<p>UC-Berkeley
UVA
Michigan
UCLA
UNC
W&M</p>
<p>In that order in my opinion. There are other great state schools (Wisconsin, Florida, etc), but these six seperate themselves from the pack.</p>
<p>It really does depend on the public school. If you are in "in=state" applicant, I would attend the state public school if it were one of the top school. No question about it.</p>
<p>However, if you are an out- of state applicant, it would depend on the tuition. Before I would pay 25K++ for tuition at either Berkeley or Mchigan, I would take most ivys. The state schools are very big and impersonal and subject to the vagaries of state funding.</p>
<p>If it were a cheaper top public school where the tuition is no more than 20K or so, I might take the public school.</p>
<p>In response to the question what would the Ivies look like if it were the best 8 schools in the country:</p>
<p>Cornell would be gone.
Brown would be gone.
Dartmouth would be gone.
Columbia might be gone.</p>
<p>Stanford would be in.
MIT would be in.
Duke would be in. </p>
<p>The eighth spot would be up for grabs between Columbia, Chicago, Berkeley and Cal Tech. </p>
<p>So half of the ivies would not be in this new "Ivy League." All the Ivies are among the best 15 or 20 schools in the country, but not all are among the best 8 or even 10.</p>
<p>As to the original question...this is very interesting. I do not think there are 8 public Ivies. I think there are two or three:</p>
<p>UVA (for sure)
C of W and M (probably)
UNC (maybe)</p>
<p>I would not go to any other state school for undergrad. There are simply too many people competing for too few professors at other publics. I ended up not even applying to these schools because they were too big. Having amazing professors means little if you are really getting taught by 25 year old graduate students.</p>
<p>There are scores of depts at big schools where the average upper level classes have 15-30 students. Taught by regular faculty. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.</p>
<p>You wouldn't really omit Columbia, would you? The place where the first atom was split? The place that was essential to the Manhattan Project? The intellectual home of writer Jacques Barzun and diplomat Zbignev Bresniewski?</p>
<p>Mboyle,</p>
<p>That is a bunch of garbage. In what way is Duke, Cal (are you kidding???), or Chicago better than Brown or Dartmouth. In the areas that MATTER (grad placement, recruiting, alumni loyalty, UNDERGRAD focus (no TAs, undergrad grants, etc), study abroad, prestige, etc) Brown and Dartmouth beat all these schools. </p>
<p>When will people understand the difference between undergrad and the university! Mboyle I suggest attending Ohio State over Amherst because the graduate research is better known at OSU.</p>
<p>Everyone have their personal opinnion...Stop preaching yours like it's the right one!!!
"UC-Berkeley
UVA
Michigan
UCLA
UNC
W&M</p>
<p>In that order in my opinion. There are other great state schools (Wisconsin, Florida, etc), but these six seperate themselves from the pack." i would pick UT austin over these any time...
as far as undergrad:
UVA
Michigan
UCLA
UNC
W&M
this order seems strange to me!!!</p>
<p>"Jpod but no offense I don't truely respect your opinion if somebody else says I'll listen, in some areas NCSU matches if not exceeds UMD-CP for instance engineering."</p>
<p>Put a coherent sentence together and i'll listen.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
"Jpod but no offense I don't truely respect your opinion if somebody else says I'll listen, in some areas NCSU matches if not exceeds UMD-CP for instance engineering."</p>
<p>Put a coherent sentence together and i'll listen.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Jpod from the post that I have seen you leave on this forum I know you had to look coherent up in the dictionary. I did not want to turn this into a shouting match and get off topic everybody has their own opinion and should be entitled to it. Truthfully I live in NC so I am bias in that sense and would be going to UNC if they had an engineering program. Where are you going not trying to be funny just a simple question?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jpod from the post that I have seen you leave on this forum I know you had to look coherent up in the dictionary. I did not want to turn this into a shouting match and get off topic everybody has their own opinion and should be entitled to it. Truthfully I live in NC so I am bias in that sense and would be going to UNC if they had an engineering program. Where are you going not trying to be funny just a simple question?
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>It's 'jPoD'</li>
<li>No, I didnt look up the word coherent</li>
<li>You are biased</li>
<li>Hopefully Boston University. If not, Indiana-Bloomington</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
It's 'jPoD'
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"I am reminded at this point of a fellow I used to know who's name was Henry, only to give you an idea of what an individualist he was he spelt it Hen3ry. The 3 was silent, you see."</p>
<p>
[quote]
In what way is Duke, Cal (are you kidding???), or Chicago better than Brown or Dartmouth. In the areas that MATTER (grad placement, recruiting, alumni loyalty, UNDERGRAD focus (no TAs, undergrad grants, etc), study abroad, prestige, etc) Brown and Dartmouth beat all these schools.
[/quote]
Yes, everything matters except having top-rated programs. Rofl.</p>
<p>"I am reminded at this point of a fellow I used to know who's name was Henry, only to give you an idea of what an individualist he was he spelt it Hen3ry. The 3 was silent, you see."</p>
<p>I can assure you there arent any hidden letters or numbers ;)</p>
<p>Top rated programs matter only in very specific areas at the undergrad level ("skill" areas such as film, accounting, computer science, and art for example). A history major going to history grad school will be much better served by Amherst than OSU regardless of the program rank, a pre-med will be better served by a more undergrad focused school as well. You can go to Princeton or Williams and Major in History and you can be very competitive for a job at Bain or Goldman Sachs, while a business major at even a top 10 B-school like UVA won't have access to these firms.</p>
<p>On the graduate placement front, if you look at Harvard or Yale Law for example, both Dartmouth and Brown have almost 4 times the number of students per capita as Cal or even Chicago, and much of this has to do with the intangible factors (access to professors, UNDERGRAD reputation).</p>
<p>While I'm as ardent a Dartmouth supporter as there is and agree with slipper with regard to job placement and lack of importance in what a program is 'rated', I think the argument for top law schools is different. I do think to a degree that east coast bias exists, but think it runs deeper than that. One, more people at Dartmouth or Brown are attracted to Harvard and Yale Law School in the first place; so those matriculation numbers don't tell you how many Dartmouth or Brown students applied or what each individual school's acceptance rate is. Second, there is a higher concentration of very bright, accomplished students at Dartmouth or Brown that are potentially highly successful candidates and these same people would be highly successful candidates if they went to Rutgers or Penn State instead; so to me it's the students that happen to be highly concentrated at places like Dartmouth or Brown and not the name emblazoned across their sweatshirt.</p>
<p>slipper - I understand the basic idea of what you're saying, but there is still certainly value in being near the faculty at top ranked programs even at the undergrad level. Really the main negative of attending a large public "less undergrad focused" research university is that, in fairness, you MAY have to put a little more effort in meeting with the top faculty outside of classroom lectures since there is much less hand-holding at large research universities (public or private). It doesn't even necessarily mean that professors at top ranked departments don't even want to associate with undergrads - in fact, many are probably thrilled there are undergrads interested in their work. I would much rather be able to interact with the elite faculty at Washington, Wisconsin, or Texas than mediocre Amherst, Brown and Dartmouth faculty, no matter how "prestigious" (read selective) those institutions are. There is certainly very good faculty (and people dedicated primarily to teaching) at undergrad focused schools, but for the most part the very top academics want to be associated with and work closely with other top academics at elite research universities. The faculty at the top research universities are the ones coming up with the knowledge and discoveries that is then later taught at places like Dartmouth or Brown, or the LACs. (Not to mention, if one DOES decide to go to grad school, having a recommendation from a world-class scholar will not hurt you just because it was a large public.) There is definitely an excitement in being so close to the forefront of new ideas, even if you have to work a little harder to be exposed. You can't say an undergrad education is ONLY about being near strong peers...</p>
<p>JWT,</p>
<p>My point is that the biggest value when it comes to grad school admissions and recruiting has more to do with factors that have nothing to do with faculty rank, and this is where the smaller elite schools excel.</p>
<p>Schools like Brown and Dartmouth are MUCH wealthier than any "top research school" when it comes to endowment per undergrad and this is of considerable value. The edge Dartmouth and Brown students get has as much to do with the scores of free grants available to undergrads, the ease of doing research, and the ability to get top recommendations than anything else. You leave a place like Williams, Dartmouth, Princeton, or Brown a much more interesting person than when you left and much of this has to do with the fact that these types of institutions go out of their way to encourage undergraduate development. At Dartmouth NOT going on a study abroad is outside the norm for example (and these are exclusively Dartmouth programs with Dartmouth faculty chaperones, free tours every weekend, etc), at any state school you have to look for these opportunities.</p>
<p>Academically, at the undergrad level you are learning core concepts. The ability to have a close relationships with professors goes much farther in convincing grad schools to admit you than working with 5 grad students and having a faculty member who "sort of knows you." You never have TAs at these schools and that means something.</p>
<p>Personally speaking, Dartmouth gave me $10K for my thesis research, I performed one-on-one funded research my junior year, I went on two Dartmouth led study abroad programs, I had TWO faculty thesis advisors who I met with twice a week, 30-40% of my classes senior year had eight people or less, I went on two 100% funded trips to academic conventions, Dartmouth fully incubated my start-up company senior year (gave me office space, computers, helped me find a very high-level board of advisors, the works). </p>
<p>It wasn't my grades or even scores that got me into a great grad school, it was being able to talk about all I had acheived, and Dartmouth had much to do with this.</p>
<p>slipper1234,
You are crazy, absolutely insane.....</p>
<p>slipper- Amen brother! Bigger is not always better. There is a reason the big state schools have to pay the top students to attend that would otherwise go to Dartmouth/Brown/W&M. The Morehead/Echols/Jefferson et al ... kickbacks are used to buy Ivy students. Also, these "honors collges" that exist at the big state schools are designed to give an LAC experience inside of the State U. Dont go to Eurodisney for Mickey Mouse. Go to the real thing.</p>
<p>LAC focus on undergrad teaching. Reaserch schools focus on grad students and research. Since this is public ivy thread , I would say the best deal in academia is W&M B.A. with a UVA/UNC/MICH Law/Masters/PhD. That education would be very Ivy comparable.</p>