Top 10 Public Colleges in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

Pretty sure that's false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

Pretty sure that's false.

You are correct. I meant to say UCLA. Berkeley academically is in a class of its own among top publics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

LOL. Seriously? You sound like a typical UVa booster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

LOL. Seriously? You sound like a typical UVa booster.

Please note my corrrection…

[Anonymous]

The idea that any school on the top 10 list would be a non-R1 institution is absurd. I'm looking at you W&M, but this would apply to any other non-R1 school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

LOL. Seriously? You sound like a typical UVa booster.

Please note my corrrection…

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

Those are the absolute worst indicators to judge schools based on and really only exist to hurt public universities based on non-academic factors.

4-year graduation rate means the students at the school take easy majors, don't fail courses with subjective grading, attend full-time due to no extracurricular commitments i.e. jobs, etc.

Meanwhile public universities are full of students majoring in tough STEM subjects where grading is objective - meaning students fail. Public university students also often hold part-time jobs with significant time commitments i.e. 20 hours+ per week, and therefore these students take fewer courses and take longer to finish.

The easiest way to raise the 4-year graduation rate is to target and admit only wealthy students who won't need to work part-time and will major in easy majors because their family's wealth and connections will carry them through life. Schools like Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern have done this to great effect in recent times, and historically it is how the Ivies built their reputation and its what they still currently practice.

Same with alumni satisfaction. Want great alumni satisfaction? Make college a summer camp with luxury dorms, fitness centers, easy academics allowing for great amount of time spent in social clubs. To pay for this, attract and admit only wealthy students that can afford the luxuries and social clubs. Again, look at the "T20" outside of MIT, Caltech, Cornell and Hopkins.

Same with alumni giving. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and therefore a) students feel they have already contributed through taxes, b) public university students tend to take student loans to pay tuition themselves rather than their parents paying it for them - adding to the belief that they've done enough - and c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state.

Add on to the fact that public university students are generally poorer to begin with, without large familial wealth cushions, and simply can afford to contribute less than private university alums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

Those are the absolute worst indicators to judge schools based on and really only exist to hurt public universities based on non-academic factors.

4-year graduation rate means the students at the school take easy majors, don't fail courses with subjective grading, attend full-time due to no extracurricular commitments i.e. jobs, etc.

Meanwhile public universities are full of students majoring in tough STEM subjects where grading is objective - meaning students fail. Public university students also often hold part-time jobs with significant time commitments i.e. 20 hours+ per week, and therefore these students take fewer courses and take longer to finish.

The easiest way to raise the 4-year graduation rate is to target and admit only wealthy students who won't need to work part-time and will major in easy majors because their family's wealth and connections will carry them through life. Schools like Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern have done this to great effect in recent times, and historically it is how the Ivies built their reputation and its what they still currently practice.

Same with alumni satisfaction. Want great alumni satisfaction? Make college a summer camp with luxury dorms, fitness centers, easy academics allowing for great amount of time spent in social clubs. To pay for this, attract and admit only wealthy students that can afford the luxuries and social clubs. Again, look at the "T20" outside of MIT, Caltech, Cornell and Hopkins.

Same with alumni giving. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and therefore a) students feel they have already contributed through taxes, b) public university students tend to take student loans to pay tuition themselves rather than their parents paying it for them - adding to the belief that they've done enough - and c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state.

Add on to the fact that public university students are generally poorer to begin with, without large familial wealth cushions, and simply can afford to contribute less than private university alums.

Alternatively, a high 4-year graduation rate means the students 1) can get the classes they need to graduate 2) don't run up unnecessary debt or incur opportunity costs in delayed earnings and 3) are generally happy with their experience and making proper academic process because the university is committed to undergraduates. And a high alumni giving rate is correlated with alumni satisfaction with their experience with the school and whether they believe they received value for their investment.

Many public schools are using undergraduates to prop up research and graduate programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

Pretty sure that's false.

You are correct. I meant to say UCLA. Berkeley academically is in a class of its own among top publics.

Nah, Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan are splitting hairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

Those are the absolute worst indicators to judge schools based on and really only exist to hurt public universities based on non-academic factors.

4-year graduation rate means the students at the school take easy majors, don't fail courses with subjective grading, attend full-time due to no extracurricular commitments i.e. jobs, etc.

Meanwhile public universities are full of students majoring in tough STEM subjects where grading is objective - meaning students fail. Public university students also often hold part-time jobs with significant time commitments i.e. 20 hours+ per week, and therefore these students take fewer courses and take longer to finish.

The easiest way to raise the 4-year graduation rate is to target and admit only wealthy students who won't need to work part-time and will major in easy majors because their family's wealth and connections will carry them through life. Schools like Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern have done this to great effect in recent times, and historically it is how the Ivies built their reputation and its what they still currently practice.

Same with alumni satisfaction. Want great alumni satisfaction? Make college a summer camp with luxury dorms, fitness centers, easy academics allowing for great amount of time spent in social clubs. To pay for this, attract and admit only wealthy students that can afford the luxuries and social clubs. Again, look at the "T20" outside of MIT, Caltech, Cornell and Hopkins.

Same with alumni giving. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and therefore a) students feel they have already contributed through taxes, b) public university students tend to take student loans to pay tuition themselves rather than their parents paying it for them - adding to the belief that they've done enough - and c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state.

Add on to the fact that public university students are generally poorer to begin with, without large familial wealth cushions, and simply can afford to contribute less than private university alums.

False for Michigan. Only 3% of their budget is funded through the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d put Michigan ahead of Berkeley. More top ten departments.

Pretty sure that's false.

You are correct. I meant to say UCLA. Berkeley academically is in a class of its own among top publics.

Nah, Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan are splitting hairs.

And you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

Those are the absolute worst indicators to judge schools based on and really only exist to hurt public universities based on non-academic factors.

4-year graduation rate means the students at the school take easy majors, don't fail courses with subjective grading, attend full-time due to no extracurricular commitments i.e. jobs, etc.

Meanwhile public universities are full of students majoring in tough STEM subjects where grading is objective - meaning students fail. Public university students also often hold part-time jobs with significant time commitments i.e. 20 hours+ per week, and therefore these students take fewer courses and take longer to finish.

The easiest way to raise the 4-year graduation rate is to target and admit only wealthy students who won't need to work part-time and will major in easy majors because their family's wealth and connections will carry them through life. Schools like Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern have done this to great effect in recent times, and historically it is how the Ivies built their reputation and its what they still currently practice.

Same with alumni satisfaction. Want great alumni satisfaction? Make college a summer camp with luxury dorms, fitness centers, easy academics allowing for great amount of time spent in social clubs. To pay for this, attract and admit only wealthy students that can afford the luxuries and social clubs. Again, look at the "T20" outside of MIT, Caltech, Cornell and Hopkins.

Same with alumni giving. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and therefore a) students feel they have already contributed through taxes, b) public university students tend to take student loans to pay tuition themselves rather than their parents paying it for them - adding to the belief that they've done enough - and c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state.

Add on to the fact that public university students are generally poorer to begin with, without large familial wealth cushions, and simply can afford to contribute less than private university alums.

Alternatively, a high 4-year graduation rate means the students 1) can get the classes they need to graduate 2) don't run up unnecessary debt or incur opportunity costs in delayed earnings and 3) are generally happy with their experience and making proper academic process because the university is committed to undergraduates. And a high alumni giving rate is correlated with alumni satisfaction with their experience with the school and whether they believe they received value for their investment.

Many public schools are using undergraduates to prop up research and graduate programs.

It is in the public interest to have higher graduation rates in shorter periods because it lowers the public cost per degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

Those are the absolute worst indicators to judge schools based on and really only exist to hurt public universities based on non-academic factors.

4-year graduation rate means the students at the school take easy majors, don't fail courses with subjective grading, attend full-time due to no extracurricular commitments i.e. jobs, etc.

Meanwhile public universities are full of students majoring in tough STEM subjects where grading is objective - meaning students fail. Public university students also often hold part-time jobs with significant time commitments i.e. 20 hours+ per week, and therefore these students take fewer courses and take longer to finish.

The easiest way to raise the 4-year graduation rate is to target and admit only wealthy students who won't need to work part-time and will major in easy majors because their family's wealth and connections will carry them through life. Schools like Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern have done this to great effect in recent times, and historically it is how the Ivies built their reputation and its what they still currently practice.

Same with alumni satisfaction. Want great alumni satisfaction? Make college a summer camp with luxury dorms, fitness centers, easy academics allowing for great amount of time spent in social clubs. To pay for this, attract and admit only wealthy students that can afford the luxuries and social clubs. Again, look at the "T20" outside of MIT, Caltech, Cornell and Hopkins.

Same with alumni giving. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and therefore a) students feel they have already contributed through taxes, b) public university students tend to take student loans to pay tuition themselves rather than their parents paying it for them - adding to the belief that they've done enough - and c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state.

Add on to the fact that public university students are generally poorer to begin with, without large familial wealth cushions, and simply can afford to contribute less than private university alums.

False for Michigan. Only 3% of their budget is funded through the state.

Maybe if you include the hospital, but the state doesn't subsidize undergraduate students at the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) UC Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) Michigan
4) UVA
5) Georgia Tech
6) UNC CH
7) UC Irvine
8) UC Santa Barbra
9) W&M
10) UT Austin

What do you guys think. I think mine is pretty similar to US News (excluding Florida lol). Criteria I used were selectivity, average test scores, academic prestige, etc.

UC Irvine should not be on. If you look at UC schools, UC San Diego should be on before it. I guess UC Santa Barbara may be up and coming, but would not put it ahead of W&M and UT Austin and would think schools like Washington and Wisconsin would be deserving of consideration.

If you are looking at this from an undergraduate perspective, it seems to me your criteria above don't really capture that. A school can have high academic prestige due to its graduate programs, but that often doesn't translate to great undergraduate experience and opportunities. Indicators there should be things like 4 year graduation rate, alumni satisfaction and giving rates, etc.

Those are the absolute worst indicators to judge schools based on and really only exist to hurt public universities based on non-academic factors.

4-year graduation rate means the students at the school take easy majors, don't fail courses with subjective grading, attend full-time due to no extracurricular commitments i.e. jobs, etc.

Meanwhile public universities are full of students majoring in tough STEM subjects where grading is objective - meaning students fail. Public university students also often hold part-time jobs with significant time commitments i.e. 20 hours+ per week, and therefore these students take fewer courses and take longer to finish.

The easiest way to raise the 4-year graduation rate is to target and admit only wealthy students who won't need to work part-time and will major in easy majors because their family's wealth and connections will carry them through life. Schools like Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern have done this to great effect in recent times, and historically it is how the Ivies built their reputation and its what they still currently practice.

Same with alumni satisfaction. Want great alumni satisfaction? Make college a summer camp with luxury dorms, fitness centers, easy academics allowing for great amount of time spent in social clubs. To pay for this, attract and admit only wealthy students that can afford the luxuries and social clubs. Again, look at the "T20" outside of MIT, Caltech, Cornell and Hopkins.

Same with alumni giving. Public universities are funded by taxpayers, and therefore a) students feel they have already contributed through taxes, b) public university students tend to take student loans to pay tuition themselves rather than their parents paying it for them - adding to the belief that they've done enough - and c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state.

Add on to the fact that public university students are generally poorer to begin with, without large familial wealth cushions, and simply can afford to contribute less than private university alums.

False for Michigan. Only 3% of their budget is funded through the state.

Lets help you with some basic reading comprehension:

c) public universities other than Michigan/Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs for fund-raising as their funding is through the state

Huh. So public universities [b]other than Michigan and Virginia don't have large alumni outreach programs due to state funding. Meaning Michigan and Virginia do have large alumni outreach programs.

Does that sentence need to be further broken down for you?