What Do You Guys Think as the Public Ivies?

College Search & Selection
101

<p>
[quote]
I agree with your assessment of access to resources and with the proximity to a city - though, there are certain times when even a city won't do. I'm referring to the 'specialized' libraries that universities tend to have while cities don't - for instance, at Cornell, I'm at the ILR school. We have a library dedicated to exactly what we study, and it's the 2nd largest collection of related books in the world (1st is the ILO in Geneva, Switzerland) - all of the book in there may very well be located someplace throughout NYC, but I sure as hell don't want to search for them there. The same can be held true for other niche fields.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me counter that by saying that most of the top municipal library systems have extensive paging services. Hence, the only 'searching' you have to do is through an online catalog, where you designate the materials you want, and designate which branch you want it delivered to, and the system takes care of the rest. Yeah, you may have to wait a couple of days to get the materials, but, honestly, so what?</p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. I know a number of students and alumni at Harvard who have all told me that they, frankly, get better access to library materials through the 2 local public library systems - the Boston Public Library system and the Cambridge Public Library/Minuteman Library Network of Eastern Massachusetts than they get through the Harvard library system. One of them even said that in all his years at Harvard, he never once borrowed a single item at a Harvard library - everything he got was through one of the local public libraries. Harvard has the largest academic library in the world with 15 million items. But the BPL has 14.9 million items. Add that to the Minuteman resources and that means that the local library system offers more total resources than Harvard offers. </p>

<p>Now, it is true that these public resources may not be completely 'specialized'. But I think that can be easily solved by special deals that the school cuts with public institutions. For example, I know that Harvard profs (and their designated students) have special arrangementswith the Boston Public Library such that they can get special access to the original papers and personal library of President John Adams, as well as access to some of the first folios of Shakespeare, all rare items that the BPL owns. Now, Harvard doesn't actually own these items, but who cares who actually owns it? The fact that Harvard people can obtain special access to those items is good enough. In theory, I could see a school of the future not having its own library at all, and just outsourcing that functionality to the local public library system, along with special partnership arrangements for its students/faculty to any unusual items. This is especially true if you are a school located in a major city like New York, Chicago, Boston, Philly, etc. Let's be honest. If you're a university in New York City, do you really need you own library? Aren't the 3 huge public library systems (NYPL + Brooklyn + Queens) enough? Even Harvard can't match the resources of the public libraries in New York.</p>

102

<p>"Well, let me counter that by saying that most of the top municipal library systems have extensive paging services. Hence, the only 'searching' you have to do is through an online catalog, where you designate the materials you want, and designate which branch you want it delivered to, and the system takes care of the rest. Yeah, you may have to wait a couple of days to get the materials, but, honestly, so what?"</p>

<p>a counter again, this is exactly what the ivy libraries have going on with each other. If you can't find what you're looking for in the libraries of 7 of the ivy league schools, it probably doesn't exist.</p>

103

<p>I kinda tend to agree with Sakky on this point re: libraries.</p>

<p>A few quick points:</p>

<p>1) For the average student, are there that many books on the average list that are not going to be found in a 15 million volume library vs. a 51 million volume library (i.e. discounting extremely rare books)?</p>

<p>2) Does anyone actually check out and read through all of these books, or is it that 99% of the time someone merely needs references (author title) to pad a bibliography?</p>

<p>3) Of course, it doesn't hurt to go to a school with great library access (i.e. Ivies), however,</p>

<p>4) Having said all of that, eventually everything is going to be scanned and available online - so in the future, "the volume p1ssing contest" will lose relevance with each passing year.</p>

104

<p>"For the average student, are there that many books on the average list that are not going to be found in a 15 million volume library vs. a 51 million volume library"</p>

<ul>
<li>No, hence why I don't see how not going to a college in a large city is a big deal. When it does become a big deal, those who aren't in large cities (Cornell, Dartmouth, Princeton, Brown-sort of, and Yale) can rely on each other for the 88 million other items.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>"2) Does anyone actually check out and read through all of these books, or is it that 99% of the time someone merely needs references (author title) to pad a bibliography?"</p>

<ul>
<li>Professors aren't stupid, they know when you've done research and they know if you're just padding a bibliography. I've been warned about this numerous times. The downside to having such a large library in this situation is the fact that it's easy for any prof or TA to verify info that you've searched.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>"eventually everything is going to be scanned and available online"</p>

<ol>
<li> This wont be for years and years to come. The cost will also be astronomical (look at the pricing for LexisNexis - Cornell pays over $35,000,000 a year to give access to about 6% of its undergraduate student body, those in ILR). I dont think Lexis has many books, either, mostly just law cases and news documents. Granted, they have pretty much every news document you would ever need. Even if the ivies put their books online, do you think they're going to make them available to just anybody?</li>
</ol>

105

<p>I believe all of the SUNY schools have free interlibrary loan access amongst themselves for their students, which would make it the biggest university library system in the US.</p>

106

<p>


</p>

<p>This is true to some extent, but it does belittle the importance of primary, rare, and one-of-a-kind artistic and cultural items in a given city. And by this logic, in the US, you really should only go to school in New York, because that probably is the only city that can't claim overall cultural "dominance" in the most areas. Yes, a student at Swathmore may have access to a better art collection and symphony in Philadelphia than a student at UT-Austin, but this still negates the fact that UT's Ransom Center is a better literary archive than anything Philadelphia has to offer (an opinion, to be sure, but most scholars would agree). And if a student is interested in Italian Renaissance and Baroque art, or Contemporary Latin American Art, or the dominant players in modern French literature, then maybe they WOULD actually be better served in Austin than Philadeplhia. So both cities are culturally rich in their own right and you can't necessarily say that an "overall" package is better - especially if one is interested in the pursuit of literary scholarship. And for a student who is interested, having these things in their own backyard at UT (or whatever other school has similar treasures) does have value.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, I know that Harvard profs (and their designated students) have special arrangements with the Boston Public Library such that they can get special access to the original papers and personal library of President John Adams, as well as access to some of the first folios of Shakespeare, all rare items that the BPL owns. Now, Harvard doesn't actually own these items, but who cares who actually owns it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ok, by the same token, UT Austin actually DOES own the Shakespeare first folios - 3 copies to be exact, in the Phorzheimer collection at the Ransom. (Honestly, I assumed Harvard did have at least one copy, and I bet they do have at least one.) And while UT doesn't have the Adams presidential papers, it does have the papers of the Johnson Administration at the LBJ library on campus (the first presidential library on any campus). So a scholar looking at one president can go to Boston, while another studying a different era can go to Austin. See, this idea of some cities being culturally greater than others does negate areas where, while the big cities are still great overall, they may indeed be matched or even exceeded in certain areas. As as student, being able to go to a library across campus, as opposed to across town does have merit - especially if scholars you are studying under scholars in that area at school. And the idea that it doesn't matter about libraries if one is in a city like New York is partially true - but not because of the overall massive size of the public libraries, but because of the one-of-a-kind priceless items specifically at NY libraries like the NY Public Library or the Morgan. Materials readily available on the Internet are not always what's important or desired... There are valid scholarly reasons to see first hand works, to examine the author's own annotations and corrections close up on a manuscript, or to even just feel the texture of the vellum the text is printed on. A student who wishes to study Shelley and the Romantics would be well served utilizing the Pforzheimer collection at the NY Public Library, even if they could find reproductions of the same material on the Net. They would probably be suprised to learn, also, that the other half of the Pforzheimer collection (the library of early English literature from 1450 to 1700) is way down in backwater Austin...</p>

107

<p>


</p>

<p>Even before we got into this discussion of the merits of rare and original items available at the greatest libraries, I think it was already established that the top publics already beat the majority of Ivies in terms of just "regular" academic library collections. Illinois, Berkeley, and Texas (and UCLA and Michigan?) are only surpassed by Harvard and Yale in terms of total academic volumes. And Berkeley and UCLA, as part of the UC system probably have as great a combined library to draw from as the Ivy consortium. This thread was diverting more to the priceless items items at rare book and manuscripts libraries like those of UT-Austin vs. the Ivy League. It's the one-of-a-kind items and libraries that aren't available through intra-library loans or likely to be completely scanned any time soon. And even if every rare manuscript and book in the world was scanned and available on-line, there are inherent aspects lost in the process. To some scholars, even the fibers and fragrances in the paper are relevant, for whatever reason. (Admittedly, that's beyond me, but there are those who study such things!)</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
Even if the ivies put their books online, do you think they're going to make them available to just anybody?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If they did, authors and publishing companies would properly sue their endowments off. Not going to happen any time soon.</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
To some scholars, even the fibers and fragrances in the paper are relevant, for whatever reason. (Admittedly, that's beyond me, but there are those who study such things!)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Beyond you and beyond 99.9% of undergrads. I fail to see how this discussion is at all relevant. Most undergraduate students at top publics and privates alike will never set foot in the rare manuscripts library for research purposes. Such a collection is nice to brag about, but the actual impact on the quality of education for the vast majority of undergrads is still negligible.</p>

110

<p>I don't know about 99.9%. At Michigan, roughly 10% of the students major in fields that require extensive use of library systems. Majors like Classics, Philosophy, History, Comparative Literature, Political Science etc...To those students, having a huge library network on campus is a big plus. Schools with such libraries, like Harvard, Yale, UIUC, Cal, Texas, Michigan, UCLA, Stanford, Cornell, Columbia, Chicago, Wisconsin etc... give those students an added resource that is not availlble everywhere.</p>

111

<p>
[quote]
Beyond you and beyond 99.9% of undergrads. I fail to see how this discussion is at all relevant. Most undergraduate students at top publics and privates alike will never set foot in the rare manuscripts library for research purposes. Such a collection is nice to brag about, but the actual impact on the quality of education for the vast majority of undergrads is still negligible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with what you're saying for the majority of undergrads in terms of utilizing resources like these. Perhaps it only matters to a few undergrads, but at least those few even have the option. The original point of this thread was what can be considered to be "public Ivies." Great library collections are a single factor that make the Ivies 'great' and add to their prestige. The point of this particular tangent was that there are, in fact, some publics 'more Ivy' in this regard than the majority of the actual Ivies themselves. I must admit, though, I don't understand why the publics never can seem to win these type of arguments. It's like when superior faculty quality is mentioned, the response is "it doesn't matter for undergrads," when superior departments are brought up, "it doesn't matter to undergrads," when superior libraries are brought up "it doesn't matter," when superior cultural archives/performing arts spaces/museums are brought up, again "it doesn't matter to undergrads," when outstanding world reputations are mentioned "it doesn't matter" and again and again. Even when someone brings up numbers showing, for example, Berkeley's student/faculty ratios aren't actually that different than top private universities, again "it doesn't matter, it's still a public." So I guess I'm confused - what really does matter? If it's just great teaching, maybe everyone should just go to a LAC or a hire tutors. Or maybe everyone should just admit that the majority of what makes an Ivy or other top public 'prestigious' is really mainly just that they are exclusive, with nothing inherently better than a public except denying admission to more people and charging tuition at a premium.</p>

112

<p>
[quote]
This is true to some extent, but it does belittle the importance of primary, rare, and one-of-a-kind artistic and cultural items in a given city. And by this logic, in the US, you really should only go to school in New York, because that probably is the only city that can't claim overall cultural "dominance" in the most areas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are exactly right. My entire reason for entering this thread in the first place was to show the flaws in the original logic - that you should necessarily want to prefer a school that has its own resources. My counter is, who really cares who 'owns' the resources, as long as you, as a student, have access to them? Which is why students at certain LAC's that happen to be located near big cities (like Swarthmore or Wellesley) could be said to actually have access to MORE resources than students at some of the big research univesrities. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So both cities are culturally rich in their own right and you can't necessarily say that an "overall" package is better -

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's exactly right - and that's why I say that this whole macho p1ssing contest over who has a bigger overall 'package' is irrelevant. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As as student, being able to go to a library across campus, as opposed to across town does have merit - especially if scholars you are studying under scholars in that area at school. And the idea that it doesn't matter about libraries if one is in a city like New York is partially true - but not because of the overall massive size of the public libraries, but because of the one-of-a-kind priceless items specifically at NY libraries like the NY Public Library or the Morgan. Materials readily available on the Internet are not always what's important or desired... There are valid scholarly reasons to see first hand works, to examine the author's own annotations and corrections close up on a manuscript, or to even just feel the texture of the vellum the text is printed on. A student who wishes to study Shelley and the Romantics would be well served utilizing the Pforzheimer collection at the NY Public Library, even if they could find reproductions of the same material on the Net. They would probably be suprised to learn, also, that the other half of the Pforzheimer collection (the library of early English literature from 1450 to 1700) is way down in backwater Austin...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I deeply question the utility of this. Like I said before, the vast vast majority of students don't use primary source materials, and don't want to. For example, I just talked to a bunch of Harvard humanities students grads who have * not once * had to use primary materials for anything. * Not once *. These are students who did very well in their studies. In fact, one is now wrapping up her PhD, and she * still * has never even once used a primary source for anything. Everything they did was satisfied with simple reproductions and other secondary sources. Very few people need to actually touch this stuff. </p>

<p>To give you a case in point. Harvard has a rare books collection too. Several of them, actually. But what percentage of students actually go there? Heck, most students probably wouldn't even know where it is. For example, I know many Harvard Business School students and graduates who have no clue where the HBS Rare Books Library is, even though it is in the same building as the main HBS library! To use that library requires that you complete a free registration form, and it was once shown that something like less than 5% of the students ever bother to fill this form out, and of those, obviously very few of them actually use that library. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't know about 99.9%. At Michigan, roughly 10% of the students major in fields that require extensive use of library systems. Majors like Classics, Philosophy, History, Comparative Literature, Political Science etc...To those students, having a huge library network on campus is a big plus. Schools with such libraries, like Harvard, Yale, UIUC, Cal, Texas, Michigan, UCLA, Stanford, Cornell, Columbia, Chicago, Wisconsin etc... give those students an added resource that is not availlble everywhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I hardly consider this to be much of a plus, certainly no more so than just living in a big city with access to a large public library system. Just because you major in one of those fields mentioned does not mean that you 'require' use of an extensive library system, and certainly not necessarily your school's library system. Like I said, a lot of Harvard students, even humanities students, prefer to use materials at the Boston Public Library. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Even if the ivies put their books online, do you think they're going to make them available to just anybody? </p>

<p>If they did, authors and publishing companies would properly sue their endowments off. Not going to happen any time soon.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I don't think so. Most of these 'rare books' that presumably are where the extra value lies are quite old and are therefore no longer protected by copyright and so are considered public domain. For example, Shakespeare is all public domain. So somebody scanning in a First Folio and publishing it on the Internet is perfectly within their rights to do so. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Even if the ivies put their books online, do you think they're going to make them available to just anybody?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? Other schools are doing it right now.</p>

<p><a href="http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/plays/Ham.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/plays/Ham.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

113

<p>
[quote]
So I guess I'm confused - what really does matter? If it's just great teaching, maybe everyone should just go to a LAC or a hire tutors. Or maybe everyone should just admit that the majority of what makes an Ivy or other top public 'prestigious' is really mainly just that they are exclusive, with nothing inherently better than a public except denying admission to more people and charging tuition at a premium.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I can't speak for others, I have never believed that public schools are inherently less prestigious than public schools. For example, I would say that Berkeley is more prestigious than, say, Johns Hopkins, or Emory. From a PhD level, I am quite confident in saying that Berkeley is as prestigious as any other school out there, public or private.</p>

<p>To some extent, I agree with you, that it does have something to do with exclusivity. For example, a big part of the reason that Berkeley's PHD programs are so well-regarded is because they are extremely exclusive. I know people who got into PhD programs at Harvard and MIT, but didn't get into Berkeley. The one thing that kills the undergrad programs at Berkeley and other public schools, relative to the Ivies, is that, frankly, at those publics, there are a lot of undergrad students who aren't that good. They're not highly talented, they don't want to work hard, in short, they're not high quality students. I know that's rough, but come on, you know it's true. Come on, JWT86, you and I both know that there are plenty of students at UTAustin who, frankly, aren't that good. Just like at Berkeley, I'm sure there are plenty of students at UT who don't go to class, don't do the reading, don't know what is going on in their classes and don't WANT to know what is going on. Contrast that with the PhD programs at UT, and you will notice the students are far more motivated and talented. If it's anything like Berkeley, the difference will be like night and day. </p>

<p>So when you say that the Ivies are considered to be more prestigious schools because they are exclusive, I would counter by saying that ALL exclusive schools gain in prestige. The reason why Berkeley PhD programs (along with PhD programs at other public schools like UT, Michigan, UCLA, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.) are so prestigious is largely because they are highly exclusive. You have to do a lot more work and be a lot more qualified to get into a Berkeley PhD program than a Berkeley undergrad program, and the same is true of UT PhD programs vs. UT undergrad. That is why getting into one of these PhD programs is a lot more impressive than getting into the undergrad program. So what that means is that these public schools are * doing the same thing * as the Ivies are, as far as exclusivity is concerned. They are just doing so with their PhD programs. </p>

<p>The link to tuition is also rather questionable. I would actually argue that, far and away, the biggest bargain in higher education, if you are poor, are the Ivies. Harvard for example, guarantees you a full ride plus stipend to undergrads if your family makes less than 60k. I am not aware of any public school that does this. I have also found that the Ivies are extremely aggressive when it comes to financial aid. I know 2 people who were California state residents who got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that Harvard was actually going to be * cheaper * once financial aid was factored in. Berkeley wanted him to take out loans, but Harvard offered him full grants. One of them mordantly told me that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. Deadpan humor, but it illustrates a point that the public schools are often times not the bargains that they claim to be. Given the choice of paying to go to Berkeley, or going to Harvard and * getting paid *, what would you do? </p>

<p>This notion is further reinforced when you're talking about PhD programs, where the Ivies are often times MORE generous than the public schools when it comes to fellowships. For example, I know a guy who get into the PhD programs at several public schools, including Berkeley and UCLA. He also got into Harvard. Those public schools offered him support in the form of TA-ships and RA-ships, none of which were guaranteed through his tenure (hence, he would have to fight for them every semester). Harvard, on the other hand, offered him a 4-year guaranteed fellowship, with a 5th year if he fulfilled certain conditions. Furthermore, that fellowship paid about * twice * what working as a TA/RA-ship would pay at those other schools. To cap that off, the fellowship also had no giveback rules about becoming a TA/RA above and beyond the fellowship. So if that guy were to serve as a TA/RA at Harvard, not only would he get the pay corresponding to that tasks, but he would * still * get the full fellowship on top of that. It's almost ridiculous how generous this fellowship is. But, honestly, given the choice between going to a public school and having to fight for RA/TA positions to fund yourself, or going to Harvard on a guaranteed full fellowship with no giveback clause, honestly, which one would you take? Especially when you figure in that Harvard actually has a higher rated program in your field than those public schools? </p>

<p>Hence, I strongly question the notion that the prestige of the Ivies has anything to do with high tuition. Tuition is something that has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Plenty of students at the Ivies are so rich that they obviously don't care how much they have to pay. But for other people, tuition is highly variable, and in many cases, it is actually the Ivies that are actually the cheaper option.</p>

114

<p>JWT86: You make some excellent points.</p>

<p>sakky: I find your comment that "the one thing that kills the undergrad programs at Berkeley and other public schools, relative to the Ivies, is that, frankly, at those publics, there are a lot of undergrad students who aren't that good. They're not highly talented, they don't want to work hard, in short, they're not high quality students," both mind-boggling and ignorant. </p>

<p>I can only assume, then, that you must believe the opposite of the Ivys--that because they are so selective and "exclusive," that all undergraduates at those schools are (must be!) "highly talented, don't mind working hard, and are all high-quality students." ?? If so, you are also delusional. </p>

<p>I worked at an Ivy (which will remain unnamed here) for 15 years, many years ago. After what I saw there, day-in and day-out for those 15 years (always working among undergraduates), I can honestly say that I was relieved when my own kid had no interest in this particular school. Had she shown any interest, I would have strongly discouraged her. </p>

<p>I think all schools--public and private-- are probably a lot like life. You'll run into people who are smarter, more talented, and harder working than the "average;" you'll run into people who inspire and who are amazing in all that they are and do; that means you'll also run into people who are not so smart, not so talented, not so inspiring, and are lazy to boot. Don't kid yourself; the Ivys are not immune to that. </p>

<p>You should also be aware that these top publics are also filled with outstanding students, young men and women, many of whom turned down the very exclusive schools with which you are so enamored.</p>

115

<p>jack...my son was told by a teacher at one of the very top univ's that most of the students spent more time arguing why they should have a higher grade in that teachers' class than they did studying for it. By choice turned down Ivy for State Honors school. Just to back your point :)</p>

116

<p>This topic is the best public schools. The ivy interlopers should just go away and start their own topic about the best privates.</p>

117

<p>Well what do you expect from a thread asking about the Public Ivies?</p>

118

<p>I really only think UC Berkley, UCLA, UMich, UNC, Rutgers, UW Madison, and UVa.</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
Just like at Berkeley, I'm sure there are plenty of students at UT who don't go to class, don't do the reading, don't know what is going on in their classes and don't WANT to know what is going on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, I go to an 'elite' private and I see these kinds of students too. </p>

<p>Of course it may not be a coincidence that most that I've personally had classes with happen to play for one of our illustrious (and another not-so-illustrious) athletic programs.</p>

120

<p>sax:<br>
Thanks. Yes, from what I experienced at this Ivy many years ago, I can believe that. I'll never forget overhearing this young undergradate who came in to complain about her A- (to the chairman of her department, as well as the professor of her course). She was insistent to his secretary that he meet with her and change the grade. She was about to have a nervous breakdown that this A- would prevent her from getting into medical school. She was quite rude to his secretary, when she demanded that she let her in his office to talk to him. The secretary listened and told her to wait one minute. She then went in and told the chairman how rude the girl had been and said something to the effect, "If you change this kid's grade to something higher than an A-, I'll walk." The chairman did not change the grade. I've never forgotten that. Sadly, students demanding grade changes were not a rare occurrence. </p>

<p>I think this little story also goes to show that you should always be nice and respectful to folks, especially department secretaries, because you never know who wields the real power in these places! ;) (As a little aside, the highly valued department secretary had graduated from a top public university.)</p>