6 public schools in CA are better than UT Austin - embarassing!!!! (San Antonio: school rankings, universities)

[austinguy2009]

Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report

That's just pathetic. We're the second biggest state.

Why can't we get our stuff together? Higher education spending is really really good for the economy (unlike a lot of other fiscally liberal ideas this one is pretty universally accepted among economists). It attracts a lot of talent to states, and creates a really educated workforce that can drive economies (look at Austin's boom based on UT grads). In other words, its an investment not wasteful spending.

We could easily spend more money and create at least 3 top publics - UT, TAMU, and maybe UT-D or North Texas. Hell even UH could be improved a lot.

Also, we should focus on science/engineering not liberal arts as much since it doesn't really help drive economies.

[mlassoff]

Overheard at an Austin cafe this morning: "I'll support the Longhorns football, but I can't support all 'dem liberal professors indoctrinatin' those kids."

So as long as the football team is winning, everything is status quo. Football is much more entertainin' than research anyway.

[jtur88]

Several points you overlook.

1. All six are just different campuses of a single University of California.
2. There are two in Texas better than any in New York.
3. Look at the quality of Texas high schools. Where would students come from to populate six great Texas universities?
4. Look at the other thread in this forum, "'Texas Public Schools Now Required To Teach The Bible'. Texas Universities have to un-teach that, before they can even start in on remedial education.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by jtur88

2. There are two in Texas better than any in New York.

We're talking state institutions here. Not all schools. Columbia, Cornell (which is a public/private hybrid), both rank above Rice (#17 overall) and far above UT Austin.

I don't want anyone going off half cocked thinking Texas is some kind of panacea for higher education-- or any type of education for that matter. In fact RPI and NYU both rank above Texas as well.

Originally Posted by jtur88

3. Look at the quality of Texas high schools. Where would students come from to populate six great Texas universities?
4. Look at the other thread in this forum, "'Texas Public Schools Now Required To Teach The Bible'. Texas Universities have to un-teach that, before they can even start in on remedial education.

Sadly, I can only rep you once for this!

[rgb123]

Not to be a negative Nancy -- I like Texas...generally speaking. There are two big things I dislike and its rather important to my happiness.

1. (see the northeast thread, ie. Texas pride)

2. The general attitude that education post high school is a waste of money, a waste of time, and you don't really learn anything there anyway.

I worked my butt off to get my Master's degree (in Minnesota) and in Texas (atleast among my coworkers) I am treated like a fool for spending all that money and not even learning anything (I want to smack them over the head with the books they NEVER READ! They don't even know enough to NOT KNOW what I know....)

[theloneranger]

Who gives a **** what the US News and World report says?

Last I checked Sports Illustrated says we are #2. So does USA Today. So does the Associated Press. More people read each of those than the miniscule number of readers that USNWR has.

But on the USNWR rankings, the rankings are designed to favor smaller schools. The reward small class sizes (which large state schools like UT, which is larger than any school in CA, cannot do). It's simply fiscally irresponsible for UT to pay 50 people to teach the same material to 500 students to get a 10:1 faculty student ratio when a single professor will teach the same thing. They reward alumni giving percentage. UT has a ton of alumni, and not all of them give. Those that do give in higher numbers than just about any university in the nation. They reward entering SAT scores, which really don't mean a thing in college. They reward having low acceptance rates rather than schools doing their best to educate as many people as possible.

UT's peer rating, in which academics rate the school based upon their knowledge of that school's academic merit, is in the top 25. This isn't very highly weighted at all in the US News rating. UT has an endowment in the TOP FIVE in the nation, over $16 billion. The UC system has a total endowment of only $6 billion, hardly something to brag about.

Essentially these ratings are ranking the most selective schools, not those that actually give the best instruction or produce the most productive graduates or produce the most research. The writers say they know the rankings work because Harvard, Yale, and Princeton come on top every year. They don't claim they work because of any real statistical use showing that these schools actually do something for someone.

The only school in California that is more productive research-wise is Berkeley. This is a main function of UT. UT also produces more grads than any of those schools, who are generally very well prepared. However, this is supposedely a BAD thing.

Were they being compared using an actual relevant formula, rather than one designed to highlight the Ivy League's best attributes, UT would come out much higher. As it is, it's irrelevant. UT is still the best public school in the state and one of the elite public schools in the nation, and it does it without going into billions of dollars of debt each year.

[blkgiraffe]

Texas universities are pretty much underrated if anything.

[LivingLikeAGradStudent]

My daughter just graduated from Berkeley, which is still a world-class school, and it's not like the public schools in California are any great shakes these days. UT-Austin is a fine school, but because it's considered so much more desirable than any other UT campus, it's bigger and takes in more mid-level applicants, including athletes, that knock it down a notch or two. The system would benefit by another campus or two seeking to become more selective, rather than focusing on what the Austin campus isn't.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Several points you overlook.

1. All six are just different campuses of a single University of California.
2. There are two in Texas better than any in New York.
3. Look at the quality of Texas high schools. Where would students come from to populate six great Texas universities?
4. Look at the other thread in this forum, "'Texas Public Schools Now Required To Teach The Bible'. Texas Universities have to un-teach that, before they can even start in on remedial education.

Have you looked at California high school rankings? Almost every category of K-12 education in California is noticably worse than Texas. In spite of far higher spending levels.

I think Texas universities have plenty of talented kids to draw from.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by rgb123

Not to be a negative Nancy -- I like Texas...generally speaking. There are two big things I dislike and its rather important to my happiness.

1. (see the northeast thread, ie. Texas pride)

2. The general attitude that education post high school is a waste of money, a waste of time, and you don't really learn anything there anyway.

I worked my butt off to get my Master's degree (in Minnesota) and in Texas (atleast among my coworkers) I am treated like a fool for spending all that money and not even learning anything (I want to smack them over the head with the books they NEVER READ! They don't even know enough to NOT KNOW what I know....)

Your #2 must be a San Antonio problem. The vast majority of people I know have college degrees and fully expect their children to earn a degree.