Is it a meaningful concept?
Is it a meaningful concept?
No.
Your question is actually legitimate, but the answer is "no."
Though I'm usually the first to remind people that the Ivy League is nothing more than an athletic conference, there's obviously more to it than that.
Sure, they're private universities. (Yes, even Cornell--its "state" divisions are not really "public" in the usual sense.) But beyond that, they don't have athletic scholarships (not even nudge-nudge-wink-wink ones), and I can't think of a similar number of public schools that a) are competitive at the Division One level and ALSO b) give only need-based financial aid.
The athletic grants are the real sticking point, more than the public/private thing.
Semi-related note: the eight members of the Ivy League are all the universities that were "invited" (the wrong verb, actually) to join. I've heard students from nearly a dozen other colleges say that their school was invited to be a member. No, it wasn't.
Poster above is correct in the technical sense. In the broader "bang for the buck" sense, the so-called public ivies often include:
College of William & Mary (excellent case)
UVA (reasonable case)
Certain UCal campuses (meh)
UMich (ugh)
UNC (nope)
University of Vermont (Mmmm... no, not really)
Some add... Rotgut... er... Rutgers (bwaaaahahahaha!)
Miami (OH) University (?)
and UTexas ('cause it's relatively well endowed).
So, if by "public ivy" you mean "a place where a reasonable education can be had for less coin (but without the same brand cachet or deep human and capital resources)," um, yeah, sure, whatever floats your boat.
Ummmm....ever heard of Rutgers?
rationalist wrote:
Ummmm....ever heard of Rutgers?
Yes, and I believe my response was along the lines of
Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Boolah Boolah wrote:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/rateprof.html
Trying to link those reviews to the capabilities of the students and the quality of the university is dumb.
Two points: (1)Your uninformed observation is addressed in the surrounding commentary of the full article; (2) The website is that of a tenured English prof at Rutgers who has railed against the decline of Rutgers as a serious academic institution for decades. Compare, e.g., his treatise "5 Ways to Tell If You Go to a Third-Rate University"
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/excel.htm
Anecdotally related, I have two friends who went to Rutgers. One transferred there as a step up (or so she thought) from her first college; she quickly transferred to Cornell. She was horrified by the level of maturity (i.e., low) evinced by her classmates. (She loved Cornell, by the way).
The other, an athlete, started at Rutgers. He was so academically disheartened he dropped out. He re-started his college career, sans athletic support, at Brown.
Yes, two "stories" do not prove anything, but Rutgers is not know as a serious school among academics (although I hear their pharmacy program is competitive).
Do you attend Rutgers? If so, my apologies.
Do you believe Rutgers qualifies as a "public ivy" (or that it was perhaps "invited" to join the Ivy League but declined)?
You are mistaken.
No, I'm not mistaken nor am I uninformed. I repeat, trying to link the quality of a university to its reviews on ratemyprofessor is dumb. I didn't say anything about whether Rutgers is a good or bad school.
Reading comprehension.
As noted previously, your concern is addressed in the body of the article. As you stated: "reading comprehension."
yyy wrote:
Is it a meaningful concept?
No, it is not. The closest public school to an ivy is Berkeley, and it is a distant 25+ in the rankings while the ivies hold the top positions starting with Princeton and Harvard sharing a tie for the top positions. After Berkeley, it is even further down the list. So, while many colleges would like to fly under the banner of a near ivy, sorry, the public schools are still way behind.
Hunter College
Boolah Boolah wrote:
As noted previously, your concern is addressed in the body of the article. As you stated: "reading comprehension."
I just read your entire link. Where exactly was my concern addressed?
owodko wrote:
Boolah Boolah wrote:As noted previously, your concern is addressed in the body of the article. As you stated: "reading comprehension."
I just read your entire link. Where exactly was my concern addressed?
I'm with Owodko here. The article focuses only on negative reviews. Now, what did you think you were going to find under negative reviews? That's right- kids that were mad they didn't pass class (i.e. they are not very smart, hence their poor verbal skills).
Reading comprehension is one thing, critical thinking is another.
owodko wrote:
Trying to link those reviews to the capabilities of the students and the quality of the university is dumb.
Linking reviews to student capabilities/university quality = dumb.
From the article:
"Well, so what?" asked Ebenezer. "That's how college students talk about their professors. Ratemyprofessors just makes it public."
"Not exactly," said Amy sadly. "Just out of curiosity, I went to the Amherst site. The tone there was a bit different."
"Hold on," said Ebenezer. "Did you look only at negative ratings? Like those Rutgers ratings?"
"I did," said Amy. "Negative ratings only."
"I bet," said Ebenezer triumphantly, "they sounded just like the Rutgers ones. Come on, now. Didn't the Amherst kids talk about 'c*nt' and 'd*ckhead' and 's*ck d*ck?'"
...
[No, they did not]
[Ebenezer asks whether Rutgers-type comments aren't more "honest."]
"My point," said Amy impatiently, "is that the Rutgers comments give you the picture of a school that lets in people with fourth-grade spelling, where the campus is crawling with lowlifes who don't know how to be anything but ignorant and gross, who go around bragging about how they cheat on exams, and whose vocabulary stops at words like 'c*nt' and 's*cks' and 'd*ckhead.' Look at these," she said.
[Ebenezer asks, logically, "But how do I know you're not cherry-picking comments from Amherst?"]
"Your computer's on," rejoined Amy. "Go to the Amherst site. Bring me back just ONE student comment like the Rutgers ones. I'll wait right here."
[Ebenezer spends 35 minutes reviewing the site.]
"I see what you mean," he said disconsolately....
Amy notes: "High school seniors all over the country look at ratemyprofessors. So do their parents. Not just to see what the professors are like, but what kind of students go to the school. I bet that the ratings with stuff like 's*cks' and 'd*ckhead' and 'd*uche bag' and 'condoscending' cost Rutgers a couple of thousand applications a year from bright students who want to go to a real college. The Web is public. Ratemyprofessors is the Rutgers the outside world sees."
In the article--and whether you agree with her conclusions--Amy anticipates and addresses the criticism.
The comments--real comments--display the thinking of many Rutgers students AND likely send many bright students elsewhere, hence reinforcing the downward spiral of Rutgers.
The comments indeed reflect on the capabilities of students (grammar, spelling, quality of thought) and the potential effects on the quality of the school (decreasing).
Ok, that's what I read. None of that stuff in bold should be taken seriously. It's all far-fetched speculation and forced conclusions.
Ball State University located in Muncie Indiana
yyy wrote:
Is it a meaningful concept?
Coursera?
The typical US News rankings, etc. definitely shaft public schools. One reason is because public schools have to accept a certain amount of students, so this decreases their "selectivity"... there is also a lot less hand-holding at public schools (Ivy League slogan: "hard to get in, hard to fail out") which does affect the retention rate. In terms of teaching, classes, etc. some of these public schools are definitely within the same range as many of the top private schools.