Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaSall
My niece was top 3% at her large public high school and was awarded a full scholarship to UTD. After much research, she decided on UT due to many factors.
UTD is the strongest school academically in the UT system outside of the flagship but is predominately a commuter school. The difference in resources between UTD and UT is vast. UTD is heavy on sciences but lacks the balance that art, classics, humanities and athletics provide.
The flagship has a higher graduation rate, vastly superior facilities, more vibrant student experience, mammoth R&D funding, a national and global reputation (it's considered a Public Ivy), award-winning faculty (including Nobel laureates), higher freshman SAT scores, is a member of the prestigious AAU, has medical/dental/law schools attached, has Top 10 nationally ranked undergrad programs in business, engineering, comp sciences, Spanish, even more nationally ranked graduate programs, etc. Too many advantages to name. Regarding the other system branches, the differences are even greater.
In national rankings of any kind, the branch schools are non-existent.
The flagship as the sole school of excellence within the UT system is well documented. For example, the UC schools have numerous excellent branches (UCSD, UCLA, Berkely). It is a weakness of the UT system that only UT is excellent. The UT system needs to develop excellence across it's branches if the state as a whole is to fully benefit.
Additionally, the upper-middle-class students not accepted by UT are not giving way to sub-standard, "top 7%" students. Spots are taken by higher performing students, namely in-state Asian & Indian American students and OOS students (the ascent of the Asian/Indian American student accounts for the largest minority student gains at UT).
But back to your point, the branch schools do not deliver the same education as UT in any sense.
|
* * *
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.
Hybrid Mode
