<p>"why is uiuc ranked so low?the engineering programs are top class"</p>
<p>Er, because this is a university ranking, not an engineering school ranking?</p>
<p>Alexandre: I don't think the hypothesis is that Michigan will be on the decline -- it's that UCLA will be on the incline, enough to surpass Michigan. Now, whether that's a valid prediction is debatable.</p>
<p>UT-Austin ????</p>
<p>U Minnesota Twin Cities plans to be one of Top 3 Research Universities in the World, so that should be there.</p>
<p>(And also UMD :D)</p>
<p>Even if Minnesota had over a $Billion in research, they still would not even be close to a Top-10. Hope that helps</p>
<p>University of Maryland is doing well, but still has a long way to go.</p>
<p>I was kidding about UMD , I think Minnesota's ambitions to be a Top Public Research University are going to help their PA and hence rankings.</p>
<p>Several factors will decide this question:
1. Money-This goes to the combination of endowment per capita (and additional consideration given to number and type of graduate students)
2. Politics-Will the politicians sacrifice quality in order to provide services to a broader spectrum of constituents? Will they offer the services of a top-flight state flagship school to sufficient numbers of OOS students?
3. Size-Will commitments be made to hire and retain high quality and highly qualified faculty and provide enough resources to offer an undergraduate education experience competitive with the top privates?
4. Demographics-The current swell in high school graduates is due to peak in 2011. In addition, how will the changing nature of America's population, both geographically and ethnically, influence the ability of state colleges to excel?
5. Tuition & Fees-Will costs be allowed to rise to allow the public universities to have enough funds to effectively compete with the top publics?</p>
<p>Overall, I believe that there are several state universities that can currently make strong arguments for the quality of their undergraduate offering vs nearly all but the very top private schools. However, the secular trends are not presently in their favor and these schools will have to make some difficult choices in the years ahead to keep pace. </p>
<p>Institutional leadership will be more important than ever and fiscal planning and execution will be critical. In the future, endowment will play an increasingly important role and will need to fill the gaps should the respective state legislatures fail to sufficiently fund the flagship universities of their states. Here are the approximate endowment per capita figures (based on NACUBO data from 6/30/06) for some of the leading state universities:</p>
<p>$262,716 U Texas (may be overstated as does not take needs of other campuses into account)
$150,331 U Virginia
$141,331 U Michigan
$125,760 Texas A&M
$65,558 UC Berkeley
$58,415 Georgia Tech
$50,898 UCLA
$47,583 U Minnesota
$47,568 U Washington
$45,284 U North Carolina
$36,664 U Wisconsin
$29,861 U Illinois
$23,611 UC Davis
$19,568 U Florida
$18,242 UCSD
$5,725 W&M (that is not a misprint)</p>
<p>Now compare this to a few of the privates that the publics will compete with:</p>
<p>Ranked 1-4. HYPS-all over $1mm per student
Ranked # 10 $457,382 U Chicago
Ranked # 20 $220,032 Cornell
Ranked # 30 $92,907 USC</p>
<p>Most of the publics have some wood to chop in order to catch up and this is happening at a time of increased budget pressure in statehouses across the country and state funding of higher education is under ever greater pressure.</p>
<p>In addition to the money issues, large demographic changes are occurring as the population ages and spreads further to the South and the West. One argument is that this could add to the social infrastructure costs of these states and will hurt education in the public schools of these states. My personal view is that the intellectual capital transfer will be a more important factor and these states will use these increased populations to generate greater economic growth while gaining greater political power. As a result, I see the public universities in the South and the West as major beneficiaries over the next decade from these demographic changes (although I see this taking place over several decades rather than one). </p>
<p>One can speculate about how well the state universities will meet their financial goals and how they will deal with the problems as enumerated above. But the money will have such huge ramifications for how much operating room each state and each school will have. I am also worried about the unwillingness of legislators to restrict enrollments while limiting the number of OOS students, particularly in states with modest and/or declining populations, and the ability/political will to raise tuition costs (as shown in the recent FL decisions about tuition rates). These two macro factors will go a long way to determining the quantity and quality of the undergraduate resources that the state schools will be able to offer as well as their ability to attract top students. </p>
<p>One bright spot for public schools that is unlikely to change drastically over the next ten years is in the facilities for research use. Many schools see this as an area that can defray some of their operating costs while still doing important work that can have large reputational benefits. The barriers to entry for other institutions are considerable and I would guess that the willingness of many privates to duplicate these facilities is relatively low. To the extent that ranking systems and the public's opinion are dependent on institutional research efforts (regardless of graduate or undergraduate work), this will continue to sustain the reputations of the public universities in the eyes of academics although the benefit to undergraduate students is less clear. </p>
<p>My personal guess for 2017 is:</p>
<ol>
<li> U Virginia</li>
<li> William & Mary</li>
<li> UC Berkeley</li>
<li> U North Carolina</li>
<li> UCLA</li>
<li> U Michigan</li>
<li> U Washington</li>
<li> U Texas</li>
<li> Georgia Tech</li>
<li>U Wisconsin</li>
<li>U Florida</li>
<li>U Illinois</li>
</ol>
<p>^^ money isn't everything; you can hardly make such guesses based on one factor alone (it's never that easy).</p>
<p>Hey, it's a guess. but I think we have both seen a lot of data and supporting commentary talking about the role of money in top private schools being able to create their statistical differences with everyone. Money is not everything, but it probably is pretty important as are the long run demographics.</p>
<p>2017:</p>
<ol>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>Virginia</li>
<li>W & M</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>Florida</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Maryland</li>
<li>UConn</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>Washington</li>
<li>Indiana</li>
</ol>
<p>"I think Minnesota's ambitions to be a Top Public Research University are going to help their PA and hence rankings."</p>
<p>I think Minnesota is ranked the 25th overall best public (obviously they do not have a chance of cracking the Top 10). They will be lucky not to drop when you consider how bad the Midwest's economy is overall. In addition they only have a $750 million endowment.</p>
<p>omniscient, what makes W&M better than Michigan and Wisconsin in 10 years? Why do you think they will soar above them?</p>
<p>Actually Minnesota has a endowment of over $1.9 Billion</p>
<p>I'm not going to make a full top 10 list, but the general trend I expect is a decline in the University of California system, including Berkeley and UCLA, its two flagship schools. Face it, our politicians in California have been neglecting university funding for quite a while, a policy decision reflected in the very rapidly increasing tuition (or "fees" as UC calls it, since it is prohibited by law from charging tuition to instate students). Eventually, this lack of funding will catch up with the UC system, particularly considering the comparatively tiny endowments of most of the schools in it. The decline of the graduate programs and faculty strength will likely be fairly slow, as it will take a lot to damage the justifiably excellent reputations that the UCs (particularly Berkeley, LA, and San Diego) have built as formidable research institutions. As undergraduate institutions, however, the decline will be somewhat faster. Without substantial increases in state support (which seem highly unlikely, considering California's structural budget deficit, voter mandates - mostly from half-witted ballot initiatives - protecting funding for most other programs, and massive - to the point of insanity - opposition to tax increases) the UC system will have two choices: either continue large fee increases, that not only outpace inflation, but are also significantly larger than tuition increases at other universities around the country, or cut back on resources available to students, which many argue are already far less than they should be. The latter would have an obvious impact on the quality of education offered by the UCs, while the former would bring a UC education out of reach for increasing numbers of students (particularly considering the relatively poor financial aid they offer) and increase the attractiveness of private schools and out-of-state public universities to the state's top students, as good privates can offer far more financial aid, while many publics in other states have massively better merit aid.</p>
<p>sheed30,
I also ranked W&M highly as I think that their student body and the school are greatly underrated. Among public universities, they have the highest average SAT score (1350) and they have a superb college environment that is more akin to a LAC than a major public university (eg student faculty ratio of 11/1, 81% 4-year graduation rate, 74% of students with 3.75+ HS gpa, heavy undergraduate focus, etc.). </p>
<p>Presently, William & Mary would have a much higher USNWR ranking (now 31st) but for their enormous lack of respect from academics (PA score of 3.8 and tied with schools like Penn State, Purdue, U Minnesota, Indiana U) and their 111th rank in Financial Resources (IMO this is their Achilles heel and alumni need to get on the stick changing this). Ex-PA, they would today rank well ahead of both U Michigan and U Wisconsin and I would expect that W&M's advantages in most statistical categories would hold up going forward. This is not a knock on the excellent state universities of Michigan and Wisconsin, but rather a long overdue recognition of the excellence of William & Mary.</p>
<p>svalbardlutefisk,
Excellent points about the difficulties facing the UC system and unfortunately this pattern is being repeated all across the country. I don't know what will reverse the trends although I have a higher level of confidence in the Californian economy and the intellectual power of what and who resides there and what that will mean for the local economy. If they can avoid tax policies that don't drive the wealth creators out of the state, then I believe that California's growth profile can withstand and overcome the political and financial issues and keep UC Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD among the nation's very finest. I think that states in the Northeast and the Midwest have a more difficult problem with slower economies, less job and wage growth, and a slow migration of their populations out of those states.</p>
<p>William & Mary is and will always be a top 3 public, in my opinion. </p>
<p>Hawkette, in regards to your opinion of the northeast.....remember that the northeast is much more fast paced than the rest of the nation. Its the upbringing of the people who live there. There will be more balance around the country in the future, but the northeast will always remain the most dominant.....just way too far ahead at this point.</p>
<p>Its nice to see that tourguide446 is such a smart ass.</p>
<ol>
<li>Cal</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>UWashington</li>
<li>UF</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>UT</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
</ol>
<p>I think the SUNY system will see a rise in its reputation as Stony Brook becomes a top tier research university, Binghamton follows William and Mary in its undergrad focus, Buffalo keeps its place as a major graduate institution and Geneseo establishes itself as the premier public liberal arts school in the nation.</p>
<p>omniscient,
I think you underrate the changes that have taken place in the country and how the country's population is shifting out of the Northeast. Consider the following population centers in 1910:</p>
<p>1910
NYC
Chicago
Philadelphia
St. Louis
Boston
Cleveland
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Detroit
Buffalo</p>
<p>and then look at 2006</p>
<p>2006
NYC
LA
Chicago
Dallas-Ft Worth
Philadelphia
Houston
Miami
Washington
Atlanta
Detroit</p>
<p>This information was recently published in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the trends are unmistakable. Six traditional population and industrial centers (St. Louis, Boston, Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo) located in the Northeast and Midwest fell out of the Top 10 and were replaced by LA, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Washington, and Atlanta. Add in cities that also experienced huge growth (Phoenix, SF, San Diego, Charlotte, Denver, Seattle) and you can't ignore this. So far, the impact on college education reputations has been modest as the Northeastern colleges remain the most prestigious due to their historical positions, but their preeminence is being challenged now as never before. The excellence of American colleges has spread far and wide in a pattern much like that of the population, ie, South and West. I see no reason not to expect those trends to continue in the decades ahead. </p>
<p>While my earlier comments may have come across as anti-Northeast, my feelings are really meant to publicize FOR the many excellent schools elsewhere around the country. I have a high respect for many, many Northeastern schools and the students that they graduate and the businesses that they run (Wall Street has been a phenomenal growth industry over the last three decades and has generated sooooo much wealth in and for the Northeast). The problem is that most of them have never bothered to meet, get to know, and appreciate the folks from Chicago or Atlanta or Dallas or Denver or San Diego or etc. If they did, they would notice that there are a lot of smart people all over the country who are also creating some pretty neat businesses and cities and colleges. </p>
<p>The Northeast, despite the faster pace of life, does not have a monopoly on brains...nor on great colleges. It may take longer than a decade, and perhaps the historical powers will always have high prestige, but the non-Northeastern colleges have never been better and the future looks bright for them.</p>
<p>hawkette, I would argue that the UCs are in particular danger. Perhaps similar patterns face the Midwest and the Northeast (and thus similar risks), but in much of the rest of the country, particularly the South and the rest of the West, the public universities are ambitiously recruiting top students with generous merit aid. If, as you say, the Midwestern universities are facing the same problems as the UC system, then perhaps the ranking of the top UCs will not be significantly affected since many of the other current top publics are in the Midwest. But, if California's financial aid (both need and merit-based) remains as substandard as it currently is, and tuition continues to rise at rates above those elsewhere in the country, top students (particularly National Merit Semifinalists) not admitted to the most prestigious private schools may choose to accept the merit packages offered by schools in places like Arizona, Texas, and Florida, rather than pay the increasing costs at Berkeley or UCLA. This may take time to appear in any college rankings (probably 10 years is too short a time scale for my predictions to really become apparent), but it will happen more and more.
To deal with the comparison you make with the Midwest and Northeast more fully, I believe that despite California's greater economic growth potential, it is still at more risk. The Northeast lacks the impressive public institutions found in California and the Midwest, and thus has much less to lose in regards to public university quality. The Northeast (particularly in the New York City area) also seems likely to remain wealthy, even in the face of declining population, as it remains a major financial center for the nation. California's population growth is unlikely to be a major advantage financially, as it is largely fueled by immigration from Mexico and Latin America, unlikely to significantly aid expansion of the wealth base. Many of California's budget problems are not easily remedied, as they are due to voter earmarks (unalterable by the Legislature) for a wide variety of pet programs to an extent unmatched elsewhere in the county. Moreover, some prestigious Midwestern universities (Michigan in particular) have the advantage of a more substantial endowment (the entire UC system is at just over $7 billion, while UM at Ann Arbor alone has over $5 billion). I wish I could have as much faith as you do in the ability of California to turn around the current problems with its public universities, but I'm afraid that the UC system is increasingly becoming a lower priority with the state government, and the citizens of the state, and a major attitudinal shift will be necessary as well as an economic one.</p>