<p>Agreed that the decision is a matter of taste as different things will appeal to different people. Frankly, from what I know about Brown and U Virginia, it is always something of a surprise to me to see these two schools on the same college application list. Both terrific schools, but offering different experiences that will appeal to different personalities. </p>
<p>One thing about student satisfaction. Brown clearly does well in the Alumni Giving survey for USNWR and ranks 7th with 39%. But U Virginia, as a public institution, does extremely well and ranks 36th with 25% of its graduates making donations. The U Virginia alumni that I have known, to a person, loved their undergraduate experience with every bit as much passion as those from Brown, Dartmouth, etc. And in comparison, other top publics don't do nearly as well as U Virginia, eg, UC Berkeley at 14%, UCLA at 14%, U Michigan at 17%. Only U North Carolina (23%) is close among public schools ranked in the top 30.</p>
<p>I've given up on the public/private debate here, but here's a little writing lesson for sakky: </p>
<p>I don't bother to read your long posts, but in your shorter post #180, which I did read, you repeated the same thought at least 3 times. Stop making the same point innumerable times in innumerable posts; just say it once. Your posts will be shorter, more to the point, and people might actually read them. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
One thing about student satisfaction. Brown clearly does well in the Alumni Giving survey for USNWR and ranks 7th with 39%. But U Virginia, as a public institution, does extremely well and ranks 36th with 25% of its graduates making donations. The U Virginia alumni that I have known, to a person, loved their undergraduate experience with every bit as much passion as those from Brown, Dartmouth, etc. And in comparison, other top publics don't do nearly as well as U Virginia, eg, UC Berkeley at 14%, UCLA at 14%, U Michigan at 17%. Only U North Carolina (23%) is close among public schools ranked in the top 30.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't just referring to the USNews alumni donation rate. I was also talking about the Fiske's "quality of life" and "social" ratings. I was talking about the metrics used by Princeton Review. None of them are perfect, but the point is that it doesn't seem that Dartmouth or Brown are lacking in terms of student satisfaction. </p>
<p>However, I would agree that UVa actually does very well in terms of the things I have mentioned here (student satisfaction and especially graduation rate) compared to other public schools. In fact, in other threads, I have asked why can't Berkeley or UCLA have graduation rates as high as UVa does? Why can't Berkeley or UCLA alumni donate at the same rate? The public/private dichotomy is no excuse now, as UVa is also a public school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't bother to read your long posts, but in your shorter post #180, which I did read, you repeated the same thought at least 3 times. Stop making the same point innumerable times in innumerable posts; just say it once. Your posts will be shorter, more to the point, and people might actually read them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I will continue to write my posts as I please. You are free to not read them. I don't tell you how to write your posts, so don't tell me how to write mine. </p>
<p>Why do you care so much about about how I write my posts anyway? They're my posts, and I can write them however way I want. You say that more people will read my posts if I write shorter ones, but why do you care about that? If people don't read my posts, that's my problem, not yours.</p>
<p>Guys, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you don't like my posts, THEN DON'T READ THEM.</p>
<p>This is so funny. This time you repeated the same point 4 times, maybe 5. Not sure--I lost count. :) Wouldn't it be easier to just keep a personal journal, since you don't care if anybody reads your public posts?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is so funny. This time you repeated the same point 4 times, maybe 5. Not sure--I lost count. Wouldn't it be easier to just keep a personal journal, since you don't care if anybody reads your public posts?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that this is funny. I advise you not to read my posts, you said that you wouldn't, and yet you continue to do so anyway. </p>
<p>I am putting out my opinions out there. People have the choice to read them or not. If they do, that's good. If they do not, that's fine too. </p>
<p>But don't come here and read my posts and then complain about them. You always had the choice to not read them.</p>
<p>Oh, I read the short ones (sometimes). But let me get this straight-- you do, or you don't care if I read them? Is that right? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, because I don't think you made it clear enough . . .</p>
<p>So now I don't think you made it clear enough. When you said before that you weren't going to read my posts, were you lying? </p>
<p>Consider carefully what you said in post #86:</p>
<p>
[quote]
*If you don't like my posts, then don't read them *</p>
<p>Haha. I don't; I haven't; and I won't in future
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm, it seems as if you said that you won't read my posts in the future. Yet here you are doing just that. Isn't that interesting?</p>
<p>Now I will answer your question I am going to write my posts the way I want to, and you are free to read or not read them. I don't care if you (jack) read them or not. I do care if other people (like hawkette, afan, and others) who will actually remain on topic read them or not.</p>
<p>But what I am not going to do is change the way I write. Why should I? Why should I write the way that others here want me to write? These are my posts, not theirs. In particularly, why do YOU (jack) care so much about how I write? Like I said, if my style is not to your taste, then you are free to not read.</p>
<p>Wait. Let me see if I got this straight. You ARE or you AREN'T going to change the way you write? And do you really care if I read them or not? You have a real problem making yourself clear, sakky. I think you need to repeat yourself at least 5 more times on this topic-- maybe 7-- you know, just so we can all be clear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You ARE or you AREN'T going to change the way you write?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, what did I say in post 188?</p>
<p>"But what I am not going to do is change the way I write. "</p>
<p>
[quote]
And do you really care if I read them or not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, post #188</p>
<p>" I don't care if you (jack) read them or not."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you need to repeat yourself at least 5 more times on this topic-- maybe 7-- you know, just so we can all be clear.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And apparently you need to ask the same question multiple times, despite the answers being given, before YOU are clear. </p>
<p>If you want to read my posts, then please ACTUALLY READ them. Otherwise don't read them at all. But there's no sense in answering questions that I have already answered.</p>
<p>Why do you care so much about about how I write my posts anyway? They're my posts, and I can write them however way I want. You say that more people will read my posts if I write shorter ones, but why do you care about that? If people don't read my posts, that's my problem, not yours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>People care because it degrades the forum. If in searching for some signal among the noise, it becomes too much trouble navigating past overlong posts and the others replying and re-replying to them about the same issues ad infinitum, people who might have contributed something just abandon the thread. </p>
<p>Excessive noise-to-signal is trolling. Succinct = good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People care because it degrades the forum. If in searching for some signal among the noise, it becomes too much trouble navigating past overlong posts and the others replying and re-replying to them about the same issues ad infinitum, people who might have contributed something just abandon the thread. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'm quite certain that my CC 'signal-to-noise' ratio is pretty good. Take a gander at some of the other posters on CC. Honestly, how much value do they really add? At least I'm trying to talk about a serious subject in a serious manner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Excessive noise-to-signal is trolling. Succinct = good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, except for when people then start complaining that I am "overgeneralizing" the issue or that I failed to discussed various details. You can't win on this board. No matter what you write, somebody will always complain that it is too short or too long. </p>
<p>Siserune, this isn't directed at you, but like I always said, for those who don't like my posts, then don't read them, and certainly, don't reply to them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I'm quite certain that my CC 'signal-to-noise' ratio is pretty good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>if you really want to be certain, then listen to and consider the feedback you get on the things you post. </p>
<p>It doesn't feel logical to me that you, on the one hand, tell critics that they can just go away and not read your posts and not reply or not debate with you, and on the other hand assert that you are a valuable contributor to the conversation on this site. </p>
<p>It is, after all, meant to be a forum where people discuss, clarify, respond, and inform.</p>
<p>I enjoy many of sakky's postings which are obviously intelligent etc. But CC is technologically limited and not the right type of forum for iterated line by line rebuttals to five different opponents (each such posting spawning five more replies). Until that problem is fixed one has to allow for the discussions not resolving all points, and letting various comments slide so as to keep things short or not waste one's own time. Opening new threads to deal with sub-issues, instead of letting one enormous thread keep drifting, is also a good thing IMO.</p>