Talk:University of Southern California/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 2.9 Billion is pittance for fundraising

Half done fundraising programs at several Ivy calibur schools setting their aims at over 4 billion have already surpassed this mark.

Can you cite it? There's no such evidence available. Columbia and Stanford have announced the start of $4+ billion drives, but they have not concluded. There appears to be a lack of understanding on what constitutes a funding drive. Also, please read the headers of talk pages and consult the introduction to how to use Wikipedia for further help. --Bobak 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


I stand corrected. Several of the four billion schools, of which there appear to be four or five now, are just getting moving.


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 ammountsTrojan traveler 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair to take criticisms of the adminstration out

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.

[edit] Ranking

In the academics section.... there is a line which says

In 2005 US World News ranked USC number 6 university in the US.

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.

[edit] OJ Simpson

Do NOT put OJ Simpson as a murder, he was found not guilty in a California Court of LAW Asian Animal

He was actually found liable in civil action. Which yes, makes him a murderer even though, no, he did not recieve a criminal sentence.
Um, no. You are not a criminal, you are not a "murderer" (which is a criminal act) unless you're convicted of a criminal act. Basic law, you don't need to be a lawyer to know that. Was he held responsible for causing the deaths? In a civil trial with far lower burdens of proof that was found to be the case. I'm surprised people even care anymore, at this point I bet OJ's happy people keep thinking about him in barely tertiary topics like his college. --Bobak 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said, you are correct he is not a criminal, but finding culpability in a civil trial, despite the lower standard, is tantamount to labeling a person a murderer. It is not like they found him liable for leaving his car in gear or something or letting another killer onto his property. Although, this is not germane to the article and should be stopped.

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.

[edit] Francas

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

[edit] This article is not neutral!

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!

I agree; "Filled with neighbors, students, faculty, parents, and professionals who care about each other and their neighborhood" seems like it was taken straight from a college viewbook.
AND (from another perspective)
I strongly disagree. If you are so concerned about POV, do research on the crime rate on the area, surrounding area, including downtown and the Fig corridor. Don't just whimisically state "high, high crime..south central..watts..ghetto."
What you have are people who grew up in surrounding areas of LA, go to other schools like ucka and upon visiting the area are fear-ridden because of omitted facts. No it is not affluent Beverly Hills. It is simply representive of a hardworking, working-class community. And in that respect it is not unique but what is to be expected by economics.


1 more perspective

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

[edit] USC and Community POV Part II

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.

There's no way to define what is the most culturally vibrant anything in a city, and historically, the Thomas Jefferson / West Adams / Harvard Heights area are not particularly notable in LA history, as far as I know, aside from history related directly to the university. If anyone has any counterevidence, please post.

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.

I'd like justification that USC's methods have been widely adopted ("modeled") by other urban revitalization programs. Furthermore, it is well established that while USC and its community are not at war with one another, there is significant strain between them. For example, the debate over whether USC should attract higher priced stores to the University Village shopping center which would appeal to students, but be inaccessable to residents. Also, the debate over the University's acquisition of land for new buildings and student housing. Finally, I'd love to see evidence that parents of university students live in the area directly around USC.

Bordered by black ghettoes and plagued by safety concerns, USC has struggled in recent years to attract and retain quality students.

Statistically, the neighborhoods around USC are 60-90% Latino, not black (Source: Allen, James P. and Eugene Turner. Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern Californians. Dept of Geographic Studies: CSU Northridge, 2002.) Secondly, while crime is a problem, there should be a better and more accurate NPOV way of saying it than "plagued by safety concerns". (For crime stats, see: [1]). Finally, the 'quality' of students, as measured by incoming SAT and GPA, has been increasing recently, as is noted accurately elsewhere in the article.

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)

[edit] POV Part III

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.

[edit] POV Part 4

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."

I added those words in order to balance out the article as part of an huge edit war late last year. I had added a more controversial phrase, something like "the campus is beautiful, but the neighborhoods around the university are among the most dangerous in the city," and someone edited that out and put in an overly rosy picture of USC as if the campus were nice as Stanford (which is simply ridiculous). So eventually I tried inserting "crime plagued" and this time no one contested that, at least until now.
Also, there has been some disputes over the content of the Pico-Union article. I thought Pico-Union had a relatively low crime rate (in relation to South Central or University Park) but several people who claimed to have lived there say that it has as much crime as South Central.
Finally, although a lot of L.A. is crime plagued, a lot of it is not. Most people would feel fairly safe walking around alone in Westwood or Pacific Palisades at 2 in the morning, but doing the same in South Central, University Park, or Pacoima at 2 in the morning would be considered by most L.A. residents to be highly risky if not downright suicidal. The houses in Holmby Hills, Bel Air and Pacific Palisades do not have bars on the windows, bums on the sidewalk in front, or broken bottles and shopping cart parts lying in the gutter.
As for what "crime plagued" means, I think it means not having to constantly worry about being mugged or shot while going to and from class. There are car chases, drive-by shootings, thrill killings, car-to-car shootings, etc. all the time within a couple of miles of the USC campus, but such crimes are quite rare within a couple of miles of the UCLA campus.--Coolcaesar 04:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Come on this is almost hysterical--"all the time." No this is hysterical. Forget about the definition of crime-plagued..this is a good definition of "hysterical." I don't mean any disrespect but get a grip, please! But as far as "plagued," can someone draw the line as to what statistically threw it over the crime-something to crime-plagued line. I just want to know where the line is? Was it 6 dismemberments or 7? Where is the line?
As for your point about "highly urbanized," I just remembered to point out that Century City is also a highly urbanized area where tens of thousands of people live and work, yet it is tidy, well-maintained and safe. --Coolcaesar 15:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nobody lives in Century City (or very, very, very few). I don't understand the effort or the logic. What's your point? And it is practically an attachment to Beverly Hills. I walked from my office in CC to my house in 90210 like it was nothing.
Arggh! In no way...in no way can a comparison be done to Century City or West LA--such a comparison is not right and it is irresponsible. If you want to do some analysis then consider downtown: Although a mixed neighborhood, it's been written in a daily newspaper that it had the lowest crime rates in the city. I would never include this as I do not have statistics to corroborate this, which makes it anecdotal. But if it is true then it is crazy to not consider that fact relevant since USC is but 2 miles from downtown.
Also, while we're on POV, I just remembered to point out that perhaps we should add back to the page the well-known joke (in L.A.) that USC stands for "University of Spoiled Children," because so many of its students have rich parents who can afford the tuition. And then there's

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

I think your proposed consensus position of keeping out both positive and negative assessments is a good idea for the time being. Although, of course, I still maintain that a fair assessment of a neighborhood's level of safety needs to be against all neighborhoods in general and not just against neighborhoods of similar nature (urban) or density (high). It seems to me that is the core of our disagreement. --Coolcaesar 05:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that idea because I have been looking into how the area is perceived by stats, media, academia, etc. It seems that there is change in the community and area around USC that has to be considered. That is, the change is such that the perception of the area from the 80s should not equate with 90s or 00s perceptions. The fact that we equate or write equivalent statements about the 00s/90s that sound like 80s statements points to bias.
The area cannot change dramatically (if it is or were to do so) and SC people still refer to it as a "shit-hole" without some deference to change. The inability to write accompanying positive statements is very troubling as is the inability to understand the economic differences makes it a more complex challenge. For those who care about the qualities of USC, we should heed some restraint for the sake of accuracy.
And finally, understanding the point about neighborhood comparison: It seems USC is unfairly maligned relative to an apple-apple comparison. No one is arguing that it is a "great" neighborhood. But it may be a neighborhood that is average for its income level as this was not always the case. Every poor neighborhood cannot be blighted or plagued even if the probability is that they are more likely to be so.


[edit] How about the student's opinions on safety?

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

[edit] POV Part 5

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?


[edit] NPOV, anyone?

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

[edit] Berkeley SAT average

Memento, where did you get Berkeley's average SAT score? –Epiphany07 22:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write that part. All I did was add "(weighted)" to the 4.0 GPA given as the average for USC's freshman class.
On Jan 11, 67.154.227.114 added For the 2004 fall term, the freshman class had an average GPA of 4.0 and an average SAT score of 1350, which makes USC one of the most selective universities in the nation for undergraduates.
On Mar 14, 208.179.109.14 modified this into It should be noted that despite this, the incoming freshman class for the 2004 fall term had an average GPA of 4.0 and an average SAT score of 1350 - well above the 1289 of UCLA and 1300 of UC Berkeley.
If you check the Princeton Review, you'll see that the scores given by 208.179.109.14 are correct. –MementoVivere 10:20, 20 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.

[edit] Mascot

The USC mascot is Tommy Trojan, NOT Traveler. Check out [2] and look at the very bottom for proof.

The bottom of this page says:
Tommy Trojan: USC's mascot for athletics and the landmark statue in the center of campus.
Traveler, the horse: USC's mascot for athletics ridden by Tommy Trojan.
They're both listed as the mascot on this page. However, most other official university pages make reference only to Traveler. See: [3] [4] [5] [6] etc. Search Google with the terms site:usc.edu mascot for more. The references to Tommy Trojan as mascot are almost exclusively related to the guy in the costume who was instituted just recently and only appears at basketball games.
Basically, Traveler is the Mascot, and Trojans are the team name. This is a similar situation to Auburn University which has a War Eagle as a mascot and Tigers as the team name. "Tommy Trojan" is supposed to be the embodiment of the ideal USC student athlete, but he is not the mascot recognized by the university administration. -- Tyler 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Average SAT Score

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)

[edit] Reference

[edit] Offspring Song

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)

Yes and no. They played both this past football season. They've been playing "TKAA" for awhile, but started playing "Hit That" when the new album came out. --Lance

[edit] "Southern Cal"

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:

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

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 agree with keeping at the top, especially when so many sports articles use the term, but I've gone ahead and added a footnote to its usage and (despite?) the University's position (with reference, of course ;-) ). --Bobak 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] relevant link under external links

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.

UCI? CSUF? Anyway, stop adding commercial links and making legal threats. -Willmcw 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, especially since there's no legal claim to be made. Bobak 18:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery for images of campus?

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?

[edit] Victory Bell

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)

[edit] Great Job!

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!

[edit] Criticisms of the Administration

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)

[edit] Criticism of the Administration should be removed

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


Every large institution is criticized. It's inevitable. The criticisms, most likely, will range from accurate to wildly distorted and from whispered to shouted, with little correlation between the two values. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy reequires that we include notable, verifiable criticisms of our subjects. We do not judge, on our own, if the criticisms are valid, only that they are made by a reliable source. As editors we can and do judge the relative weight to give different points of view and should seek a rough balance. But omitting reliably sourced criticism altogether is not an option.
Regarding this particular section, it appears to mostly be from one or two student organizations on a narrow range of issues. It goes into too much detail about one point of view. The way we should fix it is by summarizing that POV further, perhaps a sentence or two, and by adding other criticisms. I'm sure that the Daily Trojan finds plenty to criticize about the administration, and it would be considered a reliable source. Heck, I bet even the alumni association and faculty criticize the administration from time to time. It's our job as editors to try to find those sources that we can verifiably summarize. Unfortunately, the Daily Trojan doesn't have an online archive, but I'm sure the library has a complete record. The L.A. Times has probably covered some criticisms, or printed editorials. And of course we should include the rebuttals of the administration or its supporters that we can find.
FYI, we might look to the articles on Stanford University, Harvard University, Columbia University, and comparable institutions for examples of how well-written, NPOV articles should look. -Will Beback 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, it isn't proper to remove "Groups seeking harm to the University's reputation" from the external links. Our guidelines on external links and WP:NPOV suggest that different points of view should be included in the links as well as in the article. -Will Beback 00:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


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:

  • I was a member of SCALE for my final year, '99-00, even going to a meeting with the university's licensing office (part of the nuance at a school like USC is the sports dept. and main university actually have different licensing departments). I can say that the issues that arose in that three year period did not amount to anything more than regular coverage in the Daily Trojan (which I wrote as a columnist for my final semester). The DT obviously covered any semblence of news on campus. These "criticisms" did't get much airplay in the LA Times or other major papers for good reason: while the general issues were serious, USC wasn't the kind of over-the-top war that turned out in places like the University of Wisconsin; the general student body didn't care --and this was the same "right wing" student body that, in a poll, voted the 2000 election (1) Gore (2) Nader (3) Bus (so I guess that makes USC "conservative").
  • As for labor strife, there were at least 2 instances when I was there: The first was a strike in the '97-'98 school year that ended after a month. The second was larger, but ended with the union and 'SC coming to an agreement. Again, nothing to the scale that occured at Yale just a few years ago.
  • The positions of the Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice were noble, but unrealistic: they wanted the school to go forward with an office building plan next to campus and were upset the school instead decided to go with a basketball arena despite the fact that the intervening recession of the early 90s had all-but-killed the downtown office building market. They were concerned an arena would not employ as many local workers. The school made an agreement to hire local workers for the arena (which is currently still under contruction), but I got the feeling the Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice was picking on USC far more than any other group in a project that stretched from USC to the Staples Center over a mile away.
  • Unsurprisingly, the SCALE people tended to be the same people concerned with the Figueroa Corridor project
  • Just to show that this was an area I did pay attention to my years in college, I submit into evidence the following:
  • proof that I was in SCALE and worked with the people on these matters: please examine this PDF, specifically Exhibit #121 which was a large project put together by a group of students who were friendly with SCALE and did much research at the offices of the Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice.
  • also, here are two badly written columns I wrote during that period (hey, I was much younger then), again as proof that this was an area I was actively involved in: Building a shaky foundation (on the Figueroa Corridor project); but by my final months, having spent time with the groups that looked at the dark sides of 'SC, I was convinced (and remain so) that the school was as good as the mainstream media was portraying
  • I take no position on the links being included at the bottom, fine to keep one or two as far as I'm concerned. I only take issue with the inclusion of the section below because, as a participant in some of those events, it sounds crazy to give it that much space in an article on Wikipedia. Most USC students have never heard of these groups --especially as compared to schools like the Yale labor strife, the Wisconsin battles over sweatshop labor, etc.

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)

[edit] "Criticism" re-write

[edit] "Criticism" re-write

[edit] References

  1. ^ Jocelyn Y. Stewart, "Activists Seek Agreement With USC." Los Angeles Times, Oct 8, 2003, p. B.1
  2. ^ Nik Trendowski and Troy Witt, "University, unions still negotiating," Daily Trojan, Vol. 129, No. 01 (Thursday, August 22, 1996), 3, 4.
  3. ^ Nada El Sawy, "Labor contract negotiations continue for union, USC" Daily Trojan, Vol. 133, No. 62 (Monday, April 20, 1998), 2, 10.
  4. ^ Jackson DeMos, "Students take Sample's Office," Daily Trojan, Vol. 145, No. 56 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002), 1, 14.


[edit] Criticisms--excessive citation unnecessary

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.

Balderdash? You haven't disproven my own comments above when I have demonstrated I was a participant in SCALE and the minor quibbling they did. Stop trying to gain a platform for these minor, minor incidents on USC's article. If any of these arguments had amounted to a major footnote in USC history, then yes include them --but this attempt to shoehorn a minority opinion into a larger article to gain notability is ridiculous. I'm sorry: One three-year-old LAT article and a smattering a Daily Trojan articles a major controversy does not make. --Bobak 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and your comment on the statement "'that University remained unscathed' is undocumented" is misinformed: it was mentioned as part of Time magazine's citation for why they named USC the school of the year in 2000. --Bobak 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I concur with Sixtrojans that citations are necessary to backup those weasel words. See my positions on why citation is necessary at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --Coolcaesar 03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures??

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.

For copyright purposes, pictures will likely need to be taken by users. That's not to discourage people, it's just that people need to take initiative (Be Bold!). I have a ton of photos, but they're safely tucked away on the West Coast (I'm in Minneapolis). I will have to dig them up on my next trip back and scan them (yup, pre-digital). We can also see if any people on campus can take photos, again --it would help to have specific "targets" for the photo hunt, we already have Bovard, so I nominate:
Mudd Hall of Philosophy
  • CNTV school (with "Lucas" or "Spielberg" building name in the frame would be nice)
  • Doheny (with or without fountain)
  • Tommy Trojan, base to top on its own
  • Student Union
That'd be a nice start for the main article on USC. --Bobak 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget:

  • Cromwell Field (can we catch the football team during practice?)
  • Heritage Hall

--Sixtrojans 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The team doesn't practice on Cromwell, the band does. Also, in response to the post below, there is a balcony above the pool that people seem to frequent with regularity. --Ceol3531 11:21, 6 October 2006
I know the team is a little sensitive sometimes when they see people taking photos from roofs (particularly if there's a big game that week (ND or UCLA, etc)). It certainly would be possible. One of the parking structures (was it A?) may be able to get a vantage point --or the top of Webb or the diving platform area in the McDonald's Swim Stadium. --Bobak 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually hoping that maybe we can get Garry P (WeAreSC.com) or someone authorized to cover practice to release a photo or two to the public domain. --Sixtrojans 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, good idea. I frequent that site (BobakUSC), if he could get us some that would be great. --Bobak 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add links to other pages

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)

[edit] grafitti

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)

comparatively speaking, the vandal attacks on the USC page have been tame and easy to revert. The best thing to do is to keep an eye on the page (add it to your watchlist) and keep an eye on any changes using the history tab (very useful). If something's done that's not right, revert. Wikipedia's strength is its weakness (anyone can edit). However, if people keep an eye on a few articles, they can protect them from anything major sticking around. --Bobak 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
They've actually been pretty bad this afternoon. If it keeps going I might suggest a semi-protect (no anons or new users would be able to edit). --Bobak 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic name changes

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)

[edit] What needs to still be added or changed?

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:

  • Add more pictures to break up the text.
  • Do a "Summary Box" Like Cal has done.


What else could or should be worked on?

--Wd40gdw 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found out about the new George Tirebiter statue, that would make a nice photo! --Bobak 18:24, 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)

Be bold ;-) (you can always note it in the edit history, and if people challenge, link to a source) --Bobak 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUniversity_of_Southern_California_Archive_1_7bb7.html"