Reputation and prestige with public vs. private universities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Maybe this is OK because publicly funded state institutions are intended to educate the citizens of that state. Admitting out of staters is fine but their mission is different from private institutions. So of course the pool of applicants, accepted students and enrolled students should be different.

With the updated methodology, it makes sense to rank publics and privates separately.

Totally. Even with public universities alone, they shouldn't be ranked against other state public institutions.
It doesn't make any sense, as their mission is geared towards state students, involving too much complexity in methodology.

[Anonymous]

Rating public universities on their accessibility for instate residents as opposed to their “selectivity” would be very helpful to instate families and state funding agencies, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

Your obsession with NEU is crazy.
Seek help.

DP. No. I think it's the NEU booster as well.

Me too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA accepted 4 kids from our private class of 250. All had 4.0uw(or close to it), highest standardized scores (35 ACT) and very well-rounded. They are picking off the best of the best from the DMV. Some publics have 600 kids per class in UMC educated areas and the few accepted from those classes are cream of the crop.

I have seen it’s easier to get into U Mich at a lot of big public NoVA HS for slightly less tier than it is to get into UVA. Everyone wants the in-state tuition. So many more kids apply from VA to UVA. My kid and his friends did not even apply to U Mich, but they all applied to UVA, WM, VT and a bunch of Ivies.

Sure, but this is now. Currently it is super competitive. The question is what will it look like in the future when there aren't enough kids applying with 4.0 UW but UVA still needs 2/3 Virginians.

The same top kids will still be there. What about Michigan with a not as intelligent state? Not the highest education levels and salaries like VA? And with increasingly high OOS tuition, they are pulling even more in-stare when donut home families can’t keep up with the rising cost of tuition.

Everything points to the opposite of your assumption: more people are and will choose in-state because privates are approaching $100k/year for anyone over $150k HHI.

State universities are getting more and more popular.

LOL. Apparently you’ve never been to the state of Michigan. There was enormous wealth in Detroit (see linked article), & when things got tough, it just moved to the suburbs, some of which are as luxurious as any in the country. There are still many automotive jobs, which even for blue-collar workers are like hitting the lottery.

https://smehro.medium.com/detroit-was-once-the-richest-city-in-america-what-happened-and-why-509d564a190b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

Your obsession with NEU is crazy.
Seek help.

DP. No. I think it's the NEU booster as well.

Me too

Me three. We’ve all noticed the same thing. She’s a one woman band spewing her NEU trumpets all over the forum. Jeff should find her and kick her out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

Your obsession with NEU is crazy.
Seek help.

DP. No. I think it's the NEU booster as well.

Me too

Me three. We’ve all noticed the same thing. She’s a one woman band spewing her NEU trumpets all over the forum. Jeff should find her and kick her out.

Have any of you used the “report” button if it bothers you so much? Or the website feedback forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

Your obsession with NEU is crazy.
Seek help.

DP. No. I think it's the NEU booster as well.

Me too

Me three. We’ve all noticed the same thing. She’s a one woman band spewing her NEU trumpets all over the forum. Jeff should find her and kick her out.

That is funny - I thought the NEU hater was the one starting or contributing heavily to the repetitive NEU bashings, then trying to gaslight anyone who told them they were incorrect. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

I think you should watch the Super Bowl, rather than having people try to parse through your writing to extract the points you are trying to make.

It’s the NEU booster trolling for more validation that their school aka ‘a private’ is going to rise above UVA UNC and Mich ‘the falling publics’. Am I right OP?

Your obsession with NEU is crazy.
Seek help.

DP. No. I think it's the NEU booster as well.

Me too

Me three. We’ve all noticed the same thing. She’s a one woman band spewing her NEU trumpets all over the forum. Jeff should find her and kick her out.

That is funny - I thought the NEU hater was the one starting or contributing heavily to the repetitive NEU bashings, then trying to gaslight anyone who told them they were incorrect. Huh.

Yeah wrong. From the looks of it, as evidenced by the multiple folks who have commented, and you can check with Jeff if you’d like to verify that, there are several of us attempting to contain the booster’s ridiculous diarrhea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are so lame on this board. So rankings obsessed. It is really sad. Also, Northeastern will never ever be prestigious.

pres·tige
noun
widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality.

According to the definition, Northeastern is already prestigious.

If you have to spend so much time and effort to post on an unanimous forum to convince a bunch of strangers that Northeastern is prestigious, your mere action showcases that the opposite is the truth.

Do you see anybody posting on here trying to convince all of us that Harvard and Yale are prestigious?!!? Exactly. There’s no need for that because they simply are, but Northeastern is not.

Boom. There are some serious NEU parents on this board who have to inject into conversations, and start them, of course, and even enter conversations that are not on point. I suspect they are marketeers

[Anonymous]

What’s sad is that Northeastern has always had a distinctive niche on the Boston higher education landscape—its convenient urban location & co-op programs make it unique. They should have just been content with maximizing those features instead of striving to be something it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prestige and rankings are important criteria for many. It influences the school's perception, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy of more people applying, lowering admissions, attracting potentially better candidates, and maybe climbing in rankings even more.

UVA must admit 2/3 Virginians by state law. Michigan has about 50% OOS. UNC can't have more more than 18% OOS.

Looking into the crystal ball with the approaching population cliff and as we have fewer kids, can the obligation of public schools to take a large percentage of in-state students dilute the student body, creating another self-fulfilling prophecy, but on the other side causing public schools to fall in rankings compared to privates who can pick who they want?

If we look at UNC, the acceptance rate was 8.2% for OOS and 43% for in-state. The OOS student would be at the very top of the class and work much harder to get in, whereas the in-state student could be weaker and yet have a much higher and easier chance to get accepted. Why go to a public school then as OOS and not a private? Is having 2/3 Virginians sustainable to keep UVA in the top 25 in the future? UVA is incredibly competitive now, even for in-state. As the college age population decreases, will UVA have to admit weaker candidates to meet the 2/3 in-state mandate?



UVA rose to24 this past year. https://www.usnews.com/search/education?q=national+university+rankings#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=national%20university%20rankings&gsc.page=1.

UVA is barely holding on to the T25 and is currently tied with CMU. I feel like private schools might overtake the top 30 with publics falling lower because of their ability to pick-and-choose.

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are so lame on this board. So rankings obsessed. It is really sad. Also, Northeastern will never ever be prestigious.

pres·tige
noun
widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality.

According to the definition, Northeastern is already prestigious.

If you have to spend so much time and effort to post on an unanimous forum to convince a bunch of strangers that Northeastern is prestigious, your mere action showcases that the opposite is the truth.

Do you see anybody posting on here trying to convince all of us that Harvard and Yale are prestigious?!!? Exactly. There’s no need for that because they simply are, but Northeastern is not.

Boom. There are some serious NEU parents on this board who have to inject into conversations, and start them, of course, and even enter conversations that are not on point. I suspect they are marketeers

Au contraire mon ami. The gaslighting is strong in this one.

[Anonymous]

Striving for what it is not? What is that? A highly selective institution that 30 years ago BU students looked down on it? But now they attract a stronger student? Guess continual improvement is not something you are too keen on. Meow.

Anonymous wrote:What’s sad is that Northeastern has always had a distinctive niche on the Boston higher education landscape—its convenient urban location & co-op programs make it unique. They should have just been content with maximizing those features instead of striving to be something it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Maybe this is OK because publicly funded state institutions are intended to educate the citizens of that state. Admitting out of staters is fine but their mission is different from private institutions. So of course the pool of applicants, accepted students and enrolled students should be different.

With the updated methodology, it makes sense to rank publics and privates separately.

Totally. Even with public universities alone, they shouldn't be ranked against other state public institutions.
It doesn't make any sense, as their mission is geared towards state students, involving too much complexity in methodology.

This. Especially with the rankings' weight focusing more on diversity.

[Anonymous]

As expected, it was a crazy hater troll who brought in Northeastern to this thread which has nothing to do with it.

First page, 02/11/2024 18:28

Can't be explained other than a mental illness.
This needs to be controlled.