<p>Well, I would certainly think the sciences trump being strong in areas such a Poli Sci and Art History. For one it cost lots more money to be strong in the sciences as UVa is rapidly learning. I think to be considered a strong university you have to be strong in biology, chemistry, physics and the like. These are the things that drive our world and the focus of most research and progress. Engineering might be optional for a liberal arts school but it certainly is an important an popular major and also--very expensive to operate at a high level. There is a reason Harvard and Yale are stepping up their engineering programs.</p>
<p>barrons,
A school deficient in major areas can still be a top school at the undergraduate level. i.e. The Cooper Union, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I would certainly think the sciences trump being strong in areas such a Poli Sci and Art History.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not for an art history major seeking employment, they wouldn't!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I would certainly think the sciences trump being strong in areas such a Poli Sci and Art History. For one it cost lots more money to be strong in the sciences as UVa is rapidly learning. I think to be considered a strong university you have to be strong in biology, chemistry, physics and the like.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't that your own bias, however, given that you yourself are into the sciences? If someone isn't into the sciences -- and the question was about undergrad business -- what does it matter?</p>
<p>That's why I said university. Comparing small LACs and large universities is too difficult. But any university worth of the name should have a broad array of academic strengths.
Pizza, there are two subtopics going on within the thread. I love art history but you need more than that to be a strong overall university. For a $1,000,000 any school that wanted to go go out and hire many of the top art history profs in the US. In science you might get one.</p>
<p>barrons,
Would you consider Caltech and Rice deficient in major areas? Because neither offers many majors (option in Caltech's situation). Yet both are near the top in at least one field.</p>
<p>Cal Tech is a very small highly specialized school. Not many people go there to study history or art or much of anything but science. I think this is well known. I have not looked at Rice that much but I'd expect greater breadth of strength than I would from CT. UVa is no Cal Tech.</p>
<p>Barrons. You are once again trying to succeed where so many have failed. You're creating parameters to define a university's prestige/overall reputation and like most other sources, definitions are restricting and very limited.</p>
<p>There are always exceptions in everything you try to categorize. But some for things you can actually find the smoking document to support the argument.</p>
<p>barrons,
U Virginia is no Caltech...and I suspect that U Virginia and its affiliates are thankful that it is not. And that is part of the beauty of colleges in America as there is great variety of sizes, specialties, etc. U Virginia is a unique place, just as Caltech is a unique place. </p>
<p>Despite its historically lower commitment to engineering and the sciences, U Virginia offers an exceptional undergraduate experience with great offerings across many fields of study, including business (which was the OP's question). The post-graduate world is about far more than "biology, chemistry, physics and the like" and most of this technology is created in private businesses anyway. And not to mention the fact that the vast majority of an institution's focus on these areas is for the graduate students and not the undergrads. Furthermore, there is also a place in business for those in operations, in marketing, in strategic planning, in finance, in international, in legal, etc. I think your worldview of an institution's role for developing graduates is far too limited and is only concerned with research. </p>
<p>Beyond the academic programs, I think you will find U Virginia's alumni more devoted than those of any public university in the land and this is supported by their generous giving record. Clearly, U Virginia alums don't feel like it is a deficient university and I don't know many folks in the real world who would share your opinion. The school attracts good students, teaches them in a reasonably sized classroom, provides them great financial aid, prioritizes teaching in the undergraduate programs, spends money to develop programs and services to support students and faculty, etc. </p>
<p>I can't figure why you hate this school so much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Beyond the academic programs, I think you will find U Virginia's alumni more devoted than those of any public university in the land and this is supported by their generous giving record.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually based on CC, I'd say that Berkeley and Michigan alums are just as devoted :-)</p>
<p>Caltech is still great in quality of research and prestige.</p>
<p>pizzagirl,
You're right. On CC, UC Berkeley and U Michigan alums are far more active and vocal and generally make much, much greater (and usually unsupported) boasts about their schools' in the college firmament than do the folks associated with U Virginia. I don't know if this difference is due to manners or arrogance. </p>
<p>As I think back to my own impressions of these schools, it is the attitude of the students at U Virginia that I find most appealing. They're good, they know it, but they don't feel compelled to associate with higher brand names to legitimize themselves and then throw it in your face constantly. That's probably one of the reasons that employers find U Virginia graduates so attractive.</p>
<p>Hawkette. LOL. You are so jealous of Cal and Michigan that you troll to wherever there is a discussion about these two outstanding schools to attempt to tear them down. You are the one who likes to associate with the so called "higher brand names." Once again, where did you go to college?</p>
<p>Although Cal have more international prestige than the other two, all three are about equal in the United States at the undergraduate level. All three are among Washington Journal's top five public feeder schools.</p>
<p>UVA is definitely a peer of Cal and Michigan. No question about it.</p>
<p>Cal, Michigan, and UVa are consistently on the top of many public school rankings. I'd say either would be a good choice.</p>
<p>Now you are back to your refuge of private business creating much of the research. How many Nobel winners were at private companies? And how many has UVa ever produced? </p>
<p>I can't figure why you hate UM so much. It has FAR more going for it than UVa which I like but don't buy all the hype. UVa is just, by its own admission, not a powerhouse. It has some nice programs and attracts better students than it deserves due to an advantageous location and history as a good Ivy fallback. Maybe someday it will be as good as you think it is.</p>
<p>Barrons, the OP asked about undergrad b-schools. What does scientific research and Nobel prize winning have to do with undergrad b-schools, again?</p>
<p>As often happens the conversation turned to more general matters. You are right, business majors don't need to know any science.</p>