If Wisconsin has a good state flagship, why can’t New Jersey or New York?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has to be one of the least-informed threads on here, and that’s saying something. Stop talking about NY schools when you don’t know anything about NY schools.

You just don't like what people are saying. That's different than not being informed. Go wipe your butt, kid.

What exactly are people saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has to be one of the least-informed threads on here, and that’s saying something. Stop talking about NY schools when you don’t know anything about NY schools.

+1

Low info people who aren’t from the NE don’t know anything about schools from the NE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SUNY is generally pretty corrupt and inept these days. Losing enrollment for the last five years. Geneseo, the flagship, is run by a president under federal investigation. Binghamton is the best, but it's nowhere close to RPI, Cornell, or other privates. The rest of the SUNY schools are now basically no-names.

How old is your information? Stony Brook is now 45% asian. Tells me all I need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NJ is double the size of Wisconsin, with two huge metro area ( Philly and nyc). NY is nearly 5 times the population of Wisconsin, yet the SUNY system if lackluster. Wisconsin doesn’t even have a top 30 metro area, yet it somehow or another is able to find money/talent for a good state university. Where is all that money going for public schools in the NY/NJ?

Wisconsin isn’t as good as it once was. I guess its lack of a top 30 metro area is finally catching up.

It was the Scott walker GOP that tried to gut public education in the state. Gov. Evers has been pushing the funding back to where it should be and traditional conservatives in the state understand now the economic engine the flagship and system are for the state.

The answer is for Madison to leave the disastrous UW system and become a private institution. Considering how good all of its departments are, Wisconsin could be unstoppable as a private school.

As soon as they get approval and get the money togetto buy all land and buildings from the state and figure out how to plug the budget hole we can talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NJ and NY didn't need a state flagship the way Wisconsin did. They have ivies.

This is true…plus MIT and all the SLACs.

BTW…Rutgers is 41 and Wisc 39…so, not even sure where the thread is coming from.

It’s a Wisconsin troll that appears from time to time. This thread is about boosting UWisconsin

I concur. It’s so obvious. Always mentions how few people live in Wisconsin and how great the school is in spite of the state’s population. The fact is that it’s not so great anymore compared to other top publics.

Has it really declined, or is just not that trendy at this moment? Even if its bias, I think it’s objectively clear that one of the worst long term investments would be UT Austin, U Georgia, U Florida, or any other contemporarily popular universities that will be adversely affected by climate change. I just don’t get the logic here. Why would parents send their kids to schools like Florida or Miami out of state ( schools, keep in mind, which were nothing 20 years ago) only to contemplate whether the campus will even still be there in 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NJ and NY didn't need a state flagship the way Wisconsin did. They have ivies.

This is true…plus MIT and all the SLACs.

BTW…Rutgers is 41 and Wisc 39…so, not even sure where the thread is coming from.

It’s a Wisconsin troll that appears from time to time. This thread is about boosting UWisconsin

I concur. It’s so obvious. Always mentions how few people live in Wisconsin and how great the school is in spite of the state’s population. The fact is that it’s not so great anymore compared to other top publics.

Has it really declined, or is just not that trendy at this moment? Even if its bias, I think it’s objectively clear that one of the worst long term investments would be UT Austin, U Georgia, U Florida, or any other contemporarily popular universities that will be adversely affected by climate change. I just don’t get the logic here. Why would parents send their kids to schools like Florida or Miami out of state ( schools, keep in mind, which were nothing 20 years ago) only to contemplate whether the campus will even still be there in 40 years.

It only takes 4-6 years to obtain an undergraduate degree. They should be okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?
New York has the land grant colleges at Cornell.
Amazing.

Cornell is private. U Buffalo is notoriously underfunded. The closest public to Wisconsin in the northeast is U Maryland. Even then, it’s only comparable for cs.

Half of Cornell is land-grant and they are required to take a certain number of New York residents who pay a different New York resident tuition rate.

Cornell is the land grant university for New York state but it is private university, just like MIT is land grant but private. There are 4 contract colleges that get funding from New York state, but they are not part of SUNY. New York state has no say administratively about how those colleges are run academically.

[Anonymous]

It’s an origin thing. History of SUNY system is much different than other states. New Yorkers for centuries used Cornell, Syracuse as their flagship. Totally different design

[Anonymous]

I disagree with OP’s entire premise. But to be generous I suppose one could argue that NY and NJ systems don’t have a singular flagship the way most states do, so it might feel like the system is weak. But it’s not.

[Anonymous]

SUNY is a great system. Purchase, Geneso, Binghampton, University of Buffalo and Buffalo State.

[Anonymous]

New York is building SUNY Stony Brook up to be a more traditional state flagship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rutgers is a great school - but campus and school spirit suck.

The campus is a mishmash and so poorly designed.

Rutgers has a lot of commuting students given the density of NJ. It’s just a different college experience.

[Anonymous]

Silly thread even by DCUM standards. The different states’ public university systems evolved to address different needs. Madison was established to be the premier university in Wisconsin, to this day there’s only one other WI school in the top 100 (Marquette at 81), and the rest of Wisconsin’s public universities lag (very) far behind in resources and reputation. The SUNY system was established a century later, to complement a lot of strong existing private universities in NY state (currently NY has nine private universities among USNWR’s top 100 - more than any other state), and its resources were spread evenly over a number of different campuses with different programs. Result: Madison is WI’s only nationally known public university, while SUNY has three ranked in the top 100, and NY state sends nearly 10% more of its high school graduates to college than WI does (72% vs 64%). Hard to say which system is ‘better.’ But sure, if you’re a typical DCUM commenter attracted to colleges based on their sports ‘spirit,’ proximity to restaurants and shopping, and old buildings, give the nod to Madison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire northeast lacks top notch public universities. And that is mostly due to history. The Ivy League has existed since the 18th Century. Most of the SLACs in the region arose in the 19th Century. It wasn't until fairly recently that a significant number of people even went to college. Until then, the Ivies and the LACs more than filled the demand for higher education.

In younger parts of the country, the need for tertiary education arose as population increased. There is no Harvard in Texas. There is no Princeton in Michigan. States in the South, Midwest, and the West had far greater need for good public universities. There was nothing else.

And those realities remain true today. All the good public universities are in the South, Midwest, and West. And the Northeast continues to suck at public education. That's not likely to change.

This is absolutely not true. NE has strong public universities, and NY certainly does. You are making educational decisions based on how well known their sports teams are, for the most part

Nonsense. There is no public university in the Northeast that competes with Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UNC, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, Purdue, UIUC, Michigan, Washington, Georgia Tech, UMD, Virginia Tech, William and Mary, UC Davis and on and on. And don't reply with Cornell and MIT are technically land grant universities so therefore they are the best public colleges in America. Tedious semantics that have nothing to do with reality. The rest of the country values affordable public education much more than the NE.

You are confusing popularity with education. You are an idiot so I’ll stop now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?
New York has the land grant colleges at Cornell.
Amazing.

Cornell is private. U Buffalo is notoriously underfunded. The closest public to Wisconsin in the northeast is U Maryland. Even then, it’s only comparable for cs.

Incorrect. Cornell consists of seven colleges or so and at least one is public and supported by taxpayers.

But still, I would not count Cornell as a public school — partly due to the lack of seats.