fraction of the cost. I’m also wondering whether the senior administrators are pushing USC toward the 20,000 plus mark to raise more tuition dollars…</p>
<p>Despite some of you thinking I and Seattle are one of the same, we do have different opinions. I believe Stanford, Berkeley, USC, UCLA, Washington are the ivy league of the west. Yes Cal UCLA and Wash are public but the reseach and resources (even though having significantly smaller endowment) are similar to the ivies. The northwest did not have public schools in the beginning because most started as seminaries,
so they are all privates. However, west coast publics arguably have better resources than the lower ivies (Dartmouth, Brown, and Cornell).</p>
<p>My vision for USC is to keep its private character with small classes, excellent faculty and facilities. I do believe that it is on the right track to be an elite university , but I am worried about USC’s ballooning student body numbers but I could be too paranoid. Maybe I need to have more faith in the administration. </p>
<p>I have zero faith in the senior administrators to protect USC undergraduates from the state school syndrome. With the exception of Nikias, 60 percent went to public schools, including Garrett and Dickey. One went to Stanford, one USC and the other Wellesley. Garrett is the provost and wants to be a university president. The others are provost wannabes. None is qualified to lead USC. We need more ivy-and USC educated alumni leading the university. Private school alumni appreciate small classes and a more intimate student body. Ucla types don’t care. Well, I do care and am not hesitant to call the administrators out on failing to protect the USC undergraduates.</p>
<p>Yes, see the annual reports posted on the USC website going back several years. The growth is phenomenal. This is nothing less than a war against the USC undergraduates and it’s unacceptable.</p>
<p>Wow, glad I found this thread. Wife and I are both alumni ('88) and our kids would really like to follow in our foot steps. I always felt that USC was a powerhouse in many areas, and is now nipping at Stanford’s heels as far as prestige goes. I was hoping that it would continue it’s rise in the future while maintaining its small, ivy campus feel. However, it’s alarming to hear that the school administration wants to make the school even bigger. We no longer live in California, but we visit once a year and try to swing by campus if we can fit it in. Last time we were there it appeared to have already lost some of it’s small private campus vibe with all the continuous construction going on. I can understand the need to improve and update the facilities, but to stack buildings upon buildings at the expense of green space and improving the faculty is a shame. So, not sure if it will be worth the cost to send our kids there when they can get that same large, impersonal university setting at our state flagships…</p>
<p>TuckerTroy, please realize this is a public forum and all sorts of opinions are shared here–even those without actual evidence. While the size of the admitted freshman class (number matriculating) has risen a bit (maybe 10%?), the number of students/class has stayed exactly the same, maintaining a small student/teacher ratio in most cases. I’m astonished that some of these former Trojans have such a strong opinion that USC is going to the dogs when they neither attend currently nor do they have students attending. In fact, my son (upperclassman) has very small classes. Some as small as 10 students. And both my sons had/have access to their professors all the time. My older son called the head of his department on the phone a year after graduation to get feedback on a job offer he was contemplating. And his call was returned within hours. So, I’m not sure what all the sudden worry being stirred up here is really all about. </p>
<p>Our kids both loved USC, are happy alums, and thus far we see the changes being made as positives, not negatives. Our D still lives walking distance from campus and continues networking with students there. When S flies into LA (often monthly), he still keeps in touch with his Viterbi profs there.</p>
<p>The point is that USC is headed in the wrong direction and the war being waged by the administration against the undergraduates is real. 15,500 to 18,500 in a decade cannot be good for USC or the collegiate experience. </p>