<p>It looks like some of you are being way to general with your list of “Public Ivies”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say anything besides:</p>
<p>UMich
UNCCH
UVa
UCB
UCLA</p>
<p>[Top</a> Public Schools | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public]Top”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public)</p>
<p>‘Public Ivies’ should probably include the top 20 or so on this list</p>
<p>Top 6:
Berkeley
Michigan
Virginia
UCLA
UNC-CH
W&M</p>
<p>Other publics that boast top tier programs and plenty of top-notch undergrads:
Georgia Tech, Texas, Wisconsin, UIUC, UCSD</p>
<p>The top 4 public schools are:</p>
<p>Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA</p>
<p>The other top publics are:</p>
<p>GA Tech
UNC-Chapel Hill
Texas-Austin
Wisconsin
Illinois
W&M
and probably UCSD & Washington</p>
<p>In my opinion, I think the only schools that can claim “Ivy status” (whatever that means, right?) are:</p>
<p>Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVa
UNC</p>
<p>As many people here have said, the only real claimants are </p>
<p>-Cal
-UCLA
-UNCCH
-UVa
-U of M</p>
<p>The other schools just don’t cut it. In my opinion, in order to be a public Ivy, all of the following must be met</p>
<p>-cutting-edge research in at least one broad major
-strong in almost all the other major fields
-the #1 choice for thousands of top high school students who did not choose the school based on cost/location</p>
<p>^In that case can you really argue that Virginia is a “public ivy”? The school’s only undisputed top ten programs are Business, English, and Law. Most of their academic programs are solid but the research is no where near comparable to the likes of Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, and UNC.</p>
<p>Still not sure why W&M tends to get shafted for public ivy status. The undergraduate student body is comparable to the other top publics (based on SATs and class ranking), and it’s undergrad rigor is pretty well reputed. It might not be a research power house, but neither is Virginia, and undisputable top 3-4 state school.</p>
<p>W&M is too small. It doesn’t have the critical mass of intellect needed for Ivy status. It also doesn’t have enough absolute numbers of top achievers. Schools such as Ohio or Indiana probably have more valedictorians or people who scored 2100+ on the SAT.</p>
<p>Berkeley
<em>very small gap</em>
UCLA/Michigan
<em>small gap</em>
UNC/UVa</p>
<p>The gap between Berkeley and Michigan/UCLA is not “very small”. UCB enrolls a much stronger undergraduate student body than either of these two other public schools. Berkeley enrolled more National Merit Scholars last Fall than any other university in the U.S. besides HYPSM, Penn, Duke, and Columbia.</p>
<p>I might add that the gap ACADEMICALLY between Berkleley and Duke is not that small either. Cal almost totally trumps Duke in every comparable discipline. It’s really quite shocking IMHO that a supposibly top ten school at USNWR is so far below academically a school listed out of the top 20.</p>
<p>That said, I do agree that there is a definite gap between Cal and Michigan/UCLA.</p>
<p>“UCB enrolls a much stronger undergraduate student body than either of these two other public schools.”</p>
<p>Is that so?</p>
<p>AVERAGE CUMULATIVE HIGH SCHOOL GPA (unweighed)
Cal 3.83
Michigan 3.79</p>
<p>FRESHMAN GRADUATING AMONG TOP 10% OF THEIR HIGH SCHOOL CLASS
Cal 98%
Michigan 92%</p>
<p>MID 50% SAT
CAL 1250-1490
Michigan 1260-1460</p>
<p>MID 50% ACT
Cal 28-33
Michigan 28-32</p>
<p>In short, Cal and Michigan have identical student bodies.</p>
<p>And while enrolment of NMF is worth observing, they make fewer than 2% of Cal’s student body and fewer than 1% of Michigan’s student body. Unless NMFs make up a serious chunk of a student body (10%-15% as is the case with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford and Caltech), their number on campus is not very telling and should not be used to gauge student quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I meant as whole institutions. Berkeley may have more top programs than UCLA and Michigan, sure. But it’s only ranked 3 spots ahead of UCLA and UVa in US News and 4 spots ahead of UCLA in the THE ranking (although 11 spots over Michigan, and many more over UVA) It’s endowment is marginally higher than UCLA’s, and is much smaller than Michigan’s. Again, all of these universities are pretty tit-for-tat depending on what criteria you’re looking at. But again, Berkeley has an edge.</p>
<p>
Alexandre, you can’t just add up the 25th/75th percentiles for the different sections on the SAT to come up with a range like the ones you have presented. Its faulty statistics; that being said, Cal has a clear edge over UMich in the SAT as Cal’s 75th percentile in all three sections are 20 points higher than Michigan’s (Math, CR, and Writing). The edge that Berkeley has isn’t significant but its certainly worth noting.</p>
<p>
I find it shocking that a Michigan alum can’t spell “supposedly” properly. Keep in mind I made it clear that I was talking about undergraduate student body strength and not faculty prowess. USNWR rates Duke higher since it has more resources per student, enrolls a stronger student body, has lower S/F ratios and class sizes, a larger endowment per capita, etc.</p>
<p>Cal has a world-class faculty already; it just needs to enroll smarter students now and increase its financial resources if it wants to be “as good as” Duke.</p>
<p>“Alexandre, you can’t just add up the 25th/75th percentiles for the different sections on the SAT to come up with a range like the ones you have presented.”</p>
<p>And yet that’s how all rankings that use the SAT as a metric do it. How about the ACT? There is virtually no difference in the 25th/75th percentiles between Cal and Michigan there either. </p>
<p>“that being said, Cal has a clear edge over UMich in the SAT as Cal’s 75th percentile in all three sections are 20 points higher than Michigan’s (Math, CR, and Writing). The edge that Berkeley has isn’t significant but its certainly worth noting.”</p>
<p>20 points for each section represents a “clear edge”? LOL! Even 50 points per section is negligible. You honestly think that the average student at Chicago is that much smarter than the average student at Brown…or that the average student at WUSTL is much smarter than the average student at Cornell? Until very recently, Stanford’s SAT range lagged behind Princeton’ and Yale’s by 30-40 points per section. I am certain that none of those are significant or clear in any way.</p>
<p>“USNWR rates Duke higher since it has more resources per student, enrolls a stronger student body, has lower S/F ratios and class sizes, a larger endowment per capita, etc.”</p>
<p>Mostly because Duke and Cal report data very differently. We’ve been through this already, and it is clear that if one were to compare apples to apples, Cal and Duke have very similar S:F ratios, faculty resources, financial resources etc…</p>
<p>“I find it shocking that a Michigan alum can’t spell “supposedly” properly.”</p>
<p>Finally you got me on spelling goldenboy. For all “intensive purposes” I am usually a pretty good speller. ;-)</p>
<p>That’s right Goldenboy. Figure in faculty distinctions like academy membership and Nobel prizes, etc. the gap between Berkeley and Michigan/UCLA is huge!</p>
<p>^^^Even larger between Cal and Duke…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, I would say that the student bodies at both schools exhibit nearly identical statistics for GPA and standardized test scores, but I think you’d have a different viewpoint if you were to fly to Oakland and show the little one around after introducing him to Ann Arbor’s football. </p>
<p>I happen to think that except for the statistical similarity, the student bodies will reflect the vast differences of the attraction of Michigan and Cal, which is mostly local and regional. That is the danger of using admissions’ metrics to establish the similarities of student bodies. Just as there is much similarity between Duke’s and Stanford’s student bodies, despite the numerous opinions to the contrary. Also, despite the regional and local overlaps in applications, they tend to vanish entirely when it comes to enrollment, as the example of Cal and Stanford demonstrates. </p>
<p>By the way, the term “Public Ivies” remains the absolute dumbest thrown around on College Confidential. By a far margin! And only dwarfed by the even dumber discussion about which school should be deserving of an inclusion in that utterly dubious listing.</p>
<p>Is it not enough to be much better at football than the members of the Ivy League?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blame it on your iPad, rjk. Works for me.</p>
<p>By the way, to all intents, constructions, and purposes the use of quotations marks around “intensive purposes” was brilliant, especially if deliberate.</p>