Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree or disagree with you. But higher education is now big business, and some colleges and universities excel at spin and branding. It’s hard to discern quality.

I agree. I don’t know what makes Michigan “better” other than people saying it’s better than most publics.

We have many excellent schools in the US. The “best” school will depend upon the major.

It's the program/departmental rankings.

Michigan's departmental rankings are better than those at Williams, but on average, I would say a Williams grad will have recieved a significantly better education.

I totally disagree. The teaching at Williams will not be any stronger than the teaching at Michigan.

Michigan is for researching.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1960s, Michigan and Wisconsin were prestigious. Not sure about UVA. Oddly we hear little about it in historic accounts of the campus activism of that time.

UVA was still all-male in the 1960s. They would have been quite different types of schools then.

Wait, what? UVA didn't admit women in the 1960's??? This alone should disqualify it from prestigious lists, are you serious???

Are you familiar with the Ivy League's teack record?

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/03/21/history-women-higher-education/#:~:text=Eventually%2C%20Princeton%20and%20Yale%20began,not%20admit%20women%20until%201983.

Good point... Sorry, I'm from UW-Madison, which people are trashing on here, and while also has admitted women since the 1860s, so it just wasn't even in my frame of reference that these prestigious schools would have been so backward. I'll take my "OK" State School, thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree or disagree with you. But higher education is now big business, and some colleges and universities excel at spin and branding. It’s hard to discern quality.

I agree. I don’t know what makes Michigan “better” other than people saying it’s better than most publics.

We have many excellent schools in the US. The “best” school will depend upon the major.

It's the program/departmental rankings.

Michigan's departmental rankings are better than those at Williams, but on average, I would say a Williams grad will have recieved a significantly better education.

I totally disagree. The teaching at Williams will not be any stronger than the teaching at Michigan.

Anonymous wrote:Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Harvard was the 80s I think. Why we consider this place a bastion of enlightenment I will never understand. Hypocrites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree or disagree with you. But higher education is now big business, and some colleges and universities excel at spin and branding. It’s hard to discern quality.

I agree. I don’t know what makes Michigan “better” other than people saying it’s better than most publics.

We have many excellent schools in the US. The “best” school will depend upon the major.

It's the program/departmental rankings.

Michigan's departmental rankings are better than those at Williams, but on average, I would say a Williams grad will have recieved a significantly better education.

Cornell's early admission of women is just one reason why I'll never agree with people who call it a lower Ivy. They're basically just ranking snobs.

Princeton wasn’t until the 70s. Gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1960s, Michigan and Wisconsin were prestigious. Not sure about UVA. Oddly we hear little about it in historic accounts of the campus activism of that time.

UVA was still all-male in the 1960s. They would have been quite different types of schools then.

Wait, what? UVA didn't admit women in the 1960's??? This alone should disqualify it from prestigious lists, are you serious???

Then Harvard shouldn’t be on it either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1960s, Michigan and Wisconsin were prestigious. Not sure about UVA. Oddly we hear little about it in historic accounts of the campus activism of that time.

UVA was still all-male in the 1960s. They would have been quite different types of schools then.

Wait, what? UVA didn't admit women in the 1960's??? This alone should disqualify it from prestigious lists, are you serious???

Are you familiar with the Ivy League's teack record?

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/03/21/history-women-higher-education/#:~:text=Eventually%2C%20Princeton%20and%20Yale%20began,not%20admit%20women%20until%201983.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1960s, Michigan and Wisconsin were prestigious. Not sure about UVA. Oddly we hear little about it in historic accounts of the campus activism of that time.

UVA was still all-male in the 1960s. They would have been quite different types of schools then.

Wait, what? UVA didn't admit women in the 1960's??? This alone should disqualify it from prestigious lists, are you serious???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my expensive and high performing private school in the 1990s, Michigan, Madison and UVA were all well-regarded OOS flagships. These three and Berkeley were the only respectable public schools that carried the same oomph as the lower T25 private universities.

Don't recall much interest in UCLA.

That doesn't seem right.

NP, it is very much right. Nobody cared about Vanderbilt, Rice, UCLA, USC, Wash U, Northeastern (especially), back then. The top public schools were: Berkeley, Mich, UVA, UNC, and Wisconsin. Some of those ranked higher than some Ivies. HYPS were of course hot back then Other top schools were Georgetown, Hopkins, Chicago. That was about it. Then there were the Smiths, the Williams, etc. And everything else after that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not a big deal when I went to college in 1997.

+1
Neither was Vanderbilt, for that matter.

Agree. Neither school was particularly prestigious in the 90s

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree or disagree with you. But higher education is now big business, and some colleges and universities excel at spin and branding. It’s hard to discern quality.

I agree. I don’t know what makes Michigan “better” other than people saying it’s better than most publics.

We have many excellent schools in the US. The “best” school will depend upon the major.

It's the program/departmental rankings.

Anonymous wrote:At my expensive and high performing private school in the 1990s, Michigan, Madison and UVA were all well-regarded OOS flagships. These three and Berkeley were the only respectable public schools that carried the same oomph as the lower T25 private universities.

Don't recall much interest in UCLA.

Same. UCLA wasn't on the radar back then and seemed less serious-minded than other schools. Not a bad school, but not a top school. Just somewhere to study film. S. I would add Chapel Hill to your list, though. It was quite hot at that time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I finished high school in the late 1980’s. UVA was considered a very good school back then. Michigan was probably a little lower. Wisconsin wasn’t even close to the other two.

Notre Dame was a tough admit unless you were a child of an Alumni. And those were the ones who really wanted to go there. Vandy was a good school but behind UVA, Michigan, Notre Dame.

Times are different now. Kids love the public schools.

Michigan was only slightly lower than UVA at USNWR. That mistake was corrected a few years ago. In terms of overall academics, Michigan has always been ahead of UVA.

Do Michigan baccalaureate graduates know more, reason and write better, accomplish more? I doubt it.

They are also taller and more attractive.