UNC vs UVA (OOS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Larger universities have larger budgets and do more research- sure. What does it mean then, when a large university like UVA doesn't do more research?

It means fewer total professors, fewer accomplished professors, fewer variety courses offered and decrepit departments, less rigorous courses. And this includes fewer and worse graduate courses which top undergrads generally take.

Again, you keep trying to argue as if UVA is a liberal arts college and the professors there will somehow be able to provide amazing one-on-one counseling to the students there. Sorry, that's simply not the reality. The early introductory courses will be 100+ student lecture halls, and the later upper-level courses will be 50+ student lectures because they don't have enough professors to teach all the upper-level courses in a given major.

What will provide more resources, possibly, is UVA's large endowment. But not the distinction between UNC being research-focused and UVA being "undergraduate-focused". Again, a 16,800 sized state university can be 'undergraduate-focused' but that does not mean its anywhere close to LAC's in that undergraduate focus or any different than a 18000 research university like UNC.


Look at the courses offered for Chemistry at UNC vs. UVA:
https://catalog.unc.edu/courses/chem/
http://records.ureg.virginia.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=43&poid=5218

UNC has ~58 individual (meaning no lab, 'honors' version, or independent research) courses offered for 100-400 level. Undergraduates can take grad level courses as well, of which they have ~20+ including seminars.

UVA has ~15 offered at the 100-400 level. And you can bet they won't have as many offered at the graduate level.

UVA offers 4 400-level Chem courses. 4. This is when the undergrads are specializing into an area, and they provide 4 courses.
UNC offers 41 400-level Chem courses.

The courses at UVA are generic requirements while the ones at UNC include both standard generic courses and specialized courses based on a professor's research.

Furthermore, you can also bet that at the 400-level, UVA won't be teaching all the offered courses in the same semester i.e. out of 8 400-level courses in a given major, they might only teach 5 of them on a given semester due to lack of professors. UNC can teach far more variety of courses out of the 41 provided i.e. 20, because they have more professors.

This is not including the 'Special Topics' courses (which is counted as 1) of which there might be multiple different courses offered, most likely more at UNC than UVA.

So again, parents look at USNews rankings to get a idea of the quality of a school as a undergrad institution. 27 vs. 29 essentially equal regardless. But why is it that two universities virtually equal in size and USNews undergraduate ranking provide such a vast difference in academic programs? The research that an institution engages in filters down to undergraduate students in a significant manner.

I don't know who you are and if you are a parent, graduate or current student, but this is an outstanding post. It is well written with a methodical, easy to follow argument. Good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larger universities have larger budgets and do more research- sure. What does it mean then, when a large university like UVA doesn't do more research?

It means fewer total professors, fewer accomplished professors, fewer variety courses offered and decrepit departments, less rigorous courses. And this includes fewer and worse graduate courses which top undergrads generally take.

Again, you keep trying to argue as if UVA is a liberal arts college and the professors there will somehow be able to provide amazing one-on-one counseling to the students there. Sorry, that's simply not the reality. The early introductory courses will be 100+ student lecture halls, and the later upper-level courses will be 50+ student lectures because they don't have enough professors to teach all the upper-level courses in a given major.

What will provide more resources, possibly, is UVA's large endowment. But not the distinction between UNC being research-focused and UVA being "undergraduate-focused". Again, a 16,800 sized state university can be 'undergraduate-focused' but that does not mean its anywhere close to LAC's in that undergraduate focus or any different than a 18000 research university like UNC.


Look at the courses offered for Chemistry at UNC vs. UVA:
https://catalog.unc.edu/courses/chem/
http://records.ureg.virginia.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=43&poid=5218

UNC has ~58 individual (meaning no lab, 'honors' version, or independent research) courses offered for 100-400 level. Undergraduates can take grad level courses as well, of which they have ~20+ including seminars.

UVA has ~15 offered at the 100-400 level. And you can bet they won't have as many offered at the graduate level.

UVA offers 4 400-level Chem courses. 4. This is when the undergrads are specializing into an area, and they provide 4 courses.
UNC offers 41 400-level Chem courses.

The courses at UVA are generic requirements while the ones at UNC include both standard generic courses and specialized courses based on a professor's research.

Furthermore, you can also bet that at the 400-level, UVA won't be teaching all the offered courses in the same semester i.e. out of 8 400-level courses in a given major, they might only teach 5 of them on a given semester due to lack of professors. UNC can teach far more variety of courses out of the 41 provided i.e. 20, because they have more professors.

This is not including the 'Special Topics' courses (which is counted as 1) of which there might be multiple different courses offered, most likely more at UNC than UVA.

So again, parents look at USNews rankings to get a idea of the quality of a school as a undergrad institution. 27 vs. 29 essentially equal regardless. But why is it that two universities virtually equal in size and USNews undergraduate ranking provide such a vast difference in academic programs? The research that an institution engages in filters down to undergraduate students in a significant manner.

I don't know who you are and if you are a parent, graduate or current student, but this is an outstanding post. It is well written with a methodical, easy to follow argument. Good job.

I'm glad you mentioned that. UNC and UVA will be very different experiences due to size. UNC has a total of 239,937 students, out of which 182,462 are undergrads. That's a staggering number of students and the reason why I didn't choose UCLA long ago. UVA, on the other hand, is quite small for a state flagship - the total number of students is only 24,6389 and only 16,777 are undergrads. I have a DD at UVA now and she had a wonderful experience and a FAR better one-on-one experience with his professors than I did at my SLAC. In her first year as an engineering student she did have some classes with 100 in them (calculus, intro to aerospace engineering, Biology 101, etc). But the enormous classes also phased out after first year. DD also decided her heart wasn't in engineering and switched to Arts and Sciences. The courses she has this term are all seminars with just 10 or so students in them. She just got into Oxford for grad work. I think it was the quality of her letters of recommendation from famous faculty who really knew her because they had been in seminars together .... plus the strength of DD's proposed research. So, if asked, I would say go with UVA but I'm obviously biased. Also, I think DD was able to shine more as an excellent student in the smaller university setting. It was easier for her to rise to the top of the pack than it would have been at a larger university. But YRMV. Good luck to OP with the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larger universities have larger budgets and do more research- sure. What does it mean then, when a large university like UVA doesn't do more research?

It means fewer total professors, fewer accomplished professors, fewer variety courses offered and decrepit departments, less rigorous courses. And this includes fewer and worse graduate courses which top undergrads generally take.

Again, you keep trying to argue as if UVA is a liberal arts college and the professors there will somehow be able to provide amazing one-on-one counseling to the students there. Sorry, that's simply not the reality. The early introductory courses will be 100+ student lecture halls, and the later upper-level courses will be 50+ student lectures because they don't have enough professors to teach all the upper-level courses in a given major.

What will provide more resources, possibly, is UVA's large endowment. But not the distinction between UNC being research-focused and UVA being "undergraduate-focused". Again, a 16,800 sized state university can be 'undergraduate-focused' but that does not mean its anywhere close to LAC's in that undergraduate focus or any different than a 18000 research university like UNC.

Look at the courses offered for Chemistry at UNC vs. UVA:
https://catalog.unc.edu/courses/chem/
http://records.ureg.virginia.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=43&poid=5218

UNC has ~58 individual (meaning no lab, 'honors' version, or independent research) courses offered for 100-400 level. Undergraduates can take grad level courses as well, of which they have ~20+ including seminars.

UVA has ~15 offered at the 100-400 level. And you can bet they won't have as many offered at the graduate level.

UVA offers 4 400-level Chem courses. 4. This is when the undergrads are specializing into an area, and they provide 4 courses.
UNC offers 41 400-level Chem courses.

The courses at UVA are generic requirements while the ones at UNC include both standard generic courses and specialized courses based on a professor's research.

Furthermore, you can also bet that at the 400-level, UVA won't be teaching all the offered courses in the same semester i.e. out of 8 400-level courses in a given major, they might only teach 5 of them on a given semester due to lack of professors. UNC can teach far more variety of courses out of the 41 provided i.e. 20, because they have more professors.

This is not including the 'Special Topics' courses (which is counted as 1) of which there might be multiple different courses offered, most likely more at UNC than UVA.

So again, parents look at USNews rankings to get a idea of the quality of a school as a undergrad institution. 27 vs. 29 essentially equal regardless. But why is it that two universities virtually equal in size and USNews undergraduate ranking provide such a vast difference in academic programs? The research that an institution engages in filters down to undergraduate students in a significant manner.

I don't know who you are and if you are a parent, graduate or current student, but this is an outstanding post. It is well written with a methodical, easy to follow argument. Good job.

I'm glad you mentioned that. UNC and UVA will be very different experiences due to size. UNC has a total of 239,937 students, out of which 182,462 are undergrads. That's a staggering number of students and the reason why I didn't choose UCLA long ago. UVA, on the other hand, is quite small for a state flagship - the total number of students is only 24,6389 and only 16,777 are undergrads. I have a DD at UVA now and she had a wonderful experience and a FAR better one-on-one experience with his professors than I did at my SLAC. In her first year as an engineering student she did have some classes with 100 in them (calculus, intro to aerospace engineering, Biology 101, etc). But the enormous classes also phased out after first year. DD also decided her heart wasn't in engineering and switched to Arts and Sciences. The courses she has this term are all seminars with just 10 or so students in them. She just got into Oxford for grad work. I think it was the quality of her letters of recommendation from famous faculty who really knew her because they had been in seminars together .... plus the strength of DD's proposed research. So, if asked, I would say go with UVA but I'm obviously biased. Also, I think DD was able to shine more as an excellent student in the smaller university setting. It was easier for her to rise to the top of the pack than it would have been at a larger university. But YRMV. Good luck to OP with the decision.

Wow, biggest school ever! lol
Been to UNC and UVA often. Size difference is not really enough to be distinguishable. Both are excellent, fine choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larger universities have larger budgets and do more research- sure. What does it mean then, when a large university like UVA doesn't do more research?

It means fewer total professors, fewer accomplished professors, fewer variety courses offered and decrepit departments, less rigorous courses. And this includes fewer and worse graduate courses which top undergrads generally take.

Again, you keep trying to argue as if UVA is a liberal arts college and the professors there will somehow be able to provide amazing one-on-one counseling to the students there. Sorry, that's simply not the reality. The early introductory courses will be 100+ student lecture halls, and the later upper-level courses will be 50+ student lectures because they don't have enough professors to teach all the upper-level courses in a given major.

What will provide more resources, possibly, is UVA's large endowment. But not the distinction between UNC being research-focused and UVA being "undergraduate-focused". Again, a 16,800 sized state university can be 'undergraduate-focused' but that does not mean its anywhere close to LAC's in that undergraduate focus or any different than a 18000 research university like UNC.

Look at the courses offered for Chemistry at UNC vs. UVA:
https://catalog.unc.edu/courses/chem/
http://records.ureg.virginia.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=43&poid=5218

UNC has ~58 individual (meaning no lab, 'honors' version, or independent research) courses offered for 100-400 level. Undergraduates can take grad level courses as well, of which they have ~20+ including seminars.

UVA has ~15 offered at the 100-400 level. And you can bet they won't have as many offered at the graduate level.

UVA offers 4 400-level Chem courses. 4. This is when the undergrads are specializing into an area, and they provide 4 courses.
UNC offers 41 400-level Chem courses.

The courses at UVA are generic requirements while the ones at UNC include both standard generic courses and specialized courses based on a professor's research.

Furthermore, you can also bet that at the 400-level, UVA won't be teaching all the offered courses in the same semester i.e. out of 8 400-level courses in a given major, they might only teach 5 of them on a given semester due to lack of professors. UNC can teach far more variety of courses out of the 41 provided i.e. 20, because they have more professors.

This is not including the 'Special Topics' courses (which is counted as 1) of which there might be multiple different courses offered, most likely more at UNC than UVA.

So again, parents look at USNews rankings to get a idea of the quality of a school as a undergrad institution. 27 vs. 29 essentially equal regardless. But why is it that two universities virtually equal in size and USNews undergraduate ranking provide such a vast difference in academic programs? The research that an institution engages in filters down to undergraduate students in a significant manner.

I don't know who you are and if you are a parent, graduate or current student, but this is an outstanding post. It is well written with a methodical, easy to follow argument. Good job.

I'm glad you mentioned that. UNC and UVA will be very different experiences due to size. UNC has a total of 239,937 students, out of which 182,462 are undergrads. That's a staggering number of students and the reason why I didn't choose UCLA long ago. UVA, on the other hand, is quite small for a state flagship - the total number of students is only 24,6389 and only 16,777 are undergrads. I have a DD at UVA now and she had a wonderful experience and a FAR better one-on-one experience with his professors than I did at my SLAC. In her first year as an engineering student she did have some classes with 100 in them (calculus, intro to aerospace engineering, Biology 101, etc). But the enormous classes also phased out after first year. DD also decided her heart wasn't in engineering and switched to Arts and Sciences. The courses she has this term are all seminars with just 10 or so students in them. She just got into Oxford for grad work. I think it was the quality of her letters of recommendation from famous faculty who really knew her because they had been in seminars together .... plus the strength of DD's proposed research. So, if asked, I would say go with UVA but I'm obviously biased. Also, I think DD was able to shine more as an excellent student in the smaller university setting. It was easier for her to rise to the top of the pack than it would have been at a larger university. But YRMV. Good luck to OP with the decision.

Wow, biggest school ever! lol
Been to UNC and UVA often. Size difference is not really enough to be distinguishable. Both are excellent, fine choices.

Yes, pretty much the entire population of NC seems to be a student there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:External research grants can be used to fund professors. These professors then may be paid a small portion of their salary from the university while a large percent of their salary comes from the grant. Furthermore a portion of research money is dedicated to university functions i.e. building expenses, etc.

Meanwhile, universities with less research may have to pay the entirety of the professor's salary with university funds.

Research grants are typically restricted to purpose. Tuition is unrestricted. From a Council on Government Relations report authored by university aministrators:

"Sources of revenue for both public and private research universities can be divided into
unrestricted and restricted resources. Unrestricted resources can be used at the discretion
of the institution for the primary missions of teaching, research, public service, or any
other activity. The primary unrestricted sources for operations are state appropriations
(public) and tuition (both public and private). Restricted resources are those that are
limited in use by third parties, such as donors and research sponsors. Restrictions are
typically related to the use of the resources for a particular organizational unit (e.g., the
physics department), to a particular purpose (e.g., music scholarships), or to a specific
activity (e.g., NIH-funded cancer research). "

"Revenue that supports a federally sponsored research program is required by the sponsor to have a one-to-one relationship
with the expenditures for that program. On the other hand, revenue sources that are
unrestricted, such as state appropriations and tuition, support a wide range of institutional
activities, including teaching, student services, and administration; the one-to-one
revenue-expenditure relationship does not exist. Instead, a single, limited pool of
unrestricted revenue is expended according to the competing needs and priorities of the
university."

Authors include: James Luther, Committee Chairman Cynthia Hope
Duke University University of Alabama
James Barbret Terry Johnson
Wayne State University University of Iowa
Sara Bible Ron Maples
Stanford University University of Tennessee System
Mary Lee Brown Kim Moreland
University of Pennsylvania University of Wisconsin
Michael Daniels Ryan Rapp (Volunteer)
Northwestern University University of Missouri System
Kelvin Droegemeier John Shipley
University of Oklahoma University of Miami
Dan Evon Cathy Snyder
Michigan State University Vanderbilt University
Jill Ferguson (Volunteer and Editor) Eric Vermillion (Retired)
University of Missouri, Columbia University of California,
San Francisco

About 30% of research budget comes from institutional funding on average, since the grants don't cover all costs. A significant part of that likely comes from unrestricted funds (tuition, state appropriations). So again I dispute your claim that more research is necessarily better from an undergraduate education point of view.

https://www.cogr.edu/COGR/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000267/Finances%20of%20Research%20Universities_June%202014.pdf

Simply untrue.

1. Federal funds may be required for research - which note that it includes research assistantships, facilities and supplies, etc. which would other wise come from the university's purse - but top researchers that are normally contracted to teach 3 classes a semester, for example, can set aside a portion of the research money they have won and give it to the university to "buy" their way out of teaching the 3rd class. In turn, the university then uses that money to hire another professor. In this manner, large research universities can maintain a huge number of faculty, each that may only teach 1 grad and 1 undergrad course a semester. This provides variety in the number of professors and the number of courses offered at the research university. A non-research university therefore generally has a smaller faculty in the various departments

2. Furthermore, research universities don't only get funding from the federal government, but also from industry and other organizations. These industry research funds can be used to heavily supplement the income of the professors researching on the project that the funding has been granted for. For example, a research university might pay maximum base salary of $250,000 for professors. However, if that professor's lab or research group then wins funding from industry, it can supplement the professor's income massively i.e. to $500,000 for the year. Essentially, the research university can attract professors that are way out of the university's budget - i.e. if they are a state university especially - because the professor's affiliation with the research university (and the facilities that the university provides) allows the professor to win huge research funds from industry/organizations. This way, a research university can attract far more 'expensive' professors to work at the university who would other wise not come due to the lower pay. Meanwhile a non-research university would have to flat out pay the $500,000/yr salary in order to attract the same caliber of professors to work there. Why do you think universities like Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Purdue, Georgia Tech, UIUC, etc. can be the top of the field in research and compete with the Ivies, despite being state universities with comparably small endowments? How can they attract professors who could be enticed by Ivy-level salaries? External industry research funding, which heavily skews towards medical, natural sciences and engineering.

These are all universities that don't get very good ratings for undergraduate faculty teaching (accessible, interested in student's success, prepared, etc.) Michigan is probably going to do better than Berkeley and UCLA on those. UC schools are often among the worst in these types of assessments. Yes, the public research universities can compete with the smaller privates in research and also graduate study. They do it at the expense of undergraduates in my view. Sponsored research alone requires about $40B a year in university institutional funding. When you consider that paid time to develop research proposals, etc. is counted by NACUBO as instruction (departmental research), the actual cost could be another $40B or more on top of that. In business, they would look at where actual time is spent (undergraduate instruction, graduate instruction, and research). When this was actually done for the University of California system, the result showed that undergraduate students on average got less than the value of their tuition paid. In other words, even with a state subsidy, the undergraduate students were net subsidizing graduate education and research. The state passed a bill to require the universities to report actual time spent by activity. So far, the UC system has found a way not to comply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. She is officially a Tar Heel!

Congratulations! I'm an alum, i know she will have a wonderful experience!