UVa, William and Mary, Virginia Tech should be shut down and split up or expanded

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes no sense. There are already less selective public universities that are a good fit for a variety of kids. Just say what you really mean: you want your child to be admitted to a selective state university. If the schools do what you suggest, which is to accept a broader range of kids, what do you think will happen? The school will become less selective and it's not going to be impressive to anyone that your kid got in, so you're not going to be satisfied with that.

Michigan does a much better job educating the top students in its state. Too bad the flagship of a state the size of VA can’t.

Have you been to UVA? Have a kid there? Michigan has just under 34K undergraduates to UVA's 17K. UVA is bursting at the gills and the city can't handle it either. Where would they build? They would have to displace city blocks (a large minority population by the way) east of Main between 14th to 10th. People that say it should grow to the size of schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Tech are delusional.

l

That doesn’t change the fact that UVA doesn’t serve its population very well. If you can’t grow, you can certainly adjust the percentage of instate students upward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can argue how much BS is in the current "holistic" admission process though (think Harvard). I think it's fair to ask for merit based admissions.

You don't get to decide that. Fact is---a kid with a 1520 is really not any different than one with a 1580. For even the top schools, it's "Great you met the SAT threshold, now let's see the rest of your application". Because in real life and the workforce, a lot more matters than just how you perform on a 4 hour test at 8am on a Dec Saturday. Just like someone with a 3.9 UW is not that much different than a 4.0UW. And wait until you graduate college and realize that you are working alongside someone who only got a 3.1 in college despite you getting a 3.9, and you likely are being paid the same. Or there's a chance the 3.1 person is now your manager

More to life than just grades and SAT scores. That's why we have holistic admissions

That's alike a standard deviation difference between top 1% and top .1%

Sure a lot of things matter but when you are trying to select the smartest people, most of the other stuff does not matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can argue how much BS is in the current "holistic" admission process though (think Harvard). I think it's fair to ask for merit based admissions.

You don't get to decide that. Fact is---a kid with a 1520 is really not any different than one with a 1580. For even the top schools, it's "Great you met the SAT threshold, now let's see the rest of your application". Because in real life and the workforce, a lot more matters than just how you perform on a 4 hour test at 8am on a Dec Saturday. Just like someone with a 3.9 UW is not that much different than a 4.0UW. And wait until you graduate college and realize that you are working alongside someone who only got a 3.1 in college despite you getting a 3.9, and you likely are being paid the same. Or there's a chance the 3.1 person is now your manager

More to life than just grades and SAT scores. That's why we have holistic admissions

Harvard said the same thing. Guess what, it turned out to be BS as we suspected.

Yeah but harvard was not selecting 1520s over 1580s. They were selecting 1420s over 1550s.

[Anonymous]

If you grow the top schools, it impacts everything on down the line. In fact, what has happened in Virginia is VT has grown significantly, which has negatively impacted the other schools like Radford. This will all be exacerbated as the decline in college age kids kicks in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you grow the top schools, it impacts everything on down the line. In fact, what has happened in Virginia is VT has grown significantly, which has negatively impacted the other schools like Radford. This will all be exacerbated as the decline in college age kids kicks in.

+1 the Virginia public university system has plenty of capacity. There is no reason to grow any of the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes no sense. There are already less selective public universities that are a good fit for a variety of kids. Just say what you really mean: you want your child to be admitted to a selective state university. If the schools do what you suggest, which is to accept a broader range of kids, what do you think will happen? The school will become less selective and it's not going to be impressive to anyone that your kid got in, so you're not going to be satisfied with that.

Michigan does a much better job educating the top students in its state. Too bad the flagship of a state the size of VA can’t.

Have you been to UVA? Have a kid there? Michigan has just under 34K undergraduates to UVA's 17K. UVA is bursting at the gills and the city can't handle it either. Where would they build? They would have to displace city blocks (a large minority population by the way) east of Main between 14th to 10th. People that say it should grow to the size of schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Tech are delusional.

l

That doesn’t change the fact that UVA doesn’t serve its population very well. If you can’t grow, you can certainly adjust the percentage of instate students upward.

Sure it does. 2/3 in-state is not unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are so lucky to live in VA. We are considering paying $70-$80k to send our kid to one of your schools…if they are lucky enough to even be admitted.

Maybe Virginia need to shrink the out of state student body to make more spots for taxpayer in state kids.

The catch is that OOS tuition is a major line item in campus budgets. The struggle has been even more visible than this at Michigan for years. Plus increasing the OOS ratio enhances selectivity. Plus OOS tuition is far more reliable than tax-base support that can be reduced by legislatures. State appropriations are a constant fear at public universities. So it's tougher math than it looks.

Except that UVA receives less than 6% of its budget from the Commonwealth. It made this decision a decade ago so it could be autonomous.

This says it receives 11.65% from the state.

“The recently approved FY2024-2025 budget, though not recovering to the proportional levels of state support in FY2004-2005, did reflect a significant increase in state funding (11.65%), with the total state support of $282 million, reaching UVA's highest-ever dollar amount for state funding.”

https://uvafinance.virginia.edu/budget-management/budgeting#:~:text=The%20recently%20approved%20FY2024%2D2025,dollar%20amount%20for%20state%20funding.

Going private is not possible without great assistance in doing so from the state. Assuming a 4.7% payout from endowment, it would take an unrestricted endowment growth of over $6B to replace the State of Virginia funding of $282. Most of UVA's endowment, like other universities, is restricted. That means it "belongs" to a school or program per the donor's intent. About 50% of its endowment is medical + law + graduate business, and these schools do not have a single undergraduate. Furthermore, if UVA were to acquire its state owned assets, it would require another $8B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you grow the top schools, it impacts everything on down the line. In fact, what has happened in Virginia is VT has grown significantly, which has negatively impacted the other schools like Radford. This will all be exacerbated as the decline in college age kids kicks in.

+1 the Virginia public university system has plenty of capacity. There is no reason to grow any of the schools.

I think it has overcapacity. It is just that people want it to have the "right" capacity for them at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are so lucky to live in VA. We are considering paying $70-$80k to send our kid to one of your schools…if they are lucky enough to even be admitted.

Maybe Virginia need to shrink the out of state student body to make more spots for taxpayer in state kids.

The catch is that OOS tuition is a major line item in campus budgets. The struggle has been even more visible than this at Michigan for years. Plus increasing the OOS ratio enhances selectivity. Plus OOS tuition is far more reliable than tax-base support that can be reduced by legislatures. State appropriations are a constant fear at public universities. So it's tougher math than it looks.

Except that UVA receives less than 6% of its budget from the Commonwealth. It made this decision a decade ago so it could be autonomous.

This says it receives 11.65% from the state.

“The recently approved FY2024-2025 budget, though not recovering to the proportional levels of state support in FY2004-2005, did reflect a significant increase in state funding (11.65%), with the total state support of $282 million, reaching UVA's highest-ever dollar amount for state funding.”

https://uvafinance.virginia.edu/budget-management/budgeting#:~:text=The%20recently%20approved%20FY2024%2D2025,dollar%20amount%20for%20state%20funding.

Going private is not possible without great assistance in doing so from the state. Assuming a 4.7% payout from endowment, it would take an unrestricted endowment growth of over $6B to replace the State of Virginia funding of $282. Most of UVA's endowment, like other universities, is restricted. That means it "belongs" to a school or program per the donor's intent. About 50% of its endowment is medical + law + graduate business, and these schools do not have a single undergraduate. Furthermore, if UVA were to acquire its state owned assets, it would require another $8B.



UVA’s endowment is already $13.6 Billion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes no sense. There are already less selective public universities that are a good fit for a variety of kids. Just say what you really mean: you want your child to be admitted to a selective state university. If the schools do what you suggest, which is to accept a broader range of kids, what do you think will happen? The school will become less selective and it's not going to be impressive to anyone that your kid got in, so you're not going to be satisfied with that.

Michigan does a much better job educating the top students in its state. Too bad the flagship of a state the size of VA can’t.

Have you been to UVA? Have a kid there? Michigan has just under 34K undergraduates to UVA's 17K. UVA is bursting at the gills and the city can't handle it either. Where would they build? They would have to displace city blocks (a large minority population by the way) east of Main between 14th to 10th. People that say it should grow to the size of schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Tech are delusional.

l

That doesn’t change the fact that UVA doesn’t serve its population very well. If you can’t grow, you can certainly adjust the percentage of instate students upward.

You and the others who say UVA is not growing are wrong. Please google University of Virginia Foundation. Seven professionals spend their days purchasing billions of dollars of real estate for future use of the school, like the new data center; the Fontaine development (med school); the new children's hospital, and the list goes on and on. https://www.uvafoundation.com/real-estate Whike UVA can't expand contiguously, it is certainly doing so nearby. Most of Ivy road is now owned by UVA. Some in the C'ville community are not happy with this expansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can argue how much BS is in the current "holistic" admission process though (think Harvard). I think it's fair to ask for merit based admissions.

You don't get to decide that. Fact is---a kid with a 1520 is really not any different than one with a 1580. For even the top schools, it's "Great you met the SAT threshold, now let's see the rest of your application". Because in real life and the workforce, a lot more matters than just how you perform on a 4 hour test at 8am on a Dec Saturday. Just like someone with a 3.9 UW is not that much different than a 4.0UW. And wait until you graduate college and realize that you are working alongside someone who only got a 3.1 in college despite you getting a 3.9, and you likely are being paid the same. Or there's a chance the 3.1 person is now your manager

More to life than just grades and SAT scores. That's why we have holistic admissions

Harvard said the same thing. Guess what, it turned out to be BS as we suspected.

Yeah but harvard was not selecting 1520s over 1580s. They were selecting 1420s over 1550s.

NP--1420 is 98th percentile. Anyone this capable is just as likely to be a future superstar as someone with a 1550.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes no sense. There are already less selective public universities that are a good fit for a variety of kids. Just say what you really mean: you want your child to be admitted to a selective state university. If the schools do what you suggest, which is to accept a broader range of kids, what do you think will happen? The school will become less selective and it's not going to be impressive to anyone that your kid got in, so you're not going to be satisfied with that.

Michigan does a much better job educating the top students in its state. Too bad the flagship of a state the size of VA can’t.

Have you been to UVA? Have a kid there? Michigan has just under 34K undergraduates to UVA's 17K. UVA is bursting at the gills and the city can't handle it either. Where would they build? They would have to displace city blocks (a large minority population by the way) east of Main between 14th to 10th. People that say it should grow to the size of schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Tech are delusional.

l

That doesn’t change the fact that UVA doesn’t serve its population very well. If you can’t grow, you can certainly adjust the percentage of instate students upward.

Sure it does. 2/3 in-state is not unreasonable.

2/3 in-state is not reasonable when the overall undergraduate student population is under 18,000 students. Compare that with Berkeley, UCLA, or Michigan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That makes no sense. There are a lot of great VA in-state options. Why not attend one of those?

There is too much hierarchy. Alternatively, they could combine all of the universities (UVa, VTech, William and Mary, Gmu, Jmu, Cnu, Longwood) into one university and have a lottery for all who are accepted to decide who goes to which campus.

So your kid can’t get in and you want destroy the top schools and bring everyone down to your kid’s level.

Cool cool.

Is OP a troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes no sense. There are already less selective public universities that are a good fit for a variety of kids. Just say what you really mean: you want your child to be admitted to a selective state university. If the schools do what you suggest, which is to accept a broader range of kids, what do you think will happen? The school will become less selective and it's not going to be impressive to anyone that your kid got in, so you're not going to be satisfied with that.

Michigan does a much better job educating the top students in its state. Too bad the flagship of a state the size of VA can’t.

Have you been to UVA? Have a kid there? Michigan has just under 34K undergraduates to UVA's 17K. UVA is bursting at the gills and the city can't handle it either. Where would they build? They would have to displace city blocks (a large minority population by the way) east of Main between 14th to 10th. People that say it should grow to the size of schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Tech are delusional.

l

That doesn’t change the fact that UVA doesn’t serve its population very well. If you can’t grow, you can certainly adjust the percentage of instate students upward.

You and the others who say UVA is not growing are wrong. Please google University of Virginia Foundation. Seven professionals spend their days purchasing billions of dollars of real estate for future use of the school, like the new data center; the Fontaine development (med school); the new children's hospital, and the list goes on and on. https://www.uvafoundation.com/real-estate Whike UVA can't expand contiguously, it is certainly doing so nearby. Most of Ivy road is now owned by UVA. Some in the C'ville community are not happy with this expansion.

Growing in this case means adding instate more students. Has UVA done that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This proposal makes no sense. There are already less selective public universities that are a good fit for a variety of kids. Just say what you really mean: you want your child to be admitted to a selective state university. If the schools do what you suggest, which is to accept a broader range of kids, what do you think will happen? The school will become less selective and it's not going to be impressive to anyone that your kid got in, so you're not going to be satisfied with that.

Michigan does a much better job educating the top students in its state. Too bad the flagship of a state the size of VA can’t.

Have you been to UVA? Have a kid there? Michigan has just under 34K undergraduates to UVA's 17K. UVA is bursting at the gills and the city can't handle it either. Where would they build? They would have to displace city blocks (a large minority population by the way) east of Main between 14th to 10th. People that say it should grow to the size of schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Tech are delusional.

l

That doesn’t change the fact that UVA doesn’t serve its population very well. If you can’t grow, you can certainly adjust the percentage of instate students upward.

Sure it does. 2/3 in-state is not unreasonable.

2/3 in-state is not reasonable when the overall undergraduate student population is under 18,000 students. Compare that with Berkeley, UCLA, or Michigan.

DP. Michigan’s overall population is greater than Virginia’s, and California’s is vastly greater.