<p>Dude are you 4 or 5 years old? remind me?</p>
<p>Wow soccersam you have just completely lost it. Thanks for striking the point home for us. Good night!</p>
<p>
Undergrad population:
UT-Austin - 37,389
Boston College - 9,081</p>
<p>I’d like to see BC, or any smaller college, maintain its current SAT average as it expands 4x to UT size.</p>
<p>At least i proved that BC>austin. Night!</p>
<p>That is yet another downfall of austin…it is WAYYYY To big.</p>
<p>^ Agreed, superstar. Someone comes on and makes actual, intelligent criticisms of a waste of a study (admittedly, with ROFLs attached at the end. It was that ridiculous.), and he flips _ _ _ _. God, it would’ve been funny to watch soccerloser try LD debate.</p>
<p>Night.</p>
<p>I was the champion of LD debate. night.</p>
<p>soccersamdude11: could you please find some evidence for the following statements…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emphasis on the word MUCH, which you obnoxiously wrote in all caps</p>
<p>Until you find some sort of evidence, could you please stop your anti-UT banter.</p>
<p>soccersamdude, if you are such a strong advocate of the forbes rankings, why do you keep using standard US News and other more traditional metrics to quantify how one school is better than another one? And I thought “best” was totally subjective.</p>
<p>[Top</a> US Colleges ? Graduate Salary Statistics](<a href=“2023 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale”>2023 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale) </p>
<p>BC is a WHOPPING 60 ranks higher in the salary rankings when compared to austin (yes i counted).</p>
<p>And it is not a banter. I like any rankings that fulfill the criteria outlined properly which BOTH forbes and USnews do. BC is 34 there and austin is 47, on forbes it is higher as well, so can you show me a ranking where OVERALL it is lower, not by departments (rofl)?</p>
<p>should we compare the endowments of the 2 institutions?</p>
<p>no because that is irrelevant and virtually pointless when comparing two institutions.</p>
<p>Really? I would think the money from the endowment can be used to reinvest in the university. I think it is relevant.</p>
<p>I do not think that endowment matters when examining a university’s academic rigor, caliber of student body, graduation rate, teaching faculty, overall college experience, starting salary, or any other factor that makes a university a good one.</p>
<p>(and can you please post on your superstar CC account? it’s getting annoying i see that you guys have the same IP address…)</p>
<p>Explain to me how those factors are independent from a school’s endowment?</p>
<p>how about you explain to me how they are dependent?</p>
<p>This thread is pretty much useless at this point. People are rehashing arguments that we’ve already had and ignoring responses.</p>
<p>How Schmaltz can respond with post 158 after reading what I wrote is astonishing.</p>
<p>think about it: if a school is reinvesting in its institutional capacity, it will have more money in the long run to hire more renowned faculty, improve its facilities, attract better recruiters, which in turn enhances the overall experience of students. As such, the caliber of the students themselves also improves over time.</p>
<p>ahhh but you are speaking of the future, not the present my friend, of which i believe the argument is concerning: which IS a better college, not which WILL be
(an entirely different subject).</p>
<p>The logic still applies in the past. I think it is a very relevant factor to consider.</p>
<p>^ Here are some present facts for you on faculty quality:</p>
<p>National Academy of Engineering Membership:
Texas: 49
Boston College: 0</p>
<p>National Academy of Science Membership:
Texas: 16
Boston College: 0</p>