UNC vs UVA (OOS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at student surveys and responses in places like Princeton Review and Niche, research-intensive universities generally get much lower satisfaction scores for teaching and student-teacher interactions. Research universities also use adjuncts and lecturers in addition to TAs, so not sure what your point is there. The University of California system did a time study on how professors spend their time and it came down to about 1/3 research, 1/3 graduate education, and 1/3 undergraduate education. So even though undergraduates have reduced in-state tuition there, the conclusion was they still subsidize research and graduate study with their tuition based on the attention they get (or don't get to put it another way).

It's true that research professors will not spend as much time with undergrads as in undergrad-focused universities. But ask yourself again: why do students clamor to get into Harvard, but don't care as much about Williams?

Fact of the matter is, research universities will have more academically accomplished professors. This can be very good for high-achieving students because they can leverage these opportunities by doing research for professors and get recommendation letters from renowned professors in the field that they want to go to grad school for. This is especially true in the sciences where large lecture halls don't matter as much (not much in-class discussion going on)

For middle-of-the-road students, indeed they can get easily lost in research universities. Those students probably have a better time with smaller classes.

Research universities may have more research accomplished professors. This doesn't mean they 1) teach undergraduates much 2) care much about or are assessed on undergraduate teaching or 3) teach undergraduates well. Princeton, the top ranked school in USNWR does a good job of research (albeit on a more limited scale than say Michigan), and of having good teaching, student research opportunities (which are usually distinct from externally sponsored R&D), and capstone programs. Many other research universities suck in these areas.

[Anonymous]

Does your daughter seem to have a preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at student surveys and responses in places like Princeton Review and Niche, research-intensive universities generally get much lower satisfaction scores for teaching and student-teacher interactions. Research universities also use adjuncts and lecturers in addition to TAs, so not sure what your point is there. The University of California system did a time study on how professors spend their time and it came down to about 1/3 research, 1/3 graduate education, and 1/3 undergraduate education. So even though undergraduates have reduced in-state tuition there, the conclusion was they still subsidize research and graduate study with their tuition based on the attention they get (or don't get to put it another way).

It's true that research professors will not spend as much time with undergrads as in undergrad-focused universities. But ask yourself again: why do students clamor to get into Harvard, but don't care as much about Williams?

Fact of the matter is, research universities will have more academically accomplished professors. This can be very good for high-achieving students because they can leverage these opportunities by doing research for professors and get recommendation letters from renowned professors in the field that they want to go to grad school for. This is especially true in the sciences where large lecture halls don't matter as much (not much in-class discussion going on)

For middle-of-the-road students, indeed they can get easily lost in research universities. Those students probably have a better time with smaller classes.

Research universities may have more research accomplished professors. This doesn't mean they 1) teach undergraduates much 2) care much about or are assessed on undergraduate teaching or 3) teach undergraduates well. Princeton, the top ranked school in USNWR does a good job of research (albeit on a more limited scale than say Michigan), and of having good teaching, student research opportunities (which are usually distinct from externally sponsored R&D), and capstone programs. Many other research universities suck in these areas.

Any good research university will have professors teaching students. It's true that they may not care much for it or teach very well, but thats not the advantage they provide. The advantage they provide is deep knowledge in their expertise and research opportunities outside of class. For bright students that can more than handle the class-workload on their own, the extra research opportunities is a huge advantage for medical and grad school. Middle-of-the-road students who are not interested in research and may need more help on classwork (aka homework assigned in class) will have a harder time in research universities. I have said this multiple times in this thread.

Something to note between UNC and UVA is that while UNC is generally considered a much better research institution, UVA isn't necessarily the "undergrad-focused, LAC" environment that many try to portray it as. It's still a large public university thats only smaller than UNC by about 1000-2000 students. You still have large class sizes, still have students competing for attention from a single professor, still have TA's, and on top of that the TA's (who are generally grad students) may not be as good as at UNC does more/better research => better grad students flock there.

What UVA does have is probably a slightly better undergrad student population because of the in-state ratios and NOVA students.

[Anonymous]

The anti-UVA vibe on DCUM is very interesting. I'm wondering why...

Is it envy from UMD boosters because UMD is not considered, overall, as prestigious as UVA or ranked as high? They believe UVA is overrated and UMD is underrated. So putting UVA down serves their cause.
Is it superiority from the Ivy/SLAC crowd who wants to keep UVA in it's place as "just another flagship public school", and not worthy of consideration in comparison to their smaller and more intellectual institutions?
Is it sour grapes from folks who didn't get into UVA?
Is it because UVA alums are annoying and have an overinflated opinion of themselves and the school?

I'm trying to think of another school that is similar to UVA that gets put down as much as UVA on this site. And I can't find one. The closest might be Georgetown. Lots of Georgetown hate on DCUM as well.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which would you pick?

I don't think I'd pay OOS tuition for either. There are many academically comparable private schools where you'll be able to pay less -- and your kid will get more personal attention.

OP here. That was not our experience. The private schools that seem to be in the same tier as these two that DC got into did not give any aid so would be paying $75K + (Rochester and Boston College) which isn’t really in the budget. The two schools that did give her enough aid to make the costs a little bit less ($38K total at Loyola MD and $48K at Syracuse) I don’t think would really be considered academically comparable. Maybe I’m wrong.

You’re not wrong.

With respect to the schools you mentioned, you're probably not wrong. But you likely limited your search unnecessarily. Should have included some SLACs within the #40-100 range of the USNWR rankings for national liberal arts colleges. Many of them provide a college experience that is superior in many respects to what you'll find at mid-sized or larger universities (where students are just anonymous faces in a large herd). And your kid could have gone to one of these SLACs for a price that reflects the true, actual cost of a year in attendance at a residential college (either private or public flagship), which is about $30-35k.

Of all the schools you've considered, BC is probably the best in terms of the undergraduate curriculum offered, but it's not worth $75k/year. I don't think any American college or university is worth that kind of money. But some are willing to pay it, and that's why certain schools can get away with charging it.

I have a feeling that that is about to change.

Thanks, but she was not at all interested in SLACs. And yes, we toured several and it was very clear to her that that is not what she wanted.

Many LACs in the 40s don’t even give merit aid. And once you get in the 50s and below, I’m sorry but those are very unlikely to be an academic fit for someone who was able to get into UNC and UVA from out of state.

Think about how preposterous you sound. There are 4000 colleges out there. US News ranks the top national universities and the top national liberal arts colleges. Take the top one hundred from each category. Add them together. Divide that number into 4000. What do you get? That's right: 5%.

So what you're saying is that anyone who goes to a school that ranks above 95% of all colleges and universities in the USA but below 2% of all colleges in the USA somehow unworthy of your or anyone else's respect?

You're a fool if you think that. And you surely have an inflated sense of the quality of undergraduate students at the two state schools you've cited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti-UVA vibe on DCUM is very interesting. I'm wondering why...

Is it envy from UMD boosters because UMD is not considered, overall, as prestigious as UVA or ranked as high? They believe UVA is overrated and UMD is underrated. So putting UVA down serves their cause.
Is it superiority from the Ivy/SLAC crowd who wants to keep UVA in it's place as "just another flagship public school", and not worthy of consideration in comparison to their smaller and more intellectual institutions?
Is it sour grapes from folks who didn't get into UVA?
Is it because UVA alums are annoying and have an overinflated opinion of themselves and the school?

I'm trying to think of another school that is similar to UVA that gets put down as much as UVA on this site. And I can't find one. The closest might be Georgetown. Lots of Georgetown hate on DCUM as well.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

It is a reaction to the over-the top boosters. I'd be happy to side with the UVA boosters when they are criticized by the elitist, Ivy-only crowd, but then they turn around and try to act superior to the other excellent state flagships. I'm not sure why they can't just acknowledge that there are lots of fantastic schools in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-UVA vibe on DCUM is very interesting. I'm wondering why...

Is it envy from UMD boosters because UMD is not considered, overall, as prestigious as UVA or ranked as high? They believe UVA is overrated and UMD is underrated. So putting UVA down serves their cause.
Is it superiority from the Ivy/SLAC crowd who wants to keep UVA in it's place as "just another flagship public school", and not worthy of consideration in comparison to their smaller and more intellectual institutions?
Is it sour grapes from folks who didn't get into UVA?
Is it because UVA alums are annoying and have an overinflated opinion of themselves and the school?

I'm trying to think of another school that is similar to UVA that gets put down as much as UVA on this site. And I can't find one. The closest might be Georgetown. Lots of Georgetown hate on DCUM as well.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

It is a reaction to the over-the top boosters. I'd be happy to side with the UVA boosters when they are criticized by the elitist, Ivy-only crowd, but then they turn around and try to act superior to the other excellent state flagships. I'm not sure why they can't just acknowledge that there are lots of fantastic schools in the world.

I agree. UVA is a high-quality school, just like Michigan and UNC are high-quality schools. The problem is that UVA boosters always act like it is Stanford, Harvard, Northwestern, MIT or the better UC schools - not a strong state school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti-UVA vibe on DCUM is very interesting. I'm wondering why...

Is it envy from UMD boosters because UMD is not considered, overall, as prestigious as UVA or ranked as high? They believe UVA is overrated and UMD is underrated. So putting UVA down serves their cause.
Is it superiority from the Ivy/SLAC crowd who wants to keep UVA in it's place as "just another flagship public school", and not worthy of consideration in comparison to their smaller and more intellectual institutions?
Is it sour grapes from folks who didn't get into UVA?
Is it because UVA alums are annoying and have an overinflated opinion of themselves and the school?

I'm trying to think of another school that is similar to UVA that gets put down as much as UVA on this site. And I can't find one. The closest might be Georgetown. Lots of Georgetown hate on DCUM as well.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

It is probably all of the above.

Private schools (Notre Dame is perhaps a better example) can be more specialized and someone won't appreciate that specialization. A lot of schools get put down. UVA is also a pretty big school so it is going to get more air time than smaller schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at student surveys and responses in places like Princeton Review and Niche, research-intensive universities generally get much lower satisfaction scores for teaching and student-teacher interactions. Research universities also use adjuncts and lecturers in addition to TAs, so not sure what your point is there. The University of California system did a time study on how professors spend their time and it came down to about 1/3 research, 1/3 graduate education, and 1/3 undergraduate education. So even though undergraduates have reduced in-state tuition there, the conclusion was they still subsidize research and graduate study with their tuition based on the attention they get (or don't get to put it another way).

It's true that research professors will not spend as much time with undergrads as in undergrad-focused universities. But ask yourself again: why do students clamor to get into Harvard, but don't care as much about Williams?

Fact of the matter is, research universities will have more academically accomplished professors. This can be very good for high-achieving students because they can leverage these opportunities by doing research for professors and get recommendation letters from renowned professors in the field that they want to go to grad school for. This is especially true in the sciences where large lecture halls don't matter as much (not much in-class discussion going on)

For middle-of-the-road students, indeed they can get easily lost in research universities. Those students probably have a better time with smaller classes.

Research universities may have more research accomplished professors. This doesn't mean they 1) teach undergraduates much 2) care much about or are assessed on undergraduate teaching or 3) teach undergraduates well. Princeton, the top ranked school in USNWR does a good job of research (albeit on a more limited scale than say Michigan), and of having good teaching, student research opportunities (which are usually distinct from externally sponsored R&D), and capstone programs. Many other research universities suck in these areas.

Any good research university will have professors teaching students. It's true that they may not care much for it or teach very well, but thats not the advantage they provide. The advantage they provide is deep knowledge in their expertise and research opportunities outside of class. For bright students that can more than handle the class-workload on their own, the extra research opportunities is a huge advantage for medical and grad school. Middle-of-the-road students who are not interested in research and may need more help on classwork (aka homework assigned in class) will have a harder time in research universities. I have said this multiple times in this thread.

Something to note between UNC and UVA is that while UNC is generally considered a much better research institution, UVA isn't necessarily the "undergrad-focused, LAC" environment that many try to portray it as. It's still a large public university thats only smaller than UNC by about 1000-2000 students. You still have large class sizes, still have students competing for attention from a single professor, still have TA's, and on top of that the TA's (who are generally grad students) may not be as good as at UNC does more/better research => better grad students flock there.

What UVA does have is probably a slightly better undergrad student population because of the in-state ratios and NOVA students.

Many students that go on to medical school or graduate school do research. But it is actually usually professor-supervised individual research. That is often easier to get at schools with more undergraduate focus. You can get that at a LAC or other undergraduate focused school. Many of the top STEM PHD producing schools are LACs. And look at the USNWR rankings of undergraduate research possibilities: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/undergrad-research-programs You see all types of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I realized I never specified DC’s major/career plans! Obviously, this might change, but as of right now she is interested in environmental science and biology with a possible minor or double major in politics/political science. Her ultimate goal would be work in climate/environmental policy. [/quot

UVA for this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti-UVA vibe on DCUM is very interesting. I'm wondering why...

Is it envy from UMD boosters because UMD is not considered, overall, as prestigious as UVA or ranked as high? They believe UVA is overrated and UMD is underrated. So putting UVA down serves their cause.
Is it superiority from the Ivy/SLAC crowd who wants to keep UVA in it's place as "just another flagship public school", and not worthy of consideration in comparison to their smaller and more intellectual institutions?
Is it sour grapes from folks who didn't get into UVA?
Is it because UVA alums are annoying and have an overinflated opinion of themselves and the school?

I'm trying to think of another school that is similar to UVA that gets put down as much as UVA on this site. And I can't find one. The closest might be Georgetown. Lots of Georgetown hate on DCUM as well.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

It's because many people don't know much about academia and end up thinking US News rankings are the be-all-end-all, resulting in them thinking that UVA is necessarily a better school than UNC or Michigan because it was ranked a few spots higher, without knowing at all the institution's reputation overall nationally & internationally.

[Anonymous]

I'm a UNC alum (2003). It's beautiful, welcoming to hippie-types, international students, business school frat types, etc -- all can truly find their niche.

While, like all big state schools, the students fall along a wide range of intellectual ability, there are really a ton of very smart people. Lots of people I know went on to get PhDs, to go to Med School, lots of lots to Law School. Many want on to Ivies for graduate work.

Chapel Hill and Carrboro are idyllic: amazing music scene, delicious food, and generally a very high quality of life.When I was there, it was an incredible place for a bookish musician to move to, get a random job and hang out at the cafes making --- very "A Movable Feast." I think it's gotten a bit more expensive since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UNC is in Duke's shadow nearby, whereas UVA is the top school in Virginia.

That is highly debatable for undergraduate education.

I'd say it has the top law school and MBA program in Virginia. Beyond that, I'm not sure what distinguishes it.

Please don't post if you don't know law school rankings. UVA's law school is no. 1 in a number of rankings and consistently between no. 6 or 8. It is one of THE top law schools in the country and still a deal compared to the privates which are going to $105 a year. UNC's law is way below. https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201811/uva-law-again-tops-nation-princeton-review-rankings. This year (2021), UVA is no. 8 in the land for law school and UNC is 27 (which means not worth going to because if you can't get into a T-14 don't go because you won't get a job). https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Their post on law and MBA was correct. Not sure why you went on with this.

No, it wasn't. PP says that "I'd say it has the top law school and MBA program IN VIRGINIA. BEYOND THAT . . . UVA has one of the top law schools IN THE NATION>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you look at student surveys and responses in places like Princeton Review and Niche, research-intensive universities generally get much lower satisfaction scores for teaching and student-teacher interactions. Research universities also use adjuncts and lecturers in addition to TAs, so not sure what your point is there. The University of California system did a time study on how professors spend their time and it came down to about 1/3 research, 1/3 graduate education, and 1/3 undergraduate education. So even though undergraduates have reduced in-state tuition there, the conclusion was they still subsidize research and graduate study with their tuition based on the attention they get (or don't get to put it another way).

It's true that research professors will not spend as much time with undergrads as in undergrad-focused universities. But ask yourself again: why do students clamor to get into Harvard, but don't care as much about Williams?

Fact of the matter is, research universities will have more academically accomplished professors. This can be very good for high-achieving students because they can leverage these opportunities by doing research for professors and get recommendation letters from renowned professors in the field that they want to go to grad school for. This is especially true in the sciences where large lecture halls don't matter as much (not much in-class discussion going on)

For middle-of-the-road students, indeed they can get easily lost in research universities. Those students probably have a better time with smaller classes.

Research universities may have more research accomplished professors. This doesn't mean they 1) teach undergraduates much 2) care much about or are assessed on undergraduate teaching or 3) teach undergraduates well. Princeton, the top ranked school in USNWR does a good job of research (albeit on a more limited scale than say Michigan), and of having good teaching, student research opportunities (which are usually distinct from externally sponsored R&D), and capstone programs. Many other research universities suck in these areas.

Any good research university will have professors teaching students. It's true that they may not care much for it or teach very well, but thats not the advantage they provide. The advantage they provide is deep knowledge in their expertise and research opportunities outside of class. For bright students that can more than handle the class-workload on their own, the extra research opportunities is a huge advantage for medical and grad school. Middle-of-the-road students who are not interested in research and may need more help on classwork (aka homework assigned in class) will have a harder time in research universities. I have said this multiple times in this thread.

Something to note between UNC and UVA is that while UNC is generally considered a much better research institution, UVA isn't necessarily the "undergrad-focused, LAC" environment that many try to portray it as. It's still a large public university thats only smaller than UNC by about 1000-2000 students. You still have large class sizes, still have students competing for attention from a single professor, still have TA's, and on top of that the TA's (who are generally grad students) may not be as good as at UNC does more/better research => better grad students flock there.

What UVA does have is probably a slightly better undergrad student population because of the in-state ratios and NOVA students.

Many students that go on to medical school or graduate school do research. But it is actually usually professor-supervised individual research. That is often easier to get at schools with more undergraduate focus. You can get that at a LAC or other undergraduate focused school. Many of the top STEM PHD producing schools are LACs. And look at the USNWR rankings of undergraduate research possibilities: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/undergrad-research-programs You see all types of schools.

No, a lot of the undergraduate research is working on as a research assistant on a research professor's project. If students want to do independent research, large research universities have those as well - its a course students can sign up for.

The vast majority of universities on that list are national research universities, and more specifically, very internationally renowned research universities: MIT, Cal Tech, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke, etc. etc.

I'm sure a lot of students from LACs go to graduate school. One advantage of LAC is that you can make close relationships with professors and therefore get a very good recommendation. But note that this is a result of LACs being very small, not necessarily them being LAC, "undergrad-focused" institutions. A student at Caltech or MIT which are sized 2000-4000 students can also get very close relationships with their professors, given they are capable and take the opportunities available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Think about how preposterous you sound. There are 4000 colleges out there. US News ranks the top national universities and the top national liberal arts colleges. Take the top one hundred from each category. Add them together. Divide that number into 4000. What do you get? That's right: 5%.

So what you're saying is that anyone who goes to a school that ranks above 95% of all colleges and universities in the USA but below 2% of all colleges in the USA somehow unworthy of your or anyone else's respect?

You're a fool if you think that. And you surely have an inflated sense of the quality of undergraduate students at the two state schools you've cited.

Jesus wept. OP'S KID DOES NOT WANT TO GO TO A SLAC. It's like a sickness with you people. "Oh you're deciding between two schools you like? Why don't you put in an application to some low-ranked glorified boarding school that's desperate enough to still have slots open?" No, SLACers. If people were interested in Wooster or Kalamazoo they would say so up front. Get out of OP's thread.