<p>Why leave out all the graduate departmental rankings that cover most of the liberal arts?? Not many undergrads even set foot in the law or medical schools. It has no part in general UG education. Same for many B schools.</p>
<p>I did it that way since those were the major categories USNWR used. I don’t think the results would change that wildly with all. I might mess with that sometime. I never said it was UG only. A university is all of its departments, not just undergrad.</p>
<p>Flyero: When I hit that send button, I knew it would ruffle someones feathers, especially if his/her favorite school did not make the list </p>
<p>Anyway, I was only trying to convey what the term Public Ivy meant historically. I agree with you that desirability results from quality, but there are many quality public universities that are not perceived as public ivies in the historical meaning of that term and for reasons apart from their quality. I think tensighs correctly understands what I tried to convey.</p>
<p>Now, if you want to make a list of public universities that might offer an education comparable to the top private universities at a lower cost and label those schools as public ivies, then the list will differ from the list of schools historically perceived as public ivies. However, I dont have an issue with pointing out that, in fact, there are a number of public universities that offer that level of academic quality. Students about to choose a college, especially those with a Northeastern bias, should be aware of those schools.</p>
<p>I personally dont have a Northeastern bias. I attended both private and public universities in the Midwest, and Ive lived and worked in several regions of the country.</p>
<p>However, I dont consider the methodology of USNWR rankings to result in valid rankings, particularly due to the PA scores. In fact, a good case can be made that the USNWR rankings perpetuate a Northeastern bias and promote a level of prestige-whoring that blinds some people to the academic quality of all but the top-ranked schools.</p>
<p>Here<em>to</em>Help, perhaps my definition is different from what you perceive this thread to be about. The Ivies are a collection of schools which are often quite different from each other, but share connotations of superior academics, selectivity, and prestige.</p>
<p>Within that group, though, there are distinctions, and Dartmouth and Brown are considered near or at the bottom of the grouping. That doesn’t make them bad schools by any stretch nor relegate them out of the Ivy League. It just means they have less of what one would consider to be Ivy qualities of the schools in that arbitrary collection. And, BTW, while perhaps not at the overall level of their peers, they still have some pretty good grad schools (medicine and business, for example).</p>
<p>As the point of this thread was to express opinions of which public schools best meet those criteria, I did just that - listed the ones I feel best meet them. While W&M may be at or above the level of the schools I name on the undergrad level, it just isn’t as complete as those schools at the grad level. Without a definitive definition of what a “public Ivy” is, each of us has to make up our own. My definition tries to include lots of factors and weighs grad school more heavily than, apparently, yours does. As I stated earlier, you’re entitled to your opinion, even when it’s wrong.
<–Note emoticon: it’s there for a reason.</p>
<p>Haha ok. I guess like most ranking/lists it comes down to what you consider important in the weightings.</p>
<p>Flyero–they ahve an entire section devoted to arts and sciences–you know what most students actually study in college. Look again and redo the numbers.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Berkeley’s grad school did a similar USNWR composite of PhD and professional programs. For the PhD programs they included both sciences (chemistry, math, physics, etc.) and liberal arts (English, Economics, History, etc.).</p>
<p>average PhD score for grad programs (based on peer reputation rankings)
- Berkeley - 4.8
- Stanford - 4.8
- MIT - 4.8
- Princeton - 4.6
- Harvard - 4.6
- Yale - 4.4
- Michigan - 4.4
- Wisconsin - 4.3
- Chicago - 4.3
- Cornell - 4.3
- Columbia - 4.3
- UCLA - 4.2
- Texas - 4.0</p>
<p>professional schools by mean rank:
- Stanford - 1.8
- Berkeley - 5.0
- Michigan - 6.4
- Harvard - 7.0
- Northwestern - 12.3
- Columbia - 12.6
- Duke - 13.0
- Texas - 13.2
- NYU - 14.5
- UCLA - 14.6
- Wisconsin - 15.2
- Virginia - 16.5
- Illinois - 16.5
- Indiana - 17.3
- Pennsylvania - 18.6</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/usnews_rankings_2008.pdf[/url]”>http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/usnews_rankings_2008.pdf</a></p>
<p>There really is absolutely no justification for not including Wisconsin, Texas, and Illinois among any list of top publics.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen anything new, but USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>So, Public Ivy is simply the list of top public schools based on either college or grad ranking???</p>
<p>BTW, USNWR composite of PhD programs is very interesting. They should show the full list to compare it with USNWR college rank.</p>
<p>I did not mean to imply I was trying to put together some comprehensive ranking of universities. I do know there are many liberal arts rankings. A whole bunch of them. I threw that together just wanting a quick overview of the rankings and used only those which USNWR gave a full page spread to. The individual departments are like 5 to a page. That is how I chose what was important when I did that in a few minutes. </p>
<p>Thank you for providing that JWT86. I knew the complete info had to have been done by someone. I guessed the complete info wouldn’t change the list from the basic fields too much and it didn’t. I agree with you completely in that Texas, Wisconsin and Illinois belong on any list of top publics. Each are amazing universities with strengths in many fields. I find it interesting that those three universities compete quite well (or better than) UNC and Virginia in the table of rankings compiled by UC-Berkeley. It also shows how truly spectacular UC-Berkeley and Michigan are.</p>
<p>^^^^^“I agree with you completely in that Texas, Wisconsin and Illinois belong on any list of top publics. Each are amazing universities with strengths in many fields. I find it interesting that those three universities compete quite well (or better than) UNC and Virginia in the table of rankings compiled by UC-Berkeley. It also shows how truly spectacular UC-Berkeley and Michigan are.”</p>
<p>I concur!</p>
<p>^^^ That’s a fairly odd professional school ranking. Typically, I’d expect the focus to be on Law, Medicine and Business. If you’re going to expand the list beyond that, why include Education (or Public Affairs) but not Architecture (or Journalism)?</p>
<p>Again, I used the categories which the magazine gave a full page to. If there is a full page one for those areas, I did not see it. My posting was never meant to be the end all comparison, only a quick sample to show there are very strong universities which people are not giving credit to on here. For a comprehensive comparison, see the link of the study completed by UC-Berkeley.</p>
<p>is maryland better than illinois???</p>
<p>Not yet…</p>
<p>according to Wikipedia:</p>
<p>The original eight Public Ivies as they were listed by Moll in 1985-
College of William & Mary (Williamsburg, Virginia)
Miami University (Oxford, Ohio)
University of California (campuses as of 1985)
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Texas at Austin
University of Vermont (Burlington)
University of Virginia (Charlottesville)</p>
<p>The “public” Ivy League school is Cornell, for Agriculture and Life Sciences, Human Ecology, Industrial and Labor Relations, and Veterinary Medicine.</p>
<p>@sweetlacecharm,</p>
<p>
[/quote]
The original eight Public Ivies as they were listed by Moll in 1985-
College of William & Mary (Williamsburg, Virginia)
Miami University (Oxford, Ohio)
University of California (campuses as of 1985)
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Texas at Austin
University of Vermont (Burlington)
University of Virginia (Charlottesville)
[/quote]
</p>
<hr>
<p>Instead, IMHO: </p>
<p><a href=“Comprehensive%20Research”>B</a>**</p>
<p>University of Washington - Seattle
The Ohio State University - Columbus
University of California (campuses as of 1985)
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Texas at Austin
University of Wisconsin - Madison
University of Virginia (Charlottesville)</p>
<p>THE 10 TRUE Public Ivies (by 2020) :p</p>
<p>P.S. For University of California campuses, I have included UCB, UCLA & UCSD.</p>
<p>Footnote: </p>
<p>For University of California campuses, I have included UCB, UCLA & UCSD. UCSD barely made my list of Top-10 “Comprehensive.” In fact, it is equal to UIUC imho. So, the number #10 spot is actually interchangeable between the two schools for now! </p>
<p>Based on the stats, UCSD is more selective with higher annual research expenditures; however, UIUC is slightly more comprehensive than UCSD in terms of programs offer, and also slightly higher “Undergraduate Academic Reputation Index” score than SD (by 2 points).</p>
<p>So, basically, we have 4 BIG TEN, 4 PAC-12, 2 ACC and 1 BIG-XII school. Trust me, I am VERY FAIR! And you should be able to take my words to the bank come 2020. :p</p>
<p>P.S. How come my
[/quote]
function never works? >o<"</p>
<p>Change the first
[/quote]
to
[quote]
</p>
<p>For those of you who wonder why I did not include “Georgia Tech” in my list of ‘Top-10 Comprehensive Publics,’ it is because as I’ve alluded in the past that it just is not good enough across the board, especially lacking of depth in social, business & medical sciences related studies. Although it is certainly an excellent academic institution via USNWR metrics, it is not so via ARWU standards.</p>