<p>you guys need to look at it like this: could every single ut austin student get into an ivy with their admissions process? the answer is no...could every ivy get into ut austin with their admissions process? the answer is more than likely yes...it is just easier to get in...its a great school and all, but the standards are set at a much higher level at those top notch schools.</p>
<p>Maryland is south of the Mason/Dixon line, and U of Maryland used to refuse to play colleges with black athletes, so it's at least Southern enough for an insane thread like this.</p>
<p>Hopkins
Georgetown
UVA
W and Mary
Duke
UNC
Emory
Rice
Vandy
Tulane</p>
<h2>Wake Forest</h2>
<h2>Georgia Tech</h2>
<p>Georgia Tech can be the sort of MIT of the South; I believe MIT is included in some non-athletic Ivy League functions, sort of like how U of Chicago is included in the Big 10 for some non-athletic events.</p>
<p>Ehh, I don't konw about Maryland or Hopkins. They used to (or were going to make something ) called the Magnolia League. Magnolia's are superior to Ivy in my opinion anyway :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I've acknowledged that UT is much less selective. My point is everyone seems to be focusing on this aspect, while ignoring the fact that it also has a much stronger faculty and world reputation than these other schools. By the way, it is completely incorrect that every Ivy-quality student could get into UT-Austin ironically because of the lower selectivity. For one, the ridiculous Texas top 10% law has 2 effects - while letting in less qualified students from underperfroming schools, there are also plenty of stories of top students from the strongest schools being rejected solely for the very reason that they are not numerically in the top 10 at stronger, highly competitive high schools. And, yes, for Texas residents it is admittedly MUCH easier to get into UT since 90+% of freshman slots are reserved for them, again by state law. At the national level, it is actually much harder to get into for the very reason that are so few slots remaining for those outside Texas. These remaining slots are competed for quite vigorously with international students who do recognize UT's world reputation. So unless you're a Texas resident in the Top 10, you really can't make the assumption that it's a sure bet to get into.</p>
<p>I don't think there is anything non-Ivy about publics, per se, but there has to be a strong strain of elitism in them (like UVa and William and Mary). In other words the Y'all-Come-on-Down mega-universities like Texas and Florida don't quite fit the mold, even if they are excellent.</p>
<p>Hampden-Sydney College
Virginia Military Institute
The Citadel
UVA
UNC
Saint Johns-Annapolis
W&L
W&M</p>
<p>Let me reiterate that those posting need to decide if they are posting about what schools most resemble Ivies, or what schools are best in the South. Those are very different questions.</p>
<p>JWT86:</p>
<p>I admire your work ethic and your fervent partisanship for UT, but I'm afraid I don't buy it. The London Times ratings are based heavily on peer review by department. If you work in the academic world, you'll know that these opinions cannot even come close to evaluating entire departments except in those rare cases where practically every faculty member is a star. In fact, what they tend to do is validate that some departments have some superstars who publish a great deal and are extremely well-known in their fields. That's not insignificant, but it's not the stuff from which great education is made (necessarily).</p>
<p>The London Times then, essentially, double counts by measuring publishing by faculties in Thompson's Scientific. And, of course, only certain scientific fields are included, so certain schools benefit from that and certain schools are hurt by that. They divide by number of faculty (it appears to be total faculty instead of faculty in those fields, but it's hard to tell for sure), so this favors those schools with proportionately more and large departments in the sciences relative to total faculty. </p>
<p>The Times also takes into account student to faculty ratio. At least they're trying to get some sort of handle on the actual experience the student might have, but this is a very misleading stat. For instance, Chicago has a 4:1 ratio, but I guarantee you that the average class size isn't 4. There are many faculty at many schools that teach no classes. On occasion, a professor (usually a star) will teach a large lecture class, breezing in every day to give a five-year-old speech, then use multiple choice testing and TAs so he has virtually no workload from teaching and can devote practically full time to research (with the exception of degree committees and the like). </p>
<p>Ratings such as those of the London Times typically reward large, impersonal, research-oriented institutions, which are precisely the sorts of places that have the most difficulty providing a superior academic experience for the average undergrad. There are exceptions, of course. But these are exceptions. They are not typical. It is methodology like this that puts Rice, Dartmouth, and Brown relatively low in the rankings, below such institutions as UCSD, Boston U, Illinois, Purdue, Penn State, and U Mass.</p>
<p>I also believe that you are vastly underrating student quality and not even mentioning average class size. I can tell you from experience that I change the way I teach based on the academic quality of the class and the size of the class. I also change the way I grade. It's inevitable that grading bias will be center-weighted based on the class. The less skilled the class, the less the learning outcome. The larger the class, the less the learning outcome. </p>
<p>The state of Texas has made the decision that most of its populist neighbors made. It's decided to have huge institutions that are not particularly selective. This improves research performance in these schools because size matters in this case. But if we're talking about the student's experience, I would steer clear of this sort of place.</p>
<p>"you guys need to look at it like this: could every single ut austin student get into an ivy with their admissions process? the answer is no...could every ivy get into ut austin with their admissions process? the answer is more than likely yes...it is just easier to get in...its a great school and all, but the standards are set at a much higher level at those top notch schools."
so do you think that a school that are more selective like Emory is better then UT austin?i don't think so....in terns of research, faculty, facilities Emory or vandy is not at the same level as UT austin , UW, U mich.....
the only problem here in cc is that some people have the "USNEW Ranking" disease...they only beleive in that rank and ignore all other data...Oh well...</p>
<p>gadad: post #39--Guess again on the grits line. The first time I ever ate grits (or even HEARD of them) was in the dining hall at Miami U. I don't know if they still serve them there, but they used to. . . (And it's definitely not a southern school). </p>
<p>I live in the south. Duke, Vandy, Rice come to mind. Not Hopkins, St. John's, or WUStL</p>
<p>University of the South</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sewanee.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.sewanee.edu/</a></p>
<p>Lee University</p>
<p><a href="http://www.leeuniversity.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.leeuniversity.edu/</a></p>
<p>Rhodes College</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rhodes.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.rhodes.edu/</a></p>
<p>Vanderbilt</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.vanderbilt.edu/</a></p>
<p>Duke</p>
<p><a href="http://www.duke.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.duke.edu/</a></p>
<p>I do not know. There are a lot of "Southern Ivies" in a way. Personally, I have never met anyone who thought in the same terms as some of you folks on this thread. It is all in how you look at things, I guess. </p>
<p>I live in the South and it is easier for me to know of the academically rigorous private Universities here (I posted a few just for the what for), than it would be for me to figure out things in the northern areas of our country.</p>
<p>Maybe one of the differences is that in the south, we have a great many private Universities which are pretty darned fair that are scattered around all over the south. Whereas in the north, there are just those concentrated pockets of private universities (like how things are in Massachusetts)? I do not know. I never thought of researching such a thing, and I am basically just presuming. This thread is awfully weird to me.</p>
<p>pateta:</p>
<p>As I've said, having taught classes with students of varying levels of ability, the quality of the student body has a very significant impact on the quality of instruction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivies clearly have no parallels...they were founded hundreds of years ago by the greatest americans of all time and in turn have produce the greatest americans...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right, cause that Jefferson schmuck who founded UVA obviously didn't do anything worthwhile for this country. :p</p>
<p>Echo Banana's sentiments</p>
<p>W&M alums </p>
<p>Presidents Jefferson/Monroe/Tyler
Chief Justice John (Marbury vs Madison) Marshall
Senator Henry Clay
Three signers of Dec of Independence</p>
<p>Founded first Honor Code/Phi Beta Kappa</p>
<p>tarhunt,</p>
<p>You comment that the list of the Best Schools in the South is different from the Schools in the South Most Like the Ivies. What schools would you believe belong on which lists? I'm not sure it's that different a list.</p>
<p>dajada:</p>
<p>I commented earlier in this thread. The only school in the South that is remotely like the Ivies in being private, having a rep score within the Ivies' range, and having a student body that's about midpoint for the Ivies is Duke.</p>
<p>That's it. No other school comes very close.</p>
<p>Tarhunt's definition of being a southern school is strict O.o</p>
<p>Well, I don't think it's THAT strict. I just chose the old Confederate states and threw in WUSTL in case some think Missouri counts. Being a Southerner myself, I can't really count Maryland.</p>
<p>"pateta:</p>
<p>As I've said, having taught classes with students of varying levels of ability, the quality of the student body has a very significant impact on the quality of instruction."
did you read my post??i...i'm just saying that there are schools that are less selective but offers outstanding research facilities, top faculty etc etc...A quality of a school is not only based on how hard is to get in.ucla is harder to get in then UW-seatle dos that mean that UCla is a better school?better in what way? ....</p>
<p>pateta:</p>
<p>I was responding to this statement:</p>
<p>
[quote]
so do you think that a school that are more selective like Emory is better then UT austin?i don't think so....in terns of research, faculty, facilities Emory or vandy is not at the same level as UT austin , UW, U mich.....
the only problem here in cc is that some people have the "USNEW Ranking" disease...they only beleive in that rank and ignore all other data...Oh well...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I do think one will get a better education at the undergrad level at Emory than at UT, Michigan, University of Washington (or Wisconsin, whichever you meant).</p>
<p>Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's suppose that a large research univeristy has a stunning faculty that are world class in research. Now, let's say that none of those faculty members ever teach and that all undergrads are taught by TAs. Does that make the research university a good place to get an education? I would say "no," personally.</p>
<p>Funny you should mention the University of Washington. My wife went there undergrad and has nothing good to say about the place. When she was there (can't vouch for it now), she was treated like a number. Though she was already published in such places as the Christian Science Monitor and Seattle Times, and though she broke a story that made the AP wires nationally, and though she was on a Hearst Scholarship, they forced her to take an entry-level writing course in her fouth year AFTER she had already taken four advanced level writing courses. She says that the students there openly talked about cheating. And that first-level writing course instructor (a TA) was simply awful at his job.</p>
<p>When I was teaching undergrad courses at my flagship U, a friend of mine and I used to moo under our breaths when the students filed in. I really felt sorry for the bright ones in my classes, because I knew they were being underchallenged and understimulated. But there's no sense trying to run a discussion format class when 90% of the students are just there to punch a ticket.</p>
<p>Fewer than 50% of UT undergrads graduate in four years. That's pathetic. It doesn't indicate to me that it's the kind of school I'd like for my children to attend.</p>
<p>Tarhunt, that was a good post. I'm sure fans of big schools will bash it, but you gave good examples.</p>
<p>And I want to say that UT-Austin, Michigan, etc. are infinitely greater than Rice, Emory, Vandy, William & Mary...for GRAD studies. There is some matter of opinion on the undergrad level, but I think Tarhunt's post makes a good case for the smaller, selective places (and not just private. Notice William & Mary; even perhaps UVA for that matter).</p>