Best State University?

College Search & Selection
81

<p>Gloablist, 1800 Chemistry is one of the 5 or 6 biggest lecture halls at Michigan. Many people in this forum know that...I certainly do. I had a pretty personal experience in that hell foresaken auditorium. </p>

<p>UVAJoe, I did not "find" anything. I responded to a poster. I personally do not agree with Gourman...no more than I agree with the USNWR. Besides, Gourman is pretty famous. It's not like I unearthed a nation to find some obscure and unheard of ranking.</p>

<p>Ohnoes, UVA has 14,000 undergrads compared to Duke's 5,000, so I would certainly hope that UVA has more parties. But that does not make UVA more of a party school.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
IMO the grad programs are the strength of any academic department. I consider research to be a cornerstone of any top university. If you're intimidated by larger lower level classes and require greater attention from a professor or even a TA, you don't belong at a top university IMO. If you make it to a top university, you shouldn't expect to be "spoon fed". IMO the importance of an "up close & personal" prof-student interaction is exaggerated & largely unnecessary. The profs lecture and tell you where to focus your study. You can schedule appts. with them during their office hours as well. So what's the problem?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then that basically means that you oppose everything and anything that the elite LAC's stand for. In other words, it looks like you are saying that Williams, Swarthmore, Harvey-Mudd, Amherst, Wellesley and schools like that are all worthless, and anybody who goes there must be an idiot. Is that a fair statement? </p>

<p>Well, I'll give you credit MiriamBoo, at least we know where you stand.</p>

83

<p>Look, every school has its good and bad qualities, and yes, you can find detractors at every school. It's pretty easy especially when you have the web. (Furthermore, you also don't know if the disgruntled people giving testimonials on the web are or were ever students at that school. They could just be haters of that school.) </p>

<p>Barrons, I'm sure I can find plenty of detractors for your beloved Wisconsin as well, but that's not the point I'm getting at. </p>

<p>I'm referring to research vs. teaching. Yes, it's harder to rate teaching, but some schools time and time again are known as institutions where you can find excellent teaching, great teacher-student interaction, and an intimate undergraduate experience. Among publics, William & Mary and UVA come to mind. Even US News recognizes that about UVA.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/06uva_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/06uva_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that research universities should stop conducting the research that makes them strong institutions, I'm saying that they should start becoming more undergraduate-centric rather than treating undergrads as 2nd class citizens.</p>

<p>By the way, I've visited Duke many times. UVA is waaaayyyyy more of a party school than Duke.</p>

84

<p>UW faculty have long had a tradition of being equally strongly committed to teaching and research. It goes back to the likes of James Crow who essentially wrote the book on genetics and taught intro to genetics every year. I went through about 20 major intro level classes for this fall in the sciences and liberal arts and the vast majority are being taught by tenured faculty with nearly a fifth taught by faculty holding named professorships.</p>

<p>As far as partying--well there is only 1 #1. In the recent guide to colleges based on student quotes, an NU student said one of the Top 10 things to do while at NU was to go to Madison once for Halloween.</p>

85

<p>"USN&WR should at least publish a poll listing the universities with the greatest number of highly ranked grad programs... I've been trying to duplicate it myself in my spare time. It's boring, though--I'm including every specialty ranking US News did. I keep setting it aside but if I don't hurry up it the 2007 one will be out and I'll have to start over."</p>

<p>hoedown,
I have compiled a partial list of the above based on US News' 2006 rankings. It has about 19 schools (mostly Michigan's "peers") and includes some 80 specialty rankings. PM/e-mail me if you are interested. I'd be happy to e-mail you the file.</p>

86

<p>I wouldn't put much faith in the NRC report in evaluating undergraduate institutions today. It looks like it is a report based on (graduate program?) data that was collected in 1993.</p>

87

<p>True, but the US News rankings show things don't really change much either. At least it was a detailed study of every major dept. for universities so it is useful for comparing large schools at least.</p>

88

<p>Please quit trying to shove the University of Wisconsin down everyones throat!!!!! Nobody and I mean NOBODY has ever heard of that school. I'm going to have to say it again: Compared to schools like The University of Virginia and William and Mary, Wisconsin in a joke. Look at the common data set, look at the caliber of students they admit, look at their average GPA and SAT scores. We're talking undergraduate. The school is HUGE................I mean who wants 300 students in a class being taught by a TA. I didn't work my a** off in high school for THAT and neither do most top students. I'm going to say hands down, UVA is the LEADER of the PUBLIC PACK and it's not even my school! Give it a rest!!!</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
Nobody and I mean NOBODY has ever heard of that school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Maybe you need to get out more LOL. Wisconsin is no "joke." I can't account for your vehemence here; you almost sound defensive about any public being put on a level of UVa. No need for that--no one with any sense is going to run down UVa. It's an excellent school nearly any way you look at it. </p>

<p>However, you need to understand that your view of institutions is influenced by your location on the east coast and your overreliance on CDS data for determining overall quality.</p>

<p>Trust me, from someone who knows something about higher education on a wider scope: Wisconsin is a decent school even if you've personally never met another human being in your wide travels who has heard of it.</p>

<p>U of Michigan considers U of Wisconsin a peer in many ways, and I daresay a few folks have heard of Michigan.</p>

90

<p>Cornell University!</p>

91

<p>UW is also twice the size of UVa and serves a smaller state that is dedicated to providing quality eduaction to as many citizens as possible. The average ACT of 28 and UW gpa of 3.7 are not mediocre by most measures. The top half of the class or 5800 freshmen is pretty much on par with those at UVa or WM--it's not like every student is just at the average. You will find most of them in the more competitive majors like engineering, sciences, and business. The less competitve will gravitate to education, agriculture and the easier liberal arts majors like comm arts. </p>

<p>And TA's do not teach the intro lecture classes. They do the weekly discusssion section and grade papers--same as at UVa.</p>

92

<p>Pedsox:</p>

<p>Two issues - first, UVA is not the leader of the public pack. UVA has a solid argument for #1 and you'll find me defending UVA over Berkeley whenever some posters want to rate universities simply by grad programs, but overall and in general Berkeley is considered by the majority to be the leader of the public pack. The only people who dispute this are UVA students who point to USNWR's from 1993. </p>

<p>Second, Wisconsin is a top 10 public and not mediocre by any means. Is it UVA? No. Is it worthy of the disparagement you've thrown at it? No. You've only managed to convey the fact that you really don't know much about higher education.</p>

93

<p>Themegastud, </p>

<p>Please give us reasons why Berkeley undergrad is better than UVa?</p>

<p>Berkeley is known for its graduate programs and research. UVa is known for excellent undergraduate teaching. Even so, over 1/2 of UVa students conduct their own research.</p>

<p>UVa graduates over 92% of its students. Berkeley does not. (UVa has the highest public school graduation rate in the country.) </p>

<p>UVa gives free rides to its poor students. Berkeley does not.</p>

<p>Over 27% of UVa grads give back to UVa. Berkeley doesn't come close.</p>

<p>In rankings like US News, much of Berkeley's strength comes from its peer assessment from other schools' presidents, which again is often based on research and professorial publications. How is a college president from Vermont really that familiar w/ what Berkeley or Virginia has to offer? Undergraduate peer assessment is based on perception more than reality.</p>

<p>Yeah, Berkeley may seem more selective than UVa based on the acceptance rate, but California has a much larger population, and since most applicants are in-state, Berkeley has a larger pool to cull through and thus reject. Yet that doesn't mean that Berkeley students are better. The SAT scores of both schools are very similar. Plus, UVa doesn't use a GPA/SAT formula to admit students. UVa Admissions takes every applicant seriously and judges every student individually based on all their merits. GPA + SAT doesn't always equate honor, passion, and talent. UVa realizes that.</p>

<p>UVa has graduated double the amount of Rhodes Scholars than Berkeley. Only Harvard, Yale, Princeton, West Point & Stanford have graduated more than UVa.</p>

<p>Berkeley has nearly double the number of undergraduate students than UVa, and Berkeley is not known for having an intimate undergraduate experience. UVa is.</p>

<p>Most (if not all) of Virginia's top professors teach undergrads. I doubt that's the case at Berkeley.</p>

<p>So, despite the #1 ranking that US News gives UC Berkeley, I really don't know how Berkeley offers a better undergraduate education than UVa.</p>

94

<p>"Berkeley is known for its graduate programs and research. UVa is known for excellent undergraduate teaching."</p>

<p>The point everyone needs to understand, this sums up the whole debate nicely.</p>

<p>UVA=better undergrad
UCB=better grad/research</p>

95

<p>"Berkeley is known for its graduate programs and research. UVa is known for excellent undergraduate teaching"</p>

<p>Did I miss something? Where is UVA know for this? In what departments is UVA better at the ug level?</p>

<p>"UVa graduates over 92% of its students"</p>

<p>Maybe its too easy.</p>

<p>"Over 27% of UVa grads give back to UVa"</p>

<p>Why didn't you say that earlier? Now I agree that UVA is a better school.</p>

<p>"Plus, UVa doesn't use a GPA/SAT formula to admit students. UVa Admissions takes every applicant seriously and judges every student individually based on all their merits. GPA + SAT doesn't always equate honor, passion, and talent. UVa realizes that."</p>

<p>That just sounds like an excuse for having lower stats.</p>

<p>"All of Virginia's top professors teach undergrads. I doubt that's the case at Berkeley"</p>

<p>I didn't know UVA even had "top researchers". Cal's have nobel prizes, so I'll excuse them from teaching intro to chem.</p>

96

<p>Yes, UVa is known for its excellent, intimate and unique undergraduate education - an education that many people choose over an Ivy League school. Here, I'll post it again.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/06uva_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/06uva_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I've never said UVa is the best. "The Best" is subjective, but for undergrad, UVa definitely without question holds its own against Berkeley. </p>

<p>Besides, looking at the yields of both UVa and Berkeley, the majority of people who get into UVa choose to go there. The majority of people who get into Berkeley choose NOT to go there.</p>

97

<p>Rutgers all the way!</p>

98

<p>gentlemanandscholar, UVA is a good school and doesn't deserve that negativity thrown at it. Every fact you poked fun at is completley true and you didn't refute anything with your statements. Berkeley is an awesome school as well, but UVA doesn't shrink in comparison to it. </p>

<p>uvajoe, though he would have the potential to be (and may be) biased, I think summed it up nicely though I do also think Berkeley has better undergrad than generally given credit for.</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
"UVa graduates over 92% of of its students" [ergo] Maybe its too easy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Could someone, anyone, on this forum explain to me why, where, and when people got so wedded to the idea that the inverse of the graduation rate is the "failed out because the classes were too hard" rate? </p>

<p>Well, for the record, it isn't. Making inferences about rigor from a college's graduation rate is foolhardy indeed. </p>

<p>This isn't the first time I've seen people assume that all nongraduates were dropouts, or that all nongraduates/transfers left because of too much challenge (and, conversely, that a high success rate means they grade easy). I have seen no respectable research anywhere to support such an idea, and common sense doesn't support it, either. Hence my exasperation. What is the source of this strange idea?</p>

100

<p>Well, well, dear squire, you might see it as poppycock, and I too have not set eyes on documents which might sooth your troublesome exasperation. But, by chance, have you seen any respectable information to back up your baseless assertation. Good sir, I've yet to be convinced, ergo I shant put my faith into your analysis. Good day sir.</p>