Kind of sounds like she’ll fit in juuust fine.

* * *

Here's what I said within the comment you quoted:

"The average undergraduate at every university in the UT System is receiving an undergraduate education comparable to that they would get at UT-Austin. There are a few exceptional undergraduate programs at UT-Austin, but the quality level at UT-Austin does not begin to separate out until graduate and post graduate programs are taken into consideration."

I used the specific phrase "undergraduate education comparable to." I did not say they "deliver the same education." I stand by my original comment.

Interestingly, a cogent argument can be made that the AVERAGE (not Sally-the-genius-that-should-have-gone-to-Rice) undergraduate student may actually receive a better academic experience and outcome at a branch university for each of the following reasons --

1) Survey classes smaller than 200+ students.
2) Smaller class size in general with lower level undergraduate courses likely taught by tenure track faculty.
3) Fewer classes taught by graduate assistants.
4) More focus on teaching undergraduates vs. research funding. (Nobel laureates and other "award-winning faculty" do not teach the typical undergraduate. They don't have the time because they are usually principal investigators on multiple research contracts with the university.)
5) Accessibility of tenured faculty (not just teaching assistants) to undergraduates during office hours.
6) Accessibility and admission to a competitive major that may otherwise be closed to the average undergraduate student at UT-Austin.
7) A better chance to attain higher class standing and academic honors making them more competitive in job seeking or graduate school applications than a middle-of-the-pack UT-Austin baccalaureate.
8) Cost.

UT-Austin is a great university deserving of its university reputation. Those who are mature enough to make it through the distractions and to obtain a bachelor's degree within four years should be commended for the accomplishment. The point I was making in the comment you reference was on a discussion about UT-Austin undergraduates thinking of themselves as being special or entitled. Again, they are not.

#1-#7 are pure speculation on your part but would not sully UT's superiority versus the branches were they proven true. On #8, UTD and UT Arlington have similar tuition as the flagship while the other branches have nominally lower tuition. The UT branches do not provide a comparable education to the flagship as evidenced by any ranking imaginable, including starting salaries for graduates.

What you might mean to have implied in all of this is that a branch might be a better fit for certain students versus attending the flagship and to that, I would agree.

As for UT students being entitled, I can't speak to that but I can say that many of them are looked upon as special when compared to the majority of applicants that don't secure admission but really wanted to attend. My niece was one of them! but I think she's pretty special anyway...(I'm totally biased, I know).

Sorry Phil T.
Ain't no body in their right mind is thinkin' UT Dallas (or UTEP or UT Brownsville) and UT Austin have comparable educations.
Now, on to 'entitled'. Nice of you not to want to call them that but it is one of the best ways to describe a good number of UT snowflakes, especially the greek ones.

I know this tread has drifted away from the OP, but I feel I need to respond.

My prior comments are based on a career in government-sponsored applied research and corporate contracts with large research-oriented universities. I will admit that my opinion about undergraduate education quality is colored by my experiences in the U.S. government and large technology companies. Virtually everyone I have worked with in that field holds a Ph.D. or equivalent degree. In that world, undergraduate degrees are thought of (more or less) as fungible - like the old joke about opinions - everybody has one. Other than on a curriculum vitae, I do not recall anyone even mentioning where they attended undergrad.

I do remember my sophomore level government and math classes at UT-Austin. The government classes were 300 students in a large lecture hall with a 30-year-old assistant professor who had five graduate student TAs holding smaller weekly "discussion groups" with about 30 students each. My math courses were taught by 22-year-old assistant instructors/graduate students. Anyone who has attended lower level undergraduate classes UT-Austin has likely had this type of experience one way or another. So don't talk to me about quality of education.

Now when we talk about the quality of bachelor's degree, an ordinary bachelor's degree (one awarded without honors) from UT-Austin is clearly perceived by the world as better than an ordinary bachelor's degree from UTEP, UTA or UTD. You will get no argument from me about this fact.

But my question (and point) is this:

Is an ordinary bachelor's degree (one awarded without honors) from UT-Austin better than a first-in-class bachelor's degree awarded with highest honors from UTA?

Which degree (assuming all else equal) would most likely gain an admit to Impossibletogetinto Medical School which already has 5 UT-Austin grads in its 2022 class?

* * *

Finally, the only area presented in my earlier post that could rightfully be called speculation is my assumption that a UT-Austin admit who may graduate middle-of-the-pack at UT-Austin would be at the top of her class at a branch school like UTA. And since she is so "special and entitled," how could anyone say she wouldn't be?