UGA vs UMD vs Wisconsin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UGA and Wisconsin student bodies look roughly equivalent. Wisconsin faculty are, in aggregate, considerably stronger by any reasonable measure.

The professor is back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

University rankings are dumb, and people who actually put stock in them are dumber.

The world disagrees. There must be measures of university performance, and information available to help guide applicants.

How are rankings effective measures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

If you look at department rankings for STEM and CS, often measured by their graduate programs which is a proxy for the quality of faculty and resources in the department, there is no comparison. Wisconsin is excellent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

If you look at department rankings for STEM and CS, often measured by their graduate programs which is a proxy for the quality of faculty and resources in the department, there is no comparison. Wisconsin is excellent.

Really? You’re trying to argue that undergraduates benefit from a ranking based on graduate programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

If you look at department rankings for STEM and CS, often measured by their graduate programs which is a proxy for the quality of faculty and resources in the department, there is no comparison. Wisconsin is excellent.

Really? You’re trying to argue that undergraduates benefit from a ranking based on graduate programs?

It is the best measure of department strength, so yes absolutely. It is highly meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

If you look at department rankings for STEM and CS, often measured by their graduate programs which is a proxy for the quality of faculty and resources in the department, there is no comparison. Wisconsin is excellent.

Really? You’re trying to argue that undergraduates benefit from a ranking based on graduate programs?

The department ranking for major can be much more important than overall university ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

If you look at department rankings for STEM and CS, often measured by their graduate programs which is a proxy for the quality of faculty and resources in the department, there is no comparison. Wisconsin is excellent.

Really? You’re trying to argue that undergraduates benefit from a ranking based on graduate programs?

It is the best measure of department strength, so yes absolutely. It is highly meaningful.

Not to mention that the faculty influence the students. If you can do a research project with a good professor, along with talented students, you can get the best skills and best job offers. This emphasis on undergraduate education is the last stand of the defunct English education system; the best universities, including Oxbridge, have all switched to the German-based graduate school focused model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

Can't see too much argument over Berkeley, Michigan, or UCLA. UNC and UVA both are very good at what they do, but neither really does hard sciences or engineering, so they're not really in the same category as the others. Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin all are closer to these "top 3" if you're taking a comprehensive view.

Cal, Michigan, and UCLA are the top publics. That’s it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

UVA is ranked #24 national university so that doesn’t count as a top college either.

Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS than UVA

Assertion without fact.

1. The rankings goofball, aren’t you the poster who keeps citing US News?
2. Wisconsin:has Turing award, invented the transistor.
Virginia: has neither.

Does any of that determine that Wisconsin is much stronger in STEM and CS today for an undergraduate student?

If you look at department rankings for STEM and CS, often measured by their graduate programs which is a proxy for the quality of faculty and resources in the department, there is no comparison. Wisconsin is excellent.

Really? You’re trying to argue that undergraduates benefit from a ranking based on graduate programs?

The department ranking for major can be much more important than overall university ranking.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

Can't see too much argument over Berkeley, Michigan, or UCLA. UNC and UVA both are very good at what they do, but neither really does hard sciences or engineering, so they're not really in the same category as the others. Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin all are closer to these "top 3" if you're taking a comprehensive view.

Cal, Michigan, and UCLA are the top publics. That’s it.

No lol. Very convient for east coasters though because hardly anyone can go to UCLA and Berkeley if you're not from California.....meaning essentially Michigan is the best public !

So no this logic does not work; the "top" public schools should be measured from the tangible metrics used in rankings, though not necessarily the rankings as a whole. If you look at graduation rates, research spending, ARWU ranking, notable alumni, and global influence a pretty big divide is clear.

Berkeley( really a tier in itself)
UCLA
Texas
Michigan
Wisconsin

No other public universities are on this level of academic, modern, and historical influence. Illinois and Washington are close, but they are weak in the humanities and social sciences. UNC and UVA are even closer, but they are weak in the sciences at a time when the sciences are more important than ever. Note that, except for Wisconsin, all the best publics are also in highly important economic locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP checking in- DC is down to UW Madison or UGA. visiting both again. Fingers crossed it's an easy choice.

UW is a better school, no real question there. UGA is in a better economic location however. That’s actually matters in the long wrong. What do you think powered Michigan ( Ford ) or Berkeley( Silicon Valley)?

Based on what? USWNR? It's 39 vs 47 lol

+1 UW and UGA are going to be the same academic caliber of peer group.

Impossible. UGA graduate school sucks now and forever. They have literally invested noting into their graduate schools, hoping to win talented UG students with football/weather/easy a classes. The professors at Wisconsin are just at another level between UMD and UGA; name me one UGA department ranked in the top 50. With Wisconsin, you can't find a department which is NOT ranked in the top 20.

Who teaches undergrads at Wisconsin?

Mostly full professors. It would be useful if you're applying to graduate schools with one of the best professors in the country writing it. It should be noted in terms of recognition, Wisconsin still has more famous professors than Michigan does, thanks to the fact that many of these professors were hired in the 1980s and 90s (when Michigan entire college of LSA sucked).

Are you a professor at Wisconsin? This exact claim has been posted in several threads recently.

I have a knowledge of academia; but you don't need to have knowledge of academia to understand that Michigan is a university built off of trade schools, not off of being a university. To understand this, simply compare Nobel laureates and notable alumni and their impact. With Michigan you never see any distinct schools of thought in their academics or Nobel laureates; their Nobel laureates come per chance in random, unrelated, fields. At Wisconsin, we see that their Nobel laureates and famous alumni come directly from school of thought in their actual university departments (like at Harvard or Berkeley). For example, from John Bascom influenced Lafollete (future governor and progressive), while also influencing Frederick Jackson Turner who, in turn, influenced several notable academics, progressives, and judges such as Merle Curti, Harvard Judge Henry Friendly, and the economist John Rogers Commons. Commons, in fact, produced several Nobel laureates under his tutelage, most famously Theodore Schultz. And don't think these schools of thought have no influence today. One of the most recent Pulitzer Prize winners was David Blight (UW alumnus) and student of Merle Curti (and thus of Turner and Bascom) and current professor at Yale.

The point is Michigan lacks this kind of structure at all; no schools of thought have ever emerged from there and their academic influence is forgettable. Any attempt by a Michigan booster to explain exactly why Michigan is such a good school eventually falls under a.) citing fluke contemporary rankings b.) law school. Neither of which Michigan can really take credit for (in terms of academics) as it's clear what's creating those things: a.) football b). rich out of state students

You sound unhinged

Agreed. Its comical. Obviously can’t stand the fact that Wisconsin isn’t a top public anymore and hasn’t been in decades.

This is such a weird debate. I don't understand why this poster keeps saying Wisconsin isn't a top public, as if that's the given. No, that's the premise you need to prove. It's going to take a lot of work to prove, given that its ranked 8-12 among publics, peer rep of 4.0+ (automatically puts you in top 6), graduation rate of roughly 90%.

Top private
HYPSM

Top public
Berkeley
UCLA
Michigan
UNC
UVA

Can't see too much argument over Berkeley, Michigan, or UCLA. UNC and UVA both are very good at what they do, but neither really does hard sciences or engineering, so they're not really in the same category as the others. Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin all are closer to these "top 3" if you're taking a comprehensive view.

Cal, Michigan, and UCLA are the top publics. That’s it.

No lol. Very convient for east coasters though because hardly anyone can go to UCLA and Berkeley if you're not from California.....meaning essentially Michigan is the best public !

So no this logic does not work; the "top" public schools should be measured from the tangible metrics used in rankings, though not necessarily the rankings as a whole. If you look at graduation rates, research spending, ARWU ranking, notable alumni, and global influence a pretty big divide is clear.

Berkeley( really a tier in itself)
UCLA
Texas
Michigan
Wisconsin

No other public universities are on this level of academic, modern, and historical influence. Illinois and Washington are close, but they are weak in the humanities and social sciences. UNC and UVA are even closer, but they are weak in the sciences at a time when the sciences are more important than ever. Note that, except for Wisconsin, all the best publics are also in highly important economic locations.

How is Wisconsin on this list?