<p>
Your theory wouldn’t work in practice because students with those credentials would never APPLY to the worst school in the country, let alone ENROLL there. It’s not simply a matter of admitting top students, something which even a community college could do if it were so inclined, but also a matter of getting top students to apply and ultimately enroll.</p>
<p>Re: Post 81: “Your theory wouldn’t work in practice because students with those credentials would never APPLY to the worst school in the country, let alone ENROLL there.”</p>
<p>It all goes back to the notion of a “public ivy”. Are there some public universities that can provide the opportunity for top students to obtain an education that is comparable in quality to the elite private universities? No one is suggesting that top students apply to the worst school in the country. </p>
<p>So, here are some examples to help you understand the point:
Example 1: Student A attends a top Jesuit high school in Cleveland, OH. He has top test scores and grades. In college, he plans to major in Classics and then go to law school. He applies to Michigan, Brown, Penn, and Cincinnati. He is rejected by Brown and Penn like so many others. Even though his grades and test scores are within the range of admitted students and he presents other strong credentials, many qualified students fail to gain admittance to an Ivy. Michigan admits him, but he receives insufficient financial aid. He decides to attend Cincinnati, where he qualifies for in-state tuition. He participates in the honors program, studies abroad and participates in an archaeological dig, obtains top grades, and at the end of 4 years, he graduates with a BA in Classics. Is his education in his major comparable to the education he would have obtained at Michigan, Brown, or Penn? I say yes.
Example 2: Student B attends a good suburban high school near Milwaukee, WI. He also has top test scores and grades. He plans to study chemical engineering in college. He applies to Cornell, Berkeley, Minnesota, and Delaware. He is rejected by Cornell, but accepted by the others. He did not receive enough financial aid at Berkeley, but receives scholarships to Minnesota and Delaware. He decides to attend Minnesota, where he participates in the honors program and receives good grades in his courses. At the end of 4 years, he graduates with a BS in chemical engineering. Is his Minnesota education in chemical engineering as good as the education he would have received at Berkeley, Cornell, or Delaware? I say yes.
Example 3: Student C lives in Ohio. He also has top test scores and grades. In college, student C plans to major in East Asian Studies with a focus on China. He applies to Cornell, Dartmouth, Michigan, and Ohio State. He is rejected by Dartmouth, but admitted to the others. Michigan and Cornell awarded insufficient financial aid. Therefore, he chooses to attend Ohio State, where he plans to apply for acceptance to the Chinese Flagship Program and to double major in Political Science. He spent summers in China and also completed an internship in China. At the end of 4 years, he graduates with a BA in Chinese and Political Science. He is rated at the proficient level in Chinese. Is his Ohio State education comparable to what he might have received at Cornell, Dartmouth, or Michigan? I say yes, and quite possibly, it is much better.
Example 4: Student D lives in Chicago. He also has top test scores and grades. In college, he plans to major in either biochemistry and then go to medical school. He applies to Northwestern, Penn, Stanford, and Wisconsin. He is rejected by Stanford, and accepted at the others. For financial and other reasons, he decides to attend Wisconsin. He gets good grades and MCAT scores. At the end of 4 years, he graduates with a BS in Biochemistry. He had opportunities for research as an undergraduate. He also did a second major in the History of Science with a focus on medicine and public health. He is accepted for medical school at Northwestern, Minnesota-Mayo, and Washington. He decides to go to Washington. Is his Wisconsin education in biochemistry and preparation for medical school comparable to what he could have obtained at Northwestern, Penn, and Stanford? I say yes.</p>
<p>(Note: in the examples given, I wouldn’t consider Cincinnati or Delaware to be public Ivys, but for the particular fields of interest, they are reputed to be quite good.)</p>
<p>^^ Great Examples!! :)</p>
<p>zapfino, wow - now that is a great example…the student was “forced” to attend the 3rd ranked school in the country for Chemical Engineering, Minnesota.</p>
<p>nice comparision</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ And to think that the hypothetical student was almost swayed to take out huge loans go to Berkeley in the mistaken belief that it must be better because of the huge numbers of NAE members on its faculty! Then he got some sense and realized he could get just as good an education in his intended major at a Midwestern state flagship. Yes, Minnesota happens to be ranked highly in that particular field, but that’s the point—his education was as good as what he would have gotten at Cornell or Berkeley. Though Minnesota is not generally considered a “public ivy”, for his needs, it served him well.
(BTW, I have nothing in particular against Berkeley. It’s respected worldwide and is one of the crown jewels of American higher education, at least at the graduate level.)</p>
<p>but zapfino, what if the student changed his mind and decided to major in an area that Minnesota is very weak. Obviously Cornell and UC Berkeley would have a less number of weak departments.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know that there are many areas in which Minnesota is “very weak”, but certainly other schools would be much stronger in a number of disciplines. In that case, I suppose he could transfer to his homestate flagship, Wisconsin!</p>
<p>zapfino, aha!</p>
<p>I knew it, you have all bases covered…</p>
<p>good work!</p>
<p>^^If he/she could get in there of course…</p>
<p>ucb,
Re your numbers on the % of NAE/NAS faculty members to undergraduate populations,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it’s a wonderful presentation of how meaningless this statistic is. The vast majority of undergrads won’t even take a class with one of these “prize cows,” much less have them as a mentor/guide in their undergraduate years. It’s probably nice to have them from the institution’s perspective, but what does this mean for the average undergraduate student? </p>
<p>For a prospective undergrad comparing colleges, a FAR more sensible approach would be based on the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> Quality of student peers (smarter students are preferred)</li>
<li> Size of classroom (smaller classes are preferred)</li>
<li> Quality of instruction (instruction by profs is preferred and the opinions of the paying customer are taken into consideration)</li>
<li> Financial Resources (deep pockets are preferred and spending on things important to undergrads, eg, financial aid, academic advising, etc.)</li>
</ol>
<p>
Surely I was an average undergrad transfer student to Cal. I looked at the list of NAE members at Berkeley and can say I had classes with 5 of these “prize cows”:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvey Blanch</li>
<li>John Newman for ChemE senior design.</li>
<li>Enrique Iglesia for Reaction Engineering (very prominent prof. in the realm of catalysis and a funny guy - I believe he also won a teaching award).</li>
<li>Jay Keasling for Biochemical Engineering (a young prof. and a Michigan grad who’s research has taken off: [Jay</a> Keasling | March 10th | ColbertNation.com](<a href=“The Colbert Report - TV Series | Comedy Central US”>The Colbert Report - TV Series | Comedy Central US) ).</li>
<li>John Prausnitz for Thermodynamics (known as the godfather of molecular thermodynamics - now semi-retired)</li>
</ol>
<p>Average students learning from great profs and teachers who are the leading thinkers of their respective fields…that’s what Berkeley offers the undergraduate student.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>These are excellent criteria for choosing colleges to attend, for sure, but none of these is more important than the college’s ability to send their graduates to high-paying jobs. That is why, for most smart students, school prestige is quite important than any of the criterion mentioned by hawkette.</p>
<p>Hawk–the number or percentage of NAE/NAS members is just another indicator of overall facutly strength. It means most of the rest will also be highly qualified and probably winners of major awards that can lead to that level of acclaim. It is unlikely that they have a few stars surrounded by dolts. It does not work that way in most departments. Stars want to be surrounded by future stars just as top students prefer other top students around them.</p>
<p>barrons,
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I’m just not making the automatic leap that a lot of prestigious faculty affiliations automatically translates into a high quality undergraduate experience. If I’m an OOS student at one of the high ranking publics and paying close to $50k/year, then I care a lot about the student experience. </p>
<p>RML,
I know you’re from Europe and now live in Asia, but hopefully you will learn someday that Americans don’t see it the way that you do. School prestige varies by region and employer/industry. Undergrads coming from your fave, UC Berkeley, would not be well known nor valued as prestigious in nearly every city east of Denver (do you know where that is?). Every non-Western USA region has gobs of schools that are seen as more desirable.</p>
<p>I know you’re from Europe and now live in Asia, but hopefully you will learn someday that Americans don’t see it the way that you do. School prestige varies by region and employer/industry. Undergrads coming from your fave, UC Berkeley, would not be well known nor valued as prestigious in nearly every city east of Denver (do you know where that is?). Every non-Western USA region has gobs of schools that are seen as more desirable.</p>
<p>I agree with the bold part. If a student is from the Midwest or East Coast, why would they go to Berkeley if they can achieve similar opportunities in their own backyard? There must be a compelling factor (e.g., major offerings, family move, generous financial aid, etc.) for a student to choose Berkeley over their regional school.</p>
<p>Regarding exit opportunities, the data is often available. Visit campus hiring websites at employers and see where they recruit. Then go to the websites of the career centers for schools under consideration and see who actually hires graduates and how much they are paid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to diametrically disagree. Take Medicare and Social Security: two government programs whose misleading numbers regarding financing that politicians - both Republicans and Democrats - have lied about for decades to great political success. It’s become so commonplace that any politician who actually dares speak the truth about those programs will be threatened with electoral loss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet it seems that he was admitted to an ‘indecent’ (as you put it) US medical school, right? And the fact is, apart from academic medicine or consumer-oriented medical specialties such as plastic surgery, there is little practical difference between attending the best and worst US med-school, as all of them are accredited and will therefore transform you into a fully-fledged doctor. The hardest part of becoming a doctor in the US is simply getting into med-school. </p>
<p>If you had said that your Dartmouth friend couldn’t get into any med-school, then your story would carry more weight.</p>
<p>Now that UCB is actually an option for OOS students I think you will see considerable interest from east of the Rockies. It already has high interest in the best Chicago suburbs. My friend from Portland has a daughter studying biochem there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the risk of igniting an old topic, what constitutes greatness or star-status from the NAE/NAS standpoint is research excellence, which has relatively little bearing on the average undergraduate who just wants to be taught well. Let’s face it - the vast majority of undergraduates are never going to become researchers. The connection between research excellence and teaching ability is tenuous at best.</p>
<p>I recall my old college math courses taught by ostensibly eminent professors and wishing I was being taught by my old high school teacher instead. Sure, he didn’t have any research awards or a laundry list of publications in top journals, but at least he knew how to teach math in a way that made it insightful and fun, something that those math professors were not able to do.</p>
<p>I would also proffer my brother as an example. He went to Caltech and enjoyed the experience. As he freely admits, Caltech is famous for two qualities: excellent research and, frankly, subpar teaching; the Princeton Review has designated Caltech as having some of the worst teaching of any school. Many Caltech students don’t even bother attending lecture at all, figuring that they learn more by just sitting in their rooms reading the book rather than having the lectures only add to the confusion.</p>