Talk:University of Southern California

Archives
24 August 2004 − 20 June 2006 20 June 2006 - 22 June 2007

Making USC a Featured Wiki Article

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)).

This article could probably become a featured article if the trivia section were merged into the main body of information, as it suggests before the trivia section. Not that I'd know this; I'm only a casual Wikipedian. It's just a suggestion.--Thetanmancan 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Presidental Timeline

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)).

USC Football

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 am not a regular, so please excuse me if I am doing something wrong... I just wanted to post and ask why the Reggie Bush incident is not mentioned anywhere in the USC main page? That was a major event that effected what popped into the minds of millions when they heard the name "Reggie Bush". By omitting stuff like this, you guys just contribute to the general thought that wikipedia is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.192.248 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENT. This is an article about the University of Southern California, not the article about USC football, nor the article about Reggie Bush. Can you recall of any other college football scandals from 50 years ago? 25 years ago? 10 years ago? Would you expect to find these scandals mentioned in an encyclopedia article about those universities? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

USC Residential Halls

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)).

fair use images

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)

For the same reason, I removed the 2 logos from the athletics section itself, too. Esrever ^(klaT) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, this article was getting cluttered. It went from having too few pictures to too many. There's been some good work in the past few days. --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 2 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'm sorry but I don't follow you. Can you please restate what you've said?

Additionally, it might be helpful to know that it doesn't matter if a university approves of us using their seal because we're using it under fair use and don't need their permission. ElKevbo (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of alumnus

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)

It may be dishonestly misleading to include, unfootnoted, individuals who did not achieve degrees from the university, given that the most common interpretation of "alumnus" or "alumna" is "someone who has been conferred a degree". This is the definition, and the only definition offered by the majority of dictionaries. (If you have a shelf with several of them, such is easily confirmed.) Robert K S (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have a shelf full of dictionaries, I would point out that Dictionary.com includes "a graduate or former student" among a number of its definitions. I'd refer you specifically to the usage note: "While not quite equivalent in meaning, the terms graduate and graduates avoid the complexities of the Latin forms and eliminate any need for using a masculine plural form to refer to both sexes." The emphasis is mine, of course, but it quite clearly indicates that alumni does not just mean "graduate". If you want to whittle people like O.J. and Marcus Allen out of the list, use graduate instead. Esrever ^(klaT) 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed -- I may not have a shelf-full, but I can easily ascertain that the American Heritage, Webster's, and the Oxford English dictionaries agree that it's a graduate or former student (or, in the case of the OED, only a former student). If we want graduates, we should say graduates; alumni means something different. Ashdog137 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

USC Song Girls as "most recognizable in the world"

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)

I'd agree. It all seems a bit like boosterism to me anyway. Esrever ^(klaT) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see the issue. How about "one of the most recognizeable features of college football"? That would be easy to source. --Bobak (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The refs you (re-)added still do not support the claim, which would require a statistical study of recognition of various college football dance teams. Such a study was famously conducted to compare the recognizability of Joe Camel as compared to Mickey Mouse (Fischer, P. M., Schwartz, M. P., Richards, J. W., Goldstein, A. O., & Rojas, T. H. [1991]. Brand logo recognition by children aged 3 to 6 years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA, 3145-3148.). If such a study has not been conducted, what the editor's source for the claim? Wikipedia isn't for assertions one "feels ought to be true"--it's for stuff that's already been published somewhere. Unfounded claims cannot be backed up by citing other unfounded claims. Robert K S (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Robert K S and Esrever -- even the proposed restatement seems weaselly at best, unsourced at worst. I'm scrapping that line for now, at least until there's something reliable that makes a statement that's not so weaselly. Ashdog137 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that a statistical study would be necessary; it's the classic "shootinig a jackalope with a bazooka" issue. This isn't a trademark lawsuit, and it shouldn't require that much work in order to prove that something is common in the sport: I should be able to say that those things like the Dot-I in script Ohio, Calling the Echoes and the Big House are all items that are recognized in colllege football with basic sources from the sport --not the general public. I think its more difficult to challenge people to prove that their not famous, since any google search of song girls college football tradition gets plenty of results. I mean, seriously: if SI can't be taken for what should be known in college football, I throw serious doubts that JAMA would ever give a damn to run such a survey --and I find that insisting on such a source to be ridiculous when we're talking about college sports. --Bobak (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have no opinion on the "statistical study" issue, I could not be more convinced that the statement as written strongly smacked of boosterism, peacockery, and weasellism. "One of the most recognizable in the world" shouldn't even need to be stated, if true; if true, the verifiable, sourceable facts about them should be sufficient to establish that without simply asserting to the reader that it's true. Simply write about the Song Girls without bestowing lofty honorifics and let the reader conclude what they may. Ashdog137 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase is peacocky and weaselly and boosterism. However, it could be justified with the statistically valid study I thought (giving the original author of the phrase the benefit of the doubt) might have been the source of the assertion: writing "In the 1990s Joe Camel was among children one of the most recognized cartoon characters in the world" only sounds peacocky but indeed was verifiable and significant to the end of his use by the cigarette maker to market their products. I was assuming good faith that Bobak might actually have seen such a poll. If that good faith was misplaced, and Bobak made up the assertion without it having been published somewhere (and yes, Bobak, "I mean, seriously", that's how Wikipedia works--we don't insert unsourced claims into Wikipedia and expect them to fly unattributed), then the assertion cannot stand in the article. Robert K S (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that I can source Sports Illustrated, etc. for a claim regarding its notability within college football should be sufficient. I have conceded the "world" claim was ridiculous --so do not straw man my arguments, Ashdog137. --Bobak (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate "in the world" and my point still stands -- if they truly are "one of the most recognizable" anything, you wouldn't need to state that in the article; independent facts should speak for themselves. I'm making no attempt to "straw man"; please AGF.  :) Ashdog137 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding a flaw in that logic is unrelated to assuming good faith. I assert that independent facts in the leading sports publications that cover college football can speak with authority on the sport. --Bobak (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was more referring to so do not straw man my arguments, Ashdog137 with the AGF request -- I'm sure it was unintended, but that comes off as a bit hostile. My argument is merely that WP:PEACOCK applies to the statement, "The USC Song Girls are one of the most recognizable college dance teams in college football."

Taking it one step further, I don't view the SI article linked as supporting that statement, and it seems to be a questionable source -- it's merely the opinion of one sportswriter saying that he thinks a lot of people who watch college football would know who they are. Per WP:V, "[questionable] sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Per WP:PEACOCK, "Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article." Further, Mandel doesn't assert that the Song Girls are "one of the most recognizable dance teams in college football" -- he doesn't compare their salience to any other dance team, period. All he asserts is that he thinks a football fan outside of Southern California would know who they are -- that's merely notability, and it doesn't at all support the synthesized claim that they're one of the most recognizable dance teams. Ashdog137 (talk) 00:27, 8 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)

The basic idea is that Wikipedia doesn't need to and therefore shouldn't say something is "famous". It's a bit like writing guides advising the peremptory removal of the word "obvious" from writing. If something is truly obvious to the reader, then saying as much doesn't add any information, and if something isn't obvious, then saying so needlessly alienates the reader. Ditto for "famous", which is a relative term; "fame"--that is, recognizability--varies from culture to culture and epoch to epoch. Without specificity and verifiability the word is meaningless. When I was a kid, every year I would attend the COSI Camp-In, an overnight at a science museum in Columbus, Ohio. Kids from all over Ohio would bring their sleeping bags, hold a swap meet for collectible patches, participate in science seminars, and take home cool souvenirs. Invariably, the brown bag dinner consisted of the "World-Famous COSI Camp-In Hot Dog." Perhaps for repeat attendees, the COSI Camp-In Hot Dog--as unremarkable a weiner as one will find--became "famous" inasmuch as they remembered that a hot dog was also served last year, and perhaps one or two of the attendees were from other countries, making the claim a technical truth. But what does it add to call something "world famous"? Marketing--peacock--and not substantive information. If it could be published in Wikipedia that the Song Girls really were markedly recognizable, as established by some statistical poll, then that might be substantive information. Boosterishly inserting the words "world famous" into an article because some journalists called them that falls well short of the encyclopedic standards Wikipedia should be aiming for. Robert K S (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But the concept of recognizability have somehow been shoehorned into boosterism. That is not logical. If a group is well known within a sport, it's not boosterism to say something is one of the more recognizable features --to use Ohio State as an example, off the top of my head, an article should be able to say the Horseshoe is one of the most well known stadiums in college football and that "Dotting the I" is one of the most recognized images in college football pageantry (and it wouldn't be hard to cite that with SI or ESPN). This discussion stopped being about "world famous" a while back, yet it keeps being used as a reply which is not helpful. Journalists that specialize in a sport for specialized publications are supposed to be experts on their subject, that's not disputable. Thus statements by such individuals can, have and should be usable for analysis and facts --otherwise the entire College Football WikiProject is flawed. --Bobak (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for dragging "world famous" back up again. The words themselves may not apply but the general idea does. Just as we don't take the extraordinary claims of authoritative scientists at face value without corroborating evidence, journalists that are supposed to be experts on a subject should be disputed if they don't present evidence for their opinions. What you need to do here if you really want this text included is to attribute it, not just cite it. Read my rant about the difference between attribution and citation here; it came up when the lead of Albert Einstein called him "one of the greatest physicists of all time" and then cited a poll. I improved the article to read "a poll of prominent physicists named him the greatest physicist of all time", which is what the citation actually showed. The problem with your citation is that a few sports journalists calling Horseshoe one of the most well-known stadiums does not make it so. How could they know such a thing if they haven't conducted a (statistically valid) poll? Robert K S (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting away from the Song Girls, lots of interesting information here:

[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)

USC's student politics

The comment that Bobak seeks to have included in the article about USC and the "notoriously corrupt" nature of the student politics is not supported by the source cited. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment about the nature of student politics is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. I have reverted the edits until they can be properly cited or sourced. Anyone disagree? Let's discuss. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote reads: "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt;[71] the corruption and problems were notable enough that they appeared in the screenplay for All the President's Men.[f]" Now looking at the sources, from the DT article we garner:

• The two parties, Trojans for Responsible Government and Theta Nu Epsilon, used bitter tactics in their constant struggles to gain control of the Student Senate..." --this addresses multiple people and groups.
• "Future Nixon aide Dwight Chapin served as chairman of TRG, the more conservative of the two groups in the early part of the decade. Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." --this addresses only one person, yet, but article doesn't imply he was the only; rather, take this into account with the following passages:
• ""In order to win, the Trojans engaged in a wide variety of undergraduate pranks," reported a 1973 Chicago Sun-Times article profiling Chapin. "They infiltrated their rivals' campaigns. They tore down the posters of rival candidates. They stole their leaflets and produced others that were fake."" --we see the plural used throughout this description, in addition:
• "TRG, however, was formed in response to TNE, which was shrouded in an equally mysterious cloud. This organization, which was comprised of many members of smaller fraternities, "was so secret that most members of the houses represented did not know which of their fraternity brothers were involved," reported a 1974 Daily Trojan article that detailed the USC days of several Watergate participants, including Chapin. "It was a nationwide society, that was so feared and hated that it was banned on most campuses and met secretly, supposedly in dark halls and presided over by a grand klaggon..."". --so again, we are talking about two groups and thus more than one person.

However, it gets better with the screenplay:

• "At USC, you had a word the this--screwing up the opposition you all did it at college and called it ratfucking." --This line isn't about what one person said or did, its about the culture of the student government at the time; in fact, to land in the screenplay such an occurrence must have been a part of the general knowledge of the time.

In addition to involving more than a single individual, the tactics above fit the definition of corrupt. For those reasons I disagree with your assertion that my edits are not supported by the source you cite. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. As such I will revert back to them if they are changed; this is not about whitewashing what is otherwise an exceptional reputation of an era (now historic) student government. --Bobak (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, thanks for your response. My thoughts are that all of this is interesting background information, but largely constitutes original research, which as you know, is against Wikipedia’s policies. Nowhere in the article you cite does the quote "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt" appear. Nowhere in the article you cite does the word "corrupt" appear. In fact, nowhere in the article you cite does a word commonly associated with "corrupt" appear, save the following sentence (which refers solely to the actions of one individual): "Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal [emphasis added] plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." So, in order for one to draw the conclusion that the entire organization was (is) corrupt, one must form an opinion, which as you also know, is against the spirit of Wikipedia, if not also against Wikipedia's policies.

The options are, as I see them, to have the article solely reference the acts of the single individual involved (i.e., Chapin) in support of his [emphasis added] corruption, or find another source that supports the corruption of the whole. The words inside the four corners of the source you cite simply do not support that "student politics ... (have) been notoriously corrupt." Was one individual corrupt? I suppose so, if you associate the term "illegal" with "corruption"; safely so IMO. But, not to the whole. It fails a basic test of logic.

Also, the definition of corruption is interesting, but again, each reader of the article is left to determine whether they think the actions amount to corruption. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic journal, not a forum for opinion. Remember, no original research and no unverified claims. The claim that student politics at USC are corrupt is not verified. How could it be? It never appears in the article you cite. And, the bit about the movie is a red herring, plain and simple. Newguy34 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't original research because I'm not making it up myself, I'm citing to a news source and a script written 30 years ago that mention things that were corrupt in those organizations. The articles, as clearly pointed out above, do not assert that only one individual was corrupt, rather both organizations. Do not accuse me of original research and unverified claims when I have provide cites for the information. --Bobak (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Bobak's clearly cited reference, because after a long series of arguments Newguy has completely failed to make his case against this widely-known, well-documented statement of fact. Calling it "original research" strikes me as a bizarre misreading of WP:OR. I don't care how much you may love USC, Newguy; facts are facts. I would advise Bobak, though, to go to the library and get a few more cites to add to what's already here; it won't be hard, in any biography of Nixon's ex-USC aides, to find a number of references. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is comical is that both Bobak and Orangemike are unable to point anyone to the referenced source that discusses and asserts that the student government at USC is or was corrupt. Show me the words "corrupt" in the source you cite. Show me the statement from an independent, verifiable source that asserts such in writing (not your reading and slanted digestion of what was written). You can't, and I know you can't because it does not exist; there is no writing to that effect. You have taken what is written about an individual or group, and projected it onto the entire popultation. That, in and of itself, is a bizarre twisty of logic that would certainly earn a failing grade in LOGIC 101.

To Orangemike, please direct me to the sources that comprise this "widely-known" and "well documented" fact. One cite does not a "widely known" fact make. The fact that Orangemike asked Bobak to go get additional cites reflects that the cites provided are not sufficiently compelling (in Orangemike's apparent opinion), an assertion with which I agree. This statement re: corruption is plain ol' fashioned opinion, born of an apparent (but as yet unknown) axe-to-grind. And this has nothing to do with whether I love USC or hate USC, so that weak red herring arguement is just plain insulting, but I accept your apology. I will continue to believe that the source cited does not support the original research and opinion apparent in the article. I prescribe anyone who thinks otherwise to take two readings of "encyclopedia" from the dictionary and call me in the morning. ;) Newguy34 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And let me help with the Original research discussion. From Wikipedia (with emphasis added where relevant, and for your dining enjoyment):

"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Directly is the word, I think, that the Wiki Gods are trying to emphasize. Newguy34 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again: There are no "unpublished facts", they're included in the articles by university's own Daily Trojan, an article on CNN.com and the screenplay from the contemporary film All the President's Men and the separately written Wikipedia article (not by me) on ratfucking; the facts stated in the sources are the very definition of corruption --there is no "argument" there; in addition, there is no "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". This isn't my "opinion", as I wasn't even alive at the time this stuff occurred. These sources state information that is the indisputable definition of corruption and its presence in popular media confirms it is something that happened. It is "directly related" to the history of Student Politics section. The sources directly support the fact that 1960s student politics between conservative faction of students on the campus of the University of Southern California were notoriously corrupt; I will rewrite the passage to better address that and it will not be "opinion", "unpublished fact", etc. --Bobak (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW... The articles Bobak has cited show the spread of corruption from USC student republican groups into national politics. Had the actions of Segretti, et. al, not influenced the nation, they would be student "pranks" unworthy of inclusion in the article. However, the dirty tricks pioneered by USC student republicans did influence the nation in a big way. They were partially responsible for Nixon's impeachment. As Bobak's sources show, USC student politics is commonly cited as the progenitor of Nixon's dirty tricksters. As such, USC student poltics of the 1960s: 1) has significance and so should be mentioned; and 2) was both notorious (after the fact) and corrupt. Thus, I concur that Bobak's use of the phrase "notoriously corrupt" as apt. Vantelimus (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue on it. I still am not in complete agreement for the reasons I have articulated, but am largely satisfied with the revised text. I'll drop the issue for now, but reserve the right to object later (hmm, I kinda sound like a congressman there [sounds of shuttering]). Newguy34 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

E.A. Weinstein here, post-graduate at Rossier School of Education. I understand that historically USC was a largely politically conservative campus, but it in 2012, that period of its history seems clearly over. Anecdotally, there are almost twice as many undergraduates on campus who would self-describe as liberal as those who would self-describe as conservative; perhaps three to one Democratic at graduate level. Moving from "student politics" to the more inclusive arena of "University politics", within the combined faculty the number of Democratic-leaning faculty might easily be four or five to every one Republican leaning faculty member. The administrative staff is also heavily Democratic-leaning. Looking at the institution overall, with slightly more than 51,000 persons in the community, probably 12,000 or less could happily be identified as "conservatives" or "Republican leaning" while between two and three times that number would most happily identify as "Democratic" or "progressive". I am going to see what information I can glean from University sources to support these contentions. If and when I have those figures, I will publish them here, and recommend that we amend the section to accurately reflect the extent to which USC is now a far less conservative, far more progressive institution politically.E.a.weinstein (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dream Colleges of 2009.

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.

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.

You forgot to close the ref tag (and to sign your post with four tildes). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I didn't forget, I didn't know what I should've done. User:Reza1363 9:24, 23 April 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reza 1363 (talk • contribs)

Rankings

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)

Besides the recent anon-added, uncited line on the Engineering school (I removed it), the rest of the paragraph is dutifully cited and relevant in the realm of US Colleges and Universities. The section also covers general admissions rates and legacy preferences, which aren't necessarily tied to rank. I see this isn't just about this article, rather the inclusion in many articles, but there's a number of us that disagree with your assertion: the game is currently played (with or without Wikipedia) on the rankings. They are relevant and, so long as kept in check, ought be permitted. --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed you also did a similar action to an FA, Duke. Because it was an FA, it should have tipped you off that it is completely permissible to have ranking information. The list of schools you've edited reads like a who's who of famous US universities that actually have prestige. --Bobak (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FA's are neither sacrosanct nor representative of consensus. If these schools have prestige, why the constant need to employ rankings as a crutch rather than describing the qualities of the school itself? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not one can cite a source for a claim is not at issue. What is at issue is how much weight (I would argue undue weight) and space in an article should be devoted to listing every instance of a school being mentioned in one magazine's problematic formulation of quality and/or prestige. There are a host of issues related to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SIZE, and WP:MOS that the scope and extent of rankings in this article presents. A reasonable compromise is just to say, USC has been ranked A by B, C by D, E by F, etc. An example from the MIT page where I'm most active is indicative of what I'm proposing, but not necessarily appropriate since every school is different:

In the 2008 US News and World Report (USNWR) rankings of national universities, MIT's undergraduate program was #7. 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. 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. Among other outlets in the world university rankings, MIT is ranked #1 in the Globe by Webometrics, #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, in the top tier of national research universities by TheCenter for Measuring University Performance, #5 among world universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University's 2006 Annual Rankings of World Universities, and #1 by The Washington Monthly's rankings of social mobility and national service in 2005 and 2006. 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."

That's it: no need to list every department, program, school! Certainly no need to bring it up in the lead or mention rankings in other sections. Likewise, WP:WAX is not an appropriate defense. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of good reasons to dislike USN&WR and its rankings. We agree on that point. Nevertheless, they are relevant to discussions about American colleges and universities. And, like others, I find it useful to have such information in the lead; per WP:LEAD:

“ 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. ”

Including brief ranking information in the lead covers an important point, and I don't think your argument against the rankings really has consensus. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally concur w/ Bobak +Esrever. While there are a lot of things wrong with the USC article, the rankings information at least is cited. The lead is supposed to provide a summary or overview of what appears in the body of the article, therefore including information on rankings is not inappropriate. Amerique^dialectics 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

(undent) Well there's the larger issue of ranking in the lead and then the specific issue of the prevalence of rankings in the USC article specifically. The longest paragraph in the lead current is devoted to rankings, which may be locally appropriate since the entire article seems hung up on referencing every instance of USC being ranked in something. However, were the rankings in this article to be brought back under control, the lead should comprise more about the history, campus, organization, athletics, etc. since the lead should be able to stand as an article on its own not as an introduction to the article. I might then be able to stomach a "several publications and institutions have recognized the strength of USC's academics" in the lead. You mention that there is no consensus for the change, but I would argue that there was no pre-existing explicit consensus on this issue at all. I was WP:BOLD to raise the issue and develop an explicit consensus. Indeed, I would argue that the majority of University FAs have no explicit mention of rankings in the lead (Cornell, Dartmouth, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown, Michigan State, University of Michigan, Texas A&M) if we are to accept that FAs are sacrosanct and indicative of consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In Riverside's case not including rankings, particularly US News, would have been taken as positive POV. Amerique^dialectics 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(duplicating from WT:UNI) The same might be argued of Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State, or Texas A&M (as universities that are not popularly regarded as prestigious) but they have no rankings in lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur, in general, with Bobak, Esrever, and Amerique. I see nothing wrong with the current state of the rankings in the USC article. Including the ranking information in a paragraph that also includes high level admission statistics and highlights about the student population does not violate WP:LEAD since these subjects are covered in greater detail in the article. It does not violate WP:PRESTIGE since all facts are cited and no imprecise aggrandizing terms are used. On the rankings section, along with Madcoverboy, I might be inclined to cite fewer graduate rankings, but this is more a matter of personal taste and not appropriateness to Wikipedia. Rankings are important information for high school students researching universities they may desire to attend. It would be a shame if students could not rely on the information in wikipedia because some Wikipedians would elide valuable information to avoid the valid comparisons they find so distasteful. I am sympathetic to Madcoverboy's dislike of USNWR rankings. But the place to wage war on them is not in Wikipedia. Madcoverboy would do a greater service by concentrating on the content of the criticism section of the College and university rankings article, where he can make sure his independently verifiable reasons for questioning the validity of the rankings are documented for the enlightenment of all who read wikipedia.Vantelimus (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) It's easy to point out that rankings employ dubious methodologies to arrive at their claims. Why then privilege one particular organization's dubious information in the lead? (2) WP is excellent at updating articles as new information becomes available. However, this manifests itself as a bias towards recentism. Rankings are (generally) calculated for a 1 year span of time and previous years' rankings are disregarded. How then do we reconcile this recentism with the goal of Wikipedia? Indeed the goal of emphasizing the "timeless facets of a subject" are muddled by including rankings that will be irrelevant 1, 2, 5, 10, or 50 years from now. Why employ so narrowly constructed information to describe a university, especially in the lead of all places? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:54, 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

Overhaul

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)

This article has desperately needed an overhaul; most of my edits have been basic maintenance, vandal reversion and occasional citation finding (most of my pro-active work is in other areas like college football). It has definitely grown too large and would benefit from daughter articles. At this point I think your edits have been great. I'll keep an eye out and see if I can't help. --Bobak (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely concur. I may some day overcome my tremendous animosity for all things SC to significantly help improve this article. The thought makes me shiver, however. Amerique^dialectics 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and found sources for a number of the cite tags and removed those I couldn't find. On a side noted, Amerique, it's not too hard to find that happy medium --I found all the historic photos for the UCLA article ;-) --Bobak (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I appreciate that. I found a few NYT articles on the film school awhile back and included them as refs where appropriate for info that was already present. I'm not indisposed to working hard on a project i have no particular interest in; the only reason i brought UCR to FA was because of those alumni that were permitted to use Wikipedia to hammer the school for months.

Since then, it's been difficult to get my motivation up to do more than basic maintenance-level work. Amerique^dialectics 18:08, 16 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)

If someone is feeling intrepid, they could go to USC history and begin to summarize the fairly exhaustive information there into the History of the University of Southern California. We can then extract that extensive history into a history section painted with broader strokes for this article. I've been trying to do the same for History of Northwestern University and found the investment of time immensely rewarding. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a ton of bibliographic material on USC findable here: [4]. I've been meaning to "data-mine" Kevin Starr's histories of California for this project, he does write a bit on the development of USC in "Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s , p 151-155. Amerique^dialectics 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like what's being done so far, especially with things being moved to daughter pages like the student traditions/etc. I'll be happy to lend a hand and possibly take a stab at the history of the school when I get a big chunk of free time (based on my own editing habits). --Bobak (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

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)

Great idea, I've mentioned earlier in this talk page that the article (which originally had too few photos) is now too photo-heavy (with a lot of repeats). I think your selections are overall good, though I have a few suggestions: I would move the Traveler photo from Sports to Traditions (under the Song Girls); I would substitute the daytime Coliseum photo for the night-Coliseum (it shows the size of the crowd/torch, and was a featured photo in the College Football Wikiproject) and the interior of the Galen Center (captures the essence of that building). I would also suggest a photo of the film school, if only because its so famous (also, there's a new building currently being constructed that will likely be much more photogenic than the current facilities --so this may be a future photo). I'll make a few tweaks, feel free to give feedback. I think, save for "Widney Alumni House in 1903", the other B&W photos would be a good move to a future History of USC article, along with some of the extra copies of other prominent buildings. I think once we identify daughter pages, we can more easily move some photos. --Bobak (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell are the pictures so huge? I resized them to less ridiculous dimensions a long time back but someone must have undone it. The humongous pictures, particularly that of the school crest, make the USC page look stupid.76.240.83.203 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Greatest Marching Band in the History of the Universe

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)

I think it works better on the band's existing wikipedia page and not on this main article so I removed it altogether. On a side note, from what I've seen, when a band plays during an official halftime ceremony at an opposing stadium they seem to bring their own announcers to introduce them (this includes UCLA, Stanford, etc). --Bobak (talk) 18:38, 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)

help

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)

O.J. Simpson

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)

Even among non-USC folk he was known before the infamous trial. I agree that he should be there. Samois98 19:39, 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.

Sorry, he's already listed at the List of University of Southern California people --this discussion has already happened and been agreed on. The current list is a sampling of USC's finest athletes, filmmakers, academics, etc. The numerous self-proclaimed Stanford and Notre Dame alumni (and IPs) can give it a rest. The coordinated effort of the last 24 hours is noted. --Bobak (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us it already happened. But where did it happen? Why can it not happen again? It seems like right here the only dissent from a consensus of him being notable is only an appeal to authority (where the authority itself is only history). Alternatively, it seems worth changing the phrasing form "notable [people] that have gained [fame]" to what you said: USC's finest. I just can't see how you can say that even half of those people are more "worthy of notice" than OJ Simpson, who's managed to have at least 3 distinct careers that would make him notable. Perhaps more. Are you honestly casting away the legitimate intellectual concerns of people because of where they come from? Metzby (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By your argument Bobak the section should then just be a link to the List of University of Southern California people as all the others on the main page are featured there as well. The idea that you're only putting a few of the most well known on the main page is a fallacy, scanning the list of names presented OJ Simpson has easily become more well-known than much of the list. The "agreement" you speak of seems to be notably one-sided.

No, we don't use Wikipedia to saddle main university articles with things for the sake of embarrassing an institution. We don't list Jeffrey Dahmer on the Ohio State main article (but he's listed on the List of Ohio State University people, which is as appropriate as OJ's listing on the List of University of Southern California people). A number of schools don't list anyone under the section and simply refer readers to their respective "List of _____ people". This article does include a small number with a reference to the main article. Thus these arguments are strictly being made to introduce a person who's already listed to a more prominent location for no other reason than to create embarrassment, which is the definition of trolling. This isn't the first time I've seen activity like this on a Wikipedia article, and your arguments aren't convincing. Thanks. --Bobak (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Jeffrey Dahmer famous for being an Ohio State person? OJ Simpson was the face and star of USC football while there. And you're comparing him to a two-term dropout? I don't know how you can have an objective set of criteria for notability that excludes OJ Simpson. Perhaps it ends up embarrassing. It's not Wikipedia's job to make USC look good. The Zimbabwe article lists Mugabe as President, even though that's embarrassing. Perhaps you'd like it better if it only listed Zimbabwe's "finest"? Or do you not have a relation with Zimbabwe that makes you look out for its reputation on its wikipedia page? Metzby (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

As a USC alumnus, I must agree. While it may be embarrassing for us to list OJ, he is one of the most notable people to come out of our school. His exclusion is an affront to the historical record and objectivity that should be wikipedia.

Good luck with the accusations, everyone. I follow WP with appropriate reasoning. This article (or at least that section) follows accepted article style used in WP:FAs such as Michigan State University or FAU. Please show where this proposed change would fit into WP, it certainly isn't an issue of censorship since the information is freely available and well-linked to the university. You can take this sort of thing to a fan-board, but on Wikipedia we try to help make the whole project better (i.e. I take photos for most other schools, like Stanford). --Bobak (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that this isn't censorship. It's Wikipedia, and anybody is free to edit it. You have earned the right to lock this page and so have you chosen to do. I do believe somebody else should take a look at the issue, but the main thing I don't understand is your reference to Michigan State University and FAU. Looking through the alumni lists for MSU and FAU, I don't see any evidence for your point. The MSU page includes Andre Rison, arguably their most notorious NFL alum and a reference to giving Robert Mugabe an honorary degree, and FAU's page includes pornographic actress Mary Carey and Carrot Top--I think we can agree that those don't shine terribly well on the school. Furthermore, I think that in light of O.J.'s connection with USC, it is even more imperative that a link to his page be on the school's. O.J. acquired at least as much notoriety at USC as did Marcus Allen and probably more than even Carson Palmer. In fact, as somebody born in 1986, the first time I ever heard of USC was probably through the fact that O.J. went there. On the issue of relative notability, there is no person more notable than those listed on the MSU or FAU detailed lists who is not on their main pages, with the possible exception of Drayton McLane, Jr., who I've probably only heard of because I'm a sports fan. Theodore Kaczynski is listed on the University of Michigan page despite the fact that he is probably much more associated with Harvard, where he went for his undergraduate degree. My main point is that as far as these lists go, the main criterion seems to be general notability. I suppose I would just like to know what the rationale is for not having O.J. there.Steverit (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The matter at hand is simply of question of whether or not the article would be improved with the addition of OJ Simpson to the notable USC alums. Given that OJ is probably USC's most notable athlete (even in just terms of athleticism, criminality not considered), I cannot see how the article does not mention him. If there is an archived discussion of this already, someone should present it, but beyond that, I think we should WP:AGF, and assume that the addition of OJ to the article by the editor was an attempt to improve Wikipedia. As it is clearly not vandalism, and it is not entirely objectionable, I do not see why it should be removed: the addition of 2 words is not going to make this a candidate for WP:Article Size. As there is an ongoing discussion of the neutrality of the POV of the alumni section, it should perhaps be tagged with the POV-section tag. Also, we should get the debate here to move beyond the level it's at right now. So let's present the arguments so we can resolve this. The argument for adding OJ seems to be that 1) he is notable, moreso than many of those people listed. 2) someone was bold and added him, because they felt it was appropriate (remember, WP:AGF). 3) the omission of OJ makes the article POV'd towards being entirely positive to USC, whereas the inclusion of OJ gives the notable alumni section more depths in terms of POVs: that is to say to create a section only highlighting the "finest" and not the most notable USC alumni is inherently biased towards USC. Can we get the arguments for the removal or omission of OJ from the list? As I currently understand it, the argument is currently that he is listed at List of University of Southern California people and thus needs not be listed here.Bubiyuqn (talk) 23:28, 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)

Well, so far the best argument you have is that he doesn't need to be included because he is listed on the "notable people" page. I don't know the names of probably a third of the people listed on the main article. Should those names be taken off because they don't add any name recognition? No matter how he reflects on the school, OJ is still a notable alum. AntiSlice (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone in this discussion claimed that OJ Simpson was the most famous athlete, that's simply using a straw man argument to defend your position, Bobak. Mjanes (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that "the obvious one" is his legal troubles. The concise reason he should be added is that he is acknowledged by several sources as the greatest football player in USC history. Even more simply, he was a better running back in college and the NFL than Marcus Allen and Reggie Bush, on top of which he obtained more fame than either outside of football. Leaving OJ off is tantamount to leaving Barry Sanders off of Oklahoma State's page even though Thurman Thomas is there.66.30.43.103 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe OJ Simpson is the most famous athlete from USC. When you say football and USC, his name will be first. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It also does appear that OJ has won more football awards than any other USC football player, ever. Far more than Reggie Bush, who, while moderately famous now, will probably never reach the legacy in football that OJ has (and who is included in this article. On top of this, he broke a world record in Track. To even pretend that he isn't at least USC'd most famous athlete is puzzling. Quite frankly, he is probably the most notable man to have come out of USC in a long time, and regardless of whether or not his current notoriety is positive, he should be included in this short list. Bubiyuqn (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since discourse here is starting to fail, I've added the page to disputes wanting a third opinion, since nobody can seem to agree on the relative objectivity of editors here. Bubiyuqn (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am commenting in response to a request for an unbiased third opinion. Let me first say that I am not a USC alumnus.

• Fact: OJ Simpson is an alumnus of USC
• Opinion: OJ Simpson is notable as a person in accordance with WP:NOTE (as an actor, television sports announcer, and his legal incidents) and also as an athlete in accordance with WP:ATHLETE (as a Heisman Trophy winner and professional NFL football player).
• Conclusion: OJ Simpson belongs in the list of notable USC alumni and in the "Alumni" section of the article. Truthanado (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Truthanado. Further, for the record, I don't see how merely including OJ's name in a paragraph listing notable alum constitutes vandalism. Given his notoriety, I would say the absence of OJ from the list would seem to be more indicative of POV bias than were his name present. Just listing his name along with other famous alumni would seem impartial, in my opinion. I do not understand Bobak's motivations here, as he argued rather vigorously above to keep a mention of the (in my opinion) hardly notable term "ratfucking" in a screenplay to characterize student politics at USC as essentially corrupt, so I don't see how he could be opposed to a mention of OJ, whose legacy arguably has had more impact than that. Amerique^dialectics 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Truthnado: While I do think that Truthnado means WP:NOTE (not WP:NOT), Simpson is undeniably notable. While USC may be retrospectively less proud of Simpson's accomplishments today than when he graduated from USC or played in the NFL or appeared in The Towering Inferno or any of those Police Academy movies, the sources are clear that he attended the school. He is a notable alumnus of USC and his inclusion in the article is NOT vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

(A) I don't see notability as an opinion, at least as far as Wikipedia guidelines go. (B) USC isn't embarassed of O.J. Simpson, his post-college infamy notwithstanding. AFAIK they haven't taken his Heisman out of Heritage Hall and put in in the discount bin at Pertusati University Bookstore. (C) Even if the USC administration disowned O.J., that doesn't affect how we organize and interpret information on Wikipedia, which should be immune to boosterism. I'm a USC alumnus, and I'm really surprised to discover there seems to be an effort to exclude a clearly notable individual from a list of notable individuals by a Wikipedia administrator. Robert K S (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I took a hacksaw to some sections that seemed to be growing encrusted with non-notable and unverifiable cruft, particularly the student government section (moved to administration & organization) and the list of engineering departments renamed to sponsors/boosters. I also moved some pictures around, removed some duplicate/redundant/conflicting information, and fixed some other stuff that was nagging me. I hope you all agree that I'm leaving the article in better shape than I found it. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work! I've gone through and done some significant work on the photo issues, as well as some minor prose work. The photo problem had been bugging me: originally, this article had far too few photos (and most of them were of terrible quality); then it ended up with too many photos (many redundant, some still terrible), and even after a previous editor moved a lot of the excessive stuff to a gallery, there remained sandwiching and redundant images. I've gone through and tried to match photos to relevant sections, reduce sandwiching and include a variety of areas while also removing redundancies and the gallery. I think the article is cleaner now. The article still can use more information and polish, but its in a much better state than a few days ago. --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The history section is a complete mess. It's internally inconsistent--Was USC a Methodist school or a non-sectarian one??--scattershot, and incomplete.J P M7791 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of university history seems to occupy the minds of a lot people and especially when universities inherit names from older institutions and they change the name later. Some people want to cling to the old names while others want to move on and this can be confusing to the people looking at the university history. Care has to be taken when the university wants to strategically reposition itself from the old name in order to avoid being dragged down by the older name. Seetrue (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DISPUTES

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)

I've had a look and it seems grad enrollment surpassed undergrad in 2007, per this [5]. It seems the Carnegie source is based on 2004 data: [6]. Amerique^dialectics 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't change the substantive wording and leave it cited to the same source that says something else altogether. Presenting reliable data like that found by Amerique will help your case rather much more than accusing the editors of this page of stupidity. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While having 5-year old data isn't ideal, the Carnegie Classifications are the most authoritative and independent source of this information sine qua none. I can't really comprehend the logic behind your argument that having a large graduate program automatically makes a university more competitive or worthy of emulation. USC has more postgraduate students than any of the Nobel creation engines at Chicago, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley, but it seems that you are implying that a university is only good if it has more post-graduate students than undergraduate students. I believe that Princeton, UPenn, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, NYU, Berkeley, Michigan, Northwestern, etc. are all excellent research universities independent of their relative graduate populations. Having a a 51:49 graduate/undergraduate ratio doesn't magically make the institution better. I suspect the "math" here is likely nothing more than statistical noise and an insignificant difference and we should continue to emphasize the Carnegie classification. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not really interested in making a comparison to other universities as I feel that USC has its own unique identity while recognizing it also competes as a research university. I do know that the University believes in competing in both its academics and athletics and has made great strides to improve upon what was a notable foundation prior to Sample. However, facts are facts: The trend line has been for the University to become more of a graduate institution. Obviously graduate enrollment matters substantially for a research institution. But facts are facts and I can now see the BIAS is to esteem some outside authority rather than use one's own eyes, which is ridiculous. Whether a university is more notable because of its graduate enrollment is NOT the point, it is just my personal supposition. I just hope in regard to other data (numbers) you are not using outdated information just because some outside entity is more appealing to you. (How ridiculous it would be to use 5 year old data for GRE-SAT scores just because the citation is from a "prestigious" independent source). This is the height of arrogance to force old data and old material into the article that could be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.129.160 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and ignore you and everything you have to say until you stop making personal attacks and start assuming better faith of editors here. I'll be referring you to WP:WQA if the insults and attacks continue. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Names

Why is it incorrect to cal it Southern Cal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmaaajjj2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, September 25, 2009

It keeps people from confusing it with the real USC. The University of South Carolina (USC) was a university 49 years before CA was a state and 79 years before Southern Cal even existed. Go Cocks!

The source is clearly linked in the article. Click on or search out the appropriate note and read the link. I believe the passage is even quoted in the note in the article. --Bobak (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobak, your own citation indicates that the university "discourages" the use of Southern Cal. When I changed it to this, you said that the subject gets to determine the status of this and everything else is POV. If this is the case, then it is POV to say that the name is "incorrect" as the university states that it is a "discouraged" name. Correctly, according to citation, it should read something akin to "the university discourages..." Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it should read something similar to "an non-preferred..." Are you willing to use your own criterion in this case (that the subject gets to say what is POV and what is not)? Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV, which sets forth Wikipedia's position on this sort of issue. The passage quoted in the article establishes that USC discourages the usage of "Southern Cal," but it doesn't prove that it's "incorrect"; if anything, it establishes that it is "correct" but not preferred. Either way, user Bobak doesn't get to decide the issue and doesn't get to impose his own rules. Wikipedia's guidelines govern. The page I linked in the first sentence here says that the correct way to deal with this sort of issue is to note that the issue exists while not taking sides. I've edited the article according to the guidelines set forth on that page. Of course I know that someone will engage in bad-faith reversion, but that doesn't mean I wasn't going to do the right thing. You can't get much more neutral than the version I used, as it directly tracks what the footnote says! 138.88.32.210 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how leaving Southern Cal out of the lead is anything but POV even if the university doesn't want it used. Who cares if they do or don't? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First Black Student to enroll at USC

My niece recently enrolled at USC. She asked me if i knew who the first black student to enroll at USC was. She said shes had no luck trying to find out. I've looked and looked but cant find a solid answer. Can someone help me out with this one? D M A Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.98.153 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's been a while since this question was asked, but I believe there were multiple black students to enroll in 1901, so there's not necessarily just one "first". I do know that John Somerville was the first dental school graduate in 1907 (started in 1903). The Somerville Place/Floor is named for him and his wife (the first female black graduate from the dental school. - Jason Scott (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Tacky lead

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)

Wikipedia specifically says not to include excessive mention of rankings in the lead or the article. WP:BOOSTERISM#Avoid undue weight 66.59.249.107 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Traditions and student activities at the University of Southern California back to this article

I recently encountered the article Traditions and student activities at the University of Southern California. It was created four years ago as a simple "dump" of material from several of the sections in this article. But it has seen almost no usage or activity in the intervening four years (page views around ten a day; about a dozen content edits in four years). It is still a virtual copy of the information from this information as it existed four years ago, and in fact it contains LESS information on the subject that this parent article does, because people have tended to make their edits to this article rather than to the spinoff. I am proposing that the article be merged back to this one. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RE Olympic accomplishments

It is currently stated in the article: "Trojan athletes have won 287 medals at the Olympic games (135 golds, 87 silvers and 65 bronzes), more than any other U.S. university.[16]"

How expansive is this accomplishment? Is this correct relative to all US institutions? And if this is correct, what about non-US institutions? Has another country and its institutions developed a comparable "quantity of athletes" (scholar-athletes)? How expansive can it be worded, eg, "more than any other university in the world." Are there other schools out there, comparable in quantity? If so, who are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.129.44 (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned footnote?

This article has an orphaned footnote in the section title "Footnotes" (above and prior to the "References and notes" section). The footnote is listed as "b" even though there is no prior note bearing "a"; it refers to USC's (often unsuccessful) request that the media not use the name "Southern Cal." I recall there were some edit wars several years ago over the name "Southern Cal" and over whether it's "incorrect" to use that name. The orphaned footnote appears to be a very neutral, straightforward statement addressing the issue, and it's definitely worthy of inclusion in this article because the name "Southern Cal" appears frequently in media reports, especially here on the East Coast and in the college football rankings. But the footnote itself shouldn't be an orphan and the "numbering" ("lettering"?) needs to be fixed. I'm not sure how best to make those fixes. It looks to me as though the footnotes were numbered manually and that there is a template (one I've never used) that corresponds to the note location in the text. It may, therefore, be as simple as simply correcting the manual numbering and then inserting the corresponding reference somewhere appropriate in the text. I'm inclined to defer to someone who has a connection to USC (alumnus, current student, administrator) as to where the best place for the reference might be. I suspect the correct place would be in conjunction with the parenthetical in the very first sentence. Some level of rewording is probably in order, though, because the footnote refers to "These other names" while the article does not. I'd suggest perhaps the footnote should just begin with the sentence that starts with the phrase "Despite its prevalent use." I'd also delete the phrase "the official position of USC" in favor of just saying "USC discourages use of 'Southern Cal' ...." The word "official" is so often a throwaway word that gets overused all over the Internet to make things seem more important than they are. It doesn't really add anything. What matters is that USC discourages the use of "Southern Cal." If USC does so, then there's no need to say it's an "official position."

The other reason I'm reluctant to start tweaking the footnote is that the reference numbers in this article seem muddled at best. Take a look at the first two paragraphs. The first paragraph cites to references 6, 7, and 8; the second paragraph then cites to 3, 9, 10, and 11. I know the reason for this is the infobox, which contains citations. Because the infobox coding appears first in any Wikipedia article, any citations in the infobox come "before" the text due to the software's "logic." The reader doesn't necessarily perceive it that way. I don't know if this is important enough to warrant fixing or if anyone else thinks it matters. 1995hoo (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Endowment

Under endowment, it shows USC's as $3.86 billion. This is from June 2012. As of June 2013 the endowment is $4.7 billion. This can be found in USC's financial report <https://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USC_Financial-Report.pdf> on pg. 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.158.190 (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does that document say that the endowment is $4.7 billion? Page 34 shows it at $3.9 billion. ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The endowment is only part of total investments. Total investments are $4.7 billion, but the endowment (as ElKevbo stated) is $3.9 billion. Also, the $3.9 billion endowment is from 2013, not 2012. The similar $3.9 billion in 2012 investments is coincidental. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on University of Southern California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140821194947/http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/10/21/News/Shoah.Hosts.Holocaust.History.At.Usc-1029410.shtml to http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/10/21/News/Shoah.Hosts.Holocaust.History.At.Usc-1029410.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512112756/http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1112/USCFreshmanProfile2011v4.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1112/USCFreshmanProfile2011v4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131227220608/http://www.usc.edu:80/admission/undergraduate/apply/documents/FreshmanProfile2013FINAL.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/apply/documents/FreshmanProfile2013FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120729173535/http://trojanvision.com/?page_id=2 to http://trojanvision.com/?page_id=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Start Class" ranking info

Another editor has repeatedly inserted this source? It's being used in this article into this article to support the claim that "As of 2015, USC is the #22 Ranked Research University on StartClass." First, I'm not even sure if this is a reliable source by our standards. The website includes some information at the bottom of the page where sources for the information are listed and they include Wikipedia although it's not clear what information from Wikipedia is included. The website's about page doesn't seem to provide any helpful information. Second, it seems like it's undue weight to include this website without any information about whether anyone else uses, respects, or has otherwise given this website any credibility in the area of university rankings. I know of no such evidence and it's incumbent on those who want to include the information in an encyclopedia article to provide some evidence in this area. ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like just another spammy ranking to me. I'd err on the side of not including it. Esrever ^(klaT) 00:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Contributor321 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Southern California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080625134559/http://www.nationalmerit.org/07_annual_report.pdf to http://www.nationalmerit.org/07_annual_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

early USC nickname(s)

There is a discussion at Talk:USC Trojans football#early USC nickname.28s.29 in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy of Latin tenses used in translation of identical school mottos: "Palman qui meruit ferat"

Upper Canada College (UCC), in Toronto, Canada, was founded in 1829 and has the identical motto "Palman qui meruit ferat," to that of University of Southern California (USC). What differs is the English translation of the phrase. UCC translates it in the past tense in English as, "Let he who merited the palm bear it." Whereas, USC translates it in the present tense as, "Let whoever earns the palm bear it." [It was often a reminder to student-athletes that it is a Roman tradition and ideal that was inherited, and a palm represents an award for athletic achievement that pre-dates the practice of awarding gold, silver, or bronze medals-that began with the modern Olympics.] Both are educational institutions, one is dedicated exclusively to adolescent males. The other, to co-educational adults. One's foundation pre-dates the other by 52 years. I studied Latin at Upper Canada College under a British Scholar, Terence Bredin. If scholar Terence Bredin still lives, I recommend both his and any other Latin authority of USC to concur, reach consensus, or quorum, as to the accurate translation of each school's respective motto. The author of this edit would also request a monetary honorarium for bringing this to light. He later studied at the University of Washington, Seattle, earning a Bachelor's Degree. By the way, UW's motto is "LUX SIT", translated means, "Let there be light." ReganFraser (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC) ReganFraser (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

USC translates its own motto thusly. Since that's the reliable source we've been given, that's the way it's translated here. What UCC translates their motto as is irrelevant. Esrever ^(klaT)

Sexual Harassment Scandals

I don't quite understand why a University's "history" section should have a long narrative about sexual harassment claims by various parties. This is irrelevant to the University's overall history in any meaningful sense. — 

The claims have already resulted in the university's president stepping down with perhaps more results to come (certainly a massive payout to settle claims against the university as a result of the doctor who has been allegedly abusing patients for years) so they're clearly of both contemporary and historical importance. Two paragraphs of negative information in an otherwise glowing article is not only tolerable but it's shocking that no one added this information until today. ElKevbo (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)