Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Universities often have a variety of names used in official materials, as well as nicknames. To use my local example:
--Full name: The University of Washington
--Shorter (jerseys): Washington
--Initials: UW
--W: Logos
Sometimes, such as in construction RFPs, they might say the name once then just say "the University" after.
Clemson is not a member of the AAU but is ranked above Rutgers, Minn, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan State, Indiana, all of the SUNY campuses, Kansas, Nebraska, Mizzouri, etc, in US News.
SC is tied at 46 best public university by US News and is ranked above several AAU members including Mizzou. Tied for 46 best public seems good enough to me.
Nebraska was kicked out of the AAU. The reason was too high of a percentage of Nebraska's research was in agriculture and AAU doesn't weigh agricultural research as important as other types of research. That doesn't make any sense to me. Nebraska is a land grant university so part of its mission is to do agricultural research.
Another thing that was a factor in Nebraska losing AAU membership is it didn't have a medical school. The medical school in Nebraska is on the Omaha campus rather than the main campus in Lincoln.
I don't think most Americans know and/or care about AAU membership. To me it only looks like a lobbyist organization and it lobbies DC for research money. AAU membership might help a college obtain more government research money but I don't see what it has to do with the quality of the teaching and programs at the university. I'm more interested in the teaching and preparing students for careers part of universities than the research and money side.
The AAU accepted Oregon which does not have a medical school or engineering program in 1969 but only accepted the STEM oriented Georgia Tech in 2010. Oregon is one of the public colleges tied with SC in US News at no. 46. From my standpoint, Oregon State is the leading research university in Oregon with one of the largest engineering colleges in the country but they didn't get a AAU invite.
I’m not sure why a having a medical school is important for AAU. Schools like Purdue never had one. Illinois basically lost its med school when in the 1980s, UIC was created by combining two Chicago institutions, UICC with the U of I med school, two campuses about a mile apart. Prior to that time, the med school was considered to be part of Urbana. And incredibly super high prestigious Cal has no med school as UCSF is its own institution. Years ago, prior to the expansion of the UC system, both the med center in SF and the ag school in Davis were part of Cal, back at a time the Berkeley school was called “University of California”.
So no med school at any of these three, yet all AAU
True. Some states think out of the box with the goal of better education and research, not specifically benefitting universities. Oregon was mentioned. They created a separate institution called Oregon Health Sciences University that's based in central Portland at the top of the famous(?) aerial tram. Does that diminish the state's other universities?
I’m not sure why a having a medical school is important for AAU. Schools like Purdue never had one. Illinois basically lost its med school when in the 1980s, UIC was created by combining two Chicago institutions, UICC with the U of I med school, two campuses about a mile apart. Prior to that time, the med school was considered to be part of Urbana. And incredibly super high prestigious Cal has no med school as UCSF is its own institution. Years ago, prior to the expansion of the UC system, both the med center in SF and the ag school in Davis were part of Cal, back at a time the Berkeley school was called “University of California”.
So no med school at any of these three, yet all AAU
Yes, that does seem odd. Lincoln and Omaha are only 50 miles apart, and growing closer together all the time.
You got dinged on this once, and you're going to get dinged on it again:
You are not the general population, so the fact that you prefer something is not proof that it's the majority viewpoint.
And in this case, I was extrapolating not to public attitudes towards public or private universities but the perception of the administration of the University of Southern California. No one else (save the administration of the University of Pennsylvania, which I can affirm wishes to distinguish itself from Penn State). Check the subject and verb of the sentence containing the word "dread" again.
My own perception is that state universities, especially the flagships, do enjoy a high level of respect and admiration from the general public. No Harvardian I know* would look down their nose at a Berkeley alum. And yet the fact that the private schools get tons of applicants for fewer slots, and thus accept far fewer applicants, speaks to a certain (absurdly inflated, IMO) level of prestige they enjoy. The applicants - and often their parents - see such schools as offering them a ticket to the top they can't get anywhere else. (Guess what? They don't offer that either. They just offer you tools you can use to rise and access to some highly influential alumni. You can find both of those at Michigan or UVa too.
You're comparison of Penn and USC has one major flaw. Penn is more selective and has a better academic reputation than PSU (although PSU is a decent school, it's not a top 25 school like Penn). USC, while excelling in athletics, was not considered to be a great academic school until the last decade or so. UC Berkeley and UCLA were always much more selective, had lower admission rates, and had better academic reputation. USC had a reputation as somewhere where mediocre or unambitious students with wealthier parents went to school. It was a backup school for many. As government funding for state universities started to decrease in the 90's, USC started using its deeper pockets to recruit faculty from higher ranked schools by offering new state of th art labs and higher salaries to beef up its academic standing. The UC system didn't have the money needed to hold on to some big researchers. As the academic standing improved, it got more applications and became more selective. Now UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC all are top 25 schools (tied in the most recent US News rankings), and all have acceptance rates of around 17%. I don't think anyone at USC would be offended if they were confused with UC Berkeley or UCLA, since those schools have similar reputations currently and for most of history were considered to be better schools. They might be upset being confused with South Carolina, since it has a fairly low ranked state flagship.
You're comparison of Penn and USC has one major flaw. Penn is more selective and has a better academic reputation than PSU (although PSU is a decent school, it's not a top 25 school like Penn). USC, while excelling in athletics, was not considered to be a great academic school until the last decade or so. UC Berkeley and UCLA were always much more selective, had lower admission rates, and had better academic reputation. USC had a reputation as somewhere where mediocre or unambitious students with wealthier parents went to school. It was a backup school for many. As government funding for state universities started to decrease in the 90's, USC started using its deeper pockets to recruit faculty from higher ranked schools by offering new state of th art labs and higher salaries to beef up its academic standing. The UC system didn't have the money needed to hold on to some big researchers. As the academic standing improved, it got more applications and became more selective. Now UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC all are top 25 schools (tied in the most recent US News rankings), and all have acceptance rates of around 17%. I don't think anyone at USC would be offended if they were confused with UC Berkeley or UCLA, since those schools have similar reputations currently and for most of history were considered to be better schools. They might be upset being confused with South Carolina, since it has a fairly low ranked state flagship.
I'd rather have an engineering degree for Penn State than Penn. I think PSU has a much better STEM reputation than Penn.
I see you talking about colleges a lot on here but you never mention what college you attended. You'll talk down a college like Uni of SC that you have no independent knowledge of. I don't think you can explain what makes one of those California colleges better than the Uni of SC. You don't even know a single professor at Uni of SC.
I know people who graduated from Uni of SC who are now lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, engineers, etc. What more would they have accomplished if they went to one of the college that you think are amazing?
It seems like your opinions about colleges are all based on the US News rankings.
An anecdote regarding state universities' reputations:
As I'm sure you know, state and private universities now compete rather fiercely for distance-learning students who can take classes online through the schools' continuing-education divisions.
In this field, the dynamics of applying are different: since there aren't physical beds the students are supposed to occupy, they can enroll more students, and barriers to admission are lower. And because the universities don't have to pay for much in the way of physical plant for these students (even the ones who study on campus use the same classrooms the day students use), most of the revenue from these programs is pure gravy.
The University of Maryland's University College is actively advertising for students on SEPTA buses hereabouts. The ads read:
"The reputation of a state university - The flexibility to fit your schedule"
or words to that effect.
But it's very clear that the University of Maryland is using its status as a flagship state university to boost the reputation of its continuing-education division outside Maryland.
I'd rather have an engineering degree for Penn State than Penn. I think PSU has a much better STEM reputation than Penn.
I would agree with you.
Penn's engineering school is of middling reputation. Were I to attend a private university in this state for engineering or technology, I'd go to Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh.
Were I to enroll in a STEM-oriented school in the Philadelphia region, I'd choose Drexel.
The schools at Penn with the highest reputations are, in this order:
Wharton (business)
Medicine (Perelman)
Law
Arts & Sciences
Annenberg (communication)
Design
Nursing
Some might swap the positions of Annenberg and Arts & Sciences.
i get big-10 and big-12 schools confused all the time.
also i confuse:
michigan/ michigan st.
oklahoma/ oklahoma st.
ohio/ ohio st.
indiana/ indiana st.
(less so) penn/ penn st.
...
1 is private and the other is public ?
(for whatever reason florida/ florida st. are seperate in my mind).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
