<p>
</p>
<p><em>facepalm</em></p>
<p>@an6rew: Your post (#18) indicates that the University of Arizona is (and I quote), “a public ivy.” Really? I suppose you’re entitled to a rather unique definition of “public Ivy;” however, I’d be interested in learning about any reputable source that substantiates your assertion. </p>
<p>The Public Ivies: America’s Flagship Public Universities (2001) by Howard and Matthew Greene of Greenes’ Guides :)>- </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d also be interested in learning about why you feel U of A is such a poor quality school compared to UT-Austin. Take the rankings out of it for a moment, what about the school/academics will leave students with a lesser education?</p>
<p>Let’s look at Calculus I for example… what advantage would a student at UT-Austin have over a student at U of A taking this class? FWIW, I’ve looked at the curriculum posted online for this class at both schools and it is virtually identical. Same depth, same coverage, very minor differences overall.</p>
<p>Physics I? Same thing.</p>
<p>Chinese I? Well whaddya know… same thing again!</p>
<p>I suppose your argument could pertain to the strength of the students attending each school, but even that is a moot point when you consider the fact that it is statistically likely there will be atleast one high performer in any class setting the curve at either school. Not to mention the honors college, which provides students with an additional level of rigor.</p>
<p>@fractalmstr, it’s not the education that will be different but the opportunities. Facebook and McKinsey come on-campus to UT-Austin to recruit undergrads, for instance. Also, if you plan to work in TX after graduation, the UT-Austin network would be stronger.</p>
<p>Mind you, I don’t think that the difference between UA and UT-Austin is all that big (it’s the difference between UVa/Georgetown and Duke . . . . or UT-Austin and UVa, IMO), but I won’t say that they are the same.</p>
<p>@fractalmstr: In reply to your query in post #23, why in the world would anyone ever “take the rankings out of it” (as you suggest). To do so is absurd, because it presumably eliminates unbiased expertise.</p>
<p>All of us have opinions (and some are clearly partisan advocates, as you are for UA) (incidentally, I honesty have no personal “dog in the UT/Austin versus UA fight”). However, others (especially some organizations, with substantial staff, analytical tools, decades of experience, access to copious data, and so forth) have the ability to perform much more-comprehensive and much more-authoritative assessments. They – the recognized experts – (not I) evaluate UT/Austin (in aggregate) to be well ahead of UA.</p>
<p>When I buy a new car, I don’t rely only on my individual, amateur judgement. Like millions of others, I also carefully assess the opinions of acknowledged experts, with far greater experience, knowledge, and relevant tools. Obviously, this is the specific reason Consumer Reports (and similar rating services) exist. If millions of us do so for something as comparatively trivial as an automobile purchase, isn’t it logical that we would be compelled to do so for higher education – which certainly is crucial, enduring, and often life altering?</p>
<p>I entirely agree with your point re Calculus I, Physics I, Chinese I (etc.), for the typical undergraduate (who will likely go on to a successful life and career). He’ll almost assuredly do just as well studying these SPECIFIC SUBJECTS at AU as at UT, Duke, Berkeley, Yale, or Stanford. But what about the atypical student? What about the kid who has the potential to make societal contributions well beyond the normal, very successful physician, attorney, businessman, and so on?</p>
<p>If we accept your underlying thesis, then there is no tangible advantage to attend a superior or elite institution. Everyone can get a “good” education at the UA’s of America (and there are many of them). However, the facts don’t sustain that hypothesis. While our many fine “state flagship” (and other public) universities have markedly and continuously improved, a disproportionate share of top leaders – in many fields – attend elite universities (actually, this multi-generational trend appears to be significantly accelerating, despite extremely high costs). That may not be reasonable or fair, but I believe it’s accurate (just consider, for example, the near-rabid desire students and parents, here on CC, constantly exhibit in this regard).</p>
<p>To illustrate (and I admit this is an extreme example), how many USSC Associate Justices – perhaps the most critical job in our society, due to both their judicial tenure and their collective decision making authority – do not have an elite university degree/education. The exact answer is none. </p>
<p>Then, of course, there are the matters of lifelong networks, career recruiting, professional contacts, and the like. I’ll not elaborate here, but it would be erroneous to suggest that they are either nonexistent or unimportant.</p>
<p>I have NOTHING whatsoever against UA. I believe the fine public universities of this nation are our higher educational “backbone.” However, one simply cannot deny that – all other things being equal – some (although, obviously, not all) soon-to-be-freshmen will obtain vital, enduring advantages (both educational and other) through matriculation at the most selective and demanding LACs and universities. The foregoing paradigm is, in my opinion, even more compelling at the postgraduate – especially the professional school (JDs, MBAs, etc.) – level. </p>
<p>@TopTier:</p>
<p>Be careful to take inputs in to account as well. Yes, a disproportionate share of the most high-achieving graduated from elite schools, but a disproportionate share of those with the highest potential attended them as well, so that’s to be expected, and if the share doesn’t change, that means a school isn’t actually a big factor in success.</p>
<p>Now, studies have shown that for b-school (and probably law school as well), what school you go to does matter (going to the better schools gives a person a measurable boost in their career). For undergrad, not so much.</p>
<p>In fact, I would say (and a study has shown) that for someone who is smart, hard-working, and driven from an upper-middle-class background, what school you go (so long as it’s still respectable, like a AAU state flagship) doesn’t matter much. Those kids would be successful anywhere. For someone with a weakness or who doesn’t come from an environment with upper-middle class mores (from a disadvantaged background or those brilliant but lazy types), going to be better school boosts them more.</p>
<p>This jibes with another study that showed that the biggest boost of going to a good school (of the post-WWII generations) went to those who attended during the '50’s and '60’s, with the effect being smaller (if they exist at all) in later generations. This would happen if the kids attending elite schools are ever more accomplished each generation (which has been the case).</p>
<p>So while the grads of top schools are ever more impressive, the benefit of a top school to those kids has actually decreased over time. It’s just that more of the kids with the highest potential are attending elite schools than ever before.</p>
<p>@PurpleTitan: With respect for your always perceptive posts, I’d ask, "does this matter to the teenage senior who only wishes to be an achiever (or a super-achiever)? Yes, your analyses re undergraduate schools – and especially concerning input and results – is correct. However, all that kid (and his parents and other advocates) wants is the best possible “springboard” to and through adulthood.</p>
<p>Moreover, I’d highlight the importance of formal – and particularly informal – “peer education.” In post #23, @fractalmstr points out the “high performance curve setter” at all schools. He’s right, as far as he goes; however, (in my opinion) he unfortunately only addresses a VERY samll element of a much larger matter. When one’s peers – in the classroom and the laboratory, but also in the dorm, the fraternity house or other small group setting, the college activity or team, at the commons’ dinner table, and much more – are especially smart and determined kids, the likelihood of important, teaching/learning massively increases. Add to this the facst that most elite LACs and National Research Universities (NRUs) now:
a. Ardently seek real diversity in each undergraduate class (not just a reasonable demographic census of races, religions, ethnicities, and so forth alone, but differing cultures, backgrounds, values and experiences), to complement and to enhance “formal” education.
b. Generously provide very substantial need-based financial aid (in many cases, entirely eliminating merit-based scholarships) that enables many eminently-qualified kids from this highly diverse milieu affordably to attend.</p>
<p>To conclude, I respectfully suggest your fully accurate “input - results” thesis may not consider a more-crucial point: what forward thinking (and planning), very wise (and bright) high schoolers and their parents fundamentally want is for college to be a multi-faceted and enduring “success catalyst.” Obviously (to use @fractalmstr ‘s too limited but correct illustration), almost all the basic, survey-level, undergraduate school instruction (Calculus I, Physics I, and Chinese I were his valid examples) will be highly similar between the fine, big “state flagships” and the top 50+ (or so) LACs and NRUs. However – and critically – that only addresses a very small part of a much larger "super-achievers’ success catalyst equation."</p>
<p>Finally, affordability is essential – and that clearly is a major and indispensable role for public higher education. Therefore, a kid who really excels at a fine “state flagship” (or another excellent public university) and then earns a PhD, an MBA, a JD, etc. from an elite NRU is in excellent shape. But, as we have both previously commented several times, if the flagship and the top NRU/LAC are both affordable, I’d counsel opting for the latter. </p>
<p>@TopTier </p>
<p>I noticed in post #15 you may have done a typo. You typed “perspective” but I think the correct word to be used was “prospective”. We all make mistakes, so it is not a big deal at all. Also in post #27 I believe “samll” was meant to be spelt “small”. I just want to make sure I’m finding your point(s) in your posts somewhere!</p>
<p>I think this situation depends on the affordability. Very few kids in the world will have the chance to go to either school. They are both excellent colleges. Weigh the affordability with how much you want to go to UT Austin. Have you been able to visit both of them?</p>
<p>Yes, although I have spent more time in Austin (my daughter and her family live there). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In part, that is exactly what I’m saying. I think most of us would agree that the real advantage of attending an elite university is the networking potential, and not necessarily the quality of the curriculum/academics (atleast at the undergraduate level). The thing is, schools generally have little control over improving overall networking/prestige/pedigree as these are factors that are largely driven by incoming students, as well as the faculty working at the school. How does a school attract higher stat students in order to boost its overall networking/prestige/pedigree? Currently, it must increase it’s ranking… but the catch-22 here is that high stat students are attracted to higher ranked schools. See the problem here? How are lower ranked (but not necessarily lower quality) schools supposed to convey their strengths when most high stat students are so fixated on national rankings? As a result, we have many high-quality public and private schools that get glossed over by high stat students concerned only with ranking.</p>
<p>Hypothetically speaking, U of A could invest $30mil into their school tomorrow, improving the quality of buildings, curriculum, and constructing new state-of-the-art labs, and most high stat students wouldn’t even know since the rankings would not really reflect all of these changes. This is why I feel the national rankings are very misleading to students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are not wrong here, but you are assuming that every student <em>wants</em> to work for ‘big wig’ companies that profile schools based on ranking. Most good or better schools have the means of getting their high performing students into virtually any job they want. If the student is determined, he/she can work pretty much wherever. There may be some companies out there with more elitist hiring practices that may skip over these otherwise excellent students, but that poses the question: why on earth would you want to work for such companies?</p>
<p>If I were an in-state student in Texas, I wouldn’t think twice - I would to to UT in a heartbeat. There are so many amazing opportunities at UT-Austin. It IS a world class university (ranked 29th on the link provided earlier in the thread). (By the way, the previous poster said UA ranks 45th on that listthe list of US schools, but I see them at 70th, so I don’t know what he or she is talking about.) My son got to do research in the biomedical engineering lab as a FRESHMAN. There are many profs who are members of the National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering. And they DO care about the students. I know that from my perspective as a student and also as the daughter of a prof who is in the NAE. </p>
<p>The network of Texas Exes IS impressive. If you do well at UT, you will have profs very willing to tell their previous students about you. My dad does that every semester! He has helped place thousands of students in engineering jobs across the state.</p>
<p>@fractalmstr: My post (#27) fundamentally responds to your last post (#30).</p>
<p>First, let’s momentarily presume that everything you suggest in the second paragraph of #30 is correct, that UA (and many other schools) “have little control over improving networking/prestige/pedigree.” Isn’t that really irrelevant? Primary university clients – students, parents, and employers (among others) – clearly want those advantages, even if you believe that’s irrational and/or unjust. You might as well be a Dartmouth proponent who argues that the other Ivies (except Cornell) have unfair and unreasonable advantages, because their winter weather is less severe and/or because they are located less isolated venues. No one ever said that life – or, for that matter, national academic ratings – should to be entirely based on hard facts; obviously, the customers’ desires and proclivities (however founded) are also critical evaluation elements. </p>
<p>Second, your final paragraph indicates a belief that I feel “every student should want to work at a ‘big wig’ company.” That’s entirely false. Clearly, most students will likely never consider this – and, moreover, won’t want to do so. However, I do believe that many teenagers and early-twenties really don’t yet fully know what they want; therefore, premature “burning of bridges” can lead to real heartache. For example, what happens if – at age 28 – a youngster discovers he passionately wants to excel at a “big wig” enterprise, but he is unable even to be interviewed because his educational credentials are perceived (quite possibly, inequitably) as inadequate?</p>
<p>This segues to my final response. Again in paragraph three, you suggest both:
- That most universities have ways to get high performing students into virtually any job.
2, That there’s no good reason to work for enterprises that would not hire such students.
I respectfully believe this is clearly unadulterated malarkey.</p>
<p>Many highly desirable enterprises (first-tier consulting, law, high-technology, and i-banking firms, among others) essentially will not interview – and, consequentially, do not hire – students, except from a few most-selective institutions. I strongly suggest this is far less about elitism than it is about the efficiencies achieved by allowing the top schools to de facto disqualify (through their highly competitive admissions and academic processes) many aspiring candidates. It’s a GREAT deal more cost-effective to interview a handful of “prescreened” candidates at a few universities than it is to interview many applicants and dozens/hundreds of institutions – and, critically, enterprises principally exist to increase return on invested shareholder/owner capital. As to “good reasons” to work for such firms, many individuals plainly believe that much better likely compensation, much enhanced upward professional advancement, and much greater horizontal mobility are VERY sound bases to work for such enterprises. </p>