Rice vs. UT Austin

system
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:21:14 +0000

rice’s reputation is rooted in academics and its undergraduate programs. it is not some tacit approval that a small, intimate school with a lower acceptance rate makes that school good. the academics are much more rigorous and concentrated on undergraduates, much more so than UT. what UT has, however, are immense resources that enable them to have departments, classes, and faculty than rice cannot have.

for example, rice has great programs in german, french, latin, and sanskrit, and even some courses in old english. at UT you can take those and courses in turkish, finnish, old icelandic, or swedish. so a much greater variety of courses are offered and hence a larger number of majors for students to choose. rice has by contrast very few majors and no minors (though they are discussing this issue). but not many undergraduate students find out they like a subject soon enough to penetrate an area to reap the benefits of a huge school. also keep in mind that peer rankings, even in the undergraduate rankings, are influenced by graduate reputation and larger schools have the advantage.

rice does have faculty to easily compete with UT, but rice simply does not have as many, so there are fewer publications, less funding, fewer major discoveries, etc. there is also the faculty/student relationship that comes into play. for example, what is the point of better faculty if they never make themselves accessible? rice certainly wins in this category, but im sure if you are very good at something and motivated, you can do the same thing at both rice and UT.

also in the linked discussion there is some talk about the overall institution. i dont see why that matters. its not necessary and doesnt help undergraduate or graduate applicants.