<p>The shape is now more obvious too. While UMich got some nice press for $2.5 Billion construction boom UW is having their own with about $2.4 Billion in the current boomlet. And of course UW is more efficient with their money.</p>
<p>Union</a> South takes shape as a campus gathering place (June 10, 2010)</p>
<p>We are at SOAR now. The construction is impressive.</p>
<p>Maybe UMich doesn’t have to be as efficient with its money since it has more of it (and greater prestige as well)?</p>
<p>how does prestige correlate with not having to be efficient???
■■■■■.</p>
<p>To me the most “efficient” university is the one that provides the widest access to the best academic experience available. By this measure, UW is less efficient than UMich or any of the other top publics of interest to barrons. Princeton Review, for example, rates the top publics as follows: </p>
<p>Academics:</p>
<p>U-Va 98
William and Mary 92
UC-Berkeley 91
UMich 83
UW 79</p>
<p>Financial Aid: </p>
<p>UMich 91
U-Va 91
UC Berkeley 86
William and Mary 84
UW 75</p>
<p>you were talking about ‘efficient with its money’…</p>
<p>pkm, don’t bother. nova will simply obfuscate or change the argument.</p>
<p>Back to the topic at hand. The area apts will be a lot quieter than they have been in recent years. Student funds are used for the student unions- a student voted fee increase helped with redoing Union South. They also voted (those that chose to) to keep the same name, something I am happy about. That was a '60’s mistake building- never nice from its opening day. Those curious can look at the 25 year plans of both UW and Res Halls on the UW site to see the direction the campus is taking- timing of course dependent on money. It is nice to see how some historic buildings have been kept and remodeled but others are torn down and replaced along with better greenspace planning. In future years today’s students can come back as alumni and see improvements- I note the plans for more green space and parking ramps to replace some sprawling lots. It’s a dynamic campus in many ways. BTW- just a few years ago there was also massive construction- now finished, making for a different set of driving hassles.</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> 2009](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp)</p>
<p>Real analysis and worldwide prestige model. PR=Joke</p>
<p>Barrons, we’ve been over this before – I’m talking about the quality of UW’s UNDERgraduate program. No one denies that UW’s graduate schools are top notch.</p>
<p>Besides, PR’s academic rating doesn’t attempt to measure reputation per se but “how hard students work and how much they get back for their efforts, on a scale of 60-99. This rating is calculated from student survey results and statistical information reported by administrators. Factors weighed include how many hours students study outside of the classroom and the quality of students the school attracts. We also considered students’ assessments of their professors, class size, student-teacher ratio, use of teaching assistants, amount of class discussion, registration, and resources.” </p>
<p>Fairly or not, UW UNDERgrad continues to be known more as a party school than as a serious academic institution. </p>
<p>As for UMIch and its “inefficiencies,” take note:</p>
<p>[U-M</a> plans largest ever investment in financial aid](<a href=“U-M plans largest ever investment in financial aid | University of Michigan News”>U-M plans largest ever investment in financial aid | University of Michigan News)</p>
<p>Before UW starts building state of the art student unions it ought to be increasing financial aid.</p>
<p>I am probably the only person who will miss the Mosse Humanities building. It is slated for replacement and I fear a new building built in a faux classical style to match the Historical Society. Pleasant, but boooooring. Though the Humanities Bldg. has major problems (leaks, falling concrete etc…) and must be replaced, it is a thought provoking example of the Brutalist movement in architecture and in many ways - proportion, plays on classical elements - it comments on the Historical Society building. </p>
<p>I guess I’m saying I hope Mosse is replaced with something as thought provoking. Oh, and remains named after Professor Mosse as well.</p>
<p>The new Union South looks to be spectacular. But I cannot imagine anyone will miss the Humanities building when it goes, and there’s no reason any new building has to be neo-classical. I cannot think of any newer UW buildings built in a neo-classical style. </p>
<p>By the way, it is astonishing to me that even in a thread about a terrific new campus building this endless, childish sniping by nova continues. Nova, it appears you are emotionally ill. You will start getting better as soon as you swear off reading and posting on this site. I am completely serious. This is clearly an unhealthy obsession for you.</p>
<p>Uva is VERY efficient with its illiterate graduates that do not know that efficiency with money and princeton review’s rankings for financial aid are two different things.</p>
<p>I can’t find it now, but I saw a sketch of a Humanities building replacement with two neo-classical style buildings. I think the story was connected with John Wiley fundraising for improving the east campus area.</p>
<p>Some people get upset when their children are rejected by the UW. It’s happend a number of times on this board.</p>
<p>Lewdawgdude, I didn’t go to U-Va. Stooge, none of my children was rejected by UW. Milwdad, I’m sure the new building is very nice, but barrons also suggested that UW is more efficient than UMich and I take issue with that. Why is it an unhealthy obsession for me to comment on the UW board when it’s fine for other posters to offer many more posts on UW than I ever have? Because mine aren’t always positive? I find it “unhealthy” for UW for so many of its advocates to call for anyone who isn’t offering 100 percent positive reviews on the university to “swear off” on commenting on this board. </p>
<p>Even barrons is on record that UW isn’t good with financial aid; he’s offered a specific proposal on how to improve it.</p>
<p>i swear you are obsessed with posting ONLY negativity on this board. its a little creepy to me</p>
<p>Compare the costs on some similar buildings on a per square foot basis. That’s what I meant by efficient.</p>
<p>besides annoying, you are often being quite dull, e.g suddenly talking about prestige right after discussing cost-efficiency, and then talking about the amount of financial aid as if it has any relevance to cost-efficiency. if you were writing an essay you would’ve failed… miserably. zero score for content.</p>
<p>buzz off, ■■■■■. it’s so obvious that you’re not trying to give info, when you’re posting negative info that’s irrelevant to the thread at hand. why don’t you just post a new thread titled '<em>l</em> UW"?? that can summarize probably 200 out of your 244 posts on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s “unhealthy” because you seemingly go at great lengths to prove negativity towards the university, which you seemingly have very little to do with it besides from this forum. Obviously, this why you get “sweared off”. You also fail to realize that the few people who swear you off do not representive this whole forum, and this whole forum does not represent the actually university. Basically its very annoying to listen to someone b!tch about a problem that they created themself.</p>