This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Half done fundraising programs at several Ivy calibur schools setting their aims at over 4 billion have already surpassed this mark.
To the anonymous editor of the inital comment, please keep comments germane to improving the article. This is not a forum for discussion of issues relating to the relative merits of fundraising ammounts
Trojan traveler 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Too much of this article appears to be right off the PR desk of the University. Why are they afraid to include the short neutral description of some "Criticisms of the Administration"? Why are they engaging in censorship by continually deleting this section? Ousmane
Rebuttal:
The so-called Administation Criticism section is clearly written by persons with a left political agenda seeking to damage the University's reputation. Most of the accusations are untrue and cannot be backed up by scientific measure, but merely by political opinion alone. The University is the largest private employer in Los Angeles, and as such will encounter labor disputes from time to time like any large employer. It is a politically neutral institution. Further, there are many who do not understand the complexity of the cultural assets, economic stability and international notoriety that the University brings to the surrounding neighborhood, its inhabitants and to the greater Los Angeles area. Therfore, groups should not use this Wikipedia entry as a stage to further their own political agendas.
Response:
First of all the accusation that mentioning criticisms is somehow indicative of a "a left political agenda" is balderdash. Critics of the University policy (not the University itself, its mission, its positive roles, etc.) exist accross the political spectrum and often critics are critical because they care deeply about the institution and want to see it do well (i.e. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."). Furthermore, no institution can be completely "politically neutral." We exist in a world where politics is part of the daily dealings of any institution. We would be highly naive to say that an organization as large as USC is not involved in "politics" of any kind. The article as it stood before mentioned both positive and negative community, student, etc. reaction. Now it only mentions the positive. Furthermore, the Criticism of the Adminstration section was the best documented aspect of the entire article, complete with footnotes, etc., not like the "that University remained unscathed" section which is undocumented and loaded with biased language.
Furthermore, SCALE, one of the groups critical of some of the Administration's actions, is not a "Unsanctioned" organtion but is a fully sanctioned student organization. Check your facts before censoring.
In the academics section.... there is a line which says
What is that supposed to mean? its still Aug 2004 in this part of the world. At the least the sentence need rephrasing. Spundun 22:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Academic Section missqoute fixed.
Response
It looks like that comment--USC beging ranked 6th--pertains the graduate engineering rank given by US News and World Report. US News does not rank universities as a whole; colleges and individual graduate schools are ranked separately. Given the focus on the graduate school ranking--and it's confusion with a mythical "university ranking"--plus the odd grammar, I would venture to guess that it was written by a non-US grad student happy about the strength of his program.
Do NOT put OJ Simpson as a murder, he was found not guilty in a California Court of LAW Asian Animal
You're right, he was found not guilty. But that doesn't mean he didn't butcher two people. It just means that very stupid people sat on the jury and didn't know what real blood is all about. But that's all okay, because he's looking for the real killers so that he in the end will be able to clear this tarnished reputation he has.
Removed USC Francas because it is not of encypedic importance to USC. The event has only happend once and not of great fame. Asian Animal 07:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) asdf
There used to be a reference in this article to the high crime rate in South Central and near the campus. Looks like some partisan USC Trojan took it out! What happened to the NPOV!
the neighborhood is working class. It's got poor people, but it's not the violent cess poll that the people in elite neighborhoods have made it out to be. That area died out in the early 90s. If anything, a spin around campus today (2005) will demonstrate the gentrification that is taking place. the hard data is out there, look it up, kids. Bobak
Okay, so now we've got these three competing sentences about USC and the community, all of which are POV and not supported by fact:
The neighborhoods surrounding the campus are among the most culturally vibrant and historically significant in the city.
Filled with neighbors, students, faculty, parents, and professionals who care about each other and their neighborhood, this culturally diverse, living laboratory of community collaboration has become the model for urban revitalization.
Bordered by black ghettoes and plagued by safety concerns, USC has struggled in recent years to attract and retain quality students.
For the time being I've removed all three passages, but I have left the bit about the community service work, which can be substatiated (though I'd again like a more accurate description of crime problems than "crime-plagued"). What can we say about the USC community and surrounding neighborhoods that doesn't portray it as a hellhole ghetto (which it isn't) and doesn't portray it as a multi-ethnic utopia (which it isn't)? --- Tyler 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In response to POV statements, I agree to some extent with the idea/analysis that statements are difficult to substantiate, at least quantitatively. The statements however are not referring to USC as some utopia but do point to USC serving as one of the largest employers in LA county and its inreasing interaction with the community through student outreach programs does indeed make it a substantial institution to model.
Conceptual statements such as those being edited are wholly appropriate to introduce and illustrate what can later be filled statistically, factually by an informed editor. Ultra-concern for POV should not mitigate readibility and comprehension, if not comprehensiveness--The site now reads boringly.
An informed editor should have as their resource a comparative understanding of today's university respective of the past and a university respective of other comparable institutions and urban centers. Additionally, historical understanding of the area underlies USC's history along with the history of greater LA. After all, there is reason that USC is where it is and not in Bel-Air/Westwood/Beverly Hills...or Irvine or Malibu for that matter as it had its chance to relocate.
Basically, USC is doing a good job. We don't have to get crazy about POV. The fact that we have interest in the subject, take the time to review or edit makes anyone to the site biased. Arguably, the POV is greatly flawed as it does not incorporate thoughts of the community but active particpants in USC affairs. I greatly disagree with the "strains" comment. Where is this supported? How do you weigh this argument and some yet-to-be-delivered facts to corroborate that statement with the POV of many who depend upon USC for their livlihood? Depend upon USC for its economic presence? Depend upon USC as a source or light for a blighted present?
We can go crazy about POV to remove affirmative statements and go right into making negtive statements. Your POV may not be biased it may be just pessimistic.
Can someone more accurately define what "crime plagued" means. I understand that it is not as comfortable as back home or where most people are coming from but this is a highly urbanized area.
The wording "crime plagued" does not clarify what kind of crime, how much crime and the status of crime for the area and how it may be changing. Such loose wording offers NO description of area security or how the area is perceived.
It stikes me as a mostly working, latino neighborhood that suffers more economically than crminality. I understand that it is not the cleanest area of the city and that there are bars on windows everywhere...but so is the case for a lot of LA.
Can we nail this idea? I don't feel comfortable with such loose wording! I would wonder if latinos from the community would refer to their home area as crime plagued! I also have to wonder if we are not being elitist by calling mostly other people's neighborhood as "plagued."
the famous joke about what USC students say to UCLA students---but that one would probably be way too POV. -- Coolcaesar 15:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[HOW ABOUT THIS AS A SOLUTION?] - The article seems to read better without all of the negative AND positive statements. How about keeping it free of this baggage until some bright urban studies person can dedicate some statistical and thoughtful analysis on what it means to live in and around USC, which is not "south central Los Angeles" that everyone again and again mistakenly refers to it as.
The areas of USC are not unlike much of LA: Anyone been to anything East of downtown? How about the valley? Or what about driving the 110 all the way south? And for that matter why do we focus on a neighborhood and not the students who attract attention with flash, cash and expensive cars. I am sure if we went to (excluding the million dollar property areas of LA) a moderate income area we would have problems there too if we stood out with our material and behavior.
The arguments are: 1 - It is elitist to attribute grossly negative descriptions to an area that isn't even lived in or appreciated by its critics 2 - There is no representation by the non-SC residents of the neighborhood on this page 3 - If statistics and comparisons are relevant anywhere, it is understanding crime and safety 4 - People and what they bring to the neighborhood may attract attention and accessibility
Here's some quotes straight from the source...
“Supposedly, at every single place on campus, you should be able to see a blue light. At this blue light is a button to press and campus security will be there within one minute. Our campus security is called DPS; you see their vehicles everywhere.”
“The area directly around USC is pretty safe because it’s all student housing, but if you go a little too far in the wrong direction, it can get a little scary. That just comes with living in a city. There are certain places you learn not to go near, and everywhere else is fine.”
from the College Prowler guidebook; University of Southern California - Off the Record
There's talk of wars and rumors of edit wars: Can someone archive this stuff so that the page is not so weighted toward POV but the contents, chronology, arguments are not lost but viewable somewhere else, accessible for later interests?
Under external links, why is there a claim that a USC blog "has to do with politics...and gayness"?
Much of this article should be vetted for NPOV. --USC Alumnus
Memento, where did you get Berkeley's average SAT score? – Epiphany07 22:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment to check on the SAT score average of Berkeley (though I am nearly positive it is not 1300). I will check on it later this weekend. As for adding the average GPAs of Berkeley and UCLA, this will definitely not work. The GPA calculation procedures for the UC schools (particularly UCLA and Berkeley) take into account the fully weighted GPAs of freshman applicants. As I stated in my previous post, this is in contrast to the "average" of the fully weighted and unweighted GPA figure that USC uses. An additional point is that the Berkeley and UCLA SAT scores cannot legitimately be compared to USC's because the latter requests students to submit "best individual" math and verbal scores, while Berkeley and UCLA request "best single sitting" SAT scores.
The USC mascot is Tommy Trojan, NOT Traveler. Check out [2] and look at the very bottom for proof.
To the poster from 219.78.62.225, where did you get the 1390 stat?
According to the Daily Trojan (citing the Admissions Office), USC's mean ACCEPTED (not matriculating) SAT was 1365. TROGG 5 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the instrumental song that the Spirit of Troy play isn't "Hit That," but rather "The Kids Aren't Alright." Am I right? TROGG 5 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)
I am well aware that "Southern Cal" is a name that is discouraged by both the university and its students - see the note at the bottom of USC Trojans Football (as well as my efforts to stop that page from being moved to "Southern Cal Trojans Football"). However, despite the discouragement, people (including media) continue to use the name. You can verify this with a quick google search. I quote from Wikipedia:Naming dispute:
Thus, as long as the name is somewhat commonly used, it should be noted. If you'd like you can note that it is contentious/discouraged if you can figure out a way to do that without interrupting the article too much, but the name itself should stay. Note however, that since it is a controversial name and not the name preferred by the university, it should not be used as the primary name used for USC in the title or content of any article. -- Tyler 21:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I have a complaint to make. I've submitted several relevant links for UCI students. One, being UCI Housing and the other Off-Campus Housing (presently removed) which points to a community website that is completely free and has been mentioned by CSUF's newspaper as a great resource for students. Furthermore, I have read your spam page on the guidelines of posting links, and I feel that due to the fact that my link points to relevant information and has non-promotional language, I should be allowed to post my link. Many people are thankful that I have created iHomeConnect as way of helping people find housing. When people like you remove quality links like mine, you are restricting the exchange of information and taking the power out of the hands of the people and giving more power to corporate entities. Please stop removing my link, or I will seek legal action against those who continue to deprive Wikipedia users of relevant information by removing/blocking my contributions.
Does anyone else think there should be a gallery of images of campus? The images going down the right of the page makes it appear a little sloppy, I think. We could just have a collection of campus images somewhere on the page. Thoughts?
While the section on the Victory Bell is sourced by the USC athletics site, it is incorrect. The Victory Bell is not seen only twice a year. In fact, the Trojan Knights, who are the traditional guardians of the Victory Bell while it is in USC's posession, bring it to every home football game, as well as to other events, like freshman orientation. The six members of SigEp who originally stole the bell were also members of the Trojan Knights. IndustrialStrength 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some changes. It is now consistent with the main Victory Bell page. Before the edit, this section was a copy-paste of the USC Trojans athletics website. IndustrialStrength 07:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping someone talented and informed would come and ad to the page in just the way that it has recently been done...especially the athletics section, highlighting the statistics! These are really great! Let's keep improving this article!
The "Criticisms of the Administration" section keeps getting removed without explanation. That is not the Wikipedia way of dealing with things. If there are problems with the material then let's identify and fix them. - Will Beback 20:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The so-called Administation Criticism section is clearly written by persons with a left political agenda seeking to damage the University's reputation. USC is a politically neutral institution.
Most of the accusations in this section are untrue and cannot be backed up by scientific measure, but merely by political or editorial opinion alone by groups of which are in the extreme minority opinion. Additionally, there is no University rebuttal or response to the accusations made by these groups located herein, so readers are seeing only one unbiased opinion on these issues.
The University is the largest private employer in Los Angeles, and as such will encounter labor disputes from time to time like any large employer. As a private entity, and not government-run, it has the right to negotiate with unions and/or to do business with them on its own terms. Accusing it of union busting is an unsubstantiated claim and wherever written, is an editorial opinion.
Further, there are many who do not understand the complexity of the cultural assets, economic stability and international notoriety that the University brings to the surrounding neighborhood, its inhabitants and to the greater Los Angeles area. There is no greater contrubutor to the well-being of the areas inhabitants whether it be employment, cultural or educational. Any accusations of so-called "gentrification" or residence displacement will be challenged by the University.
While the University will always give a voice to its neighbors and those who express a differing opinon, fringe activist groups should not use this Wikipedia entry as a stage to further their own political agendas.
I am happy to discuss this further in a civilized manner.
TrojanGuardian 00:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)TrojanGuardian
This is overblown. Please excuse the length of my comment, it's just that I'm torn due to my involvement/interest in these issues, but at the same time I am realistic in how these would fit into a general article on USC --namely that they don't. The majority of these events took place between 1996-2002. Please allow my to share my own POV, as I was a student who was involved in a lot of this stuff, I was a student at USC from 1997-2000 and I will speak from those years:
Meanwhile, LA Times coverage of the university during that time was very much on the whole positive as the school had made great progress that was topped by the "School of the Year" award that Time bestowed: the magazine cited the school's greatly improved record with the community as a central factor in its decision. I don't know what more can be said on that, really. This section of criticism is pulling together some fairly small groups and given them a platform that's made them louder than in any normal discussion about USC because. These issues are certainly important in some level, but not to warrant mention in an encyclopedia-overview --maybe a book, but not here. -- Bobak 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was the original poster of the "Criticisms" section and I am trying to understand the need to cite every single place indicated here when most of the article has NO cites at all. The first sentence speaks in general terms saying "some" not "all" or "most" and then is supported by the various cites throughout the piece. Most of the stated criticisms furthermore can be easily found with a not so careful reading of the coverage of these issues in the Daily Trojan and the Los Angeles Times. No other section is asked to live up to this scrutiny especially the "that the University remained unscathed"/Riots section that has absolutely no verification.
I'd also like to repost my original response from above:
Response:
First of all the accusation that mentioning criticisms is somehow indicative of a "a left political agenda" is balderdash. Critics of the University policy (not the University itself, its mission, its positive roles, etc.) exist accross the political spectrum and often critics are critical because they care deeply about the institution and want to see it do well (i.e. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."). Furthermore, no institution can be completely "politically neutral." We exist in a world where politics is part of the daily dealings of any institution. We would be highly naive to say that an organization as large as USC is not involved in "politics" of any kind. The article as it stood before mentioned both positive and negative community, student, etc. reaction. Now it only mentions the positive. Furthermore, the Criticism of the Adminstration section was the best documented aspect of the entire article, complete with footnotes, etc., not like the "that University remained unscathed" section which is undocumented and loaded with biased language.
Furthermore, SCALE, one of the groups critical of some of the Administration's actions, is not a "Unsanctioned" organtion but is a fully sanctioned student organization. Check your facts before censoring.
I added the request for citations because the broad generalities are classic weasel words attempting to interject bias under the radar screen. If the statements can be so "easily found," then why not humor us by citing them? -- Sixtrojans 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to add more pictures to this article, it seems like there is alot of text and I think some pictures would add to it well.
And let's not forget:
-- Sixtrojans 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be good if someone did a set of links like the University of California, Berkeley did at the bottom of that page were there are links to all of the other relative articles for the University. I would have done this already, but am not sure how and do not want to mess up the page.
Also, pictures are needed of the Galen Center, P.E. Building, Libraries, perhaps Parkside dorms, and the Alumni house.
Thanks for the input (remember to sign comments with the ~~~~), I think that's a good idea, but I'm not sure how to do the template either. The University of Minnesota also has one, but not as nicely categorized as Cal (which I think would be better for a 'SC template). This comment, by User:Bobak at 2006-06-08 15:12 and 15:16 (UTC) was rendered unsigned as a result of a technical difficulty. - Splash - tk 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that for every section there should just be at least one nice picture. (President Sample for Admin section, Picture of Leavey for Library section, etc.) Some one just needs to take the pictures I guess??--
Wd40gdw 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There has been a lot of vandalism on the site recently.
Is there a way to stop it??
--- Wd40gdw 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A few more 66-19 slaughters ought to do the trick. -- Sixtrojans 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed someone tried to change the "Caucasian" and "Asian" in the demographic breakdown to "White American" and "Asian American" respectively (it was reverted by another user). I agree with the revert because the names don't really work in describing the student body of a large university. Why? Simple: USC has an international student body that hovers upwards of 10%. USC gets so many students from the Asia-side of the Pacific Rim that it maintains offices in Hong Kong, Taipei, Jakarta and Tokyo [7]. USC also has the largest number of UK international students of any US university (at least as of 3 years ago)... thus assuming that everyone in the demographic breakdown in American isn't nearly accurate. -- Bobak 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree --
Wd40gdw 07:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I look at this page, I feel that is it coming along very well. What do we think still needs to be added. As I have mentioned before there are a few things, but they are things that I am not sure how or able to do:
What else could or should be worked on?
-- Wd40gdw 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Will Ferrell was added under alumni from the School of Cinema-Television although he majored in Journalism so he actually is an alum of Annenberg. Either we add extra information or take that out. ---- Supersima 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Half done fundraising programs at several Ivy calibur schools setting their aims at over 4 billion have already surpassed this mark.
To the anonymous editor of the inital comment, please keep comments germane to improving the article. This is not a forum for discussion of issues relating to the relative merits of fundraising ammounts
Trojan traveler 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Too much of this article appears to be right off the PR desk of the University. Why are they afraid to include the short neutral description of some "Criticisms of the Administration"? Why are they engaging in censorship by continually deleting this section? Ousmane
Rebuttal:
The so-called Administation Criticism section is clearly written by persons with a left political agenda seeking to damage the University's reputation. Most of the accusations are untrue and cannot be backed up by scientific measure, but merely by political opinion alone. The University is the largest private employer in Los Angeles, and as such will encounter labor disputes from time to time like any large employer. It is a politically neutral institution. Further, there are many who do not understand the complexity of the cultural assets, economic stability and international notoriety that the University brings to the surrounding neighborhood, its inhabitants and to the greater Los Angeles area. Therfore, groups should not use this Wikipedia entry as a stage to further their own political agendas.
Response:
First of all the accusation that mentioning criticisms is somehow indicative of a "a left political agenda" is balderdash. Critics of the University policy (not the University itself, its mission, its positive roles, etc.) exist accross the political spectrum and often critics are critical because they care deeply about the institution and want to see it do well (i.e. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."). Furthermore, no institution can be completely "politically neutral." We exist in a world where politics is part of the daily dealings of any institution. We would be highly naive to say that an organization as large as USC is not involved in "politics" of any kind. The article as it stood before mentioned both positive and negative community, student, etc. reaction. Now it only mentions the positive. Furthermore, the Criticism of the Adminstration section was the best documented aspect of the entire article, complete with footnotes, etc., not like the "that University remained unscathed" section which is undocumented and loaded with biased language.
Furthermore, SCALE, one of the groups critical of some of the Administration's actions, is not a "Unsanctioned" organtion but is a fully sanctioned student organization. Check your facts before censoring.
In the academics section.... there is a line which says
What is that supposed to mean? its still Aug 2004 in this part of the world. At the least the sentence need rephrasing. Spundun 22:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Academic Section missqoute fixed.
Response
It looks like that comment--USC beging ranked 6th--pertains the graduate engineering rank given by US News and World Report. US News does not rank universities as a whole; colleges and individual graduate schools are ranked separately. Given the focus on the graduate school ranking--and it's confusion with a mythical "university ranking"--plus the odd grammar, I would venture to guess that it was written by a non-US grad student happy about the strength of his program.
Do NOT put OJ Simpson as a murder, he was found not guilty in a California Court of LAW Asian Animal
You're right, he was found not guilty. But that doesn't mean he didn't butcher two people. It just means that very stupid people sat on the jury and didn't know what real blood is all about. But that's all okay, because he's looking for the real killers so that he in the end will be able to clear this tarnished reputation he has.
Removed USC Francas because it is not of encypedic importance to USC. The event has only happend once and not of great fame. Asian Animal 07:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) asdf
There used to be a reference in this article to the high crime rate in South Central and near the campus. Looks like some partisan USC Trojan took it out! What happened to the NPOV!
the neighborhood is working class. It's got poor people, but it's not the violent cess poll that the people in elite neighborhoods have made it out to be. That area died out in the early 90s. If anything, a spin around campus today (2005) will demonstrate the gentrification that is taking place. the hard data is out there, look it up, kids. Bobak
Okay, so now we've got these three competing sentences about USC and the community, all of which are POV and not supported by fact:
The neighborhoods surrounding the campus are among the most culturally vibrant and historically significant in the city.
Filled with neighbors, students, faculty, parents, and professionals who care about each other and their neighborhood, this culturally diverse, living laboratory of community collaboration has become the model for urban revitalization.
Bordered by black ghettoes and plagued by safety concerns, USC has struggled in recent years to attract and retain quality students.
For the time being I've removed all three passages, but I have left the bit about the community service work, which can be substatiated (though I'd again like a more accurate description of crime problems than "crime-plagued"). What can we say about the USC community and surrounding neighborhoods that doesn't portray it as a hellhole ghetto (which it isn't) and doesn't portray it as a multi-ethnic utopia (which it isn't)? --- Tyler 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In response to POV statements, I agree to some extent with the idea/analysis that statements are difficult to substantiate, at least quantitatively. The statements however are not referring to USC as some utopia but do point to USC serving as one of the largest employers in LA county and its inreasing interaction with the community through student outreach programs does indeed make it a substantial institution to model.
Conceptual statements such as those being edited are wholly appropriate to introduce and illustrate what can later be filled statistically, factually by an informed editor. Ultra-concern for POV should not mitigate readibility and comprehension, if not comprehensiveness--The site now reads boringly.
An informed editor should have as their resource a comparative understanding of today's university respective of the past and a university respective of other comparable institutions and urban centers. Additionally, historical understanding of the area underlies USC's history along with the history of greater LA. After all, there is reason that USC is where it is and not in Bel-Air/Westwood/Beverly Hills...or Irvine or Malibu for that matter as it had its chance to relocate.
Basically, USC is doing a good job. We don't have to get crazy about POV. The fact that we have interest in the subject, take the time to review or edit makes anyone to the site biased. Arguably, the POV is greatly flawed as it does not incorporate thoughts of the community but active particpants in USC affairs. I greatly disagree with the "strains" comment. Where is this supported? How do you weigh this argument and some yet-to-be-delivered facts to corroborate that statement with the POV of many who depend upon USC for their livlihood? Depend upon USC for its economic presence? Depend upon USC as a source or light for a blighted present?
We can go crazy about POV to remove affirmative statements and go right into making negtive statements. Your POV may not be biased it may be just pessimistic.
Can someone more accurately define what "crime plagued" means. I understand that it is not as comfortable as back home or where most people are coming from but this is a highly urbanized area.
The wording "crime plagued" does not clarify what kind of crime, how much crime and the status of crime for the area and how it may be changing. Such loose wording offers NO description of area security or how the area is perceived.
It stikes me as a mostly working, latino neighborhood that suffers more economically than crminality. I understand that it is not the cleanest area of the city and that there are bars on windows everywhere...but so is the case for a lot of LA.
Can we nail this idea? I don't feel comfortable with such loose wording! I would wonder if latinos from the community would refer to their home area as crime plagued! I also have to wonder if we are not being elitist by calling mostly other people's neighborhood as "plagued."
the famous joke about what USC students say to UCLA students---but that one would probably be way too POV. -- Coolcaesar 15:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[HOW ABOUT THIS AS A SOLUTION?] - The article seems to read better without all of the negative AND positive statements. How about keeping it free of this baggage until some bright urban studies person can dedicate some statistical and thoughtful analysis on what it means to live in and around USC, which is not "south central Los Angeles" that everyone again and again mistakenly refers to it as.
The areas of USC are not unlike much of LA: Anyone been to anything East of downtown? How about the valley? Or what about driving the 110 all the way south? And for that matter why do we focus on a neighborhood and not the students who attract attention with flash, cash and expensive cars. I am sure if we went to (excluding the million dollar property areas of LA) a moderate income area we would have problems there too if we stood out with our material and behavior.
The arguments are: 1 - It is elitist to attribute grossly negative descriptions to an area that isn't even lived in or appreciated by its critics 2 - There is no representation by the non-SC residents of the neighborhood on this page 3 - If statistics and comparisons are relevant anywhere, it is understanding crime and safety 4 - People and what they bring to the neighborhood may attract attention and accessibility
Here's some quotes straight from the source...
“Supposedly, at every single place on campus, you should be able to see a blue light. At this blue light is a button to press and campus security will be there within one minute. Our campus security is called DPS; you see their vehicles everywhere.”
“The area directly around USC is pretty safe because it’s all student housing, but if you go a little too far in the wrong direction, it can get a little scary. That just comes with living in a city. There are certain places you learn not to go near, and everywhere else is fine.”
from the College Prowler guidebook; University of Southern California - Off the Record
There's talk of wars and rumors of edit wars: Can someone archive this stuff so that the page is not so weighted toward POV but the contents, chronology, arguments are not lost but viewable somewhere else, accessible for later interests?
Under external links, why is there a claim that a USC blog "has to do with politics...and gayness"?
Much of this article should be vetted for NPOV. --USC Alumnus
Memento, where did you get Berkeley's average SAT score? – Epiphany07 22:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment to check on the SAT score average of Berkeley (though I am nearly positive it is not 1300). I will check on it later this weekend. As for adding the average GPAs of Berkeley and UCLA, this will definitely not work. The GPA calculation procedures for the UC schools (particularly UCLA and Berkeley) take into account the fully weighted GPAs of freshman applicants. As I stated in my previous post, this is in contrast to the "average" of the fully weighted and unweighted GPA figure that USC uses. An additional point is that the Berkeley and UCLA SAT scores cannot legitimately be compared to USC's because the latter requests students to submit "best individual" math and verbal scores, while Berkeley and UCLA request "best single sitting" SAT scores.
The USC mascot is Tommy Trojan, NOT Traveler. Check out [2] and look at the very bottom for proof.
To the poster from 219.78.62.225, where did you get the 1390 stat?
According to the Daily Trojan (citing the Admissions Office), USC's mean ACCEPTED (not matriculating) SAT was 1365. TROGG 5 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the instrumental song that the Spirit of Troy play isn't "Hit That," but rather "The Kids Aren't Alright." Am I right? TROGG 5 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)
I am well aware that "Southern Cal" is a name that is discouraged by both the university and its students - see the note at the bottom of USC Trojans Football (as well as my efforts to stop that page from being moved to "Southern Cal Trojans Football"). However, despite the discouragement, people (including media) continue to use the name. You can verify this with a quick google search. I quote from Wikipedia:Naming dispute:
Thus, as long as the name is somewhat commonly used, it should be noted. If you'd like you can note that it is contentious/discouraged if you can figure out a way to do that without interrupting the article too much, but the name itself should stay. Note however, that since it is a controversial name and not the name preferred by the university, it should not be used as the primary name used for USC in the title or content of any article. -- Tyler 21:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I have a complaint to make. I've submitted several relevant links for UCI students. One, being UCI Housing and the other Off-Campus Housing (presently removed) which points to a community website that is completely free and has been mentioned by CSUF's newspaper as a great resource for students. Furthermore, I have read your spam page on the guidelines of posting links, and I feel that due to the fact that my link points to relevant information and has non-promotional language, I should be allowed to post my link. Many people are thankful that I have created iHomeConnect as way of helping people find housing. When people like you remove quality links like mine, you are restricting the exchange of information and taking the power out of the hands of the people and giving more power to corporate entities. Please stop removing my link, or I will seek legal action against those who continue to deprive Wikipedia users of relevant information by removing/blocking my contributions.
Does anyone else think there should be a gallery of images of campus? The images going down the right of the page makes it appear a little sloppy, I think. We could just have a collection of campus images somewhere on the page. Thoughts?
While the section on the Victory Bell is sourced by the USC athletics site, it is incorrect. The Victory Bell is not seen only twice a year. In fact, the Trojan Knights, who are the traditional guardians of the Victory Bell while it is in USC's posession, bring it to every home football game, as well as to other events, like freshman orientation. The six members of SigEp who originally stole the bell were also members of the Trojan Knights. IndustrialStrength 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some changes. It is now consistent with the main Victory Bell page. Before the edit, this section was a copy-paste of the USC Trojans athletics website. IndustrialStrength 07:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping someone talented and informed would come and ad to the page in just the way that it has recently been done...especially the athletics section, highlighting the statistics! These are really great! Let's keep improving this article!
The "Criticisms of the Administration" section keeps getting removed without explanation. That is not the Wikipedia way of dealing with things. If there are problems with the material then let's identify and fix them. - Will Beback 20:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The so-called Administation Criticism section is clearly written by persons with a left political agenda seeking to damage the University's reputation. USC is a politically neutral institution.
Most of the accusations in this section are untrue and cannot be backed up by scientific measure, but merely by political or editorial opinion alone by groups of which are in the extreme minority opinion. Additionally, there is no University rebuttal or response to the accusations made by these groups located herein, so readers are seeing only one unbiased opinion on these issues.
The University is the largest private employer in Los Angeles, and as such will encounter labor disputes from time to time like any large employer. As a private entity, and not government-run, it has the right to negotiate with unions and/or to do business with them on its own terms. Accusing it of union busting is an unsubstantiated claim and wherever written, is an editorial opinion.
Further, there are many who do not understand the complexity of the cultural assets, economic stability and international notoriety that the University brings to the surrounding neighborhood, its inhabitants and to the greater Los Angeles area. There is no greater contrubutor to the well-being of the areas inhabitants whether it be employment, cultural or educational. Any accusations of so-called "gentrification" or residence displacement will be challenged by the University.
While the University will always give a voice to its neighbors and those who express a differing opinon, fringe activist groups should not use this Wikipedia entry as a stage to further their own political agendas.
I am happy to discuss this further in a civilized manner.
TrojanGuardian 00:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)TrojanGuardian
This is overblown. Please excuse the length of my comment, it's just that I'm torn due to my involvement/interest in these issues, but at the same time I am realistic in how these would fit into a general article on USC --namely that they don't. The majority of these events took place between 1996-2002. Please allow my to share my own POV, as I was a student who was involved in a lot of this stuff, I was a student at USC from 1997-2000 and I will speak from those years:
Meanwhile, LA Times coverage of the university during that time was very much on the whole positive as the school had made great progress that was topped by the "School of the Year" award that Time bestowed: the magazine cited the school's greatly improved record with the community as a central factor in its decision. I don't know what more can be said on that, really. This section of criticism is pulling together some fairly small groups and given them a platform that's made them louder than in any normal discussion about USC because. These issues are certainly important in some level, but not to warrant mention in an encyclopedia-overview --maybe a book, but not here. -- Bobak 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was the original poster of the "Criticisms" section and I am trying to understand the need to cite every single place indicated here when most of the article has NO cites at all. The first sentence speaks in general terms saying "some" not "all" or "most" and then is supported by the various cites throughout the piece. Most of the stated criticisms furthermore can be easily found with a not so careful reading of the coverage of these issues in the Daily Trojan and the Los Angeles Times. No other section is asked to live up to this scrutiny especially the "that the University remained unscathed"/Riots section that has absolutely no verification.
I'd also like to repost my original response from above:
Response:
First of all the accusation that mentioning criticisms is somehow indicative of a "a left political agenda" is balderdash. Critics of the University policy (not the University itself, its mission, its positive roles, etc.) exist accross the political spectrum and often critics are critical because they care deeply about the institution and want to see it do well (i.e. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."). Furthermore, no institution can be completely "politically neutral." We exist in a world where politics is part of the daily dealings of any institution. We would be highly naive to say that an organization as large as USC is not involved in "politics" of any kind. The article as it stood before mentioned both positive and negative community, student, etc. reaction. Now it only mentions the positive. Furthermore, the Criticism of the Adminstration section was the best documented aspect of the entire article, complete with footnotes, etc., not like the "that University remained unscathed" section which is undocumented and loaded with biased language.
Furthermore, SCALE, one of the groups critical of some of the Administration's actions, is not a "Unsanctioned" organtion but is a fully sanctioned student organization. Check your facts before censoring.
I added the request for citations because the broad generalities are classic weasel words attempting to interject bias under the radar screen. If the statements can be so "easily found," then why not humor us by citing them? -- Sixtrojans 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to add more pictures to this article, it seems like there is alot of text and I think some pictures would add to it well.
And let's not forget:
-- Sixtrojans 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be good if someone did a set of links like the University of California, Berkeley did at the bottom of that page were there are links to all of the other relative articles for the University. I would have done this already, but am not sure how and do not want to mess up the page.
Also, pictures are needed of the Galen Center, P.E. Building, Libraries, perhaps Parkside dorms, and the Alumni house.
Thanks for the input (remember to sign comments with the ~~~~), I think that's a good idea, but I'm not sure how to do the template either. The University of Minnesota also has one, but not as nicely categorized as Cal (which I think would be better for a 'SC template). This comment, by User:Bobak at 2006-06-08 15:12 and 15:16 (UTC) was rendered unsigned as a result of a technical difficulty. - Splash - tk 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that for every section there should just be at least one nice picture. (President Sample for Admin section, Picture of Leavey for Library section, etc.) Some one just needs to take the pictures I guess??--
Wd40gdw 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There has been a lot of vandalism on the site recently.
Is there a way to stop it??
--- Wd40gdw 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A few more 66-19 slaughters ought to do the trick. -- Sixtrojans 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed someone tried to change the "Caucasian" and "Asian" in the demographic breakdown to "White American" and "Asian American" respectively (it was reverted by another user). I agree with the revert because the names don't really work in describing the student body of a large university. Why? Simple: USC has an international student body that hovers upwards of 10%. USC gets so many students from the Asia-side of the Pacific Rim that it maintains offices in Hong Kong, Taipei, Jakarta and Tokyo [7]. USC also has the largest number of UK international students of any US university (at least as of 3 years ago)... thus assuming that everyone in the demographic breakdown in American isn't nearly accurate. -- Bobak 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree --
Wd40gdw 07:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I look at this page, I feel that is it coming along very well. What do we think still needs to be added. As I have mentioned before there are a few things, but they are things that I am not sure how or able to do:
What else could or should be worked on?
-- Wd40gdw 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Will Ferrell was added under alumni from the School of Cinema-Television although he majored in Journalism so he actually is an alum of Annenberg. Either we add extra information or take that out. ---- Supersima 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)