<p>Hawkette.... you may very well be right.... only time will tell.</p>
<p>svalbardlutefisk,
I have lived in California for many years and have a decent understanding of the fiscal situation and the population flows and I agree with nearly all of your comments. However, the cost situation at the top UCs is still cheaper than most other top publics. Consider the following IS tuition rates:</p>
<p>$6654 UC Berkeley
$6522 UCLA
$6888 UCSD</p>
<p>$9723 U Michigan
$9210 W&M
$8500 U Virginia
$7630 U Texas
$6726 U Wisconsin
$5985 U Washington
$3210 U Florida</p>
<p>State funding issues are a problem everywhere but part of this can be solved thru tuition increases as there is room to grow that number in California vs some other states with higher tuition. You may be right that California's immigration will ultimately break its back economically and this is an interesting comparison with Northeastern and Midwestern states that are losing population or growing slowly. I guess you are right that I remain bullish on the Golden State as I still think it is the most innovative business environment in the country and that there is still great wealth creation happening there. How this all ultimately translates into state revenues and funding for higher education will be interesting to watch.</p>
<p>$3210 for UF is accurate, but Florida's Legislature approved increasing tuition by 40%. Also the Higher Education governing board is winning in a lawsuit to raise tuition as high as they want. Therefore UF's tuition revenues will skyrocket. FWIW</p>
<p>Hawkette, I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that William and Mary "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."</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I personally have great respect for W&M, but even if you believe a university's quality should be measured solely on statistical data (a highly debatable and subjective matter), I fail to recognize how William and Mary is "far" superior to Michigan.</p>
<p>STUDENT QUALITY:</p>
<p>Average graduating high school GPA:
Michigan: 3.75 unweighed
William and Mary: 4.0 weighed</p>
<p>% graduating in top 10% of high schoo class:
Michigan: 90%
William and Mary: 80%</p>
<p>Mid 50% SAT range
Michigan: 1210-1420
William and Mary: 1240-1440</p>
<p>Mid 50% ACT range
Michigan: 27-31
William and Mary: 28-32</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wm.edu/ir/part_c.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.wm.edu/ir/part_c.htm</a></p>
<p>ENDOWMENT:
Michigan: $5.7 billion ($140,000/student)
William and Mary: $500 million ($65,000/student)</p>
<p>CLASS SIZE AND GRADUATION RATE:
Classes with fewer than 20 students
Michigan: 43%
William and Mary: 47%</p>
<p>Classes with more than 50 students:
Michigan: 16%
William and Mary: 7%</p>
<p>Graduation rate:
Michigan: 86%
William and Mary: 91%</p>
<p>WSJ FEEDER RANK (into top 5 graduate professional programs):
Michigan: #1 among public universities, #18 among all research universities, #30 overall.
William and Mary: #7 among public universities.</p>
<p>Overall, purely from a statistical point of view, Michigan and William and Mary are very similar.</p>
<p>I live in the Detroit area, and I think if you include those who are incarcerated, Detroit's population would be up there near Chicago and Los Angeles.</p>
<p>yellowworld?</p>
<p>1) Cal
2) UVA, Michigan
3) UCLA
4) UNC
5) W & M
6) UW-M
7) UCSD
8) UIUC
9) U of W
10) UT, UF</p>
<p>UF
Cal
UVA, Michigan
UCLA
UNC
W & M
UW-M
UCSD
UIUC
U of W</p>
<ol>
<li>UCB</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
</ol>
<p>3/4/5 (UCSD/UVA/Mich)</p>
<p>Everyone else</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, speaking specifically about Berkeley - as I don't know the other UC's enough to comment - I would say that I don't expect the Berkeley graduate programs and faculty reps to decline anytime in the foreseeable future. If anything, they have been getting better over the last 30 years. True, they're probably not as good as they were during Berkeley's golden age (~1940's-1960's), but they are still top-tier and arguably getting better. As a case in point, it wasn't that long ago when the Berkeley economics department was notably weaker than the other top programs (i.e. Harvard, MIT, Chicago, etc.). Now I think there is no discernable gap. The Haas School of Business has made significant improvements over the last decade (with the construction of the new mini-campus being a notable advance) and is now knocking at the door of the M7, and is in many ways better than the weakest member of the M7 (Columbia). Most other grad programs have at least managed to remain steady. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can certainly agree that we can expect little help for the UC's from Sacramento. </p>
<p>However, I believe that plenty can be done by the individual UC's, especially by Berkeley, even in the face of an indifferent, or even hostile state government. For example, if public funding is not forthcoming, then the answer is to leverage private financing, for which - at least in the case of Berkeley- abound opportunities aplenty. Berkeley is a major world research university and is therefore in prime position to win major private grants, and in fact, has already done so, as evidenced by the half-billion-dollar BP energy research project. As I pointed out above, Berkeley also has a quite mighty business school: one that outclasses W&M's business school. Berkeley is also deeply tied into the economic dynamo that is Silicon Valley, and in fact is almost certainly the school that is the 2nd most tied into SV culture of any schools in the world (after clear #1 Stanford). </p>
<p>Foster technology entrepreneurship, secure business and research ties, and generate profitable patents and intellectual propertly: these are the sorts of options that Berkeley has available to it that the vast majority of other public universities do not. Berkeley can do all of that in the face of indifference of Sacramento. Essayist and entrepreneur Paul Graham once said (and I agree) that there are only 3 places that are clearly superior to ther rest as providing the environment to founding a tech startup, and the city of Berkeley is one of them (the others being Cambridge, Mass and of course Palo Alto). Hence, Berkeley enjoys a tremendous opportunity to leverage significant dollars from the tech world. </p>
<p>Of course whether Berkeley exploits or squanders this opportunity is up to the Berkeley administration, which is indeed a dubious thing to hang your hat upon. Still, the point is that Berkeley certainly enjoys at least the potential to supplement its coffers with private dollars. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the entire UC system is at just over $7 billion, while UM at Ann Arbor alone has over $5 billion).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, to be clear, the entire University of Michigan system had a $5.7 billion endowment as of 2006. This endowment is not specific to UMAA alone, but represents the total sum of all 3 UM campuses. </p>
<p>In contrast, Berkeley's endowment in 2005 was about ~$2.3 billion. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html</a></p>
<p>I can certainly agree that the UC endowment is a whole is unimpressive, and in particular, the endowments of the lower UC's must be quite small. But Berkeley's endowment is respectable, and certainly significantly exceeds the endowment of W&M, even on a per-capita basis.</p>
<p>Sakky, Michigan's two other campuses (Flint and Dearborn) hardly share any of that $5.65 billion. The Flint and Dearborn campuses have a combined endowment of under $100 million. Ann Arbor's endowment probably accounts for 98% of the "system's" entire worth. In other words, the Flint and Dearborn campuses don't compare to any of the UC campuses. Flint has 7,000 students and Dearborn has 8,000 students. Neither school has much in way of physical plant, labs, faculty or research activity. In short, unlike UCSD or UCSB, which have 20,000+ students, huge campuses and physical plants, multitudes of labs and huge research commitments and faculties, Dearborn and Flint do not require endowments of $300+ million. </p>
<p>So, to recap:</p>
<p>TOTAL STUDENT ENROLMENT:
Michigan "system": 55,000 (of which 40,000 or 75% belong to the Ann Arbor campus)
UC System: 210,000 (UCLA is the largest, with 37,000 or 18% of the total UC system)</p>
<p>TOTAL FACULTY:
Michigan "system" : 7,000 (of which 6,200 or 90% belong to the Ann Arbor campus)
UC System: 16,000 (UCLA's faculty is the largest, with 4,000 otr 25% of the total)</p>
<p>In short, one cannot compare the Michigan "system" to the UC system. When one says the University of Michigan, It pretty much means Ann Arbor. The same cannot be said of the UC system.</p>
<p>Here is my prediction:</p>
<ol>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>W&M</li>
<li>UF</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>UIUC</li>
<li>Washington</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>Maryland</li>
<li>Penn St</li>
<li>UCI</li>
</ol>
<p>I know that UConn is going to be a top 15 public in 10 years.... I'd stake my life on it.... its almost a sure bet.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
I think you make a lot of good points about U Michigan vs W&M and that the comparison between these two schools is statistically very, very close. I think that W&M is the "overlooked" great public university as usually the mentioned schools are UC Berkeley, U Virginia, U Michigan, UCLA and U North Carolina. I place W&M right there with all of those universities. All are excellent schools and one could make a reasonable argument for any of them against each other and many of the top privates. </p>
<p>The biggest difference between W&M and the others is size. At 20-25% of the size of U Michigan and UCLA and UC Berkeley, W&M offers a very different undergraduate experience. I think that it is underranked because of the relative paucity of strong graduate programs and research efforts which likely deflates its PA score and hurts it USNWR ranking. That was the context in which I was comparing W&M to the other schools. I think that your comments about money differences and possibly geographically broad student placement accurately reveal two areas where W&M would likely be at a deficit to its better known competitors. </p>
<p>For me personally, I would prefer the other schools to W&M because I like better the blend of social and athletic life that U Virginia, UC Berkeley, UCLA, U North Carolina and U Michigan offer. However, if a student is looking for a public university experience in an environment that is smaller and likely more intimate and certainly more undergraduate focused, then I think that W&M might be the best public college choice in the US.</p>
<p>I agree that W&M, where undergraduate education is concerned, is deserving of top 5 honors among public universities. It is one of just 7 or 8 publics that deserves such a distinction. It is truly an excellent university. Any university that produced three presidents and half the signitories of the declaration of independence deserves respect.</p>
<p>^^^ Agree with that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and is in many ways better than the weakest member of the M7 (Columbia)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? How so?</p>
<p>Frankly, I always thought of Chicago as the weakest M7 member... either way, Haas has a ways to go before it is equal or better than HBS, Wharton, Stanford GSB, Columbia, Kellogg, MIT Sloan and Chicago - it's just not Top Tier league.</p>
<p>How come UVA's so high up on everyone's list ?</p>
<p>"In short, one cannot compare the Michigan "system" to the UC system. When one says the University of Michigan, It pretty much means Ann Arbor. The same cannot be said of the UC system."</p>
<p>Actually, I'll add that Berkeley is often referred to as "UC" (not to mention Cal), much to the chagrin of the other UCs.</p>
<p>"I know that UConn is going to be a top 15 public in 10 years.... I'd stake my life on it.... its almost a sure bet."</p>
<p>I would not be so sure about that. UCONN is not even a Top-25 Public, and has a really small endowment. Plus Connecticut does not even have 4 million residents total.</p>
<p>How can you be so sure?</p>