<p>Excellent post, @Zapfino. Makes me feel much better in choosing UT Austin, Cockrell school of Engineering for electrical Eng. and also Plan II honors as double majors for our son. We are awaiting other OOS/some IV results but have pretty much decided for the flagship university. I have heard that UT Austin is supposed to be one of the good state Unvs. May I ask you if people outside TX do know or have heard about it? Thanks again for both, your post and advance thanks for any answer if you can give me!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, University of Texas at Austin is a well regarded university, even outside of Texas. Plus, it is local to offices of computer and electronics companies in Austin, so that gives an additional recruiting advantage for EE and CS students there.</p>
<p>amm…UT is a great school! I was disappointed that it wasn’t a good fit for our D (too big for someone with her personality and small school background). Your son is obviously a great student if he was accepted into Plan II. I’m going to go so far as to say if you reside in TX, a degree from UT or A&M typically avail networking opportunities that yes, even the very, very elite ivys often can’t touch. Those who have lived in TX for any extended period of time know exactly what I’m talking about and can corroborate what I’m saying. It’s like nothing you can imagine. The good 'ole boy network in TX takes care of its Longhorns and Aggies.</p>
<p>In the end, your son will know what’s right for him. It may be UT, or it may be an OOS private. Whatever he chooses, best of luck!</p>
<p>Re: Post #218:
My point was that in many disciplines it’s not about content, but about critical thinking, analysis, and writing. The better the faculty is, the better you learn how to do those things, and in my opinion, the better the students are, the better you learn as well. It could be that many classes at the flagship are just as good in this regard–especially if they are in the honors college–but I’m not persuaded that this is the case.</p>
<p>Re: Post #219
Like it or not, the best faculty tend to flock to the elite universities and so do the best students.</p>
<p>Note that I was referring to top students in a major at a public university, not the average students. With respect to those students, its not like they dont get admitted to top graduate and professional programs in their fields. With respect to the faculty, if you look at the NCR graduate rankings, for example, youll find many public universities ranked ahead of many elite private universities. Taking just one discipline, psychology, as an example, the following public universities rank ahead of Emory: Alabama, UCR, Missouri, Penn State, Washington, UCSD, Temple, UNC, Stony Brook, Arizona State, Texas, Michigan State, Ohio State, Arizona, Minnesota, UCD, Oregon, UCB, UCSD, Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, UCSB, Minnesota, Florida State, Pitt, UCLA, Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Now Emory is considered a pretty good school by most measures, but presumably these graduate rankings reflect its faculty strength relative to these other schools, and I wouldnt conclude that Emorys faculty matches them. Also, note that it is not just the so-called public Ivys that outrank Emory; a broad range of public universities do. Now, this doesnt mean that an Emory psychology major couldnt get a very good education in that field, but I dont think it can be argued that the best faculty necessarily are always found at the elite private universities. And, you would find the same thing in any number of core disciplines. Presumably, top students at a public university will benefit from the strength of the faculty in their majors, in terms of learning their field, research opportunities, LORs, etc. Though you might find tippy-top private universities, e.g., Harvard, MIT, Stanford, at the apex of many fields, those schools are outliers in many respects. So, schools like Emory are more typical if a top student if trying to compare what he might find in his major at a private university vs. his public flagship. </p>
<p>I will grant you that being surrounded by highly qualified fellow students is a considerable advantage of attending an elite private university, but at least in the context of what Ive posted thus far, Im considering the situation of a student for whom that elite private university is not a feasible option (often for financial reasons). In my own education, fellow students certainly help set a motivational tone; as for what it added to my own learning and understanding, I wouldnt necessarily say it outweighed the faculty contribution or my own study and reflection on my coursework.</p>
<p>Re: Post #221:
“I have heard that UT Austin is supposed to be one of the good state Unvs. May I ask you if people outside TX do know or have heard about it?”</p>
<p>amm2009, I agree with what jc40 and ucbalumnus said about UT.</p>
<p>Re: Post #217:
“How do you define pervasive drinking cultures?”</p>
<p>I don’t have a tight definition for this. In general, I’m referring to schools where a significant number of social activities revolve around drinking. In some cases, excessive drinking might result in student hospitalizations, deaths, etc. due to drinking.</p>
<p>Certainly, when talking about any given school, we’re taking about stereotypes to some extent. Nonetheless, there is some basis for those stereotypes. There are more than a few public universities that have a significant drinking cultures. I’d include those schools with reputations as “party schools”. While I recognize that this culture doesn’t apply to the whole student bodies at those schools, those reputations that are not entirely undeserved. And then there are some private schools where drinking is a major social activity. I happened to mention Hamilton and Colgate, based on what I’ve heard about them over the years. I don’t think it’s entirely inaccurate. I could have mentioned Bowdoin, e.g., [A-Team</a> calls summit to discuss drinking culture - The Bowdoin Orient](<a href=“http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2010-04-30§ion=1&id=6]A-Team”>http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2010-04-30§ion=1&id=6) or some other schools.</p>
<p>I think it’s quite a stretch to say that graduate rankings reflect the quality of undergraduate education, but I suppose it’s a data point. I would also note that the rate of admission to graduate programs also isn’t exactly a measure of the quality of undergraduate education–but I suppose it makes sense to look at, especially if you are just looking for “return on investment” in terms of earning power.</p>
<p>While it may not be politic to put it this way, there are elements of college education that are not really related directly to future earning power–they might be described as lifestyle enhancement, or luxuries, or what have you. But it’s hard to measure the degree to which your education makes you a broadly interested and interesting person.</p>
<p>
The question, then, is how we define “better” faculty and “better” students. The former quality is reflected by research quality and output. While imperfect, I think we can look to graduate rankings from USNews or the NRC as proxies for academically excellent faculty. And many state flagships do quite well on these rankings.</p>
<p>Sadly, no such metric exists for ranking students. I argue that SAT ranges are not a good way to assess student caliber, for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Even if a correlation exists between SAT/ACT scores and intelligence, I am not convinced that this tells us much about a student’s ability to contribute to an academic setting. Yes, someone with a 420 on the CR section may have difficulty contributing to a heavily reading-based class. But I’m not so sure that a significant difference exists between a 600 and an 800. There are many more intangible factors that IMO cannot be predicted.</p></li>
<li><p>As I said earlier, most state flagships are big places. Is a given student really going to interact with all 30k other members of the university community? Probably not. A critical mass of motivated students may outweigh the need for a high SAT range.
But it was your argument that better faculty contribute to undergrad education. How else do you propose we assess the quality of faculty?
At this point, the entire argument becomes 100% subjective because you and I may have different ideas of what makes a person interested and interesting, or of what it means to enhance one’s lifestyle. And that makes it impossible to categorically state that one class of institution is better than another, which is my argument.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t actually believe that research quality and output tells you much about the teaching ability of faculty, but I don’t know enough about how you become, say, an English professor at Harvard vs. an English professor at the University of Nebraska–my guess is that Harvard has some magical method of getting good people.</p>
<p>But as for students, we know what Harvard’s magical method is. They look at grades, scores, extracurricular activities, and more to “craft” a class. All you have to do is look at the results threads here on CC to find what kind of students they attract and enroll. They are highly accomplished and motivated people. How does the University of Nebraska select its students?</p>
<p>And sure, it’s subjective. That’s *my *point, in response to people who prefer to talk about ROI.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an interesting point. Some people are great researchers, others are great teachers (and generally charismatic with good social and communiation skills), and others are both. The prestigious, well-endowed places like Harvard do better at getting the people with both.</p>
<p>The Toyota Camry is a great car. You could argue that for many people it is as good a car as a Lexus ES300. You could easily argue that the extra cost of the Lexus is not justified. You could say that people who choose the Lexus over the Camry are elitist. You would be smart to avoid going deep into debt to buy a Lexus. You could be one of those people who could easily afford a Lexus but your own sense of value just doesn’t let you spend that much on a car.</p>
<p>But most people would not take you seriously if you claimed that the Camry was <em>better</em> than the Lexus.</p>
<p>That all depends on how you define “better.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would again retort that not every state school is a Camry nor is every top 25 a Lexus. Some, like UVa, Berkeley, etc. may not be the Lexus but rather the Infiniti. Better? For some, yes, and for others, no. The same? In many instances, yes.</p>
<p>That all depends on how you define “better” as CED2015 said. Agree.</p>
<p>The title of this thread generalizes: “State flagships” vs “Ivy League”. On average, I would have to say that the difference between those two categories is more like the difference between a Lexus and a beat up old Dodge Dart.</p>
<p>I will readily agree that the top three state flagships are much better than #23, 24, 25 of the top 25 privates. Possibly even as good as the bottom 3 ivies.</p>
<p>I don’t know about ivy league, but many, many people I know are taking state schools over selective privates. Ten years ago, it was not as prevalent in this area. Now I see example after example.</p>
<p>Some of the state schools have done a good job of marketing themselves to top students. It’s not just marketing–they’ve created programs (such as honors colleges) to attract those students. I think that’s fine–all I say is, do your homework and make sure that the reality matches the marketing.</p>
<p>“Even Kentucky. Though you KNOW that kid would rather be at Cornell.”</p>
<p>People from the Northeast and small pockets of elitism elsewhere in the country would be amazed if they knew how many millions of Americans do not see the college they attend as an important source of prestige, and find a college’s USNews ranking to be irrelevant…that’s right, valedictorians and other serious young scholars CHOOSING to go to Ohio State or Alabama or Nebraska, even if they could easily afford a swankier private school. It’s not that they think their flagship is as socially prestigious or as rigorous academically as an Ivy, it’s that they simply don’t care about social or academic prestige and rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without a doubt, the schools sending the most, and the slickest, marketing materials to my son were super selective private schools, including, but not limited to, the Ivy League schools. I always recommend doing the homework to check out the claims (both explicit and implied), but not just for the “state schools” that are trying to retain the best students in their states, but for all schools.</p>
<p>that’s right, valedictorians and other serious young scholars CHOOSING to go to Ohio State or Alabama or Nebraska, even if they could easily afford a swankier private school.</p>
<p>I dont know what yo mean be “easily afford” I would suggest kids are going with the state schools when their parents could afford, but not so easily swankier privates</p>