Reputation and prestige with public vs. private universities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT scores of pubic schools will never be as high as for private schools. Different mandates.

And no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s sad is that Northeastern has always had a distinctive niche on the Boston higher education landscape—its convenient urban location & co-op programs make it unique. They should have just been content with maximizing those features instead of striving to be something it’s not.

+1000

Bad take. Why should any organization be content with their current place in the world? There's nothing wrong with taking tangible steps to improve institutional quality. Call it "gaming" the system, or whatever you like, but there's not getting around the fact that peer quality has gone up at NEU and it's now a difficult admit. My kid got in (also got in UVA) and strongly considered it.

[Anonymous]

Again, the current problematic situation is that high stat (high GPA, high SAT/ACT) kids are finding it needlessly difficult to be admitted into their state flagship universities. The kids are qualified and committed to attend their instate schools.

Whether they come from public or private high schools, these kids have the grades required for admission. Public universities should be welcoming these instate students who may very likely remain instate as productive, tax paying residents after graduation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, the current problematic situation is that high stat (high GPA, high SAT/ACT) kids are finding it needlessly difficult to be admitted into their state flagship universities. The kids are qualified and committed to attend their instate schools.

Whether they come from public or private high schools, these kids have the grades required for admission. Public universities should be welcoming these instate students who may very likely remain instate as productive, tax paying residents after graduation.

I'm in DC, so please keep admitting OOS students for at least a few more years. We'll keep bringing higher stats, and more money.

That being said, I understand the frustration for in-state kids losing spots to OOS students. Be glad you live in a state with schools that kids *want* to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

As someone from the west coast, this is exactly why I was not attracted to UVA or UNC. Not only did I have to be smarter, I had to pay more than the in-state kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it is easier (perhaps more entertaining) to snipe about certain schools than to discuss the more substantive question of addressing the educational mandate of state flagship universities in light of the shortage of slots for qualified and motivated instate applicants.

Yes, but this is how it is now - fiercely competitive with not enough slots to go around. How will it look in 5 or 10 years? The population pool of college students will be much smaller. A student now might need >4.0 to get in. In the future, most likely there will be more slots than students. UVA must have 2/3 in-state. With a lower total applicant pool, it's not realistic to assume everyone will have >4.0. The school will have to be much more lenient towards in-state applicants and accept weaker scores in order to achieve their 2/3 requirement.

This assertion that you keep making is unfounded, just dumb. Provide your math and citations please.

From Wikipedia: "For the undergraduate Class of 2027, the University of Virginia received a record 56,439 applications, admitting 16.2 percent.[156] The early action acceptance rate was 27 percent for in-state Virginians and 12 percent for out-of-state applicants.[157] The regular decision acceptance rate was 13 percent for in-state Virginians and 8 percent for out-of-state applicants.[156] UVA is required, by Virginia state law, to matriculate two-thirds of its undergraduate student body from its pool of in-state applicants.[158]"

[Anonymous]

IMHO, these admission rates reflect poorly on the university’s supposed educational mission for state residents.

Why not expand the instate matriculation to 75% of the student body? If the argument is for diversity (opportunities for OOS or international students), then keep the 2/3 commitment but then expand enrollment.

I still have not seen a valid argument against expanding enrollment for state flagship universities where the demand for seats from qualified instate applicants has not been met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Maybe this is OK because publicly funded state institutions are intended to educate the citizens of that state. Admitting out of staters is fine but their mission is different from private institutions. So of course the pool of applicants, accepted students and enrolled students should be different.

With the updated methodology, it makes sense to rank publics and privates separately.

Totally. Even with public universities alone, they shouldn't be ranked against other state public institutions.
It doesn't make any sense, as their mission is geared towards state students, involving too much complexity in methodology.

None of the ranking make sense. You really have to make your own based on what you want. Who cares about Stanford if your kid doesn't want to fly across the country to school? Who cares about Michigan (or any state school) if your kid wants a small college? Who cares about any of the LACs if your kid wants an engineering school? And so on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it is easier (perhaps more entertaining) to snipe about certain schools than to discuss the more substantive question of addressing the educational mandate of state flagship universities in light of the shortage of slots for qualified and motivated instate applicants.

Yes, but this is how it is now - fiercely competitive with not enough slots to go around. How will it look in 5 or 10 years? The population pool of college students will be much smaller. A student now might need >4.0 to get in. In the future, most likely there will be more slots than students. UVA must have 2/3 in-state. With a lower total applicant pool, it's not realistic to assume everyone will have >4.0. The school will have to be much more lenient towards in-state applicants and accept weaker scores in order to achieve their 2/3 requirement.

This assertion that you keep making is unfounded, just dumb. Provide your math and citations please.

From Wikipedia: "For the undergraduate Class of 2027, the University of Virginia received a record 56,439 applications, admitting 16.2 percent.[156] The early action acceptance rate was 27 percent for in-state Virginians and 12 percent for out-of-state applicants.[157] The regular decision acceptance rate was 13 percent for in-state Virginians and 8 percent for out-of-state applicants.[156] UVA is required, by Virginia state law, to matriculate two-thirds of its undergraduate student body from its pool of in-state applicants.[158]"

You’re too dumb to understand the assignment.
Let me explain it to you, like you are five.
You assert that: UVA ….The school [b]will have to be much more lenient towards in-state applicants and accept weaker scores in order to achieve their 2/3 requirement.” I’m asking, how have you determined this? Provide your math on how you’ve calculated this otherwise lazy, finger in the wind claim.
Please show your work.
Don’t come back until you do it correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s sad is that Northeastern has always had a distinctive niche on the Boston higher education landscape—its convenient urban location & co-op programs make it unique. They should have just been content with maximizing those features instead of striving to be something it’s not.

+1000

Bad take. Why should any organization be content with their current place in the world? There's nothing wrong with taking tangible steps to improve institutional quality. Call it "gaming" the system, or whatever you like, but there's not getting around the fact that peer quality has gone up at NEU and it's now a difficult admit. My kid got in (also got in UVA) and strongly considered it.

Please. There is nothing admirable about the contortions Northeastern has performed with admissions, placing freshmen, & gaming the rankings. They clearly hoped their acceptance % would make the unaware think it was comparable to Northwestern, & assume it was Ivy-like. Instead, it became a punchline.

That, instead of trying to be even more responsive to the needs of smart students who need high-quality practical educations that feed seamlessly into excellent internships.

Compare to BC, which was an above-average Catholic school with a nice campus & solid sports. It organically upgraded to an excellent Catholic school with a beautiful campus & ACC sports. It resisted the urge to minimize religion to try to become Georgetown, or hire a zillion-dollar football coach to try to become Notre Dame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

As someone from the west coast, this is exactly why I was not attracted to UVA or UNC. Not only did I have to be smarter, I had to pay more than the in-state kids!

So….. the same reason we have for not applying to UCLA….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's where the selective privates like WaStl, Emory, Tufts, BC, NEU, Wake, UChicago have the advantage. There isn't this mandate to open up the school for equity reasons to whatever flavor of the day politicians are in favor of. Just like we have seen all this research showing the value of SAT's, selective privates can use that to their advanatage. Let's face it. Students are snobby. Smart kids want to be around other smart kids.

Schools that are dropping in the rankings. Momentum is hard to reverse.

Agree. The schools that dropped significantly in the rankings this past year will likely stay where they are at or drop lower. And similarly, schools that are on the Rise will continue to gain. UF and UGA have come up fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMHO, these admission rates reflect poorly on the university’s supposed educational mission for state residents.

Why not expand the instate matriculation to 75% of the student body? If the argument is for diversity (opportunities for OOS or international students), then keep the 2/3 commitment but then expand enrollment.

I still have not seen a valid argument against expanding enrollment for state flagship universities where the demand for seats from qualified instate applicants has not been met.

William & Mary and VT are the valid argument.

[Anonymous]

Many on this forum have lamented the scarcity of seats at W&M, UMD, VTech, etc. for qualified instate applicants. So not an issue that uniquely applies to UVa.

Still no valid argument has been proposed.

[Anonymous]

They should only hire faculty from in-state too. It is ridiculous how many are from other states and even other countries.