<p>Most UNC and UVA PhD programs are not highly ranked. The top publics for Phd's would be UCB, UCLA, UM, Wisconsin, and Illinois.</p>
<p>Barrons, I have long wondered where UVA and UNC earned such lofty presumptions about the overal academic caliber therein, specifically graduate education as compared to UCalifornia, UMichigan, UWisconsin et al. And didn't the UVA president admit that UVA's science departments are not comparable to the school's peers a few months ago? I think that he began a new fund raising drive on that principle.</p>
<p>Exactly. Wisconsin had its usual five or so named American Academy of Arts and Sciences fellows this year while UVa had the usual one. </p>
<p>Uva has raised funds to hire one NAS or AAAS level prof a year for the next 10 years in order to beef up the sciences.</p>
<p>That's a fairly broad statement, barrons (and LakeWashington). Could you elaborate on the "not highly ranked" PhD programs at UNC? The Schools of Public Health; Medicine, Nursing; Pharmacy; School of Social Work; School of Education; Political Science; English graduate program-- just to name a few-- have always been very highly ranked. Has that changed in the last few years?</p>
<p>Here's a good summary. UNC does better than UVa but us still well behind the top state schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would encourage you and other prospective students to do more research on individual schools before making these broad generalizations. Too many people competing for too few professors at publics, i.e. class sizes are too large? I will cite a comparison between class sizes at UC Berkeley (big state school) versus Stanford (small, elite private)</p>
<p>Berkeley
Classes under 30: 75%
Classes over 100: 7%</p>
<p>Stanford
Classes under 30: 79%
Classes over 100: 5%</p>
<p>This is despite the fact that Berkeley has about 4 times the number of undergraduates as Stanford. Don't believe me? It's from the Common Data Set, published by the Universities themselves:</p>
<p><a href="http://cds.vcbf.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://cds.vcbf.berkeley.edu/</a>
<a href="http://find.stanford.edu/search?as_s...sheet.xslt&oe=%5B/url%5D">http://find.stanford.edu/search?as_s...sheet.xslt&oe=</a></p>
<p>Another common complaint I hear is publics have way too many students! You'll get lost and feel like a number. I would like to present a comparison of student population between UCSC (a state school in the most populous state in the nation, no less) and Cornell University (Ivy League school):</p>
<p>UCSC:
Undergrads: 13,625
Grads: 1,387
Total: 15,012</p>
<p>Cornell:
Undergrads: 13,684
Grads: 5,955
Total: 19,639</p>
<p><a href="http://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/OFFICE/cds_2005-06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/OFFICE/cds_2005-06.pdf</a>
<a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000297.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000297.pdf</a></p>
<p>But how many people even know that UC Santa Cruz is heavily focused on undergrads? Too often I only see people label it as another UC and therefore large, impersonal, unfit for undergrads.</p>
<p>In fact if you do some independent research you'll notice that many public schools cares a great deal about its undergrads (yes even the large research universities) and that they may not be such bad places to attend for undergrad after all, and many private universities are also large research universities and they act in many ways like public schools. The lines are often blurred and you should look up individual schools instead of just saying "two or three publics are okay, and the rest are too large." Oxford and Cambridge are public schools...how many people realize that?</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>ever heard of the phrase "lies, damn lies & statistics"? you can slice and dice data and present it any way you want, you are not going to change the fact that Cal (and other elite publics) have tens of thousands of undergrads vs. the elite privates that average around 5-6,000.</p>
<p>Cal undergrad no. = ~22,000
Stanford undergrad no. = ~7,000</p>
<p>Cal has 3x the number of Stanford undergrads. Period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oxford and Cambridge are public schools...how many people realize that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Err, you are technically correct (in name only - which is where the similarity ends...)</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The term public school has different <a href="and%20in%20some%20cases%20contradictory">b</a>** meanings due to regional differences. In some countries, including the USA, it refers to a government-funded primary or secondary school; in other countries, it can refer to government-funded higher education; in the British Isles (apart from Scotland) it refers to certain elite, private secondary schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the term "public school" refers to fee-charging independent secondary schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, what was your point about Oxford and Cambridge? The use of the term "public" - which means the exact opposite in the UK? </p>
<p>
[quote]
how many people realize that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>... I guess you didn't realize that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ever heard of the phrase "lies, damn lies & statistics"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All too often, usually to discredit statistics others use to back up their assertions, without having any evidence or logic arguments to back up their own arguments, besides a trite saying which should be taken with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal undergrad no. = ~22,000
Stanford undergrad no. = ~7,000</p>
<p>Cal has 3x the number of Stanford undergrads. Period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So explain to me how this is bad. In fact, let's look at Cal Tech. It has an undergraduate population of what...800? So however much Berkeley is worse than Stanford, Stanford is worse than Cal Tech by a greater margin right? Since it has 9x the number of undergrads as Cal Tech.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Err, you are technically correct (in name only - which is where the similarity ends...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, Oxford and Cambridge are also funded partially by the government, just like the public schools in the United States.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The university will receive more than £150m from the taxpayer in the current year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
how many people realize that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>... I guess you didn't realize that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? I asked how many people realize that Oxford and Cambridge are public schools. How would I not realize that if I am the one who first brought it up? If you're going to quote me, please do it in a way that makes sense.</p>
<p>"So however much Berkeley is worse than Stanford, Stanford is worse than Cal Tech by a greater margin right? Since it has 9x the number of undergrads as Cal Tech"</p>
<p>when talking about how small a student body there is ... yes!</p>
<p>If you stay true to the whole "ivy" thing, they have to be on the east coast or pretty close anyway. Anyways:</p>
<p>University of Virginia
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
College of William and Mary
University of Michigan</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do you call the faculty at Amherst, Brown, etc. mediocre?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What? I asked how many people realize that Oxford and Cambridge are public schools. How would I not realize that if I am the one who first brought it up? If you're going to quote me, please do it in a way that makes sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't be that dense... I hope.</p>
<p>You obviously brought up the fact that Oxbridge were "public" in some kind of show of solidarity to back up your defense of public unis in the US.</p>
<p>What you obviously failed to understand (or failed to do your research) is that in fact, the word "public school" in the UK = the American equivalent of "elite privates" - the most famous example being the prestigious Eton College - the elite "public" prep school in the UK (which has long served as a traditional feeder school to Oxbridge - the stomping ground of the British Royal Family e.g. Prince William, Prince Henry, etc. etc.) and which has served as a model for many elite "private" prep/boarding schools in the US.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College</a></p>
<p>Still don't understand? Let me make it even simpler for you:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>UK "Public School" = US "Private School"</p></li>
<li><p>UK "PUBLIC SCHOOL" IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF A US "PUBLIC SCHOOL"</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So, again, I ask, why do you bring up the fact that Oxbridge are "public" when the American equivalent of this is "private"?</p>
<p>Still don't understand? Please read this article and then it may sink in:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the term "public school" refers to fee-charging independent secondary schools. The earliest known reference to a "public school" dates from 1364 when the Bishop of Winchester wrote concerning "the public school" at Kingston, which was then part of the diocese of Winchester.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know this not only because I lived in the UK for a number of years, but also because I have many friends who hail from Eton (as well as many Oxbridge grads) - and certainly anyone from the UK can confirm this. I know you feel pretty stupid for bringing that up, but don't be bitter because I call you on it. Just accept that you look pretty foolish and go on your way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you obviously failed to understand (or failed to do your research) is that in fact, the word "public school" in the UK = the American equivalent of "elite privates" - the most famous example being the prestigious Eton College - the elite "public" prep school in the UK (which has long served as a traditional feeder school to Oxbridge - the stomping ground of the British Royal Family e.g. Prince William, Prince Henry, etc. etc.) and which has served as a model for many elite "private" prep/boarding schools in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good for you. How is this relevant to what I was talking about? I never brought up Eton. I was talking about Oxford and Cambridge. Oxford and Cambridge are both public schools (you admitted that yourself) and they receive government funding. The taxpayers pay for the Universities to run. How is that different from a US public school again? Maybe there are other universities in England that are titled publics but don't receive government funding. Fine. But I never mentioned those schools. I was only talking about Oxford and Cambridge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you obviously failed to understand (or failed to do your research) is that in fact, the word "public school" in the UK = the American equivalent of "elite privates" - the most famous example being the prestigious Eton College - the elite "public" prep school in the UK (which has long served as a traditional feeder school to Oxbridge - the stomping ground of the British Royal Family e.g. Prince William, Prince Henry, etc. etc.) and which has served as a model for many elite "private" prep/boarding schools in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ask yourself what makes Harvard, Yale, Princeton private schools. Is it because they produce quality grads and future leaders, like Eton? No, that makes them elite. Is it because they are feeder schools to some top grad programs? That's true but...that only makes them elite. All these things do not make these schools PRIVATE. What makes US private schools PRIVATE is that they don't receive government funding. They are not funded by the government. They are privately owned. Do I need to repeat this again for you? No? Good. So getting back to Oxford and Cambridge. They are funded by the government. The US Public schools are funded by the government.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just accept that you look pretty foolish and go on your way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So let me get this straight. Oxford and Cambridge act like US public schools (government funding). They are called public schools (check wikipedia). For some reason you are still trying to convince me that they are private schools. I'll let the readers decide who is the foolish one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oxford and Cambridge act like US public schools (government funding).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How exactly does one "act" like a public school? Cornell gets government funding, what does that tell you? </p>
<p>At any rate, if you know anything about Oxford, you know that it is a Federation of more than 40 self-governing colleges and permanent private halls. Students can only become a member of Oxford if they are first accepted by a college or hall, and each college is entirely responsible for its own admissions policies. Many of the richest colleges (e.g. Christ Church) operate generally on their own. </p>
<p>Basically, no other US university "acts" like Oxford - it is a unique system - anyone who graduates from Oxford identifies him/herself with the college they attended (Christ Church, Trinity, etc.)</p>
<p>Next, if you know anything about Oxford's history, you know that most of Oxford's colleges trace back to rich private benefactors who established these colleges to serve as self-contained scholarly communities.</p>
<p>Not only is Oxford unlike any US university, it bears absolute no resemblance to US publics (Cal or otherwise).</p>
<p>I just do not believe the extents to which pro-Cal fanatics champion Berkeley as if it is the second coming... CAL = OXFORD U.... what's next?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, Oxford and Cambridge are also funded partially by the government, just like the public schools in the United States.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. Just like those other great publics around the world such us:</p>
<p>Beijing
NUS
U of Hong Kong
U of the Philippines
U of Malaya
U of Tokyo
Australian National U
U of Melbourne
U of Sydney
U of London - LSE, Imperial, UCL, King's, etc
Warwick
Manchester
U of Edunburgh</p>
<p>and otehr top schools in:
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
etc., etc,</p>
<p>You can't say one college is better than others. It's like saying oranges are better than apples. I personally prefer oranges, but some people like their apples. I can tell from your other posts, your applying to Berkely so naturally you think it's "better" than the other schools you listed. But my first choice is Cornell and I didn't even apply to Berkely or any other ivies. IMO, when you get into the top 25-30ish colleges, they're so close in academic quality that "prestige" and percieved academic strength don't matter as much as other things such as: financial aid, location, lifestyle, distance from home, weather, size of school, diversity or uniformity, type of campus or even food. Of course alot of people may not agree and they're entitled to their opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think s/he said that Berkeley > most Ivies, not that Berkeley is better than every other college for every other person. I think you can make an argument that Berkeley > some Ivies when looking at the University as a whole (undergrad wise, maybe only on par with Cornell and maybe U Penn). Anyway, there seems to be a lot of Berkeley fanatics but also a lot of Berkeley haters. ::shrug::
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you replaced the word "better" with a greater than sign...</p>
<p>"And the most ridiculous thing about him, he argues like crazy against berkeley."</p>
<p>and for you, switch the word from "against" in his statement to "for" in your statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How exactly does one "act" like a public school? Cornell gets government funding, what does that tell you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cornell is a bit ambiguous. Only one or two out of its 7 colleges receive funding from the state, and in that way those colleges do act like public schools, but as a whole it is generally considered private. There have been arguments about this, and I wouldn't say it's entirely private, but that's the best label we have for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At any rate, if you know anything about Oxford, you know that it is a Federation of more than 40 self-governing colleges and permanent private halls. Students can only become a member of Oxford if they are first accepted by a college or hall, and each college is entirely responsible for its own admissions policies. Many of the richest colleges (e.g. Christ Church) operate generally on their own. </p>
<p>Basically, no other US university "acts" like Oxford - it is a unique system - anyone who graduates from Oxford identifies him/herself with the college they attended (Christ Church, Trinity, etc.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's still besides the point. It doesn't matter that Oxford is a federation of smaller colleges, because that doesn't make it private. We don't determine whether a private school is private or not by examining its infastructure.</p>
<p>By the way, I would say that there are quite a few schools that fit the model you've described. For example, Cornell is actually made up of seven smaller colleges, each with its own admissions policy. They publish their own admissions data. UC Berkeley is also made up of about 15 smaller colleges, all with their own admissions policy. Both public and private schools can have this system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Next, if you know anything about Oxford's history, you know that most of Oxford's colleges trace back to rich private benefactors who established these colleges to serve as self-contained scholarly communities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And if you know anything about Berkeley's history, you know that it started out as a merger between a PRIVATE college and a land grant. It was founded by a rich private benefactor and modeled itself after Harvard and Yale. In fact, Berkeley's school colors are Yale Blue and California Gold. But no one would argue Berkeley isn't a public school now right? Just because an institution started out a certain way doesn't mean it's that way now. In fact, colleges could change their status anytime. Maybe you've heard rumors about UVa going private (although I doubt that's happening).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only is Oxford unlike any US university, it bears absolute no resemblance to US publics (Cal or otherwise).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's unlike any US university in certain ways, but you must agree that it's also like US universities in many, many ways. It does research, just like US publics. It teaches students in many areas, just like US publics. Just because it's dissimilar to a US public school in a certain aspect doesn't mean it holds no resembalance to that schoo, or that it can't be considered a public school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just do not believe the extents to which pro-Cal fanatics champion Berkeley as if it is the second coming... CAL = OXFORD U.... what's next?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know to whom this refers, but I certainly don't champion Berkeley as if it is the second coming, and if you actually take the time to read my posts carefully you'll notice I never made any direct comparison between Berkeley and Oxford nor suggested in any way that the two are comparable in quality. In fact, at an undergraduate level, I freely admit that Oxford is definitely a notch or two above Berkeley. While Oxford could probably be considered a top 5 or top 10 undergrad to attend in the world, Berkeley would probably be around top 30 at best. But I never said anything about Berkeley vs. Oxford. I only said that there are many great public institutions to attend, including the likes of Berkeley and Oxford/Cambridge. I'm sure you can at least agree with me on that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't say one college is better than others. It's like saying oranges are better than apples. I personally prefer oranges, but some people like their apples. I can tell from your other posts, your applying to Berkely so naturally you think it's "better" than the other schools you listed. But my first choice is Cornell and I didn't even apply to Berkely or any other ivies (yes, i'm a 'stupid guy', as you say). IMO, when you get into the top 25-30ish colleges, they're so close in academic quality that "prestige" and percieved academic strength don't matter as much as other things such as: financial aid, location, lifestyle, distance from home, weather, size of school, diversity or uniformity, type of campus or even food. Of course alot of people may not agree and they're entitled to their opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nameless1, there is a difference between a personal preference of colleges and a comprehensive evaluation of colleges using many objective as well as subjective measures. For example, to say that Ithaca College is better than Cornell University is a pretty ridiculous statement. Even though, maybe for me, Ithaca College is the better place to go, I don't think anyone will have a problem with the statement that "Cornell U > Ithaca C." Cornell performs better than Ithaca in most of the commonly used measures in determining college quality, such as more selective, better staff, better research, better grad placement, better incomes for graduates, more recognizable name, etc. So, in a general sense, we can say Cornell is a better college to attend (at least for most people) than Ithaca College.</p>
<p>Look at it this way. Today #2 USC football team lost to unranked UCLA football team. Yet just about everyone will agree USC is still a better football team than UCLA this year. UCLA lost 4 straight games before today. UCLA fans may like their team better, and may be estatic about winning, but most of them will probably still admit that UCLA is not as good of a team as USC. Just because we like something better doesn't mean we can't say, objectively, that it's not as good as something else. For example, I like Cornell a lot more than MIT, and given the choice I would probably attend Cornell over MIT (at least for undergrad), but I freely admit that MIT is a better university than Cornell.</p>
<p>I agree sometimes colleges are so close it's hard to tell. Still, that's why we have rankings, to try to get as best a sense of how good a school is compared to others as possible. It's nowhere near perfect, but I think USNews isn't doing too bad of a job, and people at least have a general sense of how good a certain college is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's funny that some people here are too stupid not to accept the fact that Berkeley can beat most of the Ivy League, any time, any field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you're talking about graduate programs, especially PhD programs, then I could agree.</p>
<p>But if we're talking about undergrad, then I cannot agree. Berkeley's parallel at the undergrad level to the Ivy League would be Cornell (at best). And the fact is, most students at Berkeley are undergrads.</p>
<p>That's not to say that Berkeley undergrad is bad. In fact, I think only one other public school (Virginia) can seriously challenge Berkeley for having the best public undergrad program in the US. But the fact remains that, relatively speaking, Berkeley's undergrad program is probably its weakest program, yet that is where most of its students are located. Sad but true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But I expect some stupid guys to rant after reading this post. What can I expect from stupid guys anyway?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I've certainly had many adjectives used to describe me, I doubt that 'stupid' is one of them. Those people here who know my biography can surely attest to the fact that I think I have reasons to be reasonably confident about my brainpower.</p>