Is uva a prestigious college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:World university rankings: Michigan, 21; Wake Forest, 201.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/name/Wake%20for/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Ah, I get it. So one publication ranks WF higher than UMich and that just can’t possibly be right, and one ranks UMich higher and, well, THAT one is obviously right. Oookay.

You’re arguing for USNWR ranking being right when every single Mich grad dept is ranked higher than Wake Forest and anyone would tell you Michigan has a better national reputation. Come on — only an idiot would think Wake Forest is better.

o.k., USNWR is idiots then because they don't agree with you. Maybe you could lay out your methodology. I'm sure they got credit for their "national reputation" but that didn't quite push it ahead of Wake.

Most people consider grad dept rankings a proxy for the quality of undergrad academic opportunities in various disciplines. Michigan blows Wake Forest out of the water on that count. Its offerings are not only broader, but of vastly better quality.

cool. I'm sure they got credit for that too in the rankings.

Not for undergrad, even though they should.

[Anonymous]

I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is only regionally known. So no, not prestigious.

+1 that's really all that needs to be said. End of thread.

Again, how to you explain the massive numbers of OOS applications then?

Do you understand what "region" means? HINT: It doesn't mean just VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

So what. There are about 4000 colleges in the US. Parsing out the differences between #31 and #32 or even #5 and #35 is meaningless and a waste of time. They are both excellent schools whose graduates do well in whatever sector they choose to enter. Let’s have some perspective here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

They call them university rankings because they are rankings of research universities, but the indicators they use are for the undergrad programs. You should probably actually read their methodology before making specious claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

sorry pp, you did say "if." So this the last post was just to clarify: the rankings are of the schools as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

They call them university rankings because they are rankings of research universities, but the indicators they use are for the undergrad programs. You should probably actually read their methodology before making specious claims.

Also, if these were overall university rankings, why would they not include the USNWR rankings of grad departments as part of the computation? Answer: because they are separate sets of rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

They call them university rankings because they are rankings of research universities, but the indicators they use are for the undergrad programs. You should probably actually read their methodology before making specious claims.

Also, if these were overall university rankings, why would they not include the USNWR rankings of grad departments as part of the computation? Answer: because they are separate sets of rankings.

O.K. but Wake still beats Michigan for undergrad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to get into? Yes, but I wouldn’t call it prestigious. It’s just a well regarded big state school like Michigan or UCLA.

I think Michigan is more highly regarded. Never even heard of UVA until I moved to DC eight years ago.

I wouldn't admit this in public.

Lots of people could care less abou uva

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to get into? Yes, but I wouldn’t call it prestigious. It’s just a well regarded big state school like Michigan or UCLA.

I think Michigan is more highly regarded. Never even heard of UVA until I moved to DC eight years ago.

I wouldn't admit this in public.

Lots of people could care less abou uva

Not in my NOVA neighborhood. It's the holy grail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

They call them university rankings because they are rankings of research universities, but the indicators they use are for the undergrad programs. You should probably actually read their methodology before making specious claims.

Also, if these were overall university rankings, why would they not include the USNWR rankings of grad departments as part of the computation? Answer: because they are separate sets of rankings.

O.K. but Wake still beats Michigan for undergrad

by one USNWR point. Wake Forest has 75 and Michigan has 74. Michigan wins on grad dept rankings, which means better academic opportunities for undergrads. Student life is better -- Ann Arbor is routinely ranked as the best or second-best college town in America -- and Michigan athletics are about a million times better than Wake Forest.

Sorry -- when you look at the universities as a whole, there's really no contest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

They call them university rankings because they are rankings of research universities, but the indicators they use are for the undergrad programs. You should probably actually read their methodology before making specious claims.

Also, if these were overall university rankings, why would they not include the USNWR rankings of grad departments as part of the computation? Answer: because they are separate sets of rankings.

O.K. but Wake still beats Michigan for undergrad

by one USNWR point. Wake Forest has 75 and Michigan has 74. Michigan wins on grad dept rankings, which means better academic opportunities for undergrads. Student life is better -- Ann Arbor is routinely ranked as the best or second-best college town in America -- and Michigan athletics are about a million times better than Wake Forest.

Sorry -- when you look at the universities as a whole, there's really no contest.

but you don't go to a university as a whole. You go undergrad, or to a specific graduate program. BTW, UVA is also better than Michigan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I compared the US News profiles of Wake Forest and Michigan. The sole reason Wake Forest is ranked higher is because it has a lower student/faculty ratio (10:1 vs 15:1) and only 1% of its classes are over 50 students, whereas at Michigan that number is 17%.

Otherwise, the US News indicators are identical.

So if the US News ranking of the undergrad programs are almost identical and Michigan is ranked better on the global stage (Times Higher Education ranking) and has better grad departments, then Michigan comes out on top when you consider the universities as a whole.

well you're wrong about that because the USNWR rankings are of national "universities," not just their undergraduate programs. Indeed UVA is only ranked as high as it is because of its business and Law School.

They call them university rankings because they are rankings of research universities, but the indicators they use are for the undergrad programs. You should probably actually read their methodology before making specious claims.

Also, if these were overall university rankings, why would they not include the USNWR rankings of grad departments as part of the computation? Answer: because they are separate sets of rankings.

O.K. but Wake still beats Michigan for undergrad

by one USNWR point. Wake Forest has 75 and Michigan has 74. Michigan wins on grad dept rankings, which means better academic opportunities for undergrads. Student life is better -- Ann Arbor is routinely ranked as the best or second-best college town in America -- and Michigan athletics are about a million times better than Wake Forest.

Sorry -- when you look at the universities as a whole, there's really no contest.

but you don't go to a university as a whole. You go undergrad, or to a specific graduate program. BTW, UVA is also better than Michigan.

Do you not understand the concept that when you major in something as an undergrad, you are benefitting from the quality of the department? That means that Michigan undergrads have access to better departments--meaning better professors and better research opportunities--than UVA or Wake Forest undergrads.

I take it you've never been privy to the dynamic among undergrads, graduate students, and professors in academic departments. High achieving undergrads can be treated as graduate students in training, and having access to better graduate departments mean those undergrads have access to better opportunities, positioning them to be more competitive for graduate and professional programs.

[Anonymous]

BTW:

For undergraduate teaching (an indicator I assume you value?):

Michigan -- 6
Wake Forest -- 12
UVA -- 17