The University of Southern California

USC is an excellent school. I've worked with people with Ivy League degrees and they don't seem to have higher levels of education. USC is under-rated. The professors may not be at the very top of their fields, but for undergraduate education, how much knowledge do they really need? They have considerably more knowledge compared to undergraduates and that is all that is necessary. (Friends of mine who stayed for graduate school suggest going somewhere else, however.) When I went to USC years ago, the professors seemed to think it was beneath them to teach the quality of students at USC (They seemed to think the students were of low quality because they went to university in Los Angeles). But that was unfair. We were smarter than our professors in general. Today President Sample of USC says things are different, but I wonder if that's true. The professors still aren't at the top of their fields (even though the press office seems to claim they are), but I hope they respect the students more than when I was there. The social life at USC wasn't great for most people, but it has excellent eduational resources, and if you study hard, you can get a superior education, and after you graduate, you won't meet anyone who is more well prepared than you. For an undergraduate you can get an education as good as any school, even as good as Harvard. After graduating from USC, I earned a Ph.D. from a top 5 Ph.D. program, but I still feel that over 50% of my current marketable skills can be attributed to my undergraduate education from USC.

Alumnus Male -- Class 2000