<p>To answer the original poster’s other question, fair or not, I don’t think UW has quite the cachet of U-Va, UNC-CH or UM. It’s pretty close though.</p>
<p>But they’re working on it. A new Dean of Cachet will soon be announced. Ads will be taken out in Town & Country, Forbes and Barrons (no relation).</p>
<p>…lol^</p>
<p>not quite sure the ads will be enough, lol. UW’s out of state admit rate is more than double U-Va’s and triple chapel hill’s!</p>
<p>But UW is still a better school in many ways. Maybe you should read the UVa inadequacies report (WAG) </p>
<p>Also location does matter.</p>
<p>Excerpt from WAG Report</p>
<p>College of Arts and Sciences (CLAS)
- Issue: Departments such as Physics, Math, and Biology have remained
static or have not grown in faculty size since 1990 over a period of time
when federal research awards increased. Most leading universities took
advantage of funding opportunities at NSF, NIH, DOE, NASA and other
agencies over this period. This enabled growth in faculty size in leading
competing universities. Laboratories were built with borrowed funds and
amortized from federal overhead payments. Now UVA has to play catchup,
when government funding is relatively static.
Recommendation: This was a major error in judgment. The Washington
Advisory Group supports UVA’s decision to make the necessary
investments to become a respectable research university. This will involve
a major initiative (described elsewhere) of recruiting research competent
faculty. An important goal is to increase the size of these departments to
the median level of those top 20 or so departments in the country of
comparable size to UVA. - Issue: UVA is embarking on a program to enhance its research
productivity in the natural sciences, engineering, and the biomedical
fields. UVA science is to a large extent located in the CLAS.
Recommendation: It is timely for the next Dean of CLAS be a scientist of
stature, with experience in developing research capacity of academic
Departments and Centers and accessing federal, and private funding
institutions.
Enhancing UVA’s Recognition as a Research University
June 30, 2007 (Issued September 10, 2007) 45 - Issue: Does CLAS have the know-how in its administration and faculty to
select forefront fields and identify research proven faculty recruits?
Recommendation: The Washington Advisory Group team found a core
of faculty in almost every CLAS department that exhibited the
enthusiasm, currency, and networking skills to serve in this function.
Nevertheless, outside advice can help, considering the importance of this
new endeavor. - Issue: The relatively low rankings of the very basic disciplines of
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics in CLAS contribute
significantly to the modest current image of UVA as a research university.
Almost every distinguished research university in the country ranks well
in these basic fields. Whatever the historic reasons, UVA cannot achieve
its new goals unless this is corrected.
Recommendation: Develop a plan specific for each of these basic
departments to improve its comparative ranking.</p>
<p>The original poster was rejected out of state from UW and asked a pretty straightforward question: “how does UW treat out of staters? Is it a top flight public like UM, UVa and UNC?” </p>
<p>All I did was give the answer to the question, and the answer is “no.” </p>
<p>It is without question MUCH easier to get into UW from out of state than it is to get into U-Va or UNC from out of state. The numbers speak for themselves. In fact, it’s easier for Virginia residents to get into UW from out of state than it is for Virginia residents to get into U-Va from IN state! This hardly means that U-Va is “better,” but it does mean that it’s a lot more selective and has a more highly qualified undergraduate student body.</p>
<p>UW does have a reputation as a top-flight research institution, which (outside of its professional schools and a few other distinct disciplines) U-Va clearly does not. But top-flight research doesn’t necessarily mean top-flight undergraduate education. More often than not it means the opposite. </p>
<p>In any event, we weren’t asked to compare the qualities of each school. We were only asked how each treated out of state applicants.</p>
<p>It is just your opinion that UW is not a top undergrad and the equal of UVa etc. I think it is better in many ways and the results also speak to that. UW produces more Pulitzer winners, more CEOs, etc despite the fact that it is easier to get into. Admissions is one of the more overrated ways to judge a school. UW is la larger school in a smaller state where elitism is not a virtue. Giving as many as possible an equal opportunity to receive an excellent education is.
Where is the substantiation that being a top research school automatically means a lesser undergrad?? It is just old hearsay. Harvard, Stanford, MIT also have top research programs. Most top faculty can handle doing both.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but where exactly did I say (1) “UW is not a top undergrad” or (2) being a top research school “automatically” means a lesser undergrad? All I’ve said is that U-Va is more selective than UW, while making clear that this “hardly means it’s better,” and suggested that having a top-flight research program doesn’t say a whole lot about undergraduate education. What exactly are we arguing about? </p>
<p>Relax, barrons. I’m not taking shots at UW.</p>
<p>nov… the research opportunities do trickle/flow down to the undergrad level. OOS admit rates do not necessarily correlate with quality of a school.</p>
<p>Truly, I don’t understand you people. Didn’t I say that OOS admit rates don’t make uva a better school???</p>
<p>Well, you brought it up as if it were important so…We knew what you meant–don’t try to backtrack now. Maybe we need two categories–social cachet and academic cachet.</p>
<p>“All I did was give the answer to the question, and the answer is “no.”” Your opinion based apparently on rejection rates–not academic institutional quality.</p>
<p>“not quite sure the ads will be enough, lol. UW’s out of state admit rate is more than double U-Va’s and triple chapel hill’s!” Now you are asking to get flamed. Deal with it.</p>
<p>Barrons, I’ve deleted my earlier response to your last post after thinking better of it. Just not worth the effort.</p>
<p>nova… You stated UW doesn’t have “…quite the cachet…”. The term “cachet” led people to believe the quality of the other schools was perceived to be higher- a correlation with admit rates was seen. Application numbers, and hence acceptance rates, are likely also correlated with location, demographics…</p>
<p>East coast schools will be more familiar and popular with the huge populations there, due to distances from home for students. This leads to a more favorable opinion of the known east coast schools, perceived as quality. Sensitive UW supporters who are tired of east coast assumptions were quick to rebut.</p>
<p>sensitive is right. gee whiz.</p>
<p>Feel free to PM me then. UVa is one school that I have some issues with and likewise UVa supporters and their arrogance. It’s the emperor has no clothes syndrome. Relatively few UVa professors are highly regarded in academia yet it attracts lots of applicants so it MUST be a great school (having a nice campus close to 50,000,000 people has nothing to do with it??). When UVa actually tried to attract some top science profs it was an epic flop and the program has been tabled after blowing many millions of $$$$s. So when I hear how great UVa is I say-where’s the beef?
Note–I spend time every year just south of Charlottesville and go up there all the time when I’m out in Virginia. I’ve done my research over several years.</p>
<p>No thanks.</p>
<p>From UVa 2007 self-study report by WAG:
A Mixed Standing in the Rankings. While UVA is ranked number 24 by U.S. News &
World Report (USNRW)3, mostly due to its outstanding undergraduate program, UVA
ranks only number 47 for FY 2005 in the key research indicator, namely the NSF ranking
of federal research expenditures4, and does not rank in the top 100 on the Academic
Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 2006. (UW ranks in the top 15) <a href=“http://www.arwu.org/Country2009Main.jsp?param=United%20States[/url]”>http://www.arwu.org/Country2009Main.jsp?param=United%20States</a>
If one looks at the important leading
American universities, it is exceptional that UVA ranks so highly for its undergraduate
program and so modestly as a research university.
The reason for this dichotomy between education and research attainment seems to be the
fact that most science and engineering departments at UVA have remained static or have
actually decreased in faculty size since 1990. We are told that this may have been due to
wrong judgments, to State funding crises and/or bias of some earlier administrators in
favor of humanities rather than science and engineering.
Whatever the circumstances that gave rise to this situation, in the period of the 1990’s to
the present government funding of academic research grew from about $11 billion to $22
billion in constant 2000 dollars. Most leading universities took advantage of the
extraordinary funding opportunities at NSF, NIH, DOE, NASA and other agencies over
this period, enabling significant growth in university income, increasing faculty sizes in
the science, engineering, and medical fields and allowing laboratories to be built with
borrowed funds and amortized from federal overhead payments. Today and in the
foreseeable future, government funding is likely to increase at a much slower rate.</p>
<p>Well, there you have it: “it is exceptional that UVA ranks so highly for its undergraduate program.” No argument from me.</p>
<p>Yes take that little nugget and run away now. Obviously reading for meaning is not your strength. Maybe they were actually saying UVa undergrad is overrated. But you don’t want to be unkind to the guy paying your fee.</p>
<p>Fine. You win. I’ll take the bait.</p>
<p>The article says what it says: U-Va has a strong undergraduate program, but weaker graduate science programs, and this is unusual. But it’s not unprecedented. Take Georgetown and Notre Dame, for example; both are in a similar boat (although U-Va’s graduate programs are, generally speaking, probably better). There are also lots of outstanding liberal arts colleges that don’t even have graduate programs. Remember? You don’t have to have one to have the other.</p>
<p>I understand your zeal to promote Wisconsin, which is an excellent school, but it’s not the only excellent school out there and it’s not excellent only because many of its graduate programs are. In fact, as I’ve said before, there’s a good argument that focusing too much on graduate education at UW has been detrimental to undergraduate education.</p>
<p>U-Va’s undergraduate school is smaller than UW’s, has a better reputation generally, has higher student quality as measured by SAT scores and class ranks, has far greater racial diversity, and has a much higher four year graduation rate. To many applicants and their parents (particularly the last factor), these are significant indicators of a high quality undergraduate education and are at least as important to them as having strong graduate programs. There’s room for both UW and U-Va to be very good, you know. You don’t need to take shots at one school (or cheap shots at its promotor) to promote your own.</p>