<p>Barrons, the link that you have provided doesn’t strike me as particularly relevant or helpful. It’s just another survey that’s no less suspect than the US News survey that you’re complaining about. The US News survey is of guidance counselors at US News’ “best high schools,” where you can probably assume that generally counselling is better than at an average high school. In any event, the high school guidance counselor survey only counted for 7.5 percent of UW’s total score, so we can’t blame the school’s poor showing on that alone. Plus the high school survey mirrors in large respects the provosts/presidents survey anyway. The top Catholic schools (Georgetown, Notre Dame, BC) fare better, maybe, but personally I think that makes sense because these schools attract smart students and they are rightfully regarded by high school guidance counselors as focusing more on undergraduate education than Research U. </p>
<p>Besides, it’s not like the high school survey is really an outlier in UW’s case: UW ranks 47th there, but it’s also 46th in graduation rate, 78th in faculty resources, 53rd in selectivity, and 52nd in financial resources. The true outlier is its reputation amoung provosts and presidents, where it is tied with seven other schools at 21st. This led to a combined “undergraduate reputation ranking” of 30th, which frankly sounds about right to me.</p>
<p>^^Just thought I would chime in with a tiny fact check.
I hope that you do realize that there is no edivence that WUSTL waitlists applicants that are “too good.” No top school admits every great applicant, WUSTL just seems to waitlist a large number of CCers.
Also, WUSTL took NO ONE off of their waitlist this year. Sorry to dissapoint the theory though.</p>
<p>The sorry truth is that virtually all public schools are dropping down on USNWR. The company needs to shake things up to make its dollar for the year. Honestly, who actually goes out and buys the magazine when you can just get it online?</p>
<p>^ I gave an example on how to protect yield. Whether WUSTL practices such yield protection is a separate and irrelevant matter. They certainly play other marketing games just like all the top privates–mass mailings are a known outreach to attract applications. </p>
<p>BTW, your “fact check” disproves nothing. The school simply overenrolled and thus had no opportunity to take students off the waitlist. When an unexpectedly high # of students enroll, you can’t accept waitlistees regardless of whether they’re your top applicants. </p>
<p>I’m never shy to stray a bit off topic, but this thread isn’t about WUSTL. The question is whether it’s a smart move for Wisconsin–as a large public with strong ties to the state–to join in the expensive admissions game that the top privates already play.</p>
<p>Every year, after the decision deadline, the tradition is to have every senior wear a jersey or shirt sporting their college logo. My guess is that this practice is not unique to STA. Of course, there is a sea of FSU, and UF shirts with a smattering of U of Miami folks. The graduating class is large and there is a representative from nearly every major university in the nation. My son noticed only one other UW shirt. It was a home made version. The student took a white T-shirt and used a red magic marker to create a big “W” on his chest. The student was James White. </p>
<p>My son is an improv and theatre nerd, so he never ran in the same circle as White. But, for a brief moment in the halls of STA, both kids stood in front of each other, while hundreds of hurried teens pushed by, and high fived each other. This is not a big deal, but I wanted to share another “On Wisconsin” moment that happened quietly and unnoticed in another corner of the world.</p>
<p>Since UW is a public school a high percentage of students will always come from instate. Any marketing will not be to bring in more money from those OOS but to improve the quality of those in the applicant pool. The perceived quality of UW, its national reputation, changes the chances of better OOS students applying. One question is - is UW able to attract enough high caliber OOS students to raise the average UW student caliber, or are these students reflecting the instate pool? Maybe barrons can find the answers.</p>
<p>What has not been working in Virginia is elevating the quality of the science and engineering faculty and growing the research enterprise–all goals they have aspired to do but failed so far.
Also all UW would have to do to “raise the quality” of the students would be to shrink the undergrad size to the UVa level. Instant better student body.
All that US News measure is inputs–spending, salaries etc. Yet with lower spending the UW has been able to assemble a superior faculty that alone would rank in the Top 15 or so in the US. It does this through a number of ways–giving faculty more control of the university operations, providing better labs and assistants to enhance the research productivity of faculty which is important to most faculty at large universities, and having the assets of WARF and the very slick patenting operation in order for some faculty to turn research into money in their pocket. </p>
<p>There are many more outputs that could be measured. UW has been a leading producer of both CEOs and undergrads going on to Phds. It is among the top producers for Teach for America. UW faculty have won more major awards each year than many higher ranked schools and more are selected to the top learned societies than most other schools–far above the US News ranking level. </p>
<p>Carmelojello15, the information I’ve provided is from US New’s premium addition (which you have to pay for). As for barrons, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. It’s not just student selectivity that puts U-Va ahead of UW in US News – it’s EVERY category considered except financial resources, where UW holds a slight edge.</p>
<p>Over and over again you talk about UW’s world reknowned professors and outstanding graduate schools. I’m not disagreeing with you on that and never have. But here we are talking about undergraduate education, where I’m sorry but U-Va is clearly doing a better job – and, apparently, with more limited resources – than UW.</p>
<p>Another thing well worth noting: Of the 45 non-“tech” schools ranked in the in US News top 50, only one state school – UW – underperforms on graduation rates under the US News formula. In fact, the top performing schools in this category are almost exclusively public despite having generally less money to work with than the privates (in order: Penn State, UC-Santa Barbara, Notre Dame, Virginia, Washington, Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan). This tells me that either (1) UW is inefficient with its money or (2) UW spends its money on graduate education. Or perhaps both. </p>
<p>The Madison Initiative could not have come fast enough.</p>
<p>We’re not talking about the accomplishments of the graduate school faculty or how much money the school raises. We’re talking about the quality of the undergraduate schools. I’m sorry, barrons, but you’re not effectively stating the case for why UW’s UNDERGRADUATE school belongs any higher than where it is in U.S. News.</p>
<p>if the UW undergraduate reputation ranking is 30th (which I also agree is an accurate ranking, I believe the UW is a solid 30-35 school), shouldn’t that more or less be its ranking.</p>
<p>I mean, I thought that overall reputation is what USNEWS based its rankings on- and the USNEWS rankings are used by parents/students to assess the overall reputation of the schools.</p>
<p>Nova- There is ONE faculty at the UW (and any other school for that matter excluding law and med schools). They teach all levels and UW’s is way better than UVa’s by any actual measure of quality. The same guy that wrote the book and teaches the International Relations grad seminar also teaches Intro to Foreign Relations for undergrads. And so on. </p>
<p>This isn’t a debate on UW versus U-Va. And we’re not simply talking about a university’s faculty. We’re talking about the overall excellence of an UNDERGRADUATE institution. You sing the same tired tune every time we have this discussion, and it proves nothing. There’s no question (as I’ve said many times) that UW has an excellent faculty. But it takes more than that to make an excellent undergraduate college. </p>
<p>You talk a lot about “inputs and outputs.” In my view, the best “output” is actually getting kids OUT, and getting them out efficiently. Until UW is in the plus column on predicted versus actual graduation rates along with every other top ranked public university it cannot consider itself a true peer. And no link to any “juicy” story about a suicide at U-Va (which, by the way, involved a real person who deserves sympathy and respect and who shouldn’t be used in a comparatively meaningless argument over US News rankings) is going to change that.</p>
<p>And my point is that the USNews method of ranking does not measure true faculty quality in any meaningful way and that faculty quality certainly should be ONE of the major metrics in judging any college. I could have as easily used Wake Forest or any number of higher ranked schools with clearly inferior faculty. At least you appear to have backed off that ridiculous claim that there is a “Graduate” faculty at UW that never sees undergrads. </p>
<p>If UW is not in the plus column for graduation it is the first time since US News starting the ranking. Every other year it has been. Anyone who WANTS to can graduate. 82% do and a good number of the rest finish at another UW campus-or another college. UW graduates FAR more people than Wake Forest or Uva. UW does not force people through with an artificial 4 year deadline. I have seen many complaints that this time constraint makes it hard for them to have internships and do a study abroad program or a summer research program. Many have to go to Summer Session to stay on track missing on work earnings.</p>
<p>Lived on a Kibbutz for a semester - graduated late. As did 2 of my roommates. Another spent additional time in Nepal after a UW study abroad program and graduated late. </p>
<p>All (but me) ended up with PHD’s in their respective fields.</p>
<p>Grad rates are nice, but don’t tell the whole story.</p>
<p>I’ve never suggested that grad rates tell the whole story, but they certainly tell a bigger story now than they did when you and your friends were living on a Kibbutz. With all due respect, college costs more now than it did then and students and parents have to worry more now than they did then about paying for it. How hard it is for students to graduate in four years – or how good a school is at motivating its undergraduates to proceed timely towards their degree – is clearly a relevant factor in evaluating an undergraduate program in today’s economic climate.</p>
<p>As for barrons, let me get this straight: Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA, Virginia, North Carolina, William and Mary, UCSD, UC-Irvine, UC-Santa Barbara, Washington, Penn State, Texas, and Illinois – all of which over-perform on graduation rates – all have the wrong idea and UW alone has it right? All of these fine schools are “forcing people through with an artificial 4 year deadline” and ruining their college experience, while UW students are getting a superior and more flexible education (at the taxpayers’ expense and at the expense of other students who can’t go to UW because there’s no room for them)? Cut me a break. UW’s graduation rate is a deficiency, not a strength.</p>
<p>And, by the way, the 82 percent graduation rate that you cite is for six years, not four.</p>
<p>How much of a “bigger story” do grad rates tell now? I understand college costs more than it did in the past. Should 4 year graduation rates significantly change rankings? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Maybe the student who takes a semester off to work, or works one and travels for another is a better educated person than the one who stayed in a credit awarding program for 4 years. </p>