<p>“The only true Public Ivies: Michigan, Wisconsin, UVA, UNC, UCB, UCLA, Miami of Ohio, Vermont, William & Mary”</p>
<p>Pretty accurate, but I’d replace Vermont with Illinois and take M of O off altogether.</p>
<p>Miami of Ohio should not be any where near this list today</p>
<p>
It was a hypothetical…<br>
I believe westsidewolf once said the California schools are only good at sports no one cares about, like swimming, tennis and tiddlywinks. ;)</p>
<p>I never read Moll but I gather that much of his methodology was very subjective. Nothing wrong with that, in the appropriate dose.</p>
<p>In my mind, a state college would be considered elite if it’s programs and the work required of students was rigorous. Now, by definition, it’s can be difficult for a class that accomodates 200 students to be considered ‘rigorous.’ But a large tally of students per class is what’s typical at state colleges (we all know class-size usually improves in the higher level courses). All that being said, I think the standard for defining a state school as elite is whether or not the undergraduate education is rigorous and comprehensive. So, my list of elite publics are;</p>
<p>Michigan-Ann Arbor
Virginia
Wisconsin-Madison
California-Berkeley
Washington
Indiana</p>
<p>And some other excellent schools…
Ohio University (not OSU)
Michigan State
California-Los Angeles
Illinois
Minnesota-Twin Cities</p>
<p>^^^^What about UNC and Texas? They should both be above Indiana.</p>
<p>I think LakeWashington is a Big Ten fan.</p>
<p>Honestly, there are eight schools in the ivy league and their are eight public ivies.</p>
<p>Berkeley
Virginia
Michigan
UCLA
Wisconsin
North Carolina
William and Mary
Texas</p>
<p>That is it. Period.</p>
<p>Cal Berkeley
Cal LA
Virginia
Michigan
North Carolina</p>
<p>William & Mary</p>
<p>May I ask why you separate W&M? If anything, it is closer to the size of most of the Ivies.</p>
<p>W&M, in my opinion, is a little bit different from the other five schools. </p>
<p>It’s like listing schools like this:</p>
<p>Harvard
Stanford
Princeton
Yale
Columbia</p>
<p>Williams</p>
<p>Some would disagree, but most students would consider Williams ‘the same-level-school with the others’. </p>
<p>That’s it. No special intention.</p>
<p>I agree. The top five in order.</p>
<p>Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA
UNC</p>
<p>Public Ivies for engineering:</p>
<p>Berkeley
Michigan
Georgia Tech
Illinois
Wisconsin
Texas
UCSD
Purdue</p>
<p>^^^^To me any state school that doesn’t have an engineering program, or is not particularly strong in engineering, is somewhat lacking in being a truly great comprehensive university.</p>
<p>BaddyCaddy09:
“Pretty accurate, but I’d replace Vermont with Illinois and take M of O off altogether.”</p>
<p>Miami of Ohio has long been considered a Public Ivy due to being one of the oldest universities in the country and since historically it appealed to a lot of students from the Northeast.</p>
<p>Vermont is considered a Public Ivy because for many years it was the best state university in New England, a region that historically neglected public universities due to the dominance of great private colleges and universities. Years back, Vermont was considered better academically than state universities in many other states outside New England. If a rich kid from New England did not get into a real ivy and wanted to stay in New England, he could always spend 4 years skiing in Vermont.</p>
<p>Illinois is not a Public Ivy because it lacks the requisite social status and does not draw enough students from out-of-state (esopecially from the Northeast), even though it’s a good school academically. Schools like Michigan and Wisconsin always drew a lot of kids from the Northeast.</p>
<p>Even though a particular public university is strong academically, it would not necesarily be considered a Public Ivy unless it has some social status and draws students from outside its region. That is one reason Texas is not considered a Public Ivy. It might be OK academically, but it’s still considered too regional (at least historically, it is). It also lacks social status, outside the region. Schools like Florida or Colorado are not considered Public Ivies because they are not academically strong enough across the board. Just because a rich kid who didn’t get into a real Ivy might find them attractive places to spend four years partying with his frat buddies and hanging out on the beach or ski slopes doesn’t make them Ivies. </p>
<p>Obviously, we’re dealing with stereotypes here. But, a lot of posters are missing the class and social status dimensions of why a school is considered a Public Ivy. Unfortunately, those distinctions are based in historical perceptions of a school. Adiitionally, these perceptions are from a Northeastern perspective. Some posters are probably too young to have a sense of those distinctions. The academic quality or selectivity of some schools they list is too recent to matter in terms of being considered a Public Ivy. I don’t personally subscribe to these class-based distinctions, but I am aware that they’ve existed historically in the perception and prestige of certain schools that are considered Public Ivies.</p>
<p>When Moll or authors of similar books refer to “Public Ivies” their point is that many of the better public universities might provide an education of comparable quality to a private university for a lower cost. While that may be true in many cases, it does not necessarily consider the social and prestige factors in what is historically considered a Public Ivy. Moll et al. are using the term in a different way.</p>
<p>^^^^While I don’t agree entirely with everything you’re saying, overall I think your logic is correct.</p>
<p>so zapfino</p>
<p>We are to base which school is a public ivy by how desirable it is to people in the northeast? I disagree. I believe desirability results from quality. The northeast is not the be all end all that you and others on here think it is.</p>
<p>Flyero, I believe zapfino is basing his analysis on the fact that if Northeast kids did not get into the Ivy League colleges, the next best alternatives are heading westward (Michigan, Wisconsin) or southern (Virginia, North Carolina). They are the largest regional demographic group who matriculate to college.</p>
<p>Other than satisfying everyone’s need (including mine) to quantify and order things into lists (which is why mags put them out - they sell!), this is pretty pointless. Still, can’t… fight… urge… to… pontificate!</p>
<p>Cal-Berkeley and Michigan are no-brainers, meeting most anyone’s definition of what a top university should be. After that, it depends on what you value as your criteria as to whether one school merits inclusion or not. This is the same sort of decision HS grads face when choosing a college.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this discussion, I’d value a combination of selectivity, resources, distinguished faculty, academic breadth and depth, and national prestige for both undergrad AND grad schools. Thus, many fine schools mentioned by others wouldn’t make my cut. The next level would include:</p>
<p>UCLA
UNC
UVA
Wisconsin</p>
<p>These all have combinations of good and great characteristics for all my criteria. If necessary to fill out the list to an arbitrary eight (using the Ivy analogy), I’d pick from Texas, Illinois, and perhaps Washington and UCSD.</p>
<p>Those with excellent reputations which I’d exclude are:</p>
<p>W&M: Not a research and graduate powerhouse
Service academies: See above, plus lack breadth/depth
Georgia Tech: Too concentrated in engineering</p>
<p>You are now free to either validate my opinions or else prove yourself to be wrong.;)</p>
<p>Regarding the University of Texas</p>
<p>In the famous PA score by USNWR, Texas ranks above all but UC-Berkeley, UCLA, Virginia, UNC, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Above W&M, above Washington, and tied with Illinois. </p>
<p>Just for grins, I decided to average the scores of USNWR for the following sections and sort them by their average. I considered UG ranking for business and engineering, and graduate rankings for business, public affairs, education, engineering, medicine and law. I used these since they were easily available in the magazine. I assume they are categories of worth, since USNWR broke down the rankings for these categories. I only averaged the schools for the categories in which they were ranked. I did not figure any zeroes. </p>
<ol>
<li>UC-Berkeley 4.9</li>
<li>Michigan 8.4</li>
<li>Texas 12.3</li>
<li>UCLA 12.4</li>
<li>Illinois 18.7</li>
<li>Washington 19.6</li>
<li>North Carolina 19.7</li>
<li>Wisconsin 19.9</li>
<li>Virginia 21.3</li>
</ol>
<p>As you can see from rankings by different areas in a university and the peer assessment overall, UT ranks with the best publics. Texas deserves to be considered a public ivy. </p>
<p>For my own amusement, Florida’s average rank is 35. It has impressive numbers for its student body, but it is not nearly as impressive academically as the top publics.</p>
<p>1) Your definition is quite different from the thread’s purpose for identifying/discussion “public ivies.”
- Neither Dartmouth nor Brown are graduate powerhouses, should they not be included in the ivies?
- Provides undergraduate students with many opportunities for independent and faculty-led research. I don’t have hard numbers, but compared with UVA you will most likely find that W&M brings in more research money per capita for undergraduates. (W&M also made a list of top undergrad research schools while others on your list did not, according to one CCer’s quote of US News: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/598438-best-schools-undergraduate-research.html?highlight=research[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/598438-best-schools-undergraduate-research.html?highlight=research</a>)</p>