<p>some ppl on CC and also at the USNWR like to bash state/public schools when it comes to national undergrad rankings. so my question is, what should good state/public schools do in order to gain/maintain a solid national reputation? or do you think state/public schools will never be on par with top or near top privates?</p>
<p>Stop accepting so many people. Raise the bar on admissions. Hire more professors and make all professors actually teach instead of being able to buyout courses with research money.</p>
<p>First, let me compliment you on presenting a great subject for debate.</p>
<p>In my opinion, I don't think state schools will ever achieve the same national recognition as top private colleges. In order for any state school to seriously be considered a nationally prestigious institution, it would have to abandon its policy of filling a majority of each class with in-state applicants. The school, itself, can have excellent resources, but by being bound to the state in this way, the academic potential of its class will always be limited and top students will always be discouraged from enrolling. Of course, if the school was to do this, then it wouldn't be a state school anymore, would it?</p>
<p>Towerpumpkin, you can't just decide one year that you're going to "raise the bar on admissions" if you don't have the resources to back it up. </p>
<p>In the first place, state schools have to accept their second-rate status for now, keep accepting many applicants, but gradually begin a program to better the school: start pushing for some private funds, expand the library, build new research facilities. Gradually, they should begin admitting more competitive students and at the same time decreasing the percentage accepted in-state. After 10 or 15 years, the school will have a more qualified applicant pool, will be partially funded by private money - allowing for more freedom from state restrictions, and will perhaps have only 40% in-state applicants. It would still be a state school, but now it would be more competitive.</p>
<p>Some public universities, albeit a select few, already operate at the same level as elite private universities in terms of quality of student body, networking possibilities, graduate school matriculations, job opportunities, class size etc.... They truly have similar calibre students, faculties and resources. </p>
<p>Schools like Cal, Michigan, UNC, UCLA, UIUC, UTA, UVA and Wisconsin. None of those schools can compete with the likes of Harvard or Stanford just yet, but the better ones (like Cal and Michigan) are already considered as good as Columbia, Cornell, Duke or Penn. </p>
<p>The rest are as highly regarded as schools like Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Rice and Washington University.</p>
<p>People have suggested that state school need to develop a greater degree of autonomy in order to reach the next level. Schools like Michigan are doing just that. For example, a mere 8% of Michigan's funding originates for state funding. The rest comes from alumni, corporate, federal and university sources. As such, Michigan is practically independent. At the moment, a whopping 35% of undergrads and 60% of graduate students are from out-of-state. Schools like Stanford, Cornell and Columbia have 50% out of state students, so Michigan isn't far behind. In terms of endowment, Michigan has hit the $5 Billion mark this year. Only 7 other universities have made it to that exclusive club, and Michigan is rapidely gaining on them. 15 years ago, Michigan's endowment was $500 million, good for 23rd in the nation. Michigan's endowment is expected to be second to only Harvard by 2015. Schools like UVA, Cal, UCLA, UNC and Wisconsin are following suit.</p>
<p>alexandre, i'd like to agree with u, im a big supporter of public education. but i also heard an argument how, say for example, cal's caliber of students overall would never match cornell's or duke's or columbia's etc overall because cal only draws from the best of california's publics while the others draw the best from a variety of publics and privates across the nation. is this argument invalid? or does the caliber of cal's/michigan's students really match up to the schools that you compared it against? (or should caliber of students not be a major factor in determining the ACADEMICS of a school?)</p>
<p>I think that Cal and Michigan's top 80% are equal to Duke's or Columbia's general population. The bottom 20% at Michigan and cal are not Ivy League material. But those 20% barely graduate from Cal or Michigan...if at all. That is why Cal and Michigan graduate a mere 80%-85% of their students compared to close to 95% at the other schools. So I do not think it is a valid point to say that the difference in the quality of the students makes a significant difference.</p>
<p>j/w what's michigan's plan to surpass harvard in endowment by 2015?</p>
<p>wow...thanks alexandre...i did not know that about U Mich, but see, i think that only proves my point. Only by becoming financially independent and enrolling less people from the state does a public school become competitive - and when it does that, there's really no reason to still consider it a "public school."</p>
<p>In Va, UVA, W&M and Va Tech have joined forces to support a "charted universities initiative" - less state funding for more freedom. Here is the UVA link:</p>
<p>The state schools are more dependent on the whims of public policy makers and need to more effectively lobby for financial support to keep the costs down and to reduce the size of classes, while increasing the availabiltiy of required classes.</p>
<p>I think it is naive which colleges are better. If you are in Paris applying for a job and you went to Princeton and another applicant went to Berkeley you will most likely receive the same cordial reception and then what you did at school and after you left will be the primary topic of conversation. </p>
<p>In many situtations, the U of M, U of V, UCLA degree will get you through the same doors as degrees from HYP et al. There are some situations where Harvard, Yale, Princeton will gain you points. Of course in Hawaii, they would still want to know which local high school did you go to (for the same reason, prestige)</p>
<p>The USNews rankings have little to do with actual quality of education. State schools should not attempt to try to get in the top of the USNews listings. The whole USNews ranking was based on the presumption that Harvard, Yale, Princeton were the ideal colleges and thus all factors considered were based on the statistics they are tops in -- it is no accident that those three are always in the top 5. Factors considered important by USNews like low prof to student ratios, high percentage of Alumni donating, high no. of classes with fewest no. of students, highest prof salary scales, low admission rates and others are literally factors that state universities, funded by taxpayers dollars and whose stated goal is to educate as many of the students of the state that they can, cannot and should not try to compete with HYP on. A public university has never broke the top 20 of USNews because the factors it uses. Just think about what would happen to the rankings if USNews decided one day that the factor worth 25% of its rating was amount of tuition, the lower the better -- which is really a more important factor than many that USNews considers. Public universities would rule and HYP would drop to second tier.</p>
<p>In many ways, the state universities have a different mission than the privates. Not only are they designed to educate the students of that state, they can also support the economic development of the state. For example, UW was mentioned above. Its School of Agriculture is vital to the farmers in the state by developing new technologies and training many young people in agricultural fields. Private schools do not have state economic development as part of their mission. I think it is foolish to think that state schools should strive to be more like privates so that they would be more highly ranked. In many ways, comparing Harvard to Penn State is comparing apples to oranges. They have different goals, different markets, and often appeal to different kinds of students. Why should one try to be like the other?</p>
<p>personally, i think that state schools SHOULD stay where they are and keep doing what they are doing. the sole purpose of a state school is to provide a solid education to each and every student. this does not involve hand-picking only students with 1600's and 20 EC's! state universities are a great option for students who do not test well or have other interests besides school work. not every student is given the ability to test well like so many of us take for granted. if state universities were to become in line with ivy leagues according to admission standards, where would the "average" student go? community colleges? state universites are important because they provide the opportunity of a great education to students of all levels and test scores. furthermore, state university like Michigan have become "competitive" and "recognized" due to their affirmative action programs. in order to promote diversity, they allow minorities to be directly admitted. this causes the admissions office to expect higher test scores from the regular pool of applicants. does Michigan deserve to be on the same academic level as the ivy leagues? my answer is no. does Ohio State with its "inferior" average ACT score of 26 deserve to be on the same academic level as the ivy leagues? keeping in mind the fairness and the value of the education, my answer is yes.</p>
<p>No way. Not a chance in hell.</p>
<p>Michigan has kids begging for admission. Michigan is a school that kids who are applying to harvard, penn, cornell, etc. etc. seriously consider attending and ask about their "chances of admission" on these boards. It has numerous top 10 departments are the graduate/undergraduate level. 4.0 GPA, 30 ACT students WANT to go there. Those stats are quite normal in Ann Arbor but most likely honors college material at the rest of univerisities.</p>
<p>Ohio State doesn't. You're from OH? I see it similar to the University of Iowa. Get a 24 on the ACT, 3.3-3.6 GPA... you're in.</p>
<p>Until state schools give equal consideration to every applicant (in-state or out-of-state) they should not be considered on par with top private schools. Its unfair that, if i'm from NY, i'm stuck with (don't harass me on this one) the SUNY schools while you're from Michigan and get U. Mich right there as a match/safety.</p>
<p>being from michigan doesn't make michigan a match/safety at all.</p>
<p>His point was that it is significantly easier to get in if you are in-state. UNC is probably a match for me since I am in-state, but Michigan would be reach because I am out-of-state.</p>
<p>Also, Jake, although it doesn't have near the numbers of in-state students as a true public university, Cornell reserves a significant amount of its class for NY residents (something like 1/3 IIRC).</p>
<p>The fact remains that state schools shouldn't TRY to be the same as the top privates. They have different missions.</p>
<p>Most state schools were founded with the mission to educate as many of the state's students as reasonably possible. This is a populist idea that is anti-elitist and defines the attitude of about 95% of state schools. Sorry if you have a problem with that. Also the average is just that--there are obviously many people at those schools with well above average grades and scores. For example 25% or about 1500 students in each class at Wisconsin have above a 3.94 uw gpa and a 1350 SAT. Not That many years ago those would be Ivy level numbers.</p>