UT Austin thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UT is in the same group as the second list of schools.

Berkeley/Michigan are in their own league.

ok lets be real

Cal is in its own league

UT-A has markedly narrowed if not closed the gap with Michigan

tbh UT-Austin is a better overall experience than Michigan

Let’s get real here.

First off,Wisconsin isn’t elite. Saying that the top three publics are Berkeley, Michigan, and UCLA. Texas won’t be at Michigans overall level until they get rid of their top 6% instate high school acceptance. In the meantime, they still have to pass UNC, UVA, UCD, UCSD, and Florida to get to that elite level. Saying that UT-Austin is a better experience than Michigan is completely subjective, particularly for those students who have absolutely no desire to live in Texas.

You are the only person in this thread who even mentioned wisconsin, you insane anti-Wisconsin troll.

DP

I think that was meant for ha ha’s. Wisconsin is vulnerable to a bit of mockery now since some people have died on the hill of insisting that it is still in the conversation for best public schools (it’s really not). I just took the Wisconsin reference as a joke.

It still very much is. This is the same ignoramous who keep posting that because Wisconsin fell from 7 to 12 now it is somehow “dead”. It still has a peer assessment of 4.2 . It still has a 1.6 billion dollar budget. It still has a 6 year graduation rate of ~90% and a 4 year of ~77%. Its top employers consist of tech companies like Epic and Google.

All of these things are tangible, and relevant, metrics which place Wisconsin in the top 10 of public schools. Sure, the USNWR rankings might shift it down a few points, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly “worse” than new comer schools like UF/UC Davis/ UNC. Indeed, in those schools Wisconsin’s graduation rate and SAT splits are comparable or better. Then you need to consider that, especially in the stem side, Wisconsin simply outperforms those kinds of schools.

I don’t know what you have against Wisconsin, but your obsession for striking it down is somehow greater than my willingness to defend it. It lives in your head rent free to such an extent that you actually mention it when Wisconsin boosters weren’t even in thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

UT isn’t in Texas, it’s in Austin. And I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Agree that the UC schools beyond Cal and UCLA are not elite.

While excellent for engineering, computer science, and a few other niche fields, Purdue is also not elite. Ohio State (for example) is much stronger across the board. That said, I wouldn’t put Ohio State in the top group either.

[Anonymous]

UT Austin is a strong school, especially if one is admitted to its Plan II Honors program. For those int'd in high-level sports, it offers a world-class D1 swimming program, the men's side of which will be coached by Bob Bowman as of this coming academic year.

That said, UT Austin unfortunately is a public school in TX which means that it has to abide by state law. Texas' open carry and abortion policies would be a hard no from my standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a good school.

Is it closer to Berkeley or Michigan level of schools?

Or closer to UF, UCSB, UCSD, UIUC?

It's at Berkeley-Michigan level for CS and overall admissions rate (very hard OOS), but the quality outside CS is about those on the second list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UT is in the same group as the second list of schools.

Berkeley/Michigan are in their own league.

ok lets be real

Cal is in its own league

UT-A has markedly narrowed if not closed the gap with Michigan

tbh UT-Austin is a better overall experience than Michigan

Let’s get real here.

First off,Wisconsin isn’t elite. Saying that the top three publics are Berkeley, Michigan, and UCLA. Texas won’t be at Michigans overall level until they get rid of their top 6% instate high school acceptance. In the meantime, they still have to pass UNC, UVA, UCD, UCSD, and Florida to get to that elite level. Saying that UT-Austin is a better experience than Michigan is completely subjective, particularly for those students who have absolutely no desire to live in Texas.

No public is "elite", that's the point of a public university.

[Anonymous]

Loved UT’s approach to the anti-Jewish protests. That alone is worth an application!

[Anonymous]

It used to be not moving forward. Nor is any college in a red state. You have to be a complete moron to send a college student to a school in a red state.

Faculty alone, medical care if any issues especially for women, interstate travel for women is going away, dumbing down of Science departments hell no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UT is in the same group as the second list of schools.

Berkeley/Michigan are in their own league.

ok lets be real

Cal is in its own league

UT-A has markedly narrowed if not closed the gap with Michigan

tbh UT-Austin is a better overall experience than Michigan

Let’s get real here.

First off,Wisconsin isn’t elite. Saying that the top three publics are Berkeley, Michigan, and UCLA. Texas won’t be at Michigans overall level until they get rid of their top 6% instate high school acceptance. In the meantime, they still have to pass UNC, UVA, UCD, UCSD, and Florida to get to that elite level. Saying that UT-Austin is a better experience than Michigan is completely subjective, particularly for those students who have absolutely no desire to live in Texas.

You are the only person in this thread who even mentioned wisconsin, you insane anti-Wisconsin troll.

DP

I think that was meant for ha ha’s. Wisconsin is vulnerable to a bit of mockery now since some people have died on the hill of insisting that it is still in the conversation for best public schools (it’s really not). I just took the Wisconsin reference as a joke.

You again? This is a board for adults. Get a hobby. No one thinks you’re funny but you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It used to be not moving forward. Nor is any college in a red state. You have to be a complete moron to send a college student to a school in a red state.

Faculty alone, medical care if any issues especially for women, interstate travel for women is going away, dumbing down of Science departments hell no.

Oh look, the Dobbs dork showed up. Meanwhile people keep moving to the states you love to hate, and their universities keep soaring in the rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

UT isn’t in Texas, it’s in Austin. And I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

+1

Keep Austin weird.

[Anonymous]

If your only choices are UT and Michigan, go to UT, as long as its flagship campus in Austin not regional campuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

The only elite schools on this list are in rows 1-2. UF, Wisconsin, UGA, UIUC, Purdue are not elite schools. UCs like Irvine should be in row 3-4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

Completely agree with this.