Big name public universities (Berkeley/UVA/Michigan/UNC/UCLA) Versus Non-HYP ivies

College Search & Selection
81

<p>alex,
Maybe I misunderstood your comment,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>but my interpretation is that you feel very strongly that your school should displace all of the schools that are currently ranked by USNWR from 7 to 17 or more spots ahead of U Michigan. And that the current ranking of # 27 is an insult to your school. You’ve posted similar statements scores of times on CC, but other than PA scores, I’ve yet to read which colleges you would displace and how you would justify it. Is it possible that some of those schools and posters could be a little insulted by your declarations? </p>

<p>Just flipping it around for a moment, how would you feel/respond if someone claimed that Boston College (7 spots behind U Michigan) absolutely should be ranked ahead of your school? </p>

<p>Or how would you feel/respond if Case Western or Rensselaer (14-15 spots behind U Michigan) or Tulane and U Miami (23 spots behind) were declaring that they deserve equal or better ranking? </p>

<p>jack,
I appreciate your comments and would suggest that among all of the subjects taught at America’s colleges, perhaps the least benefitted by small class size is engineering. The technical subject manner lends itself to a telling teaching style vs. a give-and-take teaching environment. Change the subject to political science or French literature or Women’s Studies or Speech & Communication or a dozen other subjects and there is a material difference in how the classroom functions. </p>

<p>In addition, a tell classroom lessens the importance of one’s classmates. Professor knowledge and his communication skills are paramount. However, should the prof employ a case study method in the teaching of an engineering lesson, I would hope that you would agree that there would be a vast difference between what would happen in a class of 15 vs. a class of 40 and that this would also be significantly impacted by the quality of thinking among your student peers.</p>

82

<p>

</p>

<p>Big problem here, and I was trying to hint at it in the previous thread about USNWR metrics. Your future plans and major affect what type of school you are looking for. From the view of an engineer or scientist, schools like Michigan and Berkeley are part of the elite. But. . .not everyone wants to be either </p>

<p>Small class size would be useless to scientist and engineers learning the fundamentals of their subjects. But when you are talking of classes in humanities or social sciences where class discourse plays a role in analyzing a text then things might be a bit different. </p>

<p>That’s where schools like Michigan and Berkeley soar high in science and engineering education.</p>

83

<p>Sefago, Hawkette,</p>

<p>Ok, I understand your points better then…still don’t agree with a lot of it…but it doesn’t seem quite as far out…</p>

<p>I will say that many(probably most) of the very large classes that bring down these top publics “rank” are the engineering, math, and science courses where we seem to agree that class size is least relevant.</p>

<p>I regularly read about how at Michigan the departments in humanities, languages, etc are constantly trying to keep down the class size…it sometimes results in waitlist issues that make the Michigan Daily…but nothing near the scale that publics in California struggle with students not getting into classes.</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>With all due respect, I doubt it. No Cal alum refers to it as Berkeley. :D</p>

85

<p>“I agree that there is a difference between a LAC with 2,000 students and a large university like NYU or USC, with their 35,000-40,000 students. But private universities with 10,000-15,000 like MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, BC, Northwestern, Stanford, Georgetown etc… are not going to feel much smaller or cozy that a university with 40,000 students.”</p>

<p>I’ve attended colleges all the way from 230 students up to the gigantic U of Toronto, and several sizes in between. The three main differences I found were that (1) the spread-out ones require a lot more standing around waiting for buses, (2) the anonymity factor (do something really stupid at a medium or small one and eventually a critical mass of people to make you uncomfortable will know about it), and (3) at the bigger ones you can cross paths with someone, and then never see him/her again. In my experience, the mid-sized ones are much more similar to small colleges than large colleges in all 3 of these ways.</p>

86

<p>

</p>

<p>Jack, while you make a good point in #2 about blanket statements, why would you think that a blanket statement applies to the absence of research at LACs or smaller schools? </p>

<p>Isn’t the truth that universities and colleges come in all kind of flavors and bely easy categorization. Since you mention engineering, do you honestly believe that graduates from Harvey Mudd are staring with wide eyes to questions about the latest research? Are you familiar with a few of the HMC graduates who post(ed) on CC, and the type of research they did while attending HMC (and perhaps playing a bit at the Junior College in Pasadena?) Further, from all majors, isn’t engineering one that fit the typical LAC the least? In addition to Harvey Mudd that has reached the pinnacle of engineering education (so much for small classes, Hwakette!) and the recent effort by Smith College, how many LACs are there that offer a competitive program in engineering? </p>

<p>On the other hand, for most of the remaining majors, the story is different.</p>

<p>Fwiw, just as you did, I did attend a LAC, and perhaps one the smallest in the country, and then went on to graduate school at a very large research university. Since my younger sister attends that same research university for UG, I believe to be able to draw some parallels. And here is my conclusion … the overwhelming majority of smaller classes led by a bona fide PROFESSOR are much, much better than large lectures cum sections. Then there are classes of 15 versus 35 but also classes of 15 versus 150, 200, or more! For students desirous to learn proactively, the answer is easy. For the ones who prefer to hide in the back of a theatre, the answer is equally easy. However, for the second case, why even bother going to class? That is probably why more schools offer classes via the web … hoping lots would stay home. Schedule them before 10AM, and you uncovered another way to cram more students in the same classes. </p>

<p>The matter of utility or costs savings is NOT relevant to the students, especially when shelling out close to 60,000 per year. That is a problem for the schools to deal with. Attempting to offer generous time-off and small teaching loads to faculty at the expense of the students is not for the benefit of the students; placing a young and inexperienced TA in front of students is nothing short but an abuse of both the students in the lecture or section and … the poor TA.</p>

<p>All in all, it goes to personal preferences. While, my sister is extremely happy at her UG, I have ZERO doubt that I received a superior education at my small LAC for my UG years. Not a doubt! On the other hand, my LAC could not have given me the same education I received at the graduate level. </p>

<p>Funny how that works!</p>

87

<p>I am a proud graduate of my state’s flagship public (not to be coy, that would be the University of Florida). I feel I got a terrific education. Thinking back, I realize that I never had a written assignment, aside from blue book in-class exams. And I had a total of two conversations out-of-class with professors (actually, the same guy). My bad on that one. But I have a philosophy that education is something one does to oneself, rather than something someone else does to you. A belief I carried through to the extreme in raising my own kids.
Now to my graduate education at an elite private. Again, not to be coy, the University of Chicago. I was quite surprised at the contrast with a state school. Of course there is also the difference of graduate student versus undergraduate. Maybe that was it. But then having two offspring attend elite privates, the contrast seems even larger. In many, many both “positive” and “negative” ways.
I guess I come down with Pizzagirl that the comparison is apples and oranges. I really never suspected that that would be the case. But my reading is that it is. I also agree with Hawkette’s first criterion, that student body strength is the first thing to look at in supposing the “quality” (in one sense) of the educational experience.
Okay, Florida is not Michigan or Berkeley. But I have no doubt that a Michigan or Berkeley grad’s experience was more like my own, at least on the undergraduate level. At least we never had the professor blown up on a screen behind the podium. But Michigan and Berkeley don’t have the football pre-eminence of the SEC! Or the attendant jollies.</p>

88

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t, nor do I.</p>

<p>My reason for bringing up research is that it baffles me as to why somebody would think a professor’s research inherently would not benefit an undergrad student. It should be a benefit and I think really is at Umich. The professors I have discuss their research in class(yes, undergrads are regularly in my graduate classes), their research provides high quality research opportunities for the undergrads, the research pays the tuition for most of any professor’s students, and sometimes research has been turned in to successful companies which the University gets a cut of when they are sold and that help Michigan’s economy.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In Usnews news rankings, 20 is the arbitrary cutoff for classes. The number of classes under 20 is 30% of the faculty resources rank and the number over 50 is 10% of the faculty resources rank. I agree with you completely on 150 to 200 students in a class being a poor environment in which to learn, but these classes are uncommon at all national universities. Many of the top publics get killed in usnews on there classes being arbitrary over the size of 20. This doesn’t make sense to me on many levels.</p>

<p>hawkette,</p>

<p>The case study method definitely has benefit. I’ve had such a course here at Michigan, and while it was and graduate level course, there were undergrads in the course. Unfortunately, to Usnews this high quality course does not count for much because there were 22 students in it rather than 19.</p>

89

<p>Lets be sincere all rankings suck and are arbitrary.</p>

90

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>It’d be very hard to disagree with such a set of criteria … although I don’t doubt someone will try by twisting the quality of students into something about learning from your peers.</p>

91

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree strongly with what is in the parentheses of #3. To disconnect research rep from instructor quality is crazy.</p>

92

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>I also disagree with #4. The measurement should be of the results, not the the money spent. For example, I don’t care how much money you spent on job placement services if you didn’t place anybody in a job.</p>

<p>As for #2, a meaningful debate is needed as to when size affects quality. I don’t agree with the USnews methodology.</p>

93

<p>Jack,
Re your point on wanting to see results, one very instructive place to look is Financial Aid. This shows the priorities and the values of an institution. In the case of publics, it also shows if they pit one group of students vs another. </p>

<p>In the case of the publics listed in this thread and how that compares to the non-HYP Ivies, below is how they treat IS and OOS students:</p>

<p>OOS students % of need met, College</p>

<p>82% UC Berkeley
100% U Virginia
80% UCLA
62% U Michigan
100% U North Carolina</p>

<p>100% Brown
100% Columbia
100% Cornell
100% Dartmouth
100% U Penn</p>

<p>IS students % of need met, College</p>

<p>100% UC Berkeley
100% U Virginia
100% UCLA
100% U Michigan
100% U North Carolina</p>

<p>There is also a sharp difference in cost between IS and OOS students at the state Us:</p>

<p>IS Tuition & Fees, OOS Tuition & Fees, College</p>

<p>$8352, $30,022, UC Berkeley
$9870, $31,870, U Virginia
$8228, $29,897, UCLA
$11,738, $34,230, U Michigan
$5396, $22,294 U North Carolina</p>

<p>U North Carolina would appear to be a great value for OOS students.</p>

<p>For comparison purposes, here is how the non-HYP Ivies compare for both IS and OOS students:</p>

<p>$38,848 Brown
$41,316 Columbia
$37,954 Cornell
$38,679 Dartmouth
$38,970 U Penn</p>

94

<p>jack,
I agree with you on the need for a thoughtful and non-partisan discussion of undergraduate size and how it affects selectivity. Size is a key influence on a college campus, both positive and negative. </p>

<p>I also agree that the USNWR Selectivity ranking is dreck. Using the Top 10% student measurement is an absolute joke. </p>

<p>For example, if you look at the USNWR Top 50 national universities, the top 12 for this measurement would be:</p>

<p>% students who graduated HS in Top 10% , National University</p>

<p>100% , UC SAN DIEGO
99% , U Penn
98% , UC BERKELEY
98% , UC DAVIS
97% , Princeton
97% , Yale
97% , Caltech
97% , MIT
97% , UCLA
96% , Wash U
96% , UC S BARBARA
96% , UC IRVINE</p>

<p>6 of the 12 top colleges in the US on this measurement are UCs. And there would have been more if I’d included lower ranked UCs such as UC Santa Cruz and UC Riverside.</p>

95

<p>Wow, I hate to sound completely naive, but other than lying, how do the UC’s get away with that??? I mean obviously there is no way in hell that those numbers are true for any of the UC’s, including UCLA and Berkeley.</p>

96

<p>Hawkette, % of aid met without looking at % of students receiving aid is pointless. At UVa and UNC, 27% and 32% of students receive any aid whatsoever, compared to 46% and 49% of the students at Michigan and Cal respectively.</p>

<p>Also, the % of OOS students as a % of the total student body is also an important thing to consider. </p>

<p>In truth, debt upon graduation is a far more telling sign of a university’s approach financial aid. That really tells you how well a university meets its students financial needs.</p>

97

<p>“I disagree strongly with what is in the parentheses of #3. To disconnect research rep from instructor quality is crazy.”</p>

<p>I assume you’re suggesting a positive correlation between the research reputation and quality of undergraduate instruction of a professor? How high do you think this correlation is and what is your justification? Note that you also seem to be suggesting that low research reputation corresponds to low instructor quality, unless you think there’s some instructional quality threshold that can only be achieved by having a high research reputation. If I’m somehow misrepresenting your views, feel free to correct me.</p>

98

<p>fc:</p>

<p>The UC’s freely admit that they “estimate” the top 10% because the data does not exist. Less than half of California public’s rank students; moreover, UC does not care how a HS may rank its students, bcos every HS is different in their internal processes (some count Driver’s Ed, some give bonus points to honors cheerleading…). Thus, UC does not ask for HS rank, so the number reported to USNews is estimated. </p>

<p>btw: internal studies show that the UC system accepts the top ~13% of students statewide…</p>

99

<p>bluebayou -thanks for the response. Seems that if there are that many that don’t rank, they should just say N/A instead of such a bogus number. They may freely estimate, but saying 100% or 99% is taking freely to an absurd level. Also, just because they accept the top 13% (which I assume is another “estimate” since the schools don’t rank as you just said), it doesn’t follow that is the enrollment stat by any means. Again, it just gets to how flawed the ranking parameters are and how ridiculous it is to rank schools anyway.</p>

100

<p>Out of curiosity, what % of students at each UC campus are from the state of California?</p>