What distinguishes top state schools from others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best state universities are in California. California does not allow affirmative action by law.

How can it be the best when they reserve 80% of the seats for CA residents? Any state university that reserves a certain number of seats for instate residents can’t automatically be the best as they are taking from students from a limited pool, rather than nationally.

There are so many people in California that reserving 80% for the cream of the California crop makes it a better school than most.

Cali is huge. If it were a country, could be the #5 or #6 economy in the world. The UK with its #5 economy in the world arguably produces #1 and #2 universities in the world, Oxford and Cambridge. Cali has the capability to produce best universities in the world organically from its own population.

[Anonymous]

Berkeley and UCLA are awful educations for undergraduates. Look at pre-law and pre-med message boards, current students hate the place and are deeply jealous of peers who attend T30 privates. Berkeley lives off the romanticized hippy / civil rights legacy and its proximity to silicon valley. UCLA off proximity to Hollywood. At the undergraduate level, they're both crowded zoos full of striver zombies.

[Anonymous]

I think there is probably less between "top state schools" and others than some people might want to admit.

[Anonymous]

College is what a student makes of it no more no less at any school. Do some have better carear centers absolutely. Look around your neighborhoods people,. One neighbor graduated from Duke, one from UMD, one didn't go at all, UMighican, Georgia tech, Montgomery college, Salisbury, Harvard, University of Chicago, etc..... Amazing how that works out.

[Anonymous]

"So getting a 1100 on the SAT means you are "dumb?" If so, I guess I'm dumb because I got a 1056 back in 1990. Well at least I'm happy. I went to a state university, a good law school, have a great husband and two great kids, and also earn about $375,000 per year in an in-house corporate legal position - a job I got through hard work and perserverence."

You do realize that they have rescaled SAT scores at least 3 times since 1990?

Without looking it up, a 1050 or a 1060, depending on the individual M and V scores, would be about a 1300 in 2019.

In 1990 something like 60% of HS grads took the SAT, today more like 80% so they needed to rescale.

[Anonymous]

No such thing. Only people who thrive at Tailgate States are the wealthy average IQs who party it up in Greek life, couldn’t care less about academics or learning — or attending 600-student lectures and nil support — then work mom and dad’s connections for a good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No such thing. Only people who thrive at Tailgate States are the wealthy average IQs who party it up in Greek life, couldn’t care less about academics or learning — or attending 600-student lectures and nil support — then work mom and dad’s connections for a good job.

Weak dude, Study the Cornel/Woddy Hayes troll, he has way more skills than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No such thing. Only people who thrive at Tailgate States are the wealthy average IQs who party it up in Greek life, couldn’t care less about academics or learning — or attending 600-student lectures and nil support — then work mom and dad’s connections for a good job.

Actually being at a large school with minimal hand holding teaches the mostly middle class students how to take care of themselves. Not sure where you’re getting the idea that state school kids are rich and have connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No such thing. Only people who thrive at Tailgate States are the wealthy average IQs who party it up in Greek life, couldn’t care less about academics or learning — or attending 600-student lectures and nil support — then work mom and dad’s connections for a good job.

Actually being at a large school with minimal hand holding teaches the mostly middle class students how to take care of themselves. Not sure where you’re getting the idea that state school kids are rich and have connections.

Lots of donut hole family kids who could have gone to ivies end up at state schools. Cream of these students rival with the best of the ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Size and some other factors. UVA has always been well regarded but it took off with the huge growth rate of super smart people moving into nova. Their offspring often liked the flagship (or sometimes W&M). This really stated in the early 80s and it’s flat out crazy competitive now. Michigan and Madison have long served as the de facto state schools for New Jersey and NY, where lots of brilliant kids live, but the state options, outside of some parts of Cornell, are not that good. I have no idea why UNC ended up as a solid school.

North Carolina has long invested more in higher education than Virginia. It is considerably lower cost. UNC, if you look at the breadth of graduate programs, UNC tends to be higher ranked programs than UVA (areas like law are an obvious exception).

The bolded poster has got to be kidding. UNC Chapel Hill is an excellent, very solid state school, if you can even get in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't the academic quality of your peers differ as well? If your peers have 1100 SAT's vs. 1450 SAT's, you're probably going to notice a difference!

Yes if they are in the same class. But, most likely, they are not. Dumb kids will get weed out soon enough.

So getting a 1100 on the SAT means you are "dumb?" If so, I guess I'm dumb because I got a 1056 back in 1990. Well at least I'm happy. I went to a state university, a good law school, have a great husband and two great kids, and also earn about $375,000 per year in an in-house corporate legal position - a job I got through hard work and perserverence.

Your score would probably be at least a 1200 now. The curve has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The faculty are top notch. This is true for most state schools, but the top 10 are the best jobs besides for or along with some privates universities.

But realistically, are undergrads taking courses with the top faculty in a large State university?

I did as I moved more deeply into my major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't the academic quality of your peers differ as well? If your peers have 1100 SAT's vs. 1450 SAT's, you're probably going to notice a difference!

Yes if they are in the same class. But, most likely, they are not. Dumb kids will get weed out soon enough.

So getting a 1100 on the SAT means you are "dumb?" If so, I guess I'm dumb because I got a 1056 back in 1990. Well at least I'm happy. I went to a state university, a good law school, have a great husband and two great kids, and also earn about $375,000 per year in an in-house corporate legal position - a job I got through hard work and perserverence.

Your score would probably be at least a 1200 now. The curve has changed.

Probably higher than that. Adjusted up about 100 points in the mid 1990s and again subsequently.

[Anonymous]

OP. Start reading the part of the websites for continuing students.

Differences:
Access to advanced classes, offering of advanced classes, finishing the major in 4 years, advising services, career services, access to coop or lab jobs, professors v adjuncts...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No such thing. Only people who thrive at Tailgate States are the wealthy average IQs who party it up in Greek life, couldn’t care less about academics or learning — or attending 600-student lectures and nil support — then work mom and dad’s connections for a good job.

I don't know where you got this idea. I went to Ohio State and most of the people I knew came from middle and working class families. I didn't know anyone who had family connections. Frankly, very few people even did internships because we all had to work paying jobs at the bookstore, at restaurants and stores, etc.

There were lots of frats but I didn't feel like they dominated campus life -- a middle or LMC Ohio family wasn't coughing up a extra few thousand a year for a frat when tuition was only $2k! (This was a while ago, obviously.) But Ohio State is huge and in the middle of a city -- frats probably dominate more on more remote campuses with wealthier students.