Decreasing in Quality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any of the SLACs charging 80K+ a year. Things are a changin'

$75k and up all-in

If you are rich enough to not get any Fa from these schools, you can afford to send your kids to their state flagship and many other schools without loans (which isn’t even possible for many). So congrats!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

Cmu is only 72%. Lehigh’s is similar but I can’t remember what it is

This is due to CMU's strong encouragement of multiple majors with little overlapping coursework.

Yes, and Lehigh had a great program with a free fifth year but they have discontinued it as it messed with the grad rate / rankings.

[Anonymous]

Sarah Lawrence reopened undergrad apps. They are still offering FA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Lawrence reopened undergrad apps. They are still offering FA

I think that even more than the Seven Sisters, Sarah Lawrence’s reputation has tanked in the past 20 years.

[Anonymous]

I found out recently that Connecticut College gives merit aid (basically tuition discounting). I was surprised because it’s in NESCAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found out recently that Connecticut College gives merit aid (basically tuition discounting). I was surprised because it’s in NESCAC.

Williams actually gives (very limited) merit. It might be through an associated foundation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

UVA getting weaker? I'd argue UVA needs to increase percentage of students majoring in STEM. (And they are doing some things like the data science school.) It is well behind comparable schools in this regard. But not sure that means it is decreasing in quality.

It's actually not. I have a fourth year there in engineering, but you seem to want to keep repeating this so you do you.

The statement is factually correct. It does lag behind other top ranked schools in percentage of students majoring in STEM. Not sure what your fourth year would have to do with that other than being one student in the numerator.

But who cares? That's like saying UCLA and Berkeley are "on the downs" for the same reason! yet UCLA has a huge nursing school, including graduate work, and is known world-wide! So what if you think UVA's STEM percentage is smaller than --- EXACTLY WHAT? Why SHOULD UVA care when the state has Virginia Tech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM[/b]. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

This is such a weird/incorrect comment since UVa is a tier-one research university with extensive undergraduate and graduate programs in sciences, engineering, math, and medicine funded by vast funding and resources. If anything, the educational emphasis at UVa has shifted to stem fields in the last twenty-years to reflect the social/economic emphasis on these fields.

But UVA has a very low percentage of graduates majoring in STEM fields compared to other top schools. Vast funding and resources is also inaccurate if you are doing a comparison.

Here is a list of top 20 national universities plus top 5 national LACs plus selected publics (Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Texas, UVA) ranked by percentage of students in CS, Engineering, Physical Sciences, Bio/Life Sciences, and Math/Statistics:

University Total
Caltech 98%
MIT 89%
Stanford 50%
Duke 48%
Princeton 47%
Harvard 46%
Swarthmore 44%
Cornell 44%
Rice 42%
WashU 41%
Michigan 41%
Pomona 40%
Berkeley 36%
Brown 36%
Williams 35%
Northwestern 34%
Amherst 34%
Texas 34%
Wellesley 33%
Yale 33%
UCLA 33%
Notre Dame 33%
Dartmouth 32%
Vanderbilt 31%
Penn 30%
UVA 27%

Did it ever occur to you that UVA doesn't need more STEM because Virginia has Virginia Tech? And we also have William & Mary for the smaller LAC experience. Then there are all the other Virginia universities to select from.

It occurs to me that UVA would probably like to compare itself to many of the schools above it in the list. I'm pretty sure the last several presidents have had their eyes on similar numbers.

It's already ranked as no. 3 for public universities in America. I don't think it needs to compare itself to anyone else. It's hard enough to get into already from NOVA. "In 2019, the University was ranked the No. 3 best public university by U.S. News & World Report. In the 20 years since U.S. News began ranking public universities as a separate category, UVA has ranked in the top three and continues to rank in the Top 30 among the best of all national universities, public and private.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

UVA getting weaker? I'd argue UVA needs to increase the percentage of students majoring in STEM. (And they are doing some things like the data science school.) It is well behind comparable schools in this regard. But not sure that means it is decreasing in quality.

You are so so wrong! https://engineering.virginia.edu/news/2019/08/uva-engineerings-phd-enrollment-growth-top-united-states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

UVA getting weaker? I'd argue UVA needs to increase the percentage of students majoring in STEM. (And they are doing some things like the data science school.) It is well behind comparable schools in this regard. But not sure that means it is decreasing in quality.

You are so so wrong! https://engineering.virginia.edu/news/2019/08/uva-engineerings-phd-enrollment-growth-top-united-states

Good. But I am not wrong. You can readily see undergraduate percentages in the Common Data Set and UVA has lower percentage with STEM major than any too 25 national University or top LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

UVA getting weaker? I'd argue UVA needs to increase percentage of students majoring in STEM. (And they are doing some things like the data science school.) It is well behind comparable schools in this regard. But not sure that means it is decreasing in quality.

It's actually not. I have a fourth year there in engineering, but you seem to want to keep repeating this so you do you.

The statement is factually correct. It does lag behind other top ranked schools in percentage of students majoring in STEM. Not sure what your fourth year would have to do with that other than being one student in the numerator.

But who cares? That's like saying UCLA and Berkeley are "on the downs" for the same reason! yet UCLA has a huge nursing school, including graduate work, and is known world-wide! So what if you think UVA's STEM percentage is smaller than --- EXACTLY WHAT? Why SHOULD UVA care when the state has Virginia Tech?

Compared to UVA, Berkeley has 46% more majors on a percentage basis in the fields of computer science, engineering, biological and life sciences, math and statistics, and physical sciences.

[Anonymous]

I don’t hear much (good or bad) about College of the Holy Cross anymore. Same re: University of Vermont

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Lawrence reopened undergrad apps. They are still offering FA

I think that even more than the Seven Sisters, Sarah Lawrence’s reputation has tanked in the past 20 years.

Sarah Lawrence is not and never has been a seven sisters schools. They are
Vassar
Smith
Wellesley
Bryan Mawn
My Holyoke
Radcliffe
Barnard

I thin SL has always been for the very very artsy/hippie type

[Anonymous]

Schools that have become extreme in their political environment have gone down hill in attracting the best students: Oberlin, Hamilton, Reed.

Occidental is another category, but also a shadow of its former self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

This is such an oft-reported concern and always idiotically incorrect.

UC schools have a high amount of time to graduate because they are engineering-focused schools, which tends to require more major-specific credits. Add on to the fact that a huge number of UC students work part-time, meaning they take fewer credits to spread out the cost of attending college