http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/10386156/#Comment_10386156
Wonder why the state of South Caroline doesn’t have a notable institution of higher learning? Here’s why.
Mardsen: “Along similar lines: look at North Carolina and South Carolina. NC has Duke, Davidson, Chapel Hill, Wake Forest. SC doesn’t have a single institution of note, academically speaking. No idea why!”
zapfino: " South Carolina is a backward state in many respects. It’s doubtful that it has the intellectual-cultural or socio-political climate to attract top faculty across the disciplines. Even if the state decided to go all out to develop a first-rate university, it has a tough history to overcome . . . That’s a good question, Marsden…I don’t know the answer, but look at South Carolina today…it’s still trying to fight the civil war it lost…it’s been a retrograde and renegade state since 1790 at least. "
Is that really why? Attracting faculty? Jobs are scarce and good potential faculty members are not. I’ve helped many faculty get jobs at “backward” states. They were happy to go there and they were happy to have the jobs. And when they got there, they found out that their culture and traditions were not nearly as backward as they’d believed. It has been interesting to see the transformation of these enlightened individuals once they get settled and end up adopting the retrograde culture. The difference between the education you receive at a “notable” institution and an average institution is not very big, much smaller than the notable institutions would have you believe. Otherwise, who will pay tuition.
One huge factor that isn’t mentioned is population of the state and largest cities. South Carolina is a small state in population. The largest city in South Carolina is smaller than a suburb in other metropolitan areas. There are probably half a dozen cities in North Carolina larger than the largest city in South Carolina. It takes capital to put together a university and what is common about “notable” universities is that they have a lot of it. The business faculty at USC is one counter-example to the hypotheses in the previous post. With a relatively modest investment, but large by South-Carolina standards, USC has built the most prestigious International Business curriculum in the country. I don’t see potential faculty turning up their noses to work there.
@ Gora14: Thank you for the response.
You mention population, but what about northeastern states with a smaller population size like Maine having institutions such as Bowdoin, Colby and Bates; New Hampshire having Dartmouth; and Vermont having Middlebury? Though, Maine does have the city of Portland, how much did the city influence the birth of the state’s liberal arts colleges?
Despite me not agreeing with the thoughts quoted in the OP, I do find it interesting why certain states (Pennsylvania & Massachusetts) have numerous “notable” institutions, compared to places like South Carolina. The state does have institutions like Clemson, USC and Furman.
Probably a fairer comparison would be the state of Delaware, a state small in size and population whose largest city is Wilmington (population of roughly 71.5K).
I think a key part has to do with the economic history of a given state and the outlook of education, especially the states effected by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1892.
A good question to ponder is how does a city influence the birth of colleges/universities both in the metro area and statewide.
One thing I do want to point out, if we just look at the latest (2015) USNews rankings for public universities, the southern region of the States stack up decently with six institutions coming from the South in the top 25. Another region that had good showing was the Midwest and the state of California with its public system, each having about six each.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
In the end I don’t think the reason the state of South Carolina “lacks” any decent institution of higher learning due to its suppose backwards culture and it being a Confederate state, despite having a different history compared to the Northeastern region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university
Many southern states have outstanding public university systems.
In terms of public and private schools-often states that had a lot of private institutions did not see the need for a public university system because the most influential people in the state viewed the educational needs of the important residents as being covered by the private schools. In some states, like NY, the influential wealthy citizens colluded with those invested in the private colleges and universities (such as university presidents and major benefactors) to oppose and obstruct efforts to develop a public university system. In NY they were successful for about 100 years.
Some of the best university systems are in the south.
@ lostaccount: True, there are academically strong public universities in the South.
[QUOTE=""]
Some of the best university systems are in the south.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this?
I believe SEC schools, just to use a particular group of universities, are somewhat overlooked, not necessarily underrated, by those not familiar with it, as well as other public southern universities in the ACC. I think people overlook southern universities because of the stigmas attached to the South, therefore it carries over into their thinking when it comes to fairly evaluating the academics in the conference.
This is a complicated issue. Here is my thought process:
- Public vs. private: I would argue that comparing public schools to private schools is poor practice given their different missions. Public universities are generally required by law or at least expected to enroll primarily students from the state in which they reside. This automatically puts South Carolina at a disadvantage because the state has historically underfunded education. Public universities are also required to offer majors that meet the workforce needs of the state, but that may not ultimately enrich graduates in the long run (i.e. nursing, agriculture, tourism).
- Population: Look at the best public schools in the South: Virginia, UNC, William and Mary, Georgia Tech, Florida, and Texas. They all have one thing in common: they are in large states and draw from major metropolitan areas. Clemson is a rare exception in the Top 20, but it is also engineering heavy and as has been well documented, deliberately gamed the rankings. There is also a demonstrable correlation between overall state growth and increase in rankings.
- Regionalism: South Carolina suffers from a deep seeded regionalism that leads to duplication. The most recent example is medical schools; the Lowcountry (Charleston) had MUSC and the Midlands (Columbia) had USC, so the Upstate (Greenville) had to draw its own second USC med school and now the Pee Dee (Florence) is trying to use the state legislature to pull its own. There is no Board of Regents as exists in other states to block this duplication and allocate resources in a sensible way. A central authority would help elevate the two major universities: USC and Clemson.
- K12 Education: As I eluded to earlier, the state has historically underfunded its education system. South Carolina has traditionally been a legislative state, that is to say the State Senate and House have exercised control over everything. Coupled with the inherent regionalism, this has led to an emphasis on unneeded roads over investments in K12 education. SC has an odd patchwork of school districts, such that there are often multiple districts within the same county. This needs to be solved as it has created a huge bureaucracy that robs students of needed resources.
I would argue that Clemson and South Carolina are building themselves in spite of the state. Growth in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina has outpaced growth in enrollment at its flagship schools, leading to strong academic profiles. South Carolina is growing, but it is starting at a low base. Out-of-state students are fueling substantial increases in average SAT scores and graduation rates. Mid-tier schools in the Southeast and West (including USC and Clemson) will rise over time because they have a lot more potential upside at this point than do schools in the economically stagnant Midwest or Northeast.