Top Ten most Prestigious Public Universities

College Search & Selection
561

<p>Texas A&M has 13 NAE members listed</p>

562

<p>^ But would you consider A&M a top ten public, Longhorn? ;)</p>

563

<p>As much as we Longhorns like to joke about the Aggies, the reality is A&M has probably come a lot further in the past 30 years than UT. It will be awhile before it has UT’s across-the board strength, but I do think A&M has the resources (endowment/alumni) and the potential (due to Texas population size and limited number of Tier I universities) to eventually become a top 10 public.</p>

564

<p>Texas A&M will never become a top 10 public university. UT Austin, a better school by comparison, is only ranked 15th amongst publics. </p>

<p>Doesn’t A&M have like a 70% acceptance rate?</p>

565

<p>and what does that have to do with a schools ability to provide top programs? a lot of public schools accept a lot of people (i believe it should since it is a PUBLIC school) but then weed the people that don’t belong out. At least it gives a lot more people the shot at an education at a good university.</p>

566

<p>For the list about NAE members, it should be noted that UNC has a very small engineering department and only offers biomedical engineering and computer engineering, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they have few NAE members</p>

567

<p>except UNC-Chapel Hill does not have an ABET-accredited engineering program.</p>

568

<p>

</p>

<p>It depends on what your measure of a top public is. If you’re only basing it on undergraduate selectivity (which the USNWR undergrad ranking methodology is set-up for), then maybe it won’t.</p>

<p>However, I’m talking in terms of faculty/departmental/research quality. And by this measure, UT-Austin is already much stronger than “only a top 15 public” - more like a solid top 5 (certainly stronger than many of the universities ranked above it in the USNWR undergrad rankings). It’s the research/faculty ranking, not undergrad SAT scores, class sizes, and alumni giving rates that I was referring to. </p>

<p>Consider that Texas A&M already has the 3rd highest endowment of any public university, behind only UT-Austin and Michigan. A&M also already has a larger annual research budget than UT-Austin (something like $600M+). It also has a rabidly loyal alumni base thas has grown substantially from its days as a small all-male military school. It’s these factors that make it within the realm of possibility that A&M could be recognized as a top public in the not-too distant future.</p>

569

<p>Rutgers has 8 NAE members.</p>

570

<p>Medicine has its own national academy not included in those lists as does Education.</p>

571

<p>Using obscure measurements for prestige, such as the amount of NAE members, doesn’t substantiate an entire university’s undergraduate and graduate performance . </p>

<p>Undergraduate selectivity favors perception of schools, think UNC Chapel Hill. Something Texas A&M doesn’t have as the third best school in the state. </p>

<p>Additionally, A&M’s endowment is high because the university, as part of the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS), is partially funded from two endowments. </p>

<p>"The smaller endowment, totaling $1.17 billion in assets, is run by the private Texas A&M Foundation. A larger sum is distributed from the Texas Permanent University Fund (PUF). TAMUS holds a minority stake (one-third) in this fund; the remaining two-thirds belongs to the University of Texas system. "</p>

<p>So really it’s endowment isn’t that impressive because it makes it more reliant on the UT system, and thus more reliant on the state. Whereas, more well respected public institutions are becoming more privatized, such as the University of Michigan. </p>

<p>Texas A&M is a great school, but hardly a contender for top 10 nationally.</p>

572

<p>

</p>

<p>That doesn’t make any sense. The fact is both UT and A&M have their own institutional endowments, but are also heavily reliant on the PUF for the vast majority of their total endowment. The breakdown you quoted is the PUF breakdown per state law since the PUF was created, but has nothing to do with either “relying” on the other - only that the A&M system gets a smaller share (the 1/3). Since the PUF endowment is so huge, it’s still a sizable sum. Both the UT and A&M total system endowments (PUF + other) are managed together under the UTIMCO umbrella. Both systems, as well, as the Austin and College Station campuses themselves, have among the absolute largest endowments of any public universities. So it doesn’t matter that A&M “only” gets one third of the PUF. The combination of the TAMU foundation endowment + the A&M system’s portion of the PUF gives A&M an endowment that dwarfs pretty much every other public except UT, Michigan, and UVA. On top of this, Texas universities have experienced much less in budget cuts compared to other public universities due to Texas’ fiscal strength relative to most states. </p>

<p>And undergraduate prestige as determined by selectivity may indeed be important to lay people, but it has little to do with institutional strength (either in academia or internationally), as measured by quality of faculty or academic programs. Selectivity is relatively easy to improve - just turn more people away. (And Texas changing demographics and increasing population will continue to make A&M more selective anyway.) However, building an elite faculty and conducting $$ research is much more challenging. A&M already has a larger research budget than the UT-Austin campus. </p>

<p>I have no vested interest in A&M, but the reality is A&M has a lot going in its favor relative to other publics in its drive to be a top public (endowment/alumni support/state support/state demographics/national economic trends). To put it in perspective, A&M was still an all-male military academy focused on agriculture/engineering/vet up until the 60s.</p>

573

<p>I don’t think it’s crazy to imagine that Texas A&M can join the top ten publics at some point. It’s a steep hill to climb, but it can certainly be done and all that moolah most definitely helps. And indeed, statewide demographics (which have clearly helped UC) augur well too. </p>

<p>Seen from this perspective, they don’t even have all that far to go:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064910269-post544.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064910269-post544.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

574

<p>Ten years ago, Greg Schiano promised to win championships at Rutgers. Later Wednesday, the NCAA will give Mr. Schiano’s program its first national title, of sorts. The Rutgers football team will be ranked No. 1 among all Division I schools when Academic Progress Rate scores are released. The APR gauges eligibility, retention and graduation of every athlete over a four-year period. Rutgers’s football squad is the lone program from a state university to be ranked in the top 10 for the past three years and is one of just seven to both be ranked in the top 10 and win its bowl game over that same span.</p>

<p>Another reason why Rutgers should be ranked in top 10 public universities.</p>

<p>wsj.com</p>

575

<p>^^^Oh sure.</p>

576

<p>^^^ Yeah, that’s right.</p>

577

<p>They must have done the numbers in Essex County.</p>

578

<p>is William and Mary really hard to get in to if you’re out of state?</p>

579

<p>Roughly</p>

<ol>
<li>Cal</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>Williams and Mary</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>Florida</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>Washington/ Illinois/ Maryland/ Ohio State</li>
</ol>

580

<p>UCSD has to be figured in there too, over Maryland and tOSU.</p>