<p>Just curious sakky, how would you propose getting rid of these bad students? Off the top of my head I can think of decreasing overall enrollment, getting rid of certain athletic programs (or giving up any hope of being successful in said athletic programs), or increasing the percentage of OoS students. To be honest I don't see any of those as all that likely. But then again I don't see falling a notch below the Ivy League as the shameful brand of mediocrity that fans of a certain public school on this board apparently do.</p>
<p>They have already been decided
College of William and Mary
Miami University
University of California system
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Texas at Austin
University of Vermont
University of Virginia - Where im goin! go hoos!</p>
<p>im pretty sure its based on how the campus looks even though all of these are good schools</p>
<p>That was one list by one person over 20 years ago. Few would include UVm and Miami today.</p>
<p>like i said its based on the aesthetic value of the campus, not academics, i doubt any of those colleges look worse now than they did 20 years ago</p>
<p>I just caught up with this thread. </p>
<p>sakky: I have to agree with bananainpyjamas (post #130). Oh, hell. I agree with all her posts here. </p>
<p>And, as bananainpyjamas pointed out, you changed the thrust of your original argument here. My earlier comment to you was in response to your <em>initial</em> post, stating that students at top publics are "not highly talented, they don't want to work hard, in short, they're not high quality students . . . " Once again, this is an ignorant, narrow, subjective, and ill-informed statement. </p>
<p>I have no idea where you go to school, or if you go to school, but (to me) you sound like someone who has paid a boatload of money to attend an "elite" and, I'm sure, excellent private school, and one where you tried to surround yourself with what you viewed as "highly talented" and "hard-working" students (well . . . let's hope they were, for your sake), and now you have to convince yourself--and the rest of us--that the $40,000+ a year you spent for that privilege was worth it. Otherwise, I think you could be happy with your school choice, and yet still acknowledge that some excellent public universities, comparable to many top "elite" privates, exist, and--make no mistake-- they do, and their students are top-notch--in every way. My other comments I made before still stand. "Seriously, buddy."</p>
<p>bananainpyjamas, all universities, including the Ivy League, lower their standards seriously in order to attract athletes. Many athletes are very smart of course, but when looking at athletes, universities generally analyze their athletic abilities first.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: I have to agree with bananainpyjamas (post #130). Oh, hell. I agree with all her posts here. </p>
<p>And, as bananainpyjamas pointed out, you changed the thrust of your original argument here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I changed the thrust of the argument? I think not. Hadn't it already been changed by others, notably by JWT86 in post #89 when he started comparing the sizes of libraries in public and private schools (and to be fair, he was himself responding to others who were also comparing library sizes). Right there, the terms of the debate got shifted, and got shifted again in JWT86's post #111 where he specifically asked the following:</p>
<p>*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>
<p>I took this as an open invitation to answer that question, and so I did. But it has nothing to do with the original topic. So why aren't you on JWT86's case? I am only responding to issues that others raise. If you don't like how the thread has diverged, then take it up with the people who actually made the thread diverge. Why are you getting in my face about it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
My earlier comment to you was in response to your <em>initial</em> post, stating that students at top publics are "not highly talented, they don't want to work hard, in short, they're not high quality students . . . " Once again, this is an ignorant, narrow, subjective, and ill-informed statement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see that you have chosen to deliberately misquote me and take me out of context. Straw man, anyone?</p>
<p>Here is what I actually said. This is my quote from post #113. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notice how I never said that ALL students at public schools are subpar. I said that a LOT of them are. Not all, but a lot. And I think people who know public schools would have to sadly agree. </p>
<p>Don't believe me? Take Berkeley, which is arguably the best public school out there. Yet go down to frathouse row in the middle of the semester and you will notice "students" there that haven't been to class in weeks and have basically spent all that time drinking and partying. They don't know what is going on in class, and they don't * want * to know what's going on. I think that by any reasonable definition, these are bad students. </p>
<p>And that's Berkeley I'm talking about. Berkeley is arguably the best public school. So if even Berkeley has plenty of those students around, just imagine what happens at lower-ranked public schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no idea where you go to school, or if you go to school, but (to me) you sound like someone who has paid a boatload of money to attend an "elite" and, I'm sure, excellent private school, and one where you tried to surround yourself with what you viewed as "highly talented" and "hard-working" students (well . . . let's hope they were, for your sake),
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heh heh. Perhaps you would like to know where I have gone to school (some people here know), and you would then be able to assess whether I am in a position to assess public schools. You can PM or email me if you want to find out.</p>
<p>But I would first have to ask - what would I possibly gain by telling you? If you are not going to change your mind about me no matter how credible I turn out to be regarding my knowledge of public schools, then I see nothing to gain. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and now you have to convince yourself--and the rest of us--that the $40,000+ a year you spent for that privilege was worth it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bringing up money, eh? Interesting because that presumes that you know how much I actually spent.</p>
<p>Well, let's not talk about me for a moment. Let's talk about my brother. He could have gone to Berkeley or any other public school, where he would have had to pay. Instead he went to Caltech, on a full merit scholarship plus stipend. So his choice was to either go to a public school and pay, or go to Caltech and * get paid *. What would you do? </p>
<p>What I'm saying is that you shouldn't bring up money, because that cuts both ways. Private schools are sometimes actually * cheaper * than public schools once aid is factored in. Since you don't know me, you don't know how much I paid for whatever choices I had, so it's rather risky for you to assert something, don't you think? What was my final price to go to public school as opposed to private school? Do you know? </p>
<p>More generally, public schools are often times not the bargain that they are made out to be. I know 2 California state residents who got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that it was actually going to be cheaper to go to Harvard, once financial aid was factored in. One guy mordantly joked that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. So for him, it was actually Berkeley that turned out to be the "rich, elite" choice, and Harvard that turned out to be the "affordable, working-man's" choice. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Otherwise, I think you could be happy with your school choice, and yet still acknowledge that some excellent public universities, comparable to many top "elite" privates, exist, and--make no mistake-- they do, and their students are top-notch--in every way. My other comments I made before still stand. "Seriously, buddy."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, didn't I already say in previous threads tha many public schools are indeed strong? If you want to search through my old threads, I think you will find that I have defended public schools on many an occasion. For example, I have always believed, and continue to believe, that Berkeley is a fantastic place to go for graduate school. Michigan, UCLA, Virginia - also top-notch graduate schools. Oxford and Cambidge are public schools and they are stellar in every way. I have nothing against public schools in general. </p>
<p>Rather, I call it like I see it. For example, I believe that Berkeley is just as good as Harvard, Stanford, or MIT when you're talking about getting your PhD. But not as good when you're talking about undergrad.</p>
<p>sakky: Whew. That was a long post. I don't know where to begin to respond to you.</p>
<p>As far as why I'm "not on JWT86's case," I found the whole library comparison comments boring and pointless. He/she did, however, make some good comments on one post, with which I agreed. (I think.)</p>
<p>I responded to you, because I found your generalizations about public schools--and, really, for the purposes of this thread, we were talking top public schools-- narrow, subjective, and rather ignorant. Did I say that before? Also, I have never read your comments on "previous threads," so I don't know what you have stated in those previous threads, and I'm certainly not going to go to the trouble to research that.</p>
<p>As far as where you went to school and how much you paid to do so, I honestly don't care about that either. I was just commenting that your posts <em>sound</em> like they are written by someone who is somewhat bitter and who may have spent a boatload of money on his education, and now feels he must justify that expense. Part of that justification includes disparaging the (often less expensive and often comparable) public schools. Perhaps that's not the case at all, but that is simply how your posts translate (to me).</p>
<p>I agree that private schools are often, for some students, less expensive than a top public. The opposite is often true, too. That's really not the point.</p>
<p>You may know as much as you say you do about public schools, but to have personal knowledge of the top public schools (let's say the top 5) and the majority of students who attend those schools, seems unlikely to me. Consequently, that's why I think your assessment of the top publics (and the students who attend) is rife with subjective generalizations, ill-informed, and ignorant. Gosh, am I repeating myself here?</p>
<p>My point, really, was made in my initial response to you. I'll repeat the salient part: 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>So we'll just agree to disagree, sakky. All the best to you and whatever it is you do or plan to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I responded to you, because I found your generalizations about public schools--and, really, for the purposes of this thread, we were talking top public schools-- narrow, subjective, and rather ignorant. Did I say that before?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I'll say to you what I have said to others. If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. I certainly don't read every post on CC. </p>
<p>Look, I don't like some of your posts either. But so what? I don't bother you about them, as you have the right to express your opinions. I also have the right to express my opinions. That's what free speech is all about. Just like it's not my concern that you write posts that I don't like, why is it your concern that I write posts that you don't like? Are you trying to censor me? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You may know as much as you say you do about public schools, but to have personal knowledge of the top public schools (let's say the top 5) and the majority of students who attend those schools, seems unlikely to me. Consequently, that's why I think your assessment of the top publics (and the students who attend) is rife with subjective generalizations, ill-informed, and ignorant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Subjective, ill-informed, and ignorant generalizations, eh? </p>
<p>So what exactly do you call your previous assertion that I either pay $40,000 to go to a private school, or sound like somebody who does, without knowing any single thing about me? I would say that * that * is a subjective, ill-informed and ignorant generalization. </p>
<p>You know what they say about those who live in glass houses...</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point, really, was made in my initial response to you. I'll repeat the salient part: 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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, I have never asserted that the Ivies, or any school, is perfect. Obviously you can find bad students anywhere.</p>
<p>But that doesn't take away from the fact that the public schools have a lot of bad students, and, importantly for this thread, more than the Ivies do. One could say that the Ivies smoke 1 pack a day, but the publics smoke 2 a day. Obviously it's better to not smoke anything, but if you are going to smoke, you should smoke as little as possible. </p>
<p>To insinuate that the quality of the students at the public schools really are equivalent to the Ivies - now that is a position by which I think you will find very few people holding. To also assert that the difference in student quality from school to school doesn't matter is also, I suspect, clearly a minority opinion.</p>
<p>Some general advice to Web forum participants:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Once you've made your point, shut up. Continuing to restate it in different ways will not improve the quality of your point, and -- this is the important point -- not change anyone's mind anyway.</p></li>
<li><p>Statistically, no one has ever changed their mind during a Web forum argument.</p></li>
<li><p>Arguing in a Web forum is COMPLETELY pointless. No one will change their mind. No one will admire your intellect. You will not get a plaque or a trophy. There is no cash prize.</p></li>
<li><p>Argumentative threads clog the forum and achieve -- trust me on this -- nothing.</p></li>
<li><p>If you are embued with a missionary zeal to change someone's mind on politics, religion, team loyalties, or which college is best, take it to email. The rest of the community will thank you.</p></li>
<li><p>The longer the post, the less the poster has to add to the conversation.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>There is nothing wrong with airing conflict beliefs, it's just that some people just go on airing and airing and airing. Some posters, in fact, are veritable hurricanes of disagreement. I encourage these folks to exercise their propensity for vigorous discussion in a more intimate setting. Then, the rest of us won't have to spend so much effort scrolling past repeating offenders.</p>
<p>I've written different versions of this post a dozen times in the last 20 years (anyone remember Compuserve?), and it rarely makes any difference, but hope springs eternal.</p>
<p>Sakky are you too embarressed to say where you went openly?</p>
<p>Washdad: "We'll just agree to disagree" sounds like the end to a dialogue to me, but thanks for your numbered advice. For what it's worth, I agree.</p>
<p>Michigan State U. deserves to be on any top U list -- call it public ivy or not (which, btw, was coined by novelist William Faulkner, describing UVa where he was teaching before his death, decades before Richard Moll published his 1985 book using the term). </p>
<p>Even though is slightly less competitive, admissions-wise, as some of the Public Ivys listed, Michigan State:</p>
<ul>
<li> has more small college/programs (esp residential-based colleges/programs) geared towards undergrads than most public Us; MSU is a pioneer in this area, and has a considerably larger and more qualitative residence hall system than most public Us</li>
<li> One of the oldest and best Honors College programs of any college (public or private)</li>
<li> MSU is historically significant in American higher ed: pioneer land grant college; many early grads taught/shaped other subsequent land grant schools, particularly Cornell</li>
<li> Historically powerful biological/natural sciences programs (deriving from early scientific agricultural science base)</li>
<li> Strong international rep as land grant pioneer dating from the 19th Centurywhich attracts thousands of international students plus thousands of non-Michigan undergrads </li>
<li> Strong and historic network of on-campus museums</li>
<li> Largest Study Abroad program today</li>
<li> Strong LAC components (music, poli-sci, econ, film, creative writing, etc)</li>
<li> Competes directly for top students with consensus Public Ivy: U-M</li>
<li> Classic, leafy (North) campus with Gothic Ivy/LAC feel</li>
<li> Situated in a sophisticated, arts-loving upper middle class college town which, itself, was originally a derivative of the college itself</li>
<li> Despite being separate, and having unique history from U-M, MSU has historically strong, diverse alumni base exceeding most general flagship state Us</li>
<li> Has about a $1.5 billion endowment</li>
</ul>
<p> I could go on. Bottom line: MSU runs with the top dogs though, often, not given the credit as so doing.</p>
<p>WashDad wrote</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some general advice to Web forum participants:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gee, can you show me your Web Forum "God" card first?</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Once you've made your point, shut up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) Can you please post the "guiderules" as to when an actual point is made?
2) So let me get this straight, you make a post (point) and then you go on your merry way never to be heard of again?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Continuing to restate it in different ways will not improve the quality of your point, and -- this is the important point -- not change anyone's mind anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) Wow you speak for a lot of people.
2) Tell me how you KNOW that anyone reading any particular thread at any particular time will NEVER change his/her mind about any subject - and more to the point - due to the effectiveness/persuasiveness of any particular argument?</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Statistically, no one has ever changed their mind during a Web forum argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) Again, how very presumptuous of you to speak on behalf of the entire Web world.
2) Statistically speaking huh? Can you show me the statistics that you are referring to exactly?
3) When I first came to this board (back then I was under another handle - those who know me know which one that was) I had an extremely low opinion of publics in general. However, through debating and reading through countless high quality posts (much of them from Alexandre btw) I have developed a high degree of respect for the top publics. I have also changed my mind about Duke as well (thanks to thethoughtprocess). So it seems that at least one person has changed one's mind at least several times due to the open debate / discussion process in full swing at CC. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Arguing in a Web forum is COMPLETELY pointless. No one will change their mind. No one will admire your intellect. You will not get a plaque or a trophy. There is no cash prize.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, so what's the point of a web forum in the first place? Is it a place where one is only supposed to stick to hard facts and never utter an opinion or engage in a discussion or argument? Let me ask you this: why do you come here? </p>
<p>The entire NATURE of a forum is to engage in some form/degree/level of debate, argumentative or otherwise. It is a place to exchange ideas and to question them, test them and share them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4. Argumentative threads clog the forum and achieve -- trust me on this -- nothing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above (response to point 3). And sorry, but I'm not going to take your word on anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
5. If you are embued with a missionary zeal to change someone's mind on politics, religion, team loyalties, or which college is best, take it to email. The rest of the community will thank you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, see above (response to point 3).</p>
<p>
[quote]
6. The longer the post, the less the poster has to add to the conversation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? You give lots of absolutes with absolutely nothing to back them up with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've written different versions of this post a dozen times in the last 20 years (anyone remember Compuserve?), and it rarely makes any difference, but hope springs eternal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, I don't expect a reply from you since you've made YOUR points very clearly - I fully expect you to live by your own credo and leave your post to speak for itself and "shut up".... (unless of course you want to run the risk of looking like a complete and utter hypocrite and argue with me about this and other points)...</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>/thread</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky are you too embarressed to say where you went openly?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find it interesting how sakky's credentials are always questioned when people do not agree with him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky are you too embarressed to say where you went openly?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about. I will happily compare CV's with you anyday, and we can see which one of us ought to be embarrassed. My PM and email are open.</p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://www.argaste.com/img/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.argaste.com/img/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny you would post this, when it is you that is now arguing with me. So what does that make you? </p>
<p>Again, you know what they say about those who live in glass houses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Um, so what's the point of a web forum in the first place? Is it a place where one is only supposed to stick to hard facts and never utter an opinion or engage in a discussion or argument? Let me ask you this: why do you come here? </p>
<p>The entire NATURE of a forum is to engage in some form/degree/level of debate, argumentative or otherwise. It is a place to exchange ideas and to question them, test them and share them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This I have to whole-heartedly agree with. The * whole point * of a discussion board in the first place is to hash out ideas and opinions. If it's pointless to debate anything, then why even have a discussion board in the first place?</p>
<p>Look, I post here because I * want * to post here. If you (i.e. Washdad) are trying to advise me on how to post, thanks but no thanks, because I didn't ask for anybody's advice. If I really can't convince anybody through my ideas, or my posting style is ineffective, well then that's my problem, not yours. Let me worry about me. </p>
<p>Like I've always said, I (like everybody else here) has the freedom to post, and everybody else has the freedom to not read my posts. I certainly don't read every post written here.</p>
<p>Sakky, dont get hostile. I was just asking a question. You obviously took it the wrong way. And the link was directed at WashDad's posting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, dont get hostile. I was just asking a question. You obviously took it the wrong way. And the link was directed at WashDad's posting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You ask me whether I'm embarrassed about where I went to school, and you don't think I should take that the wrong way? So what is the 'right way' to take that?</p>