![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I asked before but did not get a response. "In looking at the Virgina Tech page, there is a timeline for the presidents. Is there someone more well versed than I that would want to tackle that, or is that something even worthwhile?" Thanks!!( Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
I think it would be very informative if someone could add a section about the different housing options. Notre Dame has a little section about the different dorms and apartments and I think this would be VERY informative for this page. Here is the link: http://housing.usc.edu/housingOptions/housingOption.htm . Thanks!! ( Padsquad19 07:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
How can this page become a featured article? I know this page seems a lot better and more professional than a lot of article on this site and feel that there should be some recognition for the hard work. Thanks!! ( Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
I must say, I had the same reaction as to what "alumnus" means -- that it referred only to graduates -- but a quick hop over to alumnus corrected my mistaken assumption. Quoting from there (in turn quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary): a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. I'm going to be bold and restore the names, but of course I'm open to further discussion. Ashdog137 ( talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In a recent edit User:Bobak characterized as a "solid source" a Sports Illustrated article [2] in support of the claim that "the USC Song Girls... are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in the world". The cited article says: "Suppose we went to, say, Montana. And suppose we found 100 'average' college football fans (not necessarily message-board crazies, but not twice-a-year viewers, either) and put them in a room. ... If I held up a picture of the USC song girls, all 100 would know who they were." This quotation does not support the assertion that the Song Girls are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in the world, which would require a statistically valid worldwide poll. What is actually offered in the article is a hypothetical scenario--an assumption about a fictional situation--one that, moreover, is statewide for Montana college football fans, not all people worldwide. Robert K S ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
While you all have clearly pre-discounted any possibility of my argument being correct, I'd like to submit this for the eventually archived record: Sports Illustrated's "Song Girl of the Week". Its total fluff (complete with 20 questions), but it states "Meet Lauren Ochi, a USC senior and proud member of the world-famous Song Girls." While this was from this week, there's similar statements from the past 20 years --but the web can be a fickle thing when it comes to searches. -- Bobak ( talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[3] regarding the recent transformation of USC from an undergraduate "safety school" to a more credible academic institution. There doesn't seem to be any section in the article that currently addresses the subject, so I'm putting the link here. Amerique dialectics 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please try to add the following paragraph to "Undergraduate Rankings" section of the article, right below "The Viterbi School of Engineering - 29th[47]".
Here is the paragraph:
USC is also among top 10 dream colleges in the United States. Princeton Review's "College Hopes & Worries" 2008 survey reports USC as the 9th dream college for students, just above UCLA which ranks as the 10th. [1]
I tried to add it, but it removes the next lines including the headline of the following "Graduate Rankings" section. I don't know the tricks of editing these articles. If you click on "edit" you can get the reference as well.
The amount of information and space devoted to one magazine's rankings is absolutely out of control - the worst of any university article I've come across. I recommend the editors read WP:PRESTIGE, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:UNI/AG. I am tempted to blank and severely summarize this orgy of rankings cruft, but let's talk it out first. Madcoverboy ( talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In the 2008 US News and World Report (USNWR) rankings of national universities, MIT's undergraduate program was #7. [2] The MIT Sloan School of Management is ranked #2 in the nation at the undergraduate level and #4 among MBA programs by USNWR's 2008 rankings. [3] [4] MIT has more top-ranked graduate programs than any other university in the 2008 USNWR survey and the School of Engineering has been ranked first among graduate and undergraduate programs since the magazine first released the results of its survey in 1988. [5] [6] [7] Among other outlets in the world university rankings, MIT is ranked #1 in the Globe by Webometrics, [8] #1 in technology, #2 in citation, #4 overall, #5 in natural science, and #11 in social science among world universities by the THES - QS World University Rankings, [9] [10] in the top tier of national research universities by TheCenter for Measuring University Performance, [11] #5 among world universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University's 2006 Annual Rankings of World Universities, [12] and #1 by The Washington Monthly's rankings of social mobility and national service in 2005 and 2006. [13] The National Research Council, in a 1995 study ranking research universities in the US, ranked MIT #1 in "reputation" and #4 in "citations and faculty awards." [14]
“ | The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. | ” |
This conversation is being carried out over multiple pages, here's my response as to why I've reverted a number of his changes across various college and university articles: Sorry, while we encourage people to be bold, your actions go against general consensus on listing rankings. As I wrote on the USC talk page (and other editors on other pages you've touched), you have been using your personal dislike of the US News rankings as reason to remove the mention out of various articles despite the fact that its been well established as acceptable practice. In fact, you should have noticed that UC Riverside and Duke were both Featured Articles, which show what this community considers to be exemplary. Rankings are considered acceptable in any college and university article as long as they are presented in a reasonable manner and cited. The list of articles you've touched include many of the nation's top schools. Unsurprisingly, your edits were already being reverted by custodians of those other articles. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, please be patient and go through the proper route. Starting at the College and Universities Wikiproject would be a good start. -- Bobak ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this conversation about a general issue should be focused in one area, the already existing discussion in Wikiproject:Universities, available here. Determinations there would better serve the entire gamut of articles, which is what this issue is about --not merely USC. It gets confusing to have multiple lines of discussion. -- Bobak ( talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
I've been making some pretty drastic changes to the organization of the article. Please do not revert them outright since I have been doing a lot to update old statistics and references, adding new references and content, as well as implementing standardized reference templates. Despite the recent debate over content in the lead, I have moved a lot of content out of the lead since it was not mentioned in the body of the article (rankings are still in there, rest assured). Please give me the benefit of the doubt for the next day or so and raise any concerns you have here in the discussion and not in the comment line of a reversion. In connection with the overhaul, a lot of information will probably get summarized and the original content will be shifted off to daughter pages (for the respective schools, History of USC, Campus of USC, etc.) but not before stabilizing the organization and fleshing out the new sections above. Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Since it appears there are no objections to what's been done so far, I will be summarizing the athletics and traditions sections in the days to come since the quantity of information is better handled on the respective daughter pages. The student government and politics will likewise be merged into activities and/or History sections. USC and Hollywood section is likewise more appropriate in the history section than as a standalone non-trivia trivia section. I'm not sure what to do about the academics section yet since it gives a bit too much emphasis to just a few schools and reads like a compilation or recent press releases (especially Viterbi), but I'll look to other FAs to see how they've handled covering unweildy and large academic organizations. The campus section likewise needs some sprucing up. Just a heads up. Madcoverboy ( talk) 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
i need help! how much is the university each term?HELP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.158.71 ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
OJ Simpson is a Notable alum — But Bobak keeps reverting changes. Can we get consensus that he is notable, if infamous? 72.14.228.89 ( talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
i think it's safe to say that O.J. Simpson is both a) notable, and b) a USC alumnus. so why does his addition to the "Alumni" section keep getting reverted? can someone who is not a USC alum themselves chime in on the subject? thanks! (also, fwiw, i'm not sure i see the distinction between the list of "notable" alumni and "famous" alumni — maybe they should be merged.) -- Rob* ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. OJ Simpson was a huge part of USC football history as well as his world-wide infamy over his later criminal and civil trials. According to OJ's Wikipedia page: "In 1968, he rushed for 1,709 yards and 22 touchdowns, earning the Heisman Trophy, the Maxwell Award, and the Walter Camp Award that year. He still holds the record for the Heisman's largest margin of victory, defeating the runner-up by 1,750 points" If that doesn't cement his place at USC and his fame, I don't know what does.
This is a pretty clear example of conflict of interest, where a loyal USC alumnus (as declared on User:Bobak) has admin privileges on Wikipedia, and is abusing those admin privileges (reverting then locking the page), in order to maintain a biased favorable article about his/her alma mater. 146.115.34.7 ( talk) 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, none of you know much about sports if you say that OJ Simpson is the most famous athlete, and none of you have been able to give a concise reason for why he deserves special placement above the others for any reason other than the obvious one. You can gather as many friends and/or fake accounts as you want, but that's not how Wikipedia works, and you'll find that out if you really decide to keep moving this through process :-) -- Bobak ( talk) 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I am commenting in response to a request for an unbiased third opinion. Let me first say that I am not a USC alumnus.
Based on the appropriately routed Wikipedia:Third opinion, I have re-added Simpson to the alumni list. The page will remain locked until Sunday, since this is being done for the regular Friday/Saturday pre-game vandalism that hits around this time. -- Bobak ( talk) 15:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are many (excellent) photos on the article, but I've been encountering bunching problems with photos from one sections running over into subsequent sections and complicating formatting. Can we identify some pictures that we can remove or move to daughter pages? Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a lot of hardwork went into this page and it is appreciated. Nonetheless, the administrator appears to be lazy as I have updated with a fact to correct an error 3 times and the administrator has reverted back to the incorrect data each time after the edit. This is why I don't really like to get involved with Wikipedia articles because the facts cannot be corrected even if it is just a mathematical edit. The reversion to a previous entry is a BIAS in that the administrator wants to keep it the way they want it even if it is just math that reflect otherwise. This is suppose to be about a university and learned people and you cannot even accept the analysis and mathematical reasoning of the administrator? It is pathetic and pretty much sucks.
Anyway - the University both graduates and enrolls more graduate students than undergraduate students. This is evident in the statistics as reported by the university. However, the administrator wants to reference some outside agency and report their analysis that this is mostly an undergraduate institution. The more elite the institution the more its enrollment reflects a larger graduate program (think any of the top 10 schools, including MIT, Stanford, Harvard -- all schools Sample would like to emulate in competitiveness). That is reflective in the USC enrollment. It is just the math. It is sad that the administrator of this page cannot understand the fact and correct what is just factual that the university graduates and enrolls more graduate students. It is MOST evident from the university's own data that this is true - in 2008, USC graduated 5,978 advanced degrees and 4,528 undergraduate degrees. However, the administrator of this page still typifies this as a "mostly undergraduate university." Likewise, the enrollment for graduate students is greater than undergraduate. Why value the simple line entry of "mostly undergraduate" from an outside entity than the facts from the University themself? Is the administrator lazy? Is the administrator bias to their own entry? Is the administrator more infatuated with an outside entity than the University itself? Or is there just an inability to reason from the math. Either way, I don't like it and it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.129.160 ( talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even if the marching band is occassionally introduced this way (I presume only at home games), it seems irrelevant and boosterish. Can we agree to remove this trivia and its associated reference? Robert K S ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is back in the article and now the link for the reference is dead. 184.153.196.39 ( talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Again I know it is off topic but last time when I asked about the 2004 team, a new page was built. NOW a page for the both 2003 (co-national champion team) and the 2005 (12-1, lost in Rose Bowl team) need their pages updated. Currently they look like place holders and are very dissapointing in comparison considering how great these two teams were. Thanks!! ( Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
I removed two images from the infobox because I don't think they qualify as a "fair use" per the non-free content criteria. Per criterion 3a, "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Since the point of these images is to identify USC, it's not necessary to include, for example, both the university seal and the university logo, since they serve identical functions. Likewise, it's not necessary to have both the Trojan head logo and the interlocking SC logo to identify the athletics teams. Esrever ( klaT) 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The USC Monogram is the "shorthand" identifier for USC. As an acronym, it is often used to identify the university in a variety of applications, such as printed materials, signage and merchandise. It is also the official identifier used on the USC Web site. USC does allow us to use this image here, but I am not sure about the copyright stuff. When you fix the image's copyright info., please reuse this image. The previous image is a seal, and is NOT easily recognizable. USC guidelines do NOT approve using a seal for web. http://www.usc.edu/identity/print/usc_monogram/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by USC 84 ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that this has been discussed before, but this is getting bad. No other university (at least, not those USC is trying to emulate) includes an extensive paragraph on rankings/admissions statistics. Worse, USC has a big paragraph of that, and it's the SECOND PARAGRAPH IN THE LEAD after the first "definition" of what USC is. Yes, while it's tacky to put any of that info in the lead, it's not against the wiki guidelines, because that info is discussed in a later section. I would vote for it to be removed completely from the lead (it makes USC look so pretentious), but if it has to stay, someone please re-write or move it to a different part of the lead. The fact that it's the second paragraph suggests that it's more important than any other info about USC, and also suggests that there aren't many other distinctions that USC has. It's also typical of university pages to include in the lead a short history of the founding. 66.59.249.107 ( talk) 07:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I asked before but did not get a response. "In looking at the Virgina Tech page, there is a timeline for the presidents. Is there someone more well versed than I that would want to tackle that, or is that something even worthwhile?" Thanks!!( Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
I think it would be very informative if someone could add a section about the different housing options. Notre Dame has a little section about the different dorms and apartments and I think this would be VERY informative for this page. Here is the link: http://housing.usc.edu/housingOptions/housingOption.htm . Thanks!! ( Padsquad19 07:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
How can this page become a featured article? I know this page seems a lot better and more professional than a lot of article on this site and feel that there should be some recognition for the hard work. Thanks!! ( Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
I must say, I had the same reaction as to what "alumnus" means -- that it referred only to graduates -- but a quick hop over to alumnus corrected my mistaken assumption. Quoting from there (in turn quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary): a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. I'm going to be bold and restore the names, but of course I'm open to further discussion. Ashdog137 ( talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In a recent edit User:Bobak characterized as a "solid source" a Sports Illustrated article [2] in support of the claim that "the USC Song Girls... are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in the world". The cited article says: "Suppose we went to, say, Montana. And suppose we found 100 'average' college football fans (not necessarily message-board crazies, but not twice-a-year viewers, either) and put them in a room. ... If I held up a picture of the USC song girls, all 100 would know who they were." This quotation does not support the assertion that the Song Girls are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in the world, which would require a statistically valid worldwide poll. What is actually offered in the article is a hypothetical scenario--an assumption about a fictional situation--one that, moreover, is statewide for Montana college football fans, not all people worldwide. Robert K S ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
While you all have clearly pre-discounted any possibility of my argument being correct, I'd like to submit this for the eventually archived record: Sports Illustrated's "Song Girl of the Week". Its total fluff (complete with 20 questions), but it states "Meet Lauren Ochi, a USC senior and proud member of the world-famous Song Girls." While this was from this week, there's similar statements from the past 20 years --but the web can be a fickle thing when it comes to searches. -- Bobak ( talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[3] regarding the recent transformation of USC from an undergraduate "safety school" to a more credible academic institution. There doesn't seem to be any section in the article that currently addresses the subject, so I'm putting the link here. Amerique dialectics 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please try to add the following paragraph to "Undergraduate Rankings" section of the article, right below "The Viterbi School of Engineering - 29th[47]".
Here is the paragraph:
USC is also among top 10 dream colleges in the United States. Princeton Review's "College Hopes & Worries" 2008 survey reports USC as the 9th dream college for students, just above UCLA which ranks as the 10th. [1]
I tried to add it, but it removes the next lines including the headline of the following "Graduate Rankings" section. I don't know the tricks of editing these articles. If you click on "edit" you can get the reference as well.
The amount of information and space devoted to one magazine's rankings is absolutely out of control - the worst of any university article I've come across. I recommend the editors read WP:PRESTIGE, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:UNI/AG. I am tempted to blank and severely summarize this orgy of rankings cruft, but let's talk it out first. Madcoverboy ( talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In the 2008 US News and World Report (USNWR) rankings of national universities, MIT's undergraduate program was #7. [2] The MIT Sloan School of Management is ranked #2 in the nation at the undergraduate level and #4 among MBA programs by USNWR's 2008 rankings. [3] [4] MIT has more top-ranked graduate programs than any other university in the 2008 USNWR survey and the School of Engineering has been ranked first among graduate and undergraduate programs since the magazine first released the results of its survey in 1988. [5] [6] [7] Among other outlets in the world university rankings, MIT is ranked #1 in the Globe by Webometrics, [8] #1 in technology, #2 in citation, #4 overall, #5 in natural science, and #11 in social science among world universities by the THES - QS World University Rankings, [9] [10] in the top tier of national research universities by TheCenter for Measuring University Performance, [11] #5 among world universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University's 2006 Annual Rankings of World Universities, [12] and #1 by The Washington Monthly's rankings of social mobility and national service in 2005 and 2006. [13] The National Research Council, in a 1995 study ranking research universities in the US, ranked MIT #1 in "reputation" and #4 in "citations and faculty awards." [14]
“ | The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. | ” |
This conversation is being carried out over multiple pages, here's my response as to why I've reverted a number of his changes across various college and university articles: Sorry, while we encourage people to be bold, your actions go against general consensus on listing rankings. As I wrote on the USC talk page (and other editors on other pages you've touched), you have been using your personal dislike of the US News rankings as reason to remove the mention out of various articles despite the fact that its been well established as acceptable practice. In fact, you should have noticed that UC Riverside and Duke were both Featured Articles, which show what this community considers to be exemplary. Rankings are considered acceptable in any college and university article as long as they are presented in a reasonable manner and cited. The list of articles you've touched include many of the nation's top schools. Unsurprisingly, your edits were already being reverted by custodians of those other articles. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, please be patient and go through the proper route. Starting at the College and Universities Wikiproject would be a good start. -- Bobak ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this conversation about a general issue should be focused in one area, the already existing discussion in Wikiproject:Universities, available here. Determinations there would better serve the entire gamut of articles, which is what this issue is about --not merely USC. It gets confusing to have multiple lines of discussion. -- Bobak ( talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
I've been making some pretty drastic changes to the organization of the article. Please do not revert them outright since I have been doing a lot to update old statistics and references, adding new references and content, as well as implementing standardized reference templates. Despite the recent debate over content in the lead, I have moved a lot of content out of the lead since it was not mentioned in the body of the article (rankings are still in there, rest assured). Please give me the benefit of the doubt for the next day or so and raise any concerns you have here in the discussion and not in the comment line of a reversion. In connection with the overhaul, a lot of information will probably get summarized and the original content will be shifted off to daughter pages (for the respective schools, History of USC, Campus of USC, etc.) but not before stabilizing the organization and fleshing out the new sections above. Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Since it appears there are no objections to what's been done so far, I will be summarizing the athletics and traditions sections in the days to come since the quantity of information is better handled on the respective daughter pages. The student government and politics will likewise be merged into activities and/or History sections. USC and Hollywood section is likewise more appropriate in the history section than as a standalone non-trivia trivia section. I'm not sure what to do about the academics section yet since it gives a bit too much emphasis to just a few schools and reads like a compilation or recent press releases (especially Viterbi), but I'll look to other FAs to see how they've handled covering unweildy and large academic organizations. The campus section likewise needs some sprucing up. Just a heads up. Madcoverboy ( talk) 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
i need help! how much is the university each term?HELP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.158.71 ( talk) 16:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
OJ Simpson is a Notable alum — But Bobak keeps reverting changes. Can we get consensus that he is notable, if infamous? 72.14.228.89 ( talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
i think it's safe to say that O.J. Simpson is both a) notable, and b) a USC alumnus. so why does his addition to the "Alumni" section keep getting reverted? can someone who is not a USC alum themselves chime in on the subject? thanks! (also, fwiw, i'm not sure i see the distinction between the list of "notable" alumni and "famous" alumni — maybe they should be merged.) -- Rob* ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. OJ Simpson was a huge part of USC football history as well as his world-wide infamy over his later criminal and civil trials. According to OJ's Wikipedia page: "In 1968, he rushed for 1,709 yards and 22 touchdowns, earning the Heisman Trophy, the Maxwell Award, and the Walter Camp Award that year. He still holds the record for the Heisman's largest margin of victory, defeating the runner-up by 1,750 points" If that doesn't cement his place at USC and his fame, I don't know what does.
This is a pretty clear example of conflict of interest, where a loyal USC alumnus (as declared on User:Bobak) has admin privileges on Wikipedia, and is abusing those admin privileges (reverting then locking the page), in order to maintain a biased favorable article about his/her alma mater. 146.115.34.7 ( talk) 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, none of you know much about sports if you say that OJ Simpson is the most famous athlete, and none of you have been able to give a concise reason for why he deserves special placement above the others for any reason other than the obvious one. You can gather as many friends and/or fake accounts as you want, but that's not how Wikipedia works, and you'll find that out if you really decide to keep moving this through process :-) -- Bobak ( talk) 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I am commenting in response to a request for an unbiased third opinion. Let me first say that I am not a USC alumnus.
Based on the appropriately routed Wikipedia:Third opinion, I have re-added Simpson to the alumni list. The page will remain locked until Sunday, since this is being done for the regular Friday/Saturday pre-game vandalism that hits around this time. -- Bobak ( talk) 15:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are many (excellent) photos on the article, but I've been encountering bunching problems with photos from one sections running over into subsequent sections and complicating formatting. Can we identify some pictures that we can remove or move to daughter pages? Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a lot of hardwork went into this page and it is appreciated. Nonetheless, the administrator appears to be lazy as I have updated with a fact to correct an error 3 times and the administrator has reverted back to the incorrect data each time after the edit. This is why I don't really like to get involved with Wikipedia articles because the facts cannot be corrected even if it is just a mathematical edit. The reversion to a previous entry is a BIAS in that the administrator wants to keep it the way they want it even if it is just math that reflect otherwise. This is suppose to be about a university and learned people and you cannot even accept the analysis and mathematical reasoning of the administrator? It is pathetic and pretty much sucks.
Anyway - the University both graduates and enrolls more graduate students than undergraduate students. This is evident in the statistics as reported by the university. However, the administrator wants to reference some outside agency and report their analysis that this is mostly an undergraduate institution. The more elite the institution the more its enrollment reflects a larger graduate program (think any of the top 10 schools, including MIT, Stanford, Harvard -- all schools Sample would like to emulate in competitiveness). That is reflective in the USC enrollment. It is just the math. It is sad that the administrator of this page cannot understand the fact and correct what is just factual that the university graduates and enrolls more graduate students. It is MOST evident from the university's own data that this is true - in 2008, USC graduated 5,978 advanced degrees and 4,528 undergraduate degrees. However, the administrator of this page still typifies this as a "mostly undergraduate university." Likewise, the enrollment for graduate students is greater than undergraduate. Why value the simple line entry of "mostly undergraduate" from an outside entity than the facts from the University themself? Is the administrator lazy? Is the administrator bias to their own entry? Is the administrator more infatuated with an outside entity than the University itself? Or is there just an inability to reason from the math. Either way, I don't like it and it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.129.160 ( talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Even if the marching band is occassionally introduced this way (I presume only at home games), it seems irrelevant and boosterish. Can we agree to remove this trivia and its associated reference? Robert K S ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is back in the article and now the link for the reference is dead. 184.153.196.39 ( talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Again I know it is off topic but last time when I asked about the 2004 team, a new page was built. NOW a page for the both 2003 (co-national champion team) and the 2005 (12-1, lost in Rose Bowl team) need their pages updated. Currently they look like place holders and are very dissapointing in comparison considering how great these two teams were. Thanks!! ( Padsquad19 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)).
I removed two images from the infobox because I don't think they qualify as a "fair use" per the non-free content criteria. Per criterion 3a, "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Since the point of these images is to identify USC, it's not necessary to include, for example, both the university seal and the university logo, since they serve identical functions. Likewise, it's not necessary to have both the Trojan head logo and the interlocking SC logo to identify the athletics teams. Esrever ( klaT) 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The USC Monogram is the "shorthand" identifier for USC. As an acronym, it is often used to identify the university in a variety of applications, such as printed materials, signage and merchandise. It is also the official identifier used on the USC Web site. USC does allow us to use this image here, but I am not sure about the copyright stuff. When you fix the image's copyright info., please reuse this image. The previous image is a seal, and is NOT easily recognizable. USC guidelines do NOT approve using a seal for web. http://www.usc.edu/identity/print/usc_monogram/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by USC 84 ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that this has been discussed before, but this is getting bad. No other university (at least, not those USC is trying to emulate) includes an extensive paragraph on rankings/admissions statistics. Worse, USC has a big paragraph of that, and it's the SECOND PARAGRAPH IN THE LEAD after the first "definition" of what USC is. Yes, while it's tacky to put any of that info in the lead, it's not against the wiki guidelines, because that info is discussed in a later section. I would vote for it to be removed completely from the lead (it makes USC look so pretentious), but if it has to stay, someone please re-write or move it to a different part of the lead. The fact that it's the second paragraph suggests that it's more important than any other info about USC, and also suggests that there aren't many other distinctions that USC has. It's also typical of university pages to include in the lead a short history of the founding. 66.59.249.107 ( talk) 07:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)