Top 10 public "ranking"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

[Anonymous]

At a research university, in general, undergraduate tuition is used to fund research (the university must typically come up with about 30% of research costs and undergraduate tuition is usually the largest available pool of unrestricted funds). OOS students are used to subsidize in-state students. Lower level courses subsidize higher level and graduate courses. Student fees often subsidize athletics. Tuition paid for classes in humanities, social sciences, etc. subsidize STEM programs. The list goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At a research university, in general, undergraduate tuition is used to fund research (the university must typically come up with about 30% of research costs and undergraduate tuition is usually the largest available pool of unrestricted funds). OOS students are used to subsidize in-state students. Lower level courses subsidize higher level and graduate courses. Student fees often subsidize athletics. Tuition paid for classes in humanities, social sciences, etc. subsidize STEM programs. The list goes on.

This is all wrong but okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish the anti UC poster whining about test blind would stop derailing the thread.

When looking at top public schools you should be looking at the strength of the field of study you are interested in pursing. The top 10 public institutions which yes includes Cal, UCLA, Davis, Irvine and San Diego are in the top 10 because they have achieved top status in multiple fields of study but this doesn’t mean that they have achieved top status in every field of study. When an institution invests and attracts top faculty it then is a magnet to attract more top faculty who are more competitive winning grants. Graduate students and top undergraduates want to be part of that research and gravitate there. Strength is built over decades and in STEM requires institutional investment. It truly does not matter what the SAT scores were for communication or sociology majors in another college and program.

You also need to be aware that several fields are more specialized particularly engineering. The upper division courses are important for landing a job or graduate admission. For example, don’t look at general engineering ranking, look at strength in your field..aero, EECS, civil/environmental, mechanical, chemical or biomechanical etc. The top schools shift around depending on program and some are much weaker in some fields. If you want to be an engineer in the automotive or aerospace industry then Purdue, Georgia Tech are better than Cal. If you want to work in Silicon Valley tech then Cal, and this will drive the VA poster crazy SJSU will place you better than any east coast school. Physics - Cal or UCSB (which isn’t in the top 10 overall). Civil, environmental or aero with agri focus, UCDavis. Biomedical go to UCSD. You want to work in the defense industry? UIUC, Georgia Tech. Etc etc.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

I'd gladly take the latter four schools over any of the UCs considering that they're all overrun by neurotic striver Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

I'd gladly take the latter four schools over any of the UCs considering that they're all overrun by neurotic striver Asians.

Aw.. sorry, you're so jealousy. And what's wrong with being a striver? That's how Asian Americans became the wealthiest and most educated demographic. Maybe other groups should strive more?

-dp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.


We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

True! Schools like UMD, UIUC, Wisconsin, Purdue, Ohio St, VT are peer schools to the ones listed above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the anti UC poster whining about test blind would stop derailing the thread.

When looking at top public schools you should be looking at the strength of the field of study you are interested in pursing. The top 10 public institutions which yes includes Cal, UCLA, Davis, Irvine and San Diego are in the top 10 because they have achieved top status in multiple fields of study but this doesn’t mean that they have achieved top status in every field of study. When an institution invests and attracts top faculty it then is a magnet to attract more top faculty who are more competitive winning grants. Graduate students and top undergraduates want to be part of that research and gravitate there. Strength is built over decades and in STEM requires institutional investment. It truly does not matter what the SAT scores were for communication or sociology majors in another college and program.

You also need to be aware that several fields are more specialized particularly engineering. The upper division courses are important for landing a job or graduate admission. For example, don’t look at general engineering ranking, look at strength in your field..aero, EECS, civil/environmental, mechanical, chemical or biomechanical etc. The top schools shift around depending on program and some are much weaker in some fields. If you want to be an engineer in the automotive or aerospace industry then Purdue, Georgia Tech are better than Cal. If you want to work in Silicon Valley tech then Cal, and this will drive the VA poster crazy SJSU will place you better than any east coast school. Physics - Cal or UCSB (which isn’t in the top 10 overall). Civil, environmental or aero with agri focus, UCDavis. Biomedical go to UCSD. You want to work in the defense industry? UIUC, Georgia Tech. Etc etc.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech/

Reported. College transitions bot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

This isn’t how it works. There is no big bucket slush fund. There are clear revenue sources and clear operating and cap ex expenses. At top public universities, the research departments pay their own way plus overhead. They carry TAs and PhD students on their grants. Humanities brings in almost zero revenue. It’s historically been covered by tuition, endowment and advancement (alumni donors).

The only scenario where research is being subsidized by other funding streams would be schools looking to build new expertise. For example a top 25 may get a donation to start a new research oriented program. However, the multimillion dollar donation doesn’t cover the full operating costs. If it’s a strategic direction, the institution will then likely re-allocate money from another stream usually advancement to grow the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the anti UC poster whining about test blind would stop derailing the thread.

When looking at top public schools you should be looking at the strength of the field of study you are interested in pursing. The top 10 public institutions which yes includes Cal, UCLA, Davis, Irvine and San Diego are in the top 10 because they have achieved top status in multiple fields of study but this doesn’t mean that they have achieved top status in every field of study. When an institution invests and attracts top faculty it then is a magnet to attract more top faculty who are more competitive winning grants. Graduate students and top undergraduates want to be part of that research and gravitate there. Strength is built over decades and in STEM requires institutional investment. It truly does not matter what the SAT scores were for communication or sociology majors in another college and program.

You also need to be aware that several fields are more specialized particularly engineering. The upper division courses are important for landing a job or graduate admission. For example, don’t look at general engineering ranking, look at strength in your field..aero, EECS, civil/environmental, mechanical, chemical or biomechanical etc. The top schools shift around depending on program and some are much weaker in some fields. If you want to be an engineer in the automotive or aerospace industry then Purdue, Georgia Tech are better than Cal. If you want to work in Silicon Valley tech then Cal, and this will drive the VA poster crazy SJSU will place you better than any east coast school. Physics - Cal or UCSB (which isn’t in the top 10 overall). Civil, environmental or aero with agri focus, UCDavis. Biomedical go to UCSD. You want to work in the defense industry? UIUC, Georgia Tech. Etc etc.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech/

Reported. College transitions bot.

You're the bot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

This isn’t how it works. There is no big bucket slush fund. There are clear revenue sources and clear operating and cap ex expenses. At top public universities, the research departments pay their own way plus overhead. They carry TAs and PhD students on their grants. Humanities brings in almost zero revenue. It’s historically been covered by tuition, endowment and advancement (alumni donors).

The only scenario where research is being subsidized by other funding streams would be schools looking to build new expertise. For example a top 25 may get a donation to start a new research oriented program. However, the multimillion dollar donation doesn’t cover the full operating costs. If it’s a strategic direction, the institution will then likely re-allocate money from another stream usually advancement to grow the program.

You can read about departmental research in OMB Circular A-21. It is very clear that departmental research is accounted for as instruction. Instruction is funded by general funds, which includes tuition. An estimated 40% of instruction is actually research at research universities.

(2) Departmental research means research, development and scholarly activities that are not organized research and, consequently, are not separately budgeted and accounted for. Departmental research, for purposes of this document, is not considered as a major function, but as a part of the instruction function of the institution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%
UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Ar
bor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

I'd gladly take the latter four schools over any of the UCs considering that they're all overrun by neurotic striver Asians.

Not true. uva's overall acceptance rate is now 17%. For OOS it drops to 13% and down further at 7% for regular decision, OOS>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

You are saying what the universities want us to believe about the cost of educating undergraduates. Since you seem to question my knowledge of (opaque) higher education accounting, I'll quote John Lombardi, former President of the University of Florida and the author of How Universities Work: "Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so."

Again, "Instruction" in higher education accounting includes unsponsored (departmental) research, which really has nothing to do with instruction or educating undergraduates. It is funded through general funds including tuition. Therefore, tuition funds research. An analysis of the University of California concluded that the actual expenditures on undergraduate education are only about 1/3rd of what the university reported due to rolling unsponsored research into "Instruction". https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/DCAM16.pdf

For externally funded research, we know from Government reporting that institutions have to contribute a significant part of the cost of R&D from "Institutional Funds". For instance, the University of Michigan $2.1B R&D expenditures for 2024 included $741M from "Institution Funds". What were the sources of the $741M? If a public accounting of it exists, I am unaware of it. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3345002&id=h2