Top 10 Public Colleges in the US

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA
UNC CH
UCSD
Wisconsin
Illinois
U Washington
College of W&M


If you are an undergraduate, though, you should probably consider how much the school is committed to undergraduate education and experience. If you re-rank these schools by Niche undergraduate alumni ratings of "did I get my money's worth?", it looks like this:

College of W&M
UNC CH
Michigan
Wisconsin
UVA
Illinois
UCLA
UCSD
Berkeley
U Washington

Public universities have limited resources, so even for a school like Berkeley, it is difficult to be great at everything.


Michigan has over a 12 billion dollar endowment, plus state funding. It is not lacking for resources. Michigan is considered great at just about everything they offer academically. Among privates; only Stanford and perhaps MIT, Princeton, and Cornell can say that.


Nearly a third of Michigan's endowment belongs to the healthcare system and has nothing to do with undergraduate education. For the remaining part, a significant chunk is going to belong to the Law School, Ross, etc. They don't share with undergraduate programs. It is an unfair comparison, but if you compare Michigan to Princeton, as you did, you will see that Princeton has an endowment of $27B with no medical system, no law school or business school, and only 8,600 students. Michigan has 46,000 students. So Princeton's endowment is 12X as large as Michigan's on a per student basis, and if you factor the points I made above, the difference is even more significant than that.

Universities can and do divert money from undergraduates to fund research and graduate education (or from humanities programs to STEM programs, etc.). You are assuming resources are evenly allocated and they are not.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA
UNC CH
UCSD
Wisconsin
Illinois
U Washington
College of W&M


If you are an undergraduate, though, you should probably consider how much the school is committed to undergraduate education and experience. If you re-rank these schools by Niche undergraduate alumni ratings of "did I get my money's worth?", it looks like this:

College of W&M
UNC CH
Michigan
Wisconsin
UVA
Illinois
UCLA
UCSD
Berkeley
U Washington

Public universities have limited resources, so even for a school like Berkeley, it is difficult to be great at everything.


Michigan has over a 12 billion dollar endowment, plus state funding. It is not lacking for resources. Michigan is considered great at just about everything they offer academically. Among privates; only Stanford and perhaps MIT, Princeton, and Cornell can say that.


Nearly a third of Michigan's endowment belongs to the healthcare system and has nothing to do with undergraduate education. For the remaining part, a significant chunk is going to belong to the Law School, Ross, etc. They don't share with undergraduate programs. It is an unfair comparison, but if you compare Michigan to Princeton, as you did, you will see that Princeton has an endowment of $27B with no medical system, no law school or business school, and only 8,600 students. Michigan has 46,000 students. So Princeton's endowment is 12X as large as Michigan's on a per student basis, and if you factor the points I made above, the difference is even more significant than that.

Universities can and do divert money from undergraduates to fund research and graduate education (or from humanities programs to STEM programs, etc.). You are assuming resources are evenly allocated and they are not.


Considering the fact that Michigan is strong to excellent across all disciplines that it offers, it makes it even more impressive that ONLY 8 billion is reserved for those areas. I wasn’t comparing the size of Michigan’s endowment compared to Princeton’s endowment. More the fact that it does so many things so well. Perhaps Princeton was a bad example as the school’s offerings are much more limited.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.


What circles are those?

(Serious question, as several friends just moved to FL)
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.


What circles are those?

(Serious question, as several friends just moved to FL)

The circles that take USNews as the holy grail.

A few years ago, saying U. Florida would get laughed yet by these same parents.

Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well-regarded due to their research programs. The vast majority of undergrads at these places are mediocre.

U. Florida does not even have good research programs.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.


What circles are those?

(Serious question, as several friends just moved to FL)

The circles that take USNews as the holy grail.

A few years ago, saying U. Florida would get laughed yet by these same parents.

Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well-regarded due to their research programs. The vast majority of undergrads at these places are mediocre.

U. Florida does not even have good research programs.


The vast majority of students at Udub, UIUC, and Wisconsin are far from “mediocre.” Mediocre students, for the most part, are not getting into top 100 schools.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA
UNC CH
UCSD
Wisconsin
Illinois
U Washington
College of W&M


If you are an undergraduate, though, you should probably consider how much the school is committed to undergraduate education and experience. If you re-rank these schools by Niche undergraduate alumni ratings of "did I get my money's worth?", it looks like this:

College of W&M
UNC CH
Michigan
Wisconsin
UVA
Illinois
UCLA
UCSD
Berkeley
U Washington

Public universities have limited resources, so even for a school like Berkeley, it is difficult to be great at everything.


Michigan has over a 12 billion dollar endowment, plus state funding. It is not lacking for resources. Michigan is considered great at just about everything they offer academically. Among privates; only Stanford and perhaps MIT, Princeton, and Cornell can say that.


Nearly a third of Michigan's endowment belongs to the healthcare system and has nothing to do with undergraduate education. For the remaining part, a significant chunk is going to belong to the Law School, Ross, etc. They don't share with undergraduate programs. It is an unfair comparison, but if you compare Michigan to Princeton, as you did, you will see that Princeton has an endowment of $27B with no medical system, no law school or business school, and only 8,600 students. Michigan has 46,000 students. So Princeton's endowment is 12X as large as Michigan's on a per student basis, and if you factor the points I made above, the difference is even more significant than that.

Universities can and do divert money from undergraduates to fund research and graduate education (or from humanities programs to STEM programs, etc.). You are assuming resources are evenly allocated and they are not.


Considering the fact that Michigan is strong to excellent across all disciplines that it offers, it makes it even more impressive that ONLY 8 billion is reserved for those areas. I wasn’t comparing the size of Michigan’s endowment compared to Princeton’s endowment. More the fact that it does so many things so well. Perhaps Princeton was a bad example as the school’s offerings are much more limited.


The point in question was whether Michigan lacks comparable resources compared to the private schools cited. It might come close with Cornell, but it would not be close compared to MIT, Princeton, and Stanford. The "ONLY $8 billion" endowment you cite is spread across 46,000 students, and it is probably unevenly very unevenly distributed across them since the majority of endowment funds are restricted by the donor as to purpose. On a per student basis, that is far below what top private schools have.

I am not disputing that Michigan is relatively strong across the board.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is no question that for the undergraduate student of the liberal arts and sciences, the College of William and Mary offers the most rigorous, highest quality education of any public university in the country.

Perhaps for liberal arts, but definitely not for natural sciences or even social sciences. Berkeley, UNC, and Michigan outdo's the Virginia publics by far.


Liberal arts includes natural sciences and social sciences.


+1 W&M has top-notch undergraduate teaching in liberal arts and sciences. With only 6000 undergrads and a tiny handful of grad programs, it's not going to compare with top-tier research 1 universities in terms of research productivity etc., but there's no public school like it for quality of undergrad academics. Each year, we regularly employ 20-30 interns/recent grads from many different colleges (in the region and throughout the US) and W&M students--in the social and natural sciences-- are reliably among the very strongest--especially in research/data analysis/writing. I'm angling for my kids to apply there.

Lets look at the original statement

There is no question that for the undergraduate student of the liberal arts and sciences, the College of William and Mary offers the most rigorous, highest quality education of any public university in the country.

W&M is not more rigorous than Berkeley. Top students at Berkeley can take classes that don't even exist at W&M.

Higher quality? You could argue that, due to smaller classes and more accessible professors. Or you could argue against that, considering the professors at Berkeley are Nobel laureates and world-renowned, and the professors at W&M are very much not that and are under-paid if anything.


Berkeley and W&M are two completely different schools working on two different models. I'm not sure how anyone could know which is more rigorous unless they did a time spent and result achieved study on each, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. What I do know is that of all the national public universities, W&M and Berkeley are the top two undergraduate institutions for producing PhDs on a per capita basis, and by some distance. Since the top private undergraduate national universities for producing PhDs on a per capita basis are Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford, I would say this is evidence that both Berkeley and W&M are relatively rigorous.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.


What circles are those?

(Serious question, as several friends just moved to FL)

The circles that take USNews as the holy grail.

A few years ago, saying U. Florida would get laughed yet by these same parents.

Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well-regarded due to their research programs. The vast majority of undergrads at these places are mediocre.

U. Florida does not even have good research programs.


Dumb post.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA
UNC CH
UCSD
Wisconsin
Illinois
U Washington
College of W&M


If you are an undergraduate, though, you should probably consider how much the school is committed to undergraduate education and experience. If you re-rank these schools by Niche undergraduate alumni ratings of "did I get my money's worth?", it looks like this:

College of W&M
UNC CH
Michigan
Wisconsin
UVA
Illinois
UCLA
UCSD
Berkeley
U Washington

Public universities have limited resources, so even for a school like Berkeley, it is difficult to be great at everything.


Michigan has over a 12 billion dollar endowment, plus state funding. It is not lacking for resources. Michigan is considered great at just about everything they offer academically. Among privates; only Stanford and perhaps MIT, Princeton, and Cornell can say that.


Nearly a third of Michigan's endowment belongs to the healthcare system and has nothing to do with undergraduate education. For the remaining part, a significant chunk is going to belong to the Law School, Ross, etc. They don't share with undergraduate programs. It is an unfair comparison, but if you compare Michigan to Princeton, as you did, you will see that Princeton has an endowment of $27B with no medical system, no law school or business school, and only 8,600 students. Michigan has 46,000 students. So Princeton's endowment is 12X as large as Michigan's on a per student basis, and if you factor the points I made above, the difference is even more significant than that.

Universities can and do divert money from undergraduates to fund research and graduate education (or from humanities programs to STEM programs, etc.). You are assuming resources are evenly allocated and they are not.


Considering the fact that Michigan is strong to excellent across all disciplines that it offers, it makes it even more impressive that ONLY 8 billion is reserved for those areas. I wasn’t comparing the size of Michigan’s endowment compared to Princeton’s endowment. More the fact that it does so many things so well. Perhaps Princeton was a bad example as the school’s offerings are much more limited.


The point in question was whether Michigan lacks comparable resources compared to the private schools cited. It might come close with Cornell, but it would not be close compared to MIT, Princeton, and Stanford. The "ONLY $8 billion" endowment you cite is spread across 46,000 students, and it is probably unevenly very unevenly distributed across them since the majority of endowment funds are restricted by the donor as to purpose. On a per student basis, that is far below what top private schools have.

I am not disputing that Michigan is relatively strong across the board.


MIT, Princeton, and Stanford are among the five best colleges in the US. That is not the point. My point was that Michigan does more with less than most top private universities.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Berkeley
Michigan
UCLA
UVA
UNC CH
UCSD
Wisconsin
Illinois
U Washington
College of W&M


If you are an undergraduate, though, you should probably consider how much the school is committed to undergraduate education and experience. If you re-rank these schools by Niche undergraduate alumni ratings of "did I get my money's worth?", it looks like this:

College of W&M
UNC CH
Michigan
Wisconsin
UVA
Illinois
UCLA
UCSD
Berkeley
U Washington

Public universities have limited resources, so even for a school like Berkeley, it is difficult to be great at everything.


Michigan has over a 12 billion dollar endowment, plus state funding. It is not lacking for resources. Michigan is considered great at just about everything they offer academically. Among privates; only Stanford and perhaps MIT, Princeton, and Cornell can say that.


Nearly a third of Michigan's endowment belongs to the healthcare system and has nothing to do with undergraduate education. For the remaining part, a significant chunk is going to belong to the Law School, Ross, etc. They don't share with undergraduate programs. It is an unfair comparison, but if you compare Michigan to Princeton, as you did, you will see that Princeton has an endowment of $27B with no medical system, no law school or business school, and only 8,600 students. Michigan has 46,000 students. So Princeton's endowment is 12X as large as Michigan's on a per student basis, and if you factor the points I made above, the difference is even more significant than that.

Universities can and do divert money from undergraduates to fund research and graduate education (or from humanities programs to STEM programs, etc.). You are assuming resources are evenly allocated and they are not.


Considering the fact that Michigan is strong to excellent across all disciplines that it offers, it makes it even more impressive that ONLY 8 billion is reserved for those areas. I wasn’t comparing the size of Michigan’s endowment compared to Princeton’s endowment. More the fact that it does so many things so well. Perhaps Princeton was a bad example as the school’s offerings are much more limited.


The point in question was whether Michigan lacks comparable resources compared to the private schools cited. It might come close with Cornell, but it would not be close compared to MIT, Princeton, and Stanford. The "ONLY $8 billion" endowment you cite is spread across 46,000 students, and it is probably unevenly very unevenly distributed across them since the majority of endowment funds are restricted by the donor as to purpose. On a per student basis, that is far below what top private schools have.

I am not disputing that Michigan is relatively strong across the board.


“ I am not disputing that Michigan is relatively strong across the board.”

….and that was my point. There is enough money in the endowment to fund those strong departments, even with highly rated medical, law, and business schools. I didn’t even mention dentistry, pharmacy, and a myriad of other programs that also have undergraduate programs.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There is no question that for the undergraduate student of the liberal arts and sciences, the College of William and Mary offers the most rigorous, highest quality education of any public university in the country.

Perhaps for liberal arts, but definitely not for natural sciences or even social sciences. Berkeley, UNC, and Michigan outdo's the Virginia publics by far.


Liberal arts includes natural sciences and social sciences.


+1 W&M has top-notch undergraduate teaching in liberal arts and sciences. With only 6000 undergrads and a tiny handful of grad programs, it's not going to compare with top-tier research 1 universities in terms of research productivity etc., but there's no public school like it for quality of undergrad academics. Each year, we regularly employ 20-30 interns/recent grads from many different colleges (in the region and throughout the US) and W&M students--in the social and natural sciences-- are reliably among the very strongest--especially in research/data analysis/writing. I'm angling for my kids to apply there.

Lets look at the original statement

There is no question that for the undergraduate student of the liberal arts and sciences, the College of William and Mary offers the most rigorous, highest quality education of any public university in the country.

W&M is not more rigorous than Berkeley. Top students at Berkeley can take classes that don't even exist at W&M.

Higher quality? You could argue that, due to smaller classes and more accessible professors. Or you could argue against that, considering the professors at Berkeley are Nobel laureates and world-renowned, and the professors at W&M are very much not that and are under-paid if anything.


Berkeley and W&M are two completely different schools working on two different models. I'm not sure how anyone could know which is more rigorous unless they did a time spent and result achieved study on each, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. What I do know is that of all the national public universities, W&M and Berkeley are the top two undergraduate institutions for producing PhDs on a per capita basis, and by some distance. Since the top private undergraduate national universities for producing PhDs on a per capita basis are Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford, I would say this is evidence that both Berkeley and W&M are relatively rigorous.


William and Mary gets overlooked frequently these days, perhaps because it is so unlike almost all other public schools, but I think Virginia is lucky to have it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.


What circles are those?

(Serious question, as several friends just moved to FL)

The circles that take USNews as the holy grail.

A few years ago, saying U. Florida would get laughed yet by these same parents.

Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well-regarded due to their research programs. The vast majority of undergrads at these places are mediocre.

U. Florida does not even have good research programs.


Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well regarded because they turn out top flight engineers and computer programmers.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:UF is a great school.


I agree, but I wouldn't say top ten.


Not sure why UWash Wisc Illini are considered top 10. Top 20 yes. UF in many circles has a top 10 rep.


What circles are those?

(Serious question, as several friends just moved to FL)

The circles that take USNews as the holy grail.

A few years ago, saying U. Florida would get laughed yet by these same parents.

Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well-regarded due to their research programs. The vast majority of undergrads at these places are mediocre.

U. Florida does not even have good research programs.


Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are well regarded because they turn out top flight engineers and computer programmers.


How about for other students and majors?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Also let's not forget that alumni giving is literally a metric that exists to perpetuate anti-meritocracy through legacy status.


You’re literally wrong. Alumni giving is emphasized at my school, but legacy gets you zero credit in admissions.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: