<p>You’re worried about scientific validity yet you spout an endless stream of meaningless, prestige-based rankings? </p>
<p>I would have hoped for better from a graduate of a decent flagship like UW-Madison. </p>
<p>All the hollering and posturing in the world can’t negate cold, hard facts. </p>
<p>UW Madison is not a bad school. It’s just nothing special.</p>
<p>Many people on CC overstate the impact of superior graduate programs on undergraduate students. Hopefully no one will debate the strength of UW’s graduate school. For most programs UW would be a good choice for graduate school. However, there is a real difference between large public institutions and mid-size private universities when it comes to opportunities to develop relationships with faculty members. I have an undergraduate degree from UW. Many of my upper level courses were taught by graduate students–including senior-level seminars with about 20 students. It is not impossible to get to know profs well enough to get a recommendation for a job/graduate school, but it is a lot more difficult at large research universities, and requires a good deal of self-confidence and sophistication about higher education.</p>
<p>That isn’t meant as a condemnation of UW or any other flagship public uni, at all. One of my kids attends one because the programs are perfect for her interests. Another one of my kids attended (and has graduated from) Vanderbilt. He had no difficulty whatever getting to know profs and those connections were very valuable. (Then again, he is self-confident and sophisticated about higher ed because that is the business his parents are in.)</p>
<p>Here is an interesting bit of trivia that is perhaps relevant to this thread. The Chancellor of Vanderbilt, Nick Zeppos, is a UW graduate: history undergraduate and law school. I’ll bet he speaks highly of UW.</p>
<p>I also have an undergrad degree from a Big Ten university (the one that is terrible in football and used to be great in basketball). I am very fond of the place and very fond of good state universities in general. However, I now have a lot of exposure to Vanderbilt and live and breathe the place. Except for financial reasons or a few majors, this is just not a close call.</p>
<p>
I would argue likewise for undergraduate programs.</p>
<p>
This is not the experience I had at my alma mater. All my courses were taught by professors. Graduate students led discussion and lab sections. I would be very surprised if UW-Madison operates differently.</p>
<p>Midmo’s claim on grad student teaching stretches credibility. It also goes far outside any stats from UW. Midmo has never before claimed any affiliation with UW in all posts but has a kid at Vandy. I find the claim highly dubious. Can you say which seminars and upper level classes you took and I can find at least who teaches them now. Even if true over 20 years ago which I doubt it has little impact today in a time where UW is cutting grad students and adding more resources to undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you say a professor “taught” the course when the discussions and lab sections were “led” by grad students? Because a professor stood up once a week and lectured? I would argue that whatever teaching was taking place was taking place in those discussions and lab sections. Lecturing is not teaching.</p>
<p>When I went to college (at a LAC), we also had lectures and discussion sessions. The lectures were given by professors; the discussion sessions were led by the same professors.</p>
<p>^ Yes, LACs are different. But in this thread we’re comparing a public research university with a private research university. Both operate under the same basic structure.</p>
<p>My point was not LACs-vs.-anythingelse. It was that you can’t say that a course was “taught” by a professor who only lectures when the discussion session was led by a TA.</p>
<p>
I’m sure UW is at least on the radar in Chicago but there are 5 universities just in a 250 mile radius of the city whose reputations outshine Madison’s: Northwestern, U of C, Notre Dame, Michigan and UIUC. I spent many years in the state of Michigan but have never heard of UW-Madison as a potential college option for any of the smart kids in my high school. Most of them went to U of Michigan and most of the top 20 were sprinkled across Stanford, Notre Dame, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Northwestern, U of C and Penn among others. Nobody from my high school in metro Detroit has considered or have attended Wisconsin in the past 5 years at least.</p>
<p>
Fine.<br>
“All my courses were taught by professors. Graduate students taught discussion and lab sections.”
FIFY</p>
<p>Yes, my D goes to the top math and science HS in Illinois. 2011 they sent exactly one student to UW Madison - and she went there mainly because she lives about an hour away from Madison. A few more kids applied to it as a safety and were admitted, but none enrolled.</p>
<p>As an undergrad institution, it’s a good school with a great reputation in Wisconsin, an okay reputation in the rest of the upper Midwest, and known elsewhere only for athletics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the discussions and lab sessions were not part of the course?</p>
<p>
Who cares?! Yes, the others probably take the cream but UW-Madison is an excellent university and its graduates go on to do great many things… I say Madison over performs compared to others.</p>
<p>I’m not going to get in an argument over semantics, Anna’s Daddy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve got to be kidding. It’s a top 20 university. Get out of California one of these days.</p>
<p>barrons, your post about me was just plain offensive. I haven’t written a lot about UW because I graduated in the mid-70s and my information is not up to date. I was a history major for that degree. Neither of my kids considered UW, so I had no real reason to investigate it or post a lot about it. I do not remember the details about which courses and seminars I am recalling, but I am not referring to discussion sections. I know the difference. Are you claiming to be an expert about every major in every college at UW?</p>
<p>My second undergraduate degree and doctorates are in another field altogether, but they are also from public flagships, not UW. My post-docs were at a public flagship. My H has been a prof and department chair at two different public flagships. My son considered accepting merit awards from UMich, UIUC and Purdue (and some other private schools) before accepting the offer from Vanderbilt. I think public flagships can be great. I think they have drawbacks. How about a little objectivity on your part? How about not accusing other posters of lying?</p>
<p>
You should realize that PayScale data comparing salaries of university grads are completely worthless as it measures, at best, the bottom part of the student body. PayScales data EXCLUDE everyone with graduate degrees, professional degrees, entrepreneurs, artists and designers working freelance, self-employed, etc. In other words, it excludes most of the top graduates.</p>
<p>PayScale data are self-reporting. Who are these mid-career people visiting PayScale? people looking to change jobs or relocate or possibly unemployed. People who are successful in their career have little reason to visit PayScale.</p>
<p>
I found that hard to believe. I graduated from UW with a BSE degree in ChE … and that was a long time ago. I only had one class taught by a graduate student – freshman English. I knew virtually every professor in the department and most of them knew me by my first name.</p>
<p>I am curious to know which department and which upper level courses were taught by graduate students. Since you’ve made such an incredible assertion, it’s only fair that you give us more details to verify.</p>
<p>Barrons- You are really reaching new lows. You are accusing midmo, a long-time poster, of making up her educational background? Geez.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, re-read what I quoted in my post #29. </p>
<p>And, yes, it is a “top 20 university” in a ranking that greatly favors private universities. I doubt its PA score puts it in top 20 range.</p>