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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michigan was considered a good school back in the 1980s UVA was a tier below and Wisconsin a tier below that. UVA and Wisconsin have closed the gap considerably but I think the rank order is about the same

I’d say it’s the opposite. Michigan has widened the gap since the 80’s with both of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is unique among publics for the combination of its founders, its architecture, its age, its quality education, including its professional schools, and its strong connections with Ivies.

UVA is actually not as old as Michigan. It was founded 183 years after Harvard. I know of no real connection with Ivies. It is not in the Ivy League. I also don't think UVA is ranked particularly high in areas like quality of undergraduate teaching.

Come on, get real. Michigan was founded in1817, UVA in 1819.

That’s a myth. Michigan was founded in 1841, that was the first day of classes. The 1817 myth was made up in the 1910s when Wisconsin was more prestigious; Michigan felt they had to identify with the “Cathelopistimiad”, a high school founded in Detroit in 1817. It closed in 1827.

Old seals of Michigan often show the date “1837”, marking the university’s establishment in Ann Arbor, but the first day of classes did not begin until the appointment of the first professor, Asa Gray, in 1841.

See, even in the 1910s Michigan students were insecure….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan was considered a good school back in the 1980s UVA was a tier below and Wisconsin a tier below that. UVA and Wisconsin have closed the gap considerably but I think the rank order is about the same

I’d say it’s the opposite. Michigan has widened the gap since the 80’s with both of these schools.

Cool story... everyone is better off for hearing your expert analysis and anonymous opinion.

[Anonymous]

UW-Madison has always had a world class reputation and still does. But it’s never been particularly selective.

UVA has been more selective than UW-Madison since forever. The poster who said UVA wasn’t a “big deal” in 1997 is off the mark. I had kids in a NOVA public high schools in the late 90s and UVA admissions was viewed as just as much of a golden ticket then as it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is unique among publics for the combination of its founders, its architecture, its age, its quality education, including its professional schools, and its strong connections with Ivies.

UVA is actually not as old as Michigan. It was founded 183 years after Harvard. I know of no real connection with Ivies. It is not in the Ivy League. I also don't think UVA is ranked particularly high in areas like quality of undergraduate teaching.

Come on, get real. Michigan was founded in1817, UVA in 1819.

That’s a myth. Michigan was founded in 1841, that was the first day of classes. The 1817 myth was made up in the 1910s when Wisconsin was more prestigious; Michigan felt they had to identify with the “Cathelopistimiad”, a high school founded in Detroit in 1817. It closed in 1827.

Old seals of Michigan often show the date “1837”, marking the university’s establishment in Ann Arbor, but the first day of classes did not begin until the appointment of the first professor, Asa Gray, in 1841.

See, even in the 1910s Michigan students were insecure….

Duke University was founded in 1838 as the Brown School. After 4 name changes, it became Duke University in 1924. So that point about Michigan just starting in 1841 is ridiculous.

It’s also funny that the above poster mentions Michigan students being insecure after a sentence where he/she/it mentions the first professor at the university. That’s the definition of insecurity looking up such an esoteric fact.

Wisconsin booster still can’t accept that Michigan overtook Wiscy decades ago. Wisconsin has also been overtaken by dozens of schools since 1910 through today. Wisconsin backer should be proud that a public school located in a state with a smaller population did as well as it did so many years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan was considered a good school back in the 1980s UVA was a tier below and Wisconsin a tier below that. UVA and Wisconsin have closed the gap considerably but I think the rank order is about the same

I’d say it’s the opposite. Michigan has widened the gap since the 80’s with both of these schools.

Cool story... everyone is better off for hearing your expert analysis and anonymous opinion.

As opposed to other anonymous opinions with no analysis….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan was considered a good school back in the 1980s UVA was a tier below and Wisconsin a tier below that. UVA and Wisconsin have closed the gap considerably but I think the rank order is about the same

I’d say it’s the opposite. Michigan has widened the gap since the 80’s with both of these schools.

Cool story... everyone is better off for hearing your expert analysis and anonymous opinion.

As opposed to other anonymous opinions with no analysis….

The analysis part was sarcasm... there was no analysis and definietly nothing "expert" about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan was considered a good school back in the 1980s UVA was a tier below and Wisconsin a tier below that. UVA and Wisconsin have closed the gap considerably but I think the rank order is about the same

I’d say it’s the opposite. Michigan has widened the gap since the 80’s with both of these schools.

Cool story... everyone is better off for hearing your expert analysis and anonymous opinion.

As opposed to other anonymous opinions with no analysis….

The analysis part was sarcasm... there was no analysis and definietly nothing "expert" about it.

Oh you were being sarcastic? Thanks Captain Obvious for that clarification.

[Anonymous]

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.

There have been a lot of changes over the past forty years. In 1980, Wisconsin was probably the most prestigious of this bunch. Vanderbilt was a regional school for rich southerners. Notre Dame was a niche school for Catholic school kids. And UVA and Michigan were decent state schools but nothing exceptional.

And today everything is different. Obviously having responsive management to changing trends and demographics has been critical. Both Vanderbilt and Notre Dame have had great chancellors over the past few decades. And both schools developed outstanding brands with smart investing in infrastructure and key programs. Both schools also now have enormous endowments that allow them to get top students and faculty and pretty much do as they please. And sports revenue certainly helps. Notre Dame is Notre Dame. And Vanderbilt is part of the SEC and getting a cool billion per ten years just through revenue sharing alone. Both Vanderbilt and Notre Dame are now among the most desirable schools in the country.

Michigan did two things great - football. And engineering. Most of the Ivies are decades behind the smart public flagship universities when it comes to engineering. As engineering became more critical, more in demand, more desirable, and more competitive there was an enormous opportunity for certain schools with the resources to invest to really make a name for themselves. And Michigan did just that. Combined with overall excellence and a football program that inspired immense passion and loyalty - not to mention revenue - and Michigan became a cool school. Also, Ann Arbor is a great college town. Plus, Michigan is nearly 50 percent OOS, which gives it both national stature and a high quality student body.

I think the source of UVA's prestige remains the same as always - it's one of the oldest schools, founded by TJ, in a pleasant part of the country. It is a genteel school with a long list of famous alumni. Darden has helped keep it modern and lucrative. But UVA has a preppy vibe that's long been appealing to many. Plus sports and school spirit. And generally being good academically, particularly in liberal arts.

Wisconsin, meanwhile, has done everything wrong. They've remained focused on graduate programs instead of undergrad. They've had terrible political interference from state politicians that drove away both funding and talent. They're not particularly good at sports. And it's too cold, which is a no-no with this generation of students.

I’ve been following colleges since the early 1970s, & in all that time Wisconsin has never been equal to Mich or UVA, much less superior to them. Good school overall, & excellent grad programs, but IF it was ever considered superior to Michigan academically (or athletically), you’re going to have to go back way before the 1980s.

[Anonymous]

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.

All of these schools are more prestigious now

[Anonymous]

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.

There have been a lot of changes over the past forty years. In 1980, Wisconsin was probably the most prestigious of this bunch. Vanderbilt was a regional school for rich southerners. Notre Dame was a niche school for Catholic school kids. And UVA and Michigan were decent state schools but nothing exceptional.

And today everything is different. Obviously having responsive management to changing trends and demographics has been critical. Both Vanderbilt and Notre Dame have had great chancellors over the past few decades. And both schools developed outstanding brands with smart investing in infrastructure and key programs. Both schools also now have enormous endowments that allow them to get top students and faculty and pretty much do as they please. And sports revenue certainly helps. Notre Dame is Notre Dame. And Vanderbilt is part of the SEC and getting a cool billion per ten years just through revenue sharing alone. Both Vanderbilt and Notre Dame are now among the most desirable schools in the country.

Michigan did two things great - football. And engineering. Most of the Ivies are decades behind the smart public flagship universities when it comes to engineering. As engineering became more critical, more in demand, more desirable, and more competitive there was an enormous opportunity for certain schools with the resources to invest to really make a name for themselves. And Michigan did just that. Combined with overall excellence and a football program that inspired immense passion and loyalty - not to mention revenue - and Michigan became a cool school. Also, Ann Arbor is a great college town. Plus, Michigan is nearly 50 percent OOS, which gives it both national stature and a high quality student body.

I think the source of UVA's prestige remains the same as always - it's one of the oldest schools, founded by TJ, in a pleasant part of the country. It is a genteel school with a long list of famous alumni. Darden has helped keep it modern and lucrative. But UVA has a preppy vibe that's long been appealing to many. Plus sports and school spirit. And generally being good academically, particularly in liberal arts.

Wisconsin, meanwhile, has done everything wrong. They've remained focused on graduate programs instead of undergrad. They've had terrible political interference from state politicians that drove away both funding and talent. They're not particularly good at sports. And it's too cold, which is a no-no with this generation of students.

I’ve been following colleges since the early 1970s, & in all that time Wisconsin has never been equal to Mich or UVA, much less superior to them. Good school overall, & excellent grad programs, but IF it was ever considered superior to Michigan academically (or athletically), you’re going to have to go back way before the 1980s.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

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.

There have been a lot of changes over the past forty years. In 1980, Wisconsin was probably the most prestigious of this bunch. Vanderbilt was a regional school for rich southerners. Notre Dame was a niche school for Catholic school kids. And UVA and Michigan were decent state schools but nothing exceptional.

And today everything is different. Obviously having responsive management to changing trends and demographics has been critical. Both Vanderbilt and Notre Dame have had great chancellors over the past few decades. And both schools developed outstanding brands with smart investing in infrastructure and key programs. Both schools also now have enormous endowments that allow them to get top students and faculty and pretty much do as they please. And sports revenue certainly helps. Notre Dame is Notre Dame. And Vanderbilt is part of the SEC and getting a cool billion per ten years just through revenue sharing alone. Both Vanderbilt and Notre Dame are now among the most desirable schools in the country.

Michigan did two things great - football. And engineering. Most of the Ivies are decades behind the smart public flagship universities when it comes to engineering. As engineering became more critical, more in demand, more desirable, and more competitive there was an enormous opportunity for certain schools with the resources to invest to really make a name for themselves. And Michigan did just that. Combined with overall excellence and a football program that inspired immense passion and loyalty - not to mention revenue - and Michigan became a cool school. Also, Ann Arbor is a great college town. Plus, Michigan is nearly 50 percent OOS, which gives it both national stature and a high quality student body.

I think the source of UVA's prestige remains the same as always - it's one of the oldest schools, founded by TJ, in a pleasant part of the country. It is a genteel school with a long list of famous alumni. Darden has helped keep it modern and lucrative. But UVA has a preppy vibe that's long been appealing to many. Plus sports and school spirit. And generally being good academically, particularly in liberal arts.

Wisconsin, meanwhile, has done everything wrong. They've remained focused on graduate programs instead of undergrad. They've had terrible political interference from state politicians that drove away both funding and talent. They're not particularly good at sports. And it's too cold, which is a no-no with this generation of students.

I’ve been following colleges since the early 1970s, & in all that time Wisconsin has never been equal to Mich or UVA, much less superior to them. Good school overall, & excellent grad programs, but IF it was ever considered superior to Michigan academically (or athletically), you’re going to have to go back way before the 1980s.

You are correct. Iserved in a high-ranking position at the US Dept of ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not a big deal when I went to college in 1997.

Agent Starling bragged about going there though.

I went to high school in Massachusetts in the 1970s & the first thing that made me aware of UVA was that the Kennedys sent two of their dimmer bulbs to its law school. Decades ago I assumed that meant its law school was good, but now I think they probably attended because they could make some DC connections & sow a ton of wild oats without offending anyone of importance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is unique among publics for the combination of its founders, its architecture, its age, its quality education, including its professional schools, and its strong connections with Ivies.

UVA is absolutely superior to the other schools listed here. However, what is unique about the architecture? Other colleges have nice buildings too.

I always thought it was an amazing achievement that at UVA they managed to construct brick walls while drunk & pass off their shoddy output as “serpentine.” Reminds me of how Target used to advertise their cheapest, thinnest towels as “fast-drying.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA is a Public Ivy and World Heritage site.

True, but recognizing the site of Teddy Kennedy’s first Chivas Regal buzz is not one of the things of which the World Heritage program is most proud.