USC Admissions: They Are What We've Said They Are
9,838 Views |
82 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Cal84
We knew it this whole time! This is why Trojans enter school wealthier than when they've finished their careers.
I'm shocked! Shocked I say! Said no one at all.
A school not accepting the children of wealthy donors is just bad business.
Someone remind me, why is that Full House chick in trouble? She coulda just made some donations!
TouchedTheAxeIn82 said:
Someone remind me, why is that Full House chick in trouble? She coulda just made some donations!
I *think* the donation route is for average to borderline applicants.
I think the Full House lady's daughter is a total idiot, so she needed extra special help to get in. Also, it could be that the parents are total idiots but think they are smart.
Berkeley High alum and, until recently, Deadspin's editor in chief Megan Greenwell put it best in her resignation column a couple weeks ago:
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-adults-in-the-room-1837487584
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
Not in the slightest. Legacies at Harvard have a 35% admission rate (compared with around 4% for everyone else). If you're a legacy son/daughter of a major donor, the %age approaches 100%.wifeisafurd said:
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
IMO, in trouble because she did an end run around the system of favors for donors, and bought admission more cheaply. She paid a fixer $100,000 per kid instead of donating $1 million to U$C.TouchedTheAxeIn82 said:
Someone remind me, why is that Full House chick in trouble? She coulda just made some donations!
Tucker Carlson was talking about how all the liberal elites manage to get their kids into selective universities. He zeroed in on Chuck Schumer getting four (4) of his kids into Harvard. Then he started in on Chelsea clinton getting into Stanford. He said that Stanford is an even more rarified place than Harvard and that that nobody around him even knew anyone who went to Stanford. I thought to myself "I must really be unlucky to know so many of them".
*ucker went to La Jolla Country Day School (an independent school in La Jolla, a community of San Diego, California. The school contains a lower school, a middle school, and an upper school. The school's motto is "Scientia Pacifica"(peace through knowledge), it didn't take). I have never met anyone who went to LJCDS (I live in Baja San Diego "below I-8" ).MugsVanSant said:
Tucker Carlson was talking about how all the liberal elites manage to get their kids into selective universities. He zeroed in on Chuck Schumer getting four (4) of his kids into Harvard. Then he started in on Chelsea clinton getting into Stanford. He said that Stanford is an even more rarified place than Harvard and that that nobody around him even knew anyone who went to Stanford. I thought to myself "I must really be unlucky to know so many of them".
San Diego really doesn't know much about the state of California north of Pendleton, so I'm not surprised at a San Diegan not knowing a Stanford Alum. Until recently I had neighbors who were Harvard grads. They do seem to be more common down here than Stanford grads, although based on undergraduate enrollment the schools are of almost equal size, and San Diego is much closer to Palo Alto.
I can understand Hannity (the self described NY house painter) not knowing Harvard or Stanford grads, but Carlson, no way.
FWIW Hannity is listed on his web site as a UCSB alum, although he did not graduate, and does not list the class credits.
The only way a La Jolla Country Day grad could not know of anyone who went to Stanford is if he's such a social loser that he went all the way through high school without talking to anyone.sp4149 said:*ucker went to La Jolla Country Day School (an independent school in La Jolla, a community of San Diego, California. The school contains a lower school, a middle school, and an upper school. The school's motto is "Scientia Pacifica"(peace through knowledge), it didn't take). I have never met anyone who went to LJCDS (I live in Baja San Diego "below I-8" ).MugsVanSant said:
Tucker Carlson was talking about how all the liberal elites manage to get their kids into selective universities. He zeroed in on Chuck Schumer getting four (4) of his kids into Harvard. Then he started in on Chelsea clinton getting into Stanford. He said that Stanford is an even more rarified place than Harvard and that that nobody around him even knew anyone who went to Stanford. I thought to myself "I must really be unlucky to know so many of them".
San Diego really doesn't know much about the state of California north of Pendleton, so I'm not surprised at a San Diegan not knowing a Stanford Alum.
If someone wants to spend $2mil+ to get their kid into SC, let em. Obviously that person isn't very good at math.
Take the money, plus the expense of college, invest it in something that matches the S&P, and the kid would have a stream of income for the rest of their life that would far exceed the marginal benefit of a college education.
Giving $2mil to get your kid into a college is exactly the kind of thinking that's the reason almost all wealth never lasts past the third generation.
Take the money, plus the expense of college, invest it in something that matches the S&P, and the kid would have a stream of income for the rest of their life that would far exceed the marginal benefit of a college education.
Giving $2mil to get your kid into a college is exactly the kind of thinking that's the reason almost all wealth never lasts past the third generation.
They're thinking about more than dollars and cents: A U$C diploma = intellectual enlightenment.Uthaithani said:
If someone wants to spend $2mil+ to get their kid into SC, let em. Obviously that person isn't very good at math.
Take the money, plus the expense of college, invest it in something that matches the S&P, and the kid would have a stream of income for the rest of their life that would far exceed the marginal benefit of a college education.
Giving $2mil to get your kid into a college is exactly the kind of thinking that's the reason almost all wealth never lasts past the third generation.
It's obviously not just to maximize earning potential. It's a status thingUthaithani said:
If someone wants to spend $2mil+ to get their kid into SC, let em. Obviously that person isn't very good at math.
Take the money, plus the expense of college, invest it in something that matches the S&P, and the kid would have a stream of income for the rest of their life that would far exceed the marginal benefit of a college education.
Giving $2mil to get your kid into a college is exactly the kind of thinking that's the reason almost all wealth never lasts past the third generation.
Here is the thing. I hate the concept of legacy admissions. I hate a lot of what the elite private schools do. But I see this as a problem in a lot of areas of society now that we basically just assume that everyone is awful so when people are caught being awful we say "meh".wifeisafurd said:
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
Men supposedly all cheat, so "meh. he was unfaithful".
Politicians shade the truth, spin, whatever, so when one bald face lies all the time "meh. they all do it."
I get that private schools consider large scale donations in admissions decisions.
USC has been caught being absolutely brazen in selling slots to the highest bidders, often not even for donations that at least help the other students on campus but for personal enrichment. In the college admissions scandal, they are by far the most implicated as having a systemic issue vs. other schools that mostly had one person implicated.
Believe me. This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate how college admissions works at a lot of schools and I would be the first to introduce significant reforms. But if all the other schools are doing it, find the emails, memos, spreadsheets and bring it forward. There is a reason USC is the one that keeps getting nailed. Minimizing their role as an extreme offender does not help solve the issue. They should be humiliated to the extent they deserve (which is A LOT) . And maybe then some of the other schools that do similar things might think twice about their policies.
When you catch a criminal, you punish the criminal. You don't say "eh. a lot of criminals don't get caught."
I would also add that legacy admissions percentages should be a lot more front and center in the information that is gathered about various colleges so students know exactly what they are getting into in applying to various schools. At some schools, it almost seems like the point of non-legacy admissions is purely to legitimize the record of the legacy admissions. Maybe if you are considering going to a school like USC you should realize that 1/5 of the students you will study with are dumbasses who got in because of mommy and/or daddy.
At the end of the day, whether it's $2 million or $100k, who voluntarily wants to go to USC anyways????
The problem with U$C is that it's become sort of a default West Coast finishing school for the wealthy bimbii/mimbii but also gives a degree. A degree for most is an educational thing. For the U$C bimbii it's a social thing and their families are happy to feed that.
I honestly and without hyperbole, believe USC is the most corrupt organization in the history of the US. They make the mafia blush. The breadth, depth and historic continuation of their corruption earns them this honor. And it's not just athletics, or the medical school, or the admissions - it is inculcated throughout.
This is an awesomely brutal cover story in a recent Los Angeles Magazine. It's worth the 10 minute read. (The bolded is worth the read alone...)
This is an awesomely brutal cover story in a recent Los Angeles Magazine. It's worth the 10 minute read. (The bolded is worth the read alone...)
Quote:
How USC Became the Most Scandal-Plagued Campus in America
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/usc-scandals-cover/
...
By August 2018 the Tyndall scandal would prompt Nikias to step down as president. But the move was akin to closing the barn door after the horses had escaped. The contagion of shaky oversight and money grabbing had long ago metastasized into the university's DNA. The blow delivered by the admissions scandal wouldn't just tarnish USC's academic reputation, it would aggravate the rawest spot in the Trojan psyche: As Trevor Noah quipped on The Daily Show, "The whole country has been rocked by the news that hundreds of parents have been accused of bribing their kids' ways into elite collegesand also USC."
These data have been published from time to time. There was a study some years ago of this issue, and I remember the biggest "offender" was Amherst. At that time 85% of the entering class was either athletes or legacies. Good luck getting in if you were neither.OaktownBear said:Here is the thing. I hate the concept of legacy admissions. I hate a lot of what the elite private schools do. But I see this as a problem in a lot of areas of society now that we basically just assume that everyone is awful so when people are caught being awful we say "meh".wifeisafurd said:
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
Men supposedly all cheat, so "meh. he was unfaithful".
Politicians shade the truth, spin, whatever, so when one bald face lies all the time "meh. they all do it."
I get that private schools consider large scale donations in admissions decisions.
USC has been caught being absolutely brazen in selling slots to the highest bidders, often not even for donations that at least help the other students on campus but for personal enrichment. In the college admissions scandal, they are by far the most implicated as having a systemic issue vs. other schools that mostly had one person implicated.
Believe me. This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate how college admissions works at a lot of schools and I would be the first to introduce significant reforms. But if all the other schools are doing it, find the emails, memos, spreadsheets and bring it forward. There is a reason USC is the one that keeps getting nailed. Minimizing their role as an extreme offender does not help solve the issue. They should be humiliated to the extent they deserve (which is A LOT) . And maybe then some of the other schools that do similar things might think twice about their policies.
When you catch a criminal, you punish the criminal. You don't say "eh. a lot of criminals don't get caught."
I would also add that legacy admissions percentages should be a lot more front and center in the information that is gathered about various colleges so students know exactly what they are getting into in applying to various schools. At some schools, it almost seems like the point of non-legacy admissions is purely to legitimize the record of the legacy admissions. Maybe if you are considering going to a school like USC you should realize that 1/5 of the students you will study with are dumbasses who got in because of mommy and/or daddy.
Where it gets tricky is around donations. Schools with somewhat larger entering classes can argue that allowing the sons/daughters of big donors in benefits everyone there. This would be especially true if a donor endowed a scholarship for a student from a lower class background in order for his child (assuming the child was academically qualified) to get in. Of course, it doesn't work that way...
Yeah, the data comes out sometimes, but you have to go looking really hard for it. These college guides, they don't have the legacy acceptance rates. Why not? It is useful information for both those who have legacy status and those who don'tUrsaMajor said:These data have been published from time to time. There was a study some years ago of this issue, and I remember the biggest "offender" was Amherst. At that time 85% of the entering class was either athletes or legacies. Good luck getting in if you were neither.OaktownBear said:Here is the thing. I hate the concept of legacy admissions. I hate a lot of what the elite private schools do. But I see this as a problem in a lot of areas of society now that we basically just assume that everyone is awful so when people are caught being awful we say "meh".wifeisafurd said:
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
Men supposedly all cheat, so "meh. he was unfaithful".
Politicians shade the truth, spin, whatever, so when one bald face lies all the time "meh. they all do it."
I get that private schools consider large scale donations in admissions decisions.
USC has been caught being absolutely brazen in selling slots to the highest bidders, often not even for donations that at least help the other students on campus but for personal enrichment. In the college admissions scandal, they are by far the most implicated as having a systemic issue vs. other schools that mostly had one person implicated.
Believe me. This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate how college admissions works at a lot of schools and I would be the first to introduce significant reforms. But if all the other schools are doing it, find the emails, memos, spreadsheets and bring it forward. There is a reason USC is the one that keeps getting nailed. Minimizing their role as an extreme offender does not help solve the issue. They should be humiliated to the extent they deserve (which is A LOT) . And maybe then some of the other schools that do similar things might think twice about their policies.
When you catch a criminal, you punish the criminal. You don't say "eh. a lot of criminals don't get caught."
I would also add that legacy admissions percentages should be a lot more front and center in the information that is gathered about various colleges so students know exactly what they are getting into in applying to various schools. At some schools, it almost seems like the point of non-legacy admissions is purely to legitimize the record of the legacy admissions. Maybe if you are considering going to a school like USC you should realize that 1/5 of the students you will study with are dumbasses who got in because of mommy and/or daddy.
Where it gets tricky is around donations. Schools with somewhat larger entering classes can argue that allowing the sons/daughters of big donors in benefits everyone there. This would be especially true if a donor endowed a scholarship for a student from a lower class background in order for his child (assuming the child was academically qualified) to get in. Of course, it doesn't work that way...
Harvard claimed that they take legacy into account in a small way. Like sorta like how they consider race. It might give a small advantage. Then the lawsuit showed that the legacy acceptance rate was 33% and the non legacy rate is 6%. Now Harvard claims that this is because legacy applicants are so much more qualified than non-legacy. Yeah, right.
If the data came out these schools would reduce the percentages. Many alums already want them too. And why would a kid apply to a place where they have virtually no shot of getting into once you take into account legacy admissions.
I laugh that you brought up Amherst. My kid toured because she wanted to see what a small private school was like. While they are getting the tour, three data points come out at separate times. Roughly 1/3 of students are legacies. Talk talk talk. We are very progressive. 1/3 of our students are disadvantaged minorities. talk talk talk. We love sports. 1/3 of our students play a sport. My kid is like, okay, I get there might be some overlap, but how much could that be? Since I'm not in any of those groups, why am I here?
Which is exactly the information kids should have up front. the application process is arduous. They should have a decent idea of what they can reasonably expect.
Wonder if FB players have any feelings about this issue?
There is truth to this statement. Depends on the size of the donations. As others have pointed out, this scandal reveals the schism between the high income earners and the top .25 of the top 1%. A $200K donation would've greased the wheels at USC 15 years ago. Now I'm sure it's north of $1M.GBear4Life said:
A school not accepting the children of wealthy donors is just bad business.
juarezbear said:A $200K donation would've greased the wheels at USC 15 years ago. Now I'm sure it's north of $1M.GBear4Life said:
A school not accepting the children of wealthy donors is just bad business.
Seen the bills they gotta pay off?
If I were a Furd or equivalent alum and donated regularly in decent, not high figures, I'd like to think my kid would get the nod all things being equal. Isn't that a normal point of view?OaktownBear said:Yeah, the data comes out sometimes, but you have to go looking really hard for it. These college guides, they don't have the legacy acceptance rates. Why not? It is useful information for both those who have legacy status and those who don'tUrsaMajor said:These data have been published from time to time. There was a study some years ago of this issue, and I remember the biggest "offender" was Amherst. At that time 85% of the entering class was either athletes or legacies. Good luck getting in if you were neither.OaktownBear said:Here is the thing. I hate the concept of legacy admissions. I hate a lot of what the elite private schools do. But I see this as a problem in a lot of areas of society now that we basically just assume that everyone is awful so when people are caught being awful we say "meh".wifeisafurd said:
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
Men supposedly all cheat, so "meh. he was unfaithful".
Politicians shade the truth, spin, whatever, so when one bald face lies all the time "meh. they all do it."
I get that private schools consider large scale donations in admissions decisions.
USC has been caught being absolutely brazen in selling slots to the highest bidders, often not even for donations that at least help the other students on campus but for personal enrichment. In the college admissions scandal, they are by far the most implicated as having a systemic issue vs. other schools that mostly had one person implicated.
Believe me. This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate how college admissions works at a lot of schools and I would be the first to introduce significant reforms. But if all the other schools are doing it, find the emails, memos, spreadsheets and bring it forward. There is a reason USC is the one that keeps getting nailed. Minimizing their role as an extreme offender does not help solve the issue. They should be humiliated to the extent they deserve (which is A LOT) . And maybe then some of the other schools that do similar things might think twice about their policies.
When you catch a criminal, you punish the criminal. You don't say "eh. a lot of criminals don't get caught."
I would also add that legacy admissions percentages should be a lot more front and center in the information that is gathered about various colleges so students know exactly what they are getting into in applying to various schools. At some schools, it almost seems like the point of non-legacy admissions is purely to legitimize the record of the legacy admissions. Maybe if you are considering going to a school like USC you should realize that 1/5 of the students you will study with are dumbasses who got in because of mommy and/or daddy.
Where it gets tricky is around donations. Schools with somewhat larger entering classes can argue that allowing the sons/daughters of big donors in benefits everyone there. This would be especially true if a donor endowed a scholarship for a student from a lower class background in order for his child (assuming the child was academically qualified) to get in. Of course, it doesn't work that way...
Harvard claimed that they take legacy into account in a small way. Like sorta like how they consider race. It might give a small advantage. Then the lawsuit showed that the legacy acceptance rate was 33% and the non legacy rate is 6%. Now Harvard claims that this is because legacy applicants are so much more qualified than non-legacy. Yeah, right.
If the data came out these schools would reduce the percentages. Many alums already want them too. And why would a kid apply to a place where they have virtually no shot of getting into once you take into account legacy admissions.
I laugh that you brought up Amherst. My kid toured because she wanted to see what a small private school was like. While they are getting the tour, three data points come out at separate times. Roughly 1/3 of students are legacies. Talk talk talk. We are very progressive. 1/3 of our students are disadvantaged minorities. talk talk talk. We love sports. 1/3 of our students play a sport. My kid is like, okay, I get there might be some overlap, but how much could that be? Since I'm not in any of those groups, why am I here?
Which is exactly the information kids should have up front. the application process is arduous. They should have a decent idea of what they can reasonably expect.IfI were a Stanford Alum and regularly donated to the school in a normal way (not huge bucks), I'd like to think my kid would get the nod all things being equal. I'd
If Harvard sees a 5% return on its investment on its endowment, the interest alone would literally pay for more than twice the amount of full boat tuition for every student that goes there, graduate and undergraduate. Elite private schools have huge endowments. They don't do this because they need the money.juarezbear said:There is truth to this statement. Depends on the size of the donations. As others have pointed out, this scandal reveals the schism between the high income earners and the top .25 of the top 1%. A $200K donation would've greased the wheels at USC 15 years ago. Now I'm sure it's north of $1M.GBear4Life said:
A school not accepting the children of wealthy donors is just bad business.
Dank! USC is way ahead of UC Berkeley.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
We might as well face reality. At least Cal made the second page/top 50!
Okay. How much does my kid getting to play QB cost? You know what. If I could give them $10 billion dollars, they won't do it. Because it would be very public and humiliating because everyone would see that they sold a slot to someone who was not qualified. Even though financially the money would absolutely be worth it to them, they will not take the reputation hit that obviously selling a slot would bring. So I want them to take the reputation hit for selling slots in their academic class. Believe me, if elite schools have to regularly publicize the actual numbers of spots, they will take a reputation hit.juarezbear said:If I were a Furd or equivalent alum and donated regularly in decent, not high figures, I'd like to think my kid would get the nod all things being equal. Isn't that a normal point of view?OaktownBear said:Yeah, the data comes out sometimes, but you have to go looking really hard for it. These college guides, they don't have the legacy acceptance rates. Why not? It is useful information for both those who have legacy status and those who don'tUrsaMajor said:These data have been published from time to time. There was a study some years ago of this issue, and I remember the biggest "offender" was Amherst. At that time 85% of the entering class was either athletes or legacies. Good luck getting in if you were neither.OaktownBear said:Here is the thing. I hate the concept of legacy admissions. I hate a lot of what the elite private schools do. But I see this as a problem in a lot of areas of society now that we basically just assume that everyone is awful so when people are caught being awful we say "meh".wifeisafurd said:
Does anyone thing the notes are all that different for legacy admits at an Ivy or other private schools?
Men supposedly all cheat, so "meh. he was unfaithful".
Politicians shade the truth, spin, whatever, so when one bald face lies all the time "meh. they all do it."
I get that private schools consider large scale donations in admissions decisions.
USC has been caught being absolutely brazen in selling slots to the highest bidders, often not even for donations that at least help the other students on campus but for personal enrichment. In the college admissions scandal, they are by far the most implicated as having a systemic issue vs. other schools that mostly had one person implicated.
Believe me. This is a pet peeve of mine. I hate how college admissions works at a lot of schools and I would be the first to introduce significant reforms. But if all the other schools are doing it, find the emails, memos, spreadsheets and bring it forward. There is a reason USC is the one that keeps getting nailed. Minimizing their role as an extreme offender does not help solve the issue. They should be humiliated to the extent they deserve (which is A LOT) . And maybe then some of the other schools that do similar things might think twice about their policies.
When you catch a criminal, you punish the criminal. You don't say "eh. a lot of criminals don't get caught."
I would also add that legacy admissions percentages should be a lot more front and center in the information that is gathered about various colleges so students know exactly what they are getting into in applying to various schools. At some schools, it almost seems like the point of non-legacy admissions is purely to legitimize the record of the legacy admissions. Maybe if you are considering going to a school like USC you should realize that 1/5 of the students you will study with are dumbasses who got in because of mommy and/or daddy.
Where it gets tricky is around donations. Schools with somewhat larger entering classes can argue that allowing the sons/daughters of big donors in benefits everyone there. This would be especially true if a donor endowed a scholarship for a student from a lower class background in order for his child (assuming the child was academically qualified) to get in. Of course, it doesn't work that way...
Harvard claimed that they take legacy into account in a small way. Like sorta like how they consider race. It might give a small advantage. Then the lawsuit showed that the legacy acceptance rate was 33% and the non legacy rate is 6%. Now Harvard claims that this is because legacy applicants are so much more qualified than non-legacy. Yeah, right.
If the data came out these schools would reduce the percentages. Many alums already want them too. And why would a kid apply to a place where they have virtually no shot of getting into once you take into account legacy admissions.
I laugh that you brought up Amherst. My kid toured because she wanted to see what a small private school was like. While they are getting the tour, three data points come out at separate times. Roughly 1/3 of students are legacies. Talk talk talk. We are very progressive. 1/3 of our students are disadvantaged minorities. talk talk talk. We love sports. 1/3 of our students play a sport. My kid is like, okay, I get there might be some overlap, but how much could that be? Since I'm not in any of those groups, why am I here?
Which is exactly the information kids should have up front. the application process is arduous. They should have a decent idea of what they can reasonably expect.IfI were a Stanford Alum and regularly donated to the school in a normal way (not huge bucks), I'd like to think my kid would get the nod all things being equal. I'd
If you believe in Stanford. Donate. It is a charitable contribution. You do it out of the goodness of your heart.
If Stanford's admissions slots are for sale, fine. They are a private business. They can run it the way they want. But these schools advertise the hell out of only accepting only the best and the brightest. My ask is that if a university wants any federal funding, and almost all do, they should be required to disclose all of their admissions criteria. If a $1M donation gets your kid in, they need to say it. They need to publish what their legacy admissions are. We want our best high school students to go to the colleges that are best for them. They should have all the information when they apply.
Harvard wants to portray itself as one of the most selective schools. They actively try to get kids who will never qualify to apply so they can drive down their acceptance rate. It is super hard to get into Harvard. Only 6% get in. Or is it? 33% of legacies get in. That ain't that hard. Harvard is getting humiliated by all the dirt coming out in the lawsuit against it.
A potential applicant should be able to get the data on each school and say - you know what? Top line numbers show I have a good chance at this school, but getting into the details, I have no chance. I'm not the person they want.
Simple proposition. If you advertise that spots are given by merit, they should be given by merit. I don't care if Harvard wants to hold an auction every year and take the kids who are willing to pay the most. I want them to say it.
By the way, no it isn't the normal view that money buys everything and that you should be able to buy your kids a spot in line ahead of those that outperformed them. In my day we referred to USC as University of Spoiled Children because it was the school for dumbasses who couldn't earn their way into a decent school but whose parents were rich enough to buy a spot. At least back then they didn't hide what they were. Last I checked, Stanford has tuition that is quite high. That should be enough if I'm willing to pay it for my kid that earned a spot.
these legacy admitted students are a small minority of the student population. And they probably are good students, just not a guarantee to get accepted at these "prestigious" universities. Regardless, admitting a few legacy students isnt' going to damper the quality of education or its reputation.
I enjoy making fun of USC, but every single private school, from Harvard on down, has these spreadsheets. Like come on, you can buy a spot at Princeton. Just gonna cost you more than $1 million.
2016-17 Acceptance rates
USC: 16.6%
Cal: 16.9%
(2019 has Cal at 15.1%)
USC: 16.6%
Cal: 16.9%
(2019 has Cal at 15.1%)
Featured Stories
See All