<p>^ Funding is just one of the reasons. The NE states certainly had the resources and the population base to support great public universities if they had wanted to do so. For various reasons, they didn’t aspire to do so. Michigan and California did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they are unsophisticated and nowhere near as worldly as they think they are. Really, when you think the world revolves around int’l business and Wall St, you’re pretty much pegging yourself as having a very naive, unsophisticated view of the world. The world has moved SO beyond that and iwhen I hear about these CC’ers who really, truly, honestly think that those jobs are the only “worthwhile” ones, or the only way to make any kind of real money, it’s about as dated as navy-blue-suits-with-floppy-bow-ties-for-women.</p>
<p>
I think the issue is that you (and some other posters) consistently insist that UVa is more prestigious than UCLA in terms of grad schools when UVa is, in fact, really really obscure outside the United States. -.-</p>
<p>Like Sparkeye likes to jump with glee, tOSU > UVa internationally.</p>
<p>UCLA and UVA are peer schools at the undergraduate level but UVA has stronger professional programs except in Medicine. However, Princeton doesn’t even have professional programs and its considered a top 5 American university. Prestige in the United States is based on selectivity, institutional wealth and graduate success and not departmental rankings, professional reputation, faculty accomplishments and a whole bunch of riff raff that state school grads on CC like to bring up to make themselves feel better about their alma maters.</p>
<p>UVa’s Business program only slightly edges out UCLA’s (#13 vs #14) while UCLA has a significantly better Med School, though. </p>
<p>I was also discussing prestige outside the United States. My post was in response to a conversation a gazillion pages back. (Yeah, I know its annoying when people do that.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t spend my life worrying about what people outside the US think, though – especially people who are basing their opinions on a bunch of nothingness, which describes, oh, about 99% of the people outside the US who base their thinking on general impressions and not any sound knowledge whatsoever. I mean, really, teenagers think Justin Bieber is better than the Beatles, too, because they don’t know any better - I needn’t take that seriously either.</p>
<p>How do questions about “best” always morph into discussions about “most prestigious”?</p>
<p>Informative, you’re not even 20 years old. You have NO IDEA how the world works. You are extremely provincial and you are hidebound by Boston-area viewpoints of the world that don’t hold elsewhere. Your assumption that #50-100 on USNWR are “bad” and below that, it’s not even worth going to college is based on your imagination and little else. You really need to get out more. If you want to measure success by money, there are PLENTY of people who didn’t attend tippy-top universities who could buy and sell you 100 times over and not break a sweat – whenever I run into someone who assumes that only people at tippy-top elite schools ever make money, it tells me that person has no actual experience with the upper middle or upper classes. If you want to measure success by productivity and happiness, plenty of people live happy, productive, useful lives regardless of how much money they make. It’s time to grow up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? Those firms aren’t as important as you think they are, and no one other than wannabes thinks that those firms are really the be-all-and-end-all of employment. </p>
<p>Your premise - that, say, Cal and Michigan are “merely good” schools because they don’t place as well on Wall Street as, say, Dartmouth or Harvard – is just as dumb as if I were to say that Dartmouth and Harvard are “merely good” schools because they don’t place as well on Broadway or in Hollywood as Northwestern or Yale. You don’t take one possible field out of hundreds that people can go into, and elevate that as the measure of whether a university is “good” or not. Good grief, the eighties are over. This continued tacky greed-is-good-let’s-all-salivate-over-Wall-Street is embarrassing, provincial and naive.</p>
<p>Here’s what I think about the top public schools…</p>
<p>GROUP I -
Michigan / UC Berkeley</p>
<p>GROUP II (in no particular order) -
UCLA
UT Austin
UNC-CH
UVa
Illinois
Wisconsin</p>
<p>1) I put Berkeley and Michigan as the top two publics because they’re generally perceived to be the most respected and the highest-ranking in most academic disciplines. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re ALWAYS better than Group II schools.</p>
<p>2) I deliberately left out Georgia Tech, UCSD and the College of William and Mary because those schools, while very good, are too focused on either engineering or humanities. </p>
<p>3) The ranking within Group II just depends on the academic discipline. For engineering, UT Austin and Illinois would be at the top. For English, UCLA, UVa and UNC-CH would be at the top. Since UCLA and UT Austin don’t really have any academic “weaknesses” per se, you’d probably see them at the top more than the others.</p>
<p>Michigan is no better than UCLA or UVA. They are all peer schools at the undergraduate level. Berkeley is probably a cut above the rest if you must differentiate.</p>
<p>“I put Berkeley and Michigan as the top two publics because they’re generally perceived to be the most respected and the highest-ranking in most academic disciplines.”</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>“Michigan is no better than UCLA or UVA.”</p>
<p>I disagree. IMO UCLA is about equal with Michigan, but not UVA. UVA has weaknesses in engineering and natural sciences.</p>
<p>
Who cares? A school doesn’t have to offer or be good at every discipline to be elite. Harvard and Yale are weak in engineering too. Are you going to suggest that they aren’t prestigious as well? Most undergrads don’t go on to PhD programs; they get jobs or go to a professional school. The caliber of the student body at UVA and the opportunities they have after graduation justify the school’s prestige along with its renowned history and tradition stemming from its founding by Thomas Jefferson.</p>
<p>“Who cares? A school doesn’t have to offer or be good at every discipline to be elite.”</p>
<p>This thread is about which publics are “best.” Best does not necessarily mean “elite” in my book.</p>
<p>I hate to get into a ****ing match about prestige. However, I would like to mention one fact about UVa.in response to certain comments above. When I went to UVa 30 years ago, I never met or even heard about students from other countries. Now, the current first year undergrad class includes students from 77 countries (in addition to 41 states). Therefore, perceptions about a university from persons in other countries can change over time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s why I said that Michigan and Berkeley aren’t necessarily ALWAYS at the top. However, I definitely wouldn’t put UVA at the top of the list because they clearly have a weakness in engineering/computer science, as rjk noted.</p>
<p>UCLA and UT Austin are really the only top publics other than Michigan and Berkeley that don’t have any academic weaknesses. All of the other top publics have weaknesses in many areas. So, if you put UCLA at the top, then you’d have to put UT Austin at the top too. In terms of academic power, they’re roughly equal.</p>
<p>UT Austin tops UCLA in several academic areas such as:</p>
<p>GEOLOGY:
UT Austin - 3rd
UCLA - 16th</p>
<p>COMPUTER SCIENCE:
UT Austin - 8th
UCLA - 14th</p>
<p>PHYSICS:
UT Austin - 14th
UCLA - 19th</p>
<p>UCLA tops UT Austin in several academic areas such as:</p>
<p>HISTORY:
UCLA - 9th
UT Austin - 17th</p>
<p>ECONOMICS:
UCLA - 14th
UT Austin - 25th</p>
<p>MATH:
UCLA - 8th
UT Austin - 14th</p>
<p>UT and UCLA both have top 20 professional schools:</p>
<p>LAW SCHOOL:
UT Austin - 14th
UCLA - 16th</p>
<p>BUSINESS SCHOOL:
UCLA -14th
UT Austin - 17th</p>
<p>Obviously from an admissions and overall reputation perspective, UCLA tops Texas. From an ‘academic power’ perspective, UCLA and UT Austin are almost exactly equal. </p>
<p>There was an “Academic Power” ranking done by a Michigan Board Moderator, and UT and UCLA came in at #13 and #14 respectively. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This rationale is only true for very elite schools, like USNWR top 15-20 schools. Prestige of large research public universities is generally derived from the reputation of their individual programs.</p>
<p>Are you guys kidding me? UVa is prestigious. When the Ivies reach out to public schools to which they collaborate with, UVa is on the top of their list. Harvard and Princeton even recruit undergraduate students with the University of Virginia. </p>
<p>[University</a> of Virginia, Harvard, & Princeton Admission Presentations](<a href=“Bus Accident Lawyer & School Bus Accident Attorney”>http://harvardprincetonuva.com/)</p>
<p>Everyone needs a safety. UVa has been an Ivy safety for decades. Nice for H & P to bring it along. One stop shopping</p>
<p>UVa may be a safety. Wisconsin = not even considered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said otherwise? Of course UVa is prestigious! I just said they’re not exactly as well-rounded as some of the other top publics. They’re not strong in engineering/computer science.</p>