Was UM, UVA, and UW Madison considered more “prestigious” back in the day?

[Anonymous]

Back when I graduated high school( in the eighties), these were the schools people talked about. They weren’t Harvard, but I’d put them analogous to Notre Dame or Vanderbilt today. What happened? Is it all because they say “public” or “land-grant”, kind of how the ultra pretentious rip on Cornell.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they were ever equivalent to Vanderbilt.

[Anonymous]

If by UM you mean Michigan (not Maryland) it is as prestigious as ever and extraordinarily selective OOS. All three of these schools are very popular and Michigan and UVA are very coveted by the top kids at our NJ suburban public. Wisconsin is not quite as "prestigious" though a harder admit every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they were ever equivalent to Vanderbilt.

Michigan (USN 21) and UVA (24) are absolutely in the same tier as Vanderbilt (18).

[Anonymous]

I don’t agree or disagree with you. But higher education is now big business, and some colleges and universities excel at spin and branding. It’s hard to discern quality.

[Anonymous]

I’m confused by your confusion. Michigan, Vandy, UVA, and Notre Dame all have virtually identical rankings. Wisconsin is a little lower, but Madison has always been the little brother to Ann Arbor.

[Anonymous]

It feels like mich and wisc are higher now, and uva may have fallen a bit, than 25 years ago.

[Anonymous]

UVA was not a big deal when I went to college in 1997.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not a big deal when I went to college in 1997.

+1
Neither was Vanderbilt, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Is this a troll post? "What happened?" Nothing happened. Michigan got over 110,000 applications for this incoming class and is hugely popular and "prestigious" - always has been. UVA is one of the best public colleges in the country, and Wisconsin is very popular and well respected.

[Anonymous]

Bored troll. Nothin to do in this heat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by your confusion. Michigan, Vandy, UVA, and Notre Dame all have virtually identical rankings. Wisconsin is a little lower, but Madison has always been the little brother to Ann Arbor.

The point is that Vandy and Notre Dame were not that prestigious in the 1980s. They’ve since climbed up, mostly through undergraduate rankings I presume (neither is a leader in graduate rankings). I never got the impression of Madison as the “little brother” (that was MSU).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not a big deal when I went to college in 1997.

Out of state it was very difficult to get into into 1997, if I recall correctly. At least I didn’t get into it…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back when I graduated high school( in the eighties), these were the schools people talked about. They weren’t Harvard, but I’d put them analogous to Notre Dame or Vanderbilt today. What happened? Is it all because they say “public” or “land-grant”, kind of how the ultra pretentious rip on Cornell.

The answer is that universities began to compete like firms starting in the Reagan Era. Notre Dame and Vanderbilt built up their endowments and invested in their resources to attract talented students. Michigan and Virginia, while public, did similar things, with Michigan allowing its sports teams to market and bring in revenue. They also have top graduate professional schools (mba/JD).

Wisconsin, one of the few land grants with great academics, did not become more market oriented. It hasn’t changed, in fact quite the opposite. While the others privatized, Wisconsin remained an old fashioned state university which cared more about graduate research than undergraduate education.

The US News rank reflects that perfectly. Notre Dame and Vanderbilt are considered slightly more prestigious ( for undergraduate), UVA and Michigan are tied, and Wisconsin is a bit behind. It’s not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back when I graduated high school( in the eighties), these were the schools people talked about. They weren’t Harvard, but I’d put them analogous to Notre Dame or Vanderbilt today. What happened? Is it all because they say “public” or “land-grant”, kind of how the ultra pretentious rip on Cornell.

The answer is that universities began to compete like firms starting in the Reagan Era. Notre Dame and Vanderbilt built up their endowments and invested in their resources to attract talented students. Michigan and Virginia, while public, did similar things, with Michigan allowing its sports teams to market and bring in revenue. They also have top graduate professional schools (mba/JD).

Wisconsin, one of the few land grants with great academics, did not become more market oriented. It hasn’t changed, in fact quite the opposite. While the others privatized, Wisconsin remained an old fashioned state university which cared more about graduate research than undergraduate education.

The US News rank reflects that perfectly. Notre Dame and Vanderbilt are considered slightly more prestigious ( for undergraduate), UVA and Michigan are tied, and Wisconsin is a bit behind. It’s not rocket science.

The history has nothing to do with "the Reagan era", whatever that means. Today's competitiveness has to do with the rise and power of USNew&WOrld report. Schools started reporting their test scores and GPA to USNWR, and USNWR because (IMHO ) far too powerful.