Why are OOS flagships so popular these days?

[Anonymous]

Not easy to compare, but the examples I have are:

My experience at a big state school (25 years ago) . My child’s at a SLAC (current junior).

At my out of state flagship, I was faced with the challenge of finding my own academic and social niche while navigating a large complex systems to meet my needs. It required me to step up and take responsibility for my actions in a way I appreciate. To get to know professors, get letters of recommendation, apply for scholarships and internships required my effort.

My child at a SLAC is doing some of this, but gets a lot more, “here, Let me guide you” baked into the school. It is fine, but I expect the post-college years will include more time for maturation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More kids applying to universities altogether + population growth in general = more kids getting denied. So these kids will look elswhere: Tenn Knoxville, Clemson, U of So Carolina, Alabama, etc…. I see it as just basic math. VA in-state kids will probably apply to the usuals UVA, W&M, VT. If they are denied, they just look for similar style campuses out of state. If they offer lots of aid, even better. I think many are looking for prestige, but the “vibe” is also important.

There are fewer kids applying to colleges but fewer stable schools and fewer schools where the net cost seems to be worth it. So, there are more applicants per appeal, high-perceived-value college opening.

But a lot of schools are desperate for tuition-paying bodies and will take any kid who will pay a significant percentage of the tuition bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More kids applying to universities altogether + population growth in general = more kids getting denied. So these kids will look elswhere: Tenn Knoxville, Clemson, U of So Carolina, Alabama, etc…. I see it as just basic math. VA in-state kids will probably apply to the usuals UVA, W&M, VT. If they are denied, they just look for similar style campuses out of state. If they offer lots of aid, even better. I think many are looking for prestige, but the “vibe” is also important.

There are fewer kids applying to colleges but fewer stable schools and fewer schools where the net cost seems to be worth it. So, there are more applicants per appeal, high-perceived-value college opening.

But a lot of schools are desperate for tuition-paying bodies and will take any kid who will pay a significant percentage of the tuition bill.

This is false. In 2023 there were 1,244,476 distinct US applicants to US colleges and universities, which represents a HUGE increase. There is also a massive increase in international applicants to US colleges and universities.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2023/03/30/college-applications-are-up-dramatically-in-2023/?sh=5be5321d9c4d

[Anonymous]

OOS public schools generally seem meaningfully cheaper than private schools. And some of them are really good compared to many, many schools as far as I can tell.

Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat, but below the absolute elite top tier, there are several OOS schools with really good department of economics. Cannot imagine if you kill it there, that anything stands in your way. And would guess, without at all knowing, that applies to other fields as well, in particular for more quant and math based ones.

I'm just getting into learning all this, so maybe I'm missing something.

[Anonymous]

“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

None of that matters for 90% of people. The topic of this thread is flagships that educate far more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to the main question - simply because UVA, VT , WM cant cant all the qualified students and people here have the $$$ to go to OOS schools.

Many students that "just miss" getting into UVA, VT, WM are offered excellent scholarships at other states' flagships-to the point where it's the same or an even lower price.
My kid is a good student but I don't think he has a chance at UVA or VT (engineering.) But with the automatic merit scholarship at Alabama, he'll only be paying about $2k/semester-far cheaper than what he'd have to pay at UVA or VT even if he could get in.

Yea, exactly. I said this earlier in fact but I’m a so-called UVA poster so I was dismissed out of hand.

The joke used to be that JMU stood for Just Missed UVA. That’s not true of JMU or any other school in VA outside of W&M and maybe VT. The gap has widened. So you have very good students from VA that can’t / don’t get into those schools but have very good stats and are getting merit offers from OOS flagships. They end up paying less to leave the state and going to better (or at least better known) OOS schools.

So the choice is made for them given UVA’s admission standards, but it’s not a bad choice to have made.

I am smiling as I write this because I have “Morning Joe“ on the TV in the background and they’re talking about how unfair the process is for rich kids to get into best schools. The reporter just said “schools like the Ivy League and elite publics like Virginia and Michigan.” In that order lol. No mention of any of the other out-of-state flagships being discussed in this thread lol.

Re: the bolded, that silly "joke" isn't true for VT, mainly because students often choose VT over UVA to begin with. I know that's hard for you to admit, but it's ok. The rest of us know it to be true.

According to parchment 24 percent of students admitted to both UVA and Tech chose Tech. I guess that’s “often.”

Just for giggles, we should look at %s for kids who choose for STEM. As as engineer, I can tell you the %s are much different.

The 24 percent is for all majors. If you do engineering specifically you’d probably see that nobody goes to Tech over UVA for any other reason.

DP. This is hilarious. I know plenty of people, including two of my own kids, who chose VT over UVA for the humanities and business, respectively. Not STEM or engineering. You seem to be living in a silly little bubble of cluelessness.

Anyone who chooses VT over UVA for the humanities is clueless. That makes even less sense than choosing UVA over VT for engineering.

Interesting. Well, my “clueless” VT humanities grad is doing great, having attended her top choice school, employed in the field of her choice, living in the area of her choice, and making a very nice income - as are her siblings and fellow VT grads. Seems “clueless” is most applicable to misguided dunces like yourself.

+100

Good for her. Tech is a great school and has served her well. But she didn’t get into UVA. You’re not fooling anybody.

Such a sad sad person you are. Who are your friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA boosters are clowns that make UVA look like a joke, even though it is probably a decent school.

Truth! It's embarassing. no other state school has boosters that try this hard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

^ plus co-ops and unique interdisciplinary work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

None of that matters for 90% of people. The topic of this thread is flagships that educate far more.

It matters for people evaluating various types of schools/programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

None of that matters for 90% of people. The topic of this thread is flagships that educate far more.

It matters for people evaluating various types of schools/programs.

How is MIT relevant to this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

None of that matters for 90% of people. The topic of this thread is flagships that educate far more.

It matters for people evaluating various types of schools/programs.

How is MIT relevant to this thread?

Go re-read the preceding posts. PPs were comparing the quality of undergraduate options - big/small, private/flagships. It’s based on more than just having well-educated professors.

[Anonymous]

“None of that matters for 90% of people. The topic of this thread is flagships that educate far more”

It is relevant because the premise was MIT, Harvard, & Chicago will give you the best bachelor’s in economics. Once that bubble was burst with the examples of Williams & Amherst, the fallacy that you need world-class authorities to learn at the undergrad level was exposed. Once it’s exposed for Williams & Amherst, it would seem odd to assume you can’t also get a great undergrad education at reputable big public universities (which, like Amherst & Williams, might not have world-famous faculty). Now someone will surely say that at Amherst & Williams you can talk to your profs over coffee, have dinner at their house, blah blah blah. Fine, but for half the price at a big public you can still talk to them and get your questions answered. Bottom line: many of the assumed academic advantages of going to Ivies+ might apply to grad students but not be manifested in undergrad classes.

It’s as simple as saying you don’t need the guidance of the Swiss Olympic ski team coach if you are just learning to get down the hill without hitting a tree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Also, specifically, if e.g., economics is the priority: Yes, Chicago, MIT, Harvard cannot be beat,“

They can’t be beat if you are putting the final touches on your PhD dissertation. That doesn’t mean you can’t equal them at the undergraduate level. The fact that most agree that Amherst, Williams, etc provide unsurpassed undergrad educations would seem to indicate that you don’t need a bunch of Nobel Prize winners to deliver top-notch UNDERGRADUATE classes.

Considering how difficult it is to get a tenure- track job these days, even mediocre colleges have professors from excellent grad schools who should be able to handle any material covered in undergraduate classes.

What about research/internship/competition opportunities? MIT has better options than Williams.

None of that matters for 90% of people. The topic of this thread is flagships that educate far more.

It matters for people evaluating various types of schools/programs.

How is MIT relevant to this thread?

Go re-read the preceding posts. PPs were comparing the quality of undergraduate options - big/small, private/flagships. It’s based on more than just having well-educated professors.

Flagships are always going to have more opportunity so the comparison is unnecessary.