OP sounds like the troll who started the top public’s thread. Highly recommend ignoring him and his sock puppeting.

We actually visited UT Austin. The campus is enormous and boy do they love their football team. The campus isn’t like an east coast brick style campus but more modern sprawl. DC decided a mid-size school was what they wanted and was underwhelmed by Austin. That said they much preferred the cohesiveness of UCLA as opposed to Austin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UT is in the same group as the second list of schools.

Berkeley/Michigan are in their own league.

ok lets be real

Cal is in its own league

UT-A has markedly narrowed if not closed the gap with Michigan

tbh UT-Austin is a better overall experience than Michigan

Let’s get real here.

First off,Wisconsin isn’t elite. Saying that the top three publics are Berkeley, Michigan, and UCLA. Texas won’t be at Michigans overall level until they get rid of their top 6% instate high school acceptance. In the meantime, they still have to pass UNC, UVA, UCD, UCSD, and Florida to get to that elite level. Saying that UT-Austin is a better experience than Michigan is completely subjective, particularly for those students who have absolutely no desire to live in Texas.

You are the only person in this thread who even mentioned wisconsin, you insane anti-Wisconsin troll.

DP

I think that was meant for ha ha’s. Wisconsin is vulnerable to a bit of mockery now since some people have died on the hill of insisting that it is still in the conversation for best public schools (it’s really not). I just took the Wisconsin reference as a joke.

These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

cmon. I graduated from stuy in 1985 and UT-Austin was on par with Michigan even then.

Great school. In addition to other strong program mentioned, Plan II is also great.

Michigan in 1985 is different than Michigan now though. Just talking about today’s day and age, UT is not on the same level. And stuy is a stem school no? Makes sense as UT is more known for Eng than its other programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

And anyone here should care about which schools are on your “radar” because…? UT-Austin has been a top public university for many years.

No one has to care lol. But OP is asking for opinions and I gave mine. UT is a top public but that doesn’t make it on the same level as Michigan. UT is far closer to mid-tier UCs and UIUC, UF.

I just wondered if you knew something others didn’t since you said so definitively that since it’s not on your radar that means it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t spend a dollar in the state of Texas.

As one of the fastest growing and most economically booming states in America, they won't miss your money, Dobbs dork.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

And anyone here should care about which schools are on your “radar” because…? UT-Austin has been a top public university for many years.

The idea that Michigan=Berkeley is an extremely modern concept, roughly equivalent to the same sentiments which proclaim the rise of Northeastern.

When examining the academic nature of universities one cannot simply look at one year (or even one decade) and declare the academic tiers. Rather universities should be judged by their work done over multiple decades, if not each quarters of a century. That’s where the real impact of alumni and academic inquiry bear out.

With that being said it’s clear the following tiers form.
1. Berkeley
2. UCLA
3. Michigan/Wisconsin/GT/Texas
4. Illinois/Washington/UNC/UVA

This is a purely academically ranking: it forces the reader to examine the ranks of departments instead of the highly fluid nature of undergraduate admissions.

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

cmon. I graduated from stuy in 1985 and UT-Austin was on par with Michigan even then.

Great school. In addition to other strong program mentioned, Plan II is also great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

And anyone here should care about which schools are on your “radar” because…? UT-Austin has been a top public university for many years.

No one has to care lol. But OP is asking for opinions and I gave mine. UT is a top public but that doesn’t make it on the same level as Michigan. UT is far closer to mid-tier UCs and UIUC, UF.

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

And anyone here should care about which schools are on your “radar” because…? UT-Austin has been a top public university for many years.

Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a good school.

Is it closer to Berkeley or Michigan level of schools?

Or closer to UF, UCSB, UCSD, UIUC?

None of this actually tells you anything about UT. What is it that you want to know about, exactly?