<p>Missouri for journalism trumps the privates for the most part.</p>
<p>Yes, some state flagships are as prestigious/rigourous/selective as all but the tippy top privates. And in some programs, state flagships match any privates. </p>
<p>By the same token, its also not true that all state flagships are better than all state directionals in all programs. Case in point - our local state u in NoVa, George Mason, which, though lacking a direction in its name, effectively is a directional (ranked below the top the VA publics if not the top 4 or 5, and with a mostly commuter/local student body) is relatively strong in several areas, notably Comp Sci/IT. I would be willing to bet there are a number of state flagships out there that arent close to GMU in Comp Sci/IT. Heck, Id bet we could dig up one or two that aren’t any better than GMU overall. </p>
<p>The young man here who defended the quality of directional U by saying "well flagships arent as good as privates anyway) clearly hasnt read the numerous, repetitive, flagship vs Private threads on here. On the other hand, I think hes onto something. Which is that its not enough to hold one category worthwhile and another worthless, as Barrons is doing with flagships vs directionals. What I think we have all (or at least the wiser of us) learned is that individuals should not compare categories, but specific institutions, and do so in the context of that individuals own interests, learning style, financial situation, etc, etc. I think the same thing applies to flagship vs directional.</p>
<p>As for the public policy issue, yeah, one could make the case as Barrons tries to (sometimes) that more taxpayer $$ should go to CCs and flagships and less to directionals. Alternatively we could cut the pie differently and put more money into directionals, and into fin aid programs used at privates, and less into flagships. </p>
<p>Some of the same defenses of flagships - % who graduate is held back by the finances of typical families, incomes coming out vs at top privates need to be adjusted for quals coming in etcc - ALSO impact the statistics of directionals.</p>
<p>Many of us on this forum came here because we got sick and tired of folks bashing TTTs (If you don’t know what that is…you don’t need to know…it’s insulting). I would simply say…elite schools are wonderful places but they are not the be all and end all. They are fine universities. Please stop bashing the choices others make which are not in the top elite list of schools. Their college choices will not doom them if they are hard workers and seek to get the most out of their educations.</p>
<p>Brooklynborndad:</p>
<p>A better or wiser man cannot be found on CC. </p>
<p>I have always supported the policy idea of splitting research flagships (and privates) into two separate institutions…undergrad and grad. Faculty and administration would be distinct for each.</p>
<p>[The</a> Cost of Undergraduate Education](<a href=“Socrates and Berkeley Scholars Web Hosting Services Have Been Retired | Web Platform Services”>Socrates and Berkeley Scholars Web Hosting Services Have Been Retired | Web Platform Services)</p>
<p>Not worthless–just worth less. And yes, some bottom tier directionals are worthless or very close. EIU does not fall into that group but the rush to quality might cost them some of the best students.</p>
<p>As to taking away from flagships–the things they bring to the table actually would indicate they are exceptionally good investments of state money.The large amounts of research funding the good ones can attract is a huge economic asset to the state. We are talking thousands of good jobs and 100’s of millions to billions in economic activity. They also can develop the loyalty of alumni that help attract giving that can amount to multi-millions in donations and endowments of the size that have a real impact on quality thus giving the state more economic capital. An finally they give the state a shot at retaining some of its best and brightest who could easily go away to a good private never to return to the state. Some of them will create the growth companies of the future. Do you want to see all of that activity going to CA, Seattle, and Boston? Almost none of the directional U’s can tap into these areas to the same degree. And I have not even mentioned the sports impact that can be VERY popular in the state. </p>
<p>There is no hard line between undergrad and grad. Upper level classes can often contain both in the same class or essentially the same class is taught in two sections by the same prof. This concept that there is a building entrance for grads only and one for undergrads is absurd. They both drink from the same fountains. It might be more concentrated in the last two years as many schools both public and private are using more non tenure track people to teach basic classes. And that includes TOP privates like Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>This is just from anecdotal conversations with other faculty…but probably 90% of them would gladly accept a slight reduction in pay if they no longer had to teach undergraduate courses. It interferes with research and graduate student mentoring, all more valuable for promotion and tenure.</p>
<p>I did not “bash” flagships, or anything else. It is not bashing A to say that B is better overall than A. Barrons, on the other hand, when he talks about “worthless” degrees, is bashing.</p>
<p>Look, just because Neiman-Marcus exists, doesn’t mean that Kohl’s shouldn’t exist. Likewise, just because Harvard exists, doesn’t mean that Eastern Illinois shouldn’t exist. The beauty of America is that there are choices for everyone at every level.</p>
<p>Fisrt this is not about EIU so forget that aspect. That was just the entre to a much larger economic topic. No, worthless degrees are already an economic reality. You can start with the for profit schools. Do they add value in excess of cost? Given the lawsuits it does not appear that way. Then you have the Chicago States of the world with very low grad rates and ??? placement. Is that worth the money the feds, state and students spend on it? I don’t think so. In an ideal world every school–public and private would have to collect and report employment and income data so that prospective students can use it to make choices. Right now it’s a black hole of trust and old data based on averages of averages.</p>
<p>The thing about Nieman and Kohls is neither gets public money in the millions when you combine tuition paid, state aid, and fed aid plus student loans from all levels of government that are the next economic time bomb. If a school’s benefits do not cover all the costs do what Kohl’s does with a bad store–shut it down.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/student-loans-the-next-financial-crisis/[/url]”>http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/student-loans-the-next-financial-crisis/</a></p>
<p>Moody’s which did a great job predicting the housing bust now sees student loans as next bust</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>"This is just from anecdotal conversations with other faculty…but probably 90% of them would gladly accept a slight reduction in pay if they no longer had to teach undergraduate courses. It interferes with research and graduate student mentoring, all more valuable for promotion and tenure. "</p>
<p>Maybe at your school. Not at most of them.</p>
<p>Barron:</p>
<p>I’m at my third research 1 university. It has been the same at every one of them. Faculty that are actively researching (in order to get raises, tenure, and promotions) do not want to teach undergrads. It saps time and resources away from their task: writing grants, research, and graduate mentoring. But, maybe the places I have been are unique in that way. Unlikely, but possible.</p>
<p>That’s how it is a big research universities. barrons, where do you get your information?</p>
<p>The only research university that I can think of that actually has a research faculty interested in undergraduate teaching, is Lake Wobegon State. Isn’t that in Wisconsin?</p>
<p>"I’m at my third research 1 university. It has been the same at every one of them. Faculty that are actively researching (in order to get raises, tenure, and promotions) do not want to teach undergrads. It saps time and resources away from their task: writing grants, research, and graduate mentoring. But, maybe the places I have been are unique in that way. Unlikely, but possible. "</p>
<p>I had profs who loved dealing with undergrads. At my DDs school the faculty we’ve met seem enthustiastic about undergrads (but Arch, esp Arch schools without a big MArch program, may be different). </p>
<p>And even if they are not enthusiatic, doesnt mean they arent good at it (thats a long debate, I suppose). </p>
<p>Its all going to depend on what you want - there are advantages to undergrad education of combinging them, and advantages to seperating them. Seems to me there is room for LACS (including public LACs), all or most grad research institutes, and the standard research U.</p>
<p>“As to taking away from flagships–the things they bring to the table actually would indicate they are exceptionally good investments of state money.”</p>
<p>most of those benefits involve states stealing jobs from each other - from the POV of national educational policy, a case could be made that they are worthless. </p>
<p>And even from the state POV, one might be able to obtain similar benefits from subsidies to privates - which schools gave Mass a towering tech sector - UMass? or Harvard and MIT? Is UMd Baltimore campus doing more to drive biotech development in baltimore than Hopkins? Is massive Univ of Albany doing proportionately as much for NY’s Capital region as RPI?</p>
<p>"You can start with the for profit schools. Do they add value in excess of cost? Given the lawsuits it does not appear that way. Then you have the Chicago States of the world with very low grad rates and ??? placement. "</p>
<p>i raised that law suit as an issue. ANd I would point out that lawsuit does not target ALL for profits (or even the most famous one). I think the most bang for the buck in higher ed policy right now would be cracking down on the for profits, but even I wouldnt say close the whole sector down. </p>
<p>And if Chic State is the issue, well start a thread on Chicago State. However there may not be enough people here familiar enough with it to get a good answer. We would need to know not only the 6 year grad rate, but also exactly what drives the grad rate. And we would need realistic estimates of what the students who go there would do otherwise, not rote invocations of “trades” - in fact trades vary in their wages, employability, and training requirements, and its not at all clear that every student with the motivation to go to a low tier four year U is going to pursue a trade.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s in Minnesota. Everybody gets above average grades.</p>
<p>I’m not saying they are not good teachers. I had a handful of good researchers that were good teachers. I’m just thinking that if you want the most bang for your buck as an institution, why are your top researchers teaching undergrads? It just doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>Some research universities are creating new faculty positions…tenure track but research and some grad teaching only. Many departments have 2 distinct faculty camps now anyway…the ones researching and the ones doing very little research but with tenure. It is no coincidence that the light researchers are getting more of at the undergraduate teaching load.</p>
<p>I agree, there is room for all types of institutions. I clearly don’t have the answer, I was just thinking out loud.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Been done.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1184307-not-exactly-harvard-midwest.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1184307-not-exactly-harvard-midwest.html</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1193438-more-chicago-state.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1193438-more-chicago-state.html</a></p>
<p>I think it’s important when discussing Chicago State to separate the incompetent, dishonest previous administration from the concept of a public 4-year university intended to serve students whose academic preparation is very sorely lacking. Clearly, the way the college was run until recently was a disgrace; but assuming that can be fixed, the school may play an important role for its intended audience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most college and university professors are not good teachers. Teaching is both an art and a science; very few people are intuitively good teachers, and almost no college and university professors have ever been taught how to teach. So what do they do? The same thing that was done to them, i.e., lecture, lecture, lecture, maybe with a few poorly thought-out and pointless “discussion” sessions along the way. The principles of effective instructional design never come into play, because the practitioners don’t know what those principles are.</p>