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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Neither was UVA. Also gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Neither was UVA. Also gross.

i


As were all the Ivies save Cornell. And they are all - "gross", as you so precisely put it? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm confused as to your point, OP. UVA has become especially difficult to get into. Are you trying to say it is "less" than it was "back in the day".? Today, it takes 4.52 weighted GPA, a 1510 and/or a 34 ACT to get in. That's the 75th percentile, which you need if applying unhooked from no. virginia.

And Michigan is far more difficult as well. Out of state, don’t count on 1500+ SATs and perfect GPAs to do it. It’s as much of a crapshoot as the T-10.

+1

For OOS applicants, it is a single digit admit.

Source? Michigan is selective, but let's not exaggerate. It is not as tough as the top 15 privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Neither was UVA. Also gross.

i


As were all the Ivies save Cornell. And they are all - "gross", as you so precisely put it? lol

Yes. It was gross that, aside from Cornell and Penn, they didn’t start admitting women until 69-83.

"For God's sake, for Dartmouth's sake, and for everyone's sake, keep the damned women out," wrote a Dartmouth College alum in 1970.

Dartmouth undergrads even hung a "Better Dead Than Coed" banner from a dorm window.

One Princeton University alum complained, "What is all this nonsense about admitting women to Princeton? A good old-fashioned whore-house would be considerably more efficient, and much, much cheaper."

Meanwhile, Yale University alumni worried about the "distracting" effect of women. "Gentlemen — let's face it — charming as women are — they get to be a drag if you are forced to associate with them each and every day," an alum wrote.

Extremely gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Neither was UVA. Also gross.

i


As were all the Ivies save Cornell. And they are all - "gross", as you so precisely put it? lol

Yes. It was gross that, aside from Cornell and Penn, they didn’t start admitting women until 69-83.

"For God's sake, for Dartmouth's sake, and for everyone's sake, keep the damned women out," wrote a Dartmouth College alum in 1970.

Dartmouth undergrads even hung a "Better Dead Than Coed" banner from a dorm window.

One Princeton University alum complained, "What is all this nonsense about admitting women to Princeton? A good old-fashioned whore-house would be considerably more efficient, and much, much cheaper."

Meanwhile, Yale University alumni worried about the "distracting" effect of women. "Gentlemen — let's face it — charming as women are — they get to be a drag if you are forced to associate with them each and every day," an alum wrote.

Extremely gross.

Yes, maybe it is time that some people stop being such blind sycophants to the Ivy League. The same “woke” institutions that are now lecturing everyone to critically examine their history ought to look at their own.

[Anonymous]

*were

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Neither was UVA. Also gross.

i


As were all the Ivies save Cornell. And they are all - "gross", as you so precisely put it? lol

Yes. It was gross that, aside from Cornell and Penn, they didn’t start admitting women until 69-83.

"For God's sake, for Dartmouth's sake, and for everyone's sake, keep the damned women out," wrote a Dartmouth College alum in 1970.

Dartmouth undergrads even hung a "Better Dead Than Coed" banner from a dorm window.

One Princeton University alum complained, "What is all this nonsense about admitting women to Princeton? A good old-fashioned whore-house would be considerably more efficient, and much, much cheaper."

Meanwhile, Yale University alumni worried about the "distracting" effect of women. "Gentlemen — let's face it — charming as women are — they get to be a drag if you are forced to associate with them each and every day," an alum wrote.

Extremely gross.

Use better words

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished high school in the late 1980’s. UVA was considered a very good school back then. Michigan was probably a little lower. Wisconsin wasn’t even close to the other two.

Notre Dame was a tough admit unless you were a child of an Alumni. And those were the ones who really wanted to go there. Vandy was a good school but behind UVA, Michigan, Notre Dame.

Times are different now. Kids love the public schools.

Michigan was only slightly lower than UVA at USNWR. That mistake was corrected a few years ago. In terms of overall academics, Michigan has always been ahead of UVA.

Do Michigan baccalaureate graduates know more, reason and write better, accomplish more? I doubt it.

They are also taller and more attractive.

Yes on Michigan.
Finance. 6'5" Trust fund. Blue eyes. Finance.

[Anonymous]

there's a propensity on here to overrate state schools. Top privates are more selective, have higher freshman entering stats (usually far higher than Michigan, UVam Berkeley, etc) and are richer per student by far.

[Anonymous]

Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm confused as to your point, OP. UVA has become especially difficult to get into. Are you trying to say it is "less" than it was "back in the day".? Today, it takes 4.52 weighted GPA, a 1510 and/or a 34 ACT to get in. That's the 75th percentile, which you need if applying unhooked from no. virginia.

And Michigan is far more difficult as well. Out of state, don’t count on 1500+ SATs and perfect GPAs to do it. It’s as much of a crapshoot as the T-10.

+1

For OOS applicants, it is a single digit admit.

Source? Michigan is selective, but let's not exaggerate. It is not as tough as the top 15 privates.

110,000 applications for 8,000 spots.

4000 of those spots are from the 20,000 in state applicants.

Do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

You could fit 4 Vanderbilts into one Michigan. It's not surprising the stats are different.

People who argue so much for the importance of higher stat distributions are usually just revealing they don't want their kids around "the poors" unless those kids are beyond exceptional.

SATs are valid as a metric but top scores are strongly related to the fortunate educational and parental advantages of the children who get them. I live somewhere now that's kind of in a time warp. Kids don't prep very much for SATs. The ones who do well are children of public school teachers. So there are lower SAT scores here but not necessarily less intelligent people than other places I've lived. I remember my "W" feeder middle school was a mean and stressful place. The parents on here remind me of those kids.

Above poster even cited that the students are richer as an advantage. That's pretty tacky. "State flagship people" aren't so concerned with that. Having money doesn't make you a good person or a happy person...we all come to know this one way or another. Sometimes kids with the most money get into the biggest trouble (drugs, hotel room trashing, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there's a propensity on here to overrate state schools. Top privates are more selective, have higher freshman entering stats (usually far higher than Michigan, UVam Berkeley, etc) and are richer per student by far.

If you compare the stats of OOS matriculation to the private schools, you will see they are generally similar. Public schools have a different mission particularly ones with agriculture programs like Wisconsin and Illinois.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

On the academics, academic experience and college factor, it isn't close either.

Michigan hands down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vanderbilt:

Acceptance rate: 6.2%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1510 - 1560
ACT: 34-35

Michigan:
Acceptance rate: 18%
Freshman SAT test scores: 1350 - 1530
ACT: 31-34

Not close.

On the academics, academic experience and college factor, it isn't close either.

Michigan hands down.

In other words, all the objective metrics are worthless and your own subjective ratings are all that matter.