Notre Dame to ACC

[GGGG]

Curious, but what's your source on this?
Because, according to the university, it's more like 17 percent.

http://www.ls.wisc.edu/giving.html

Also, that's direct support. I'd imagine the state provides millions more to the university system indirectly (financial aid, research funding, etc.).
Not that public higher education is a poor use of resources - though it  suffers many of the same inefficiencies as any other public program - but I think you're playing down the amount of taxpayer support that's involved.

http://www.uwalumni.com/?sectionpath=1&pageid=20143

You are quoting figures from one college.  Not the university as a whole.

I doubt the state provides millions for research funding, but they do for financial aid.  But still, I don't think you realize how little state budget support goes to public universities.  Even at the places like Whitewater and LaCrosse, it is less than 20% now.  This has been accelerated greatly over the past decade...and not just in Wisconsin.

[Pakuni]

http://www.uwalumni.com/?sectionpath=1&pageid=20143

You are quoting figures from one college.  Not the university as a whole.

No, I'm not. Read the link.

"Private support from alumni and friends now makes up about 18 percent of the UW-Madison budget with state support providing close to 17 percent."

Note, it does not say "for one college."

I doubt the state provides millions for research funding, but they do for financial aid.

According to this National Science Foundation study, UW-Madison received $97 million from "state and local government" for research. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of that is coming from the state, not Tomah and Peshtigo. and even if it were - and it's not - it's still taxpayer money.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf12313/

[79Warrior]

The education quality of large state universities is the most over-rated thing this country has.  That is why I never went to one and I'm not encouraging any of my kids to consider one.

Nothing screams "mediocre" more than a University of 40,000+.

If it makes you feel better that you tax dollars are not wasted on these glorified warehouses of humanity, go right ahead and flame me.

What evidence do you have to back up such a broad statement? Seems silly.

[bilsu]

"I never experienced this, but I know I'm right."


7% of UW-Madison's budget comes from state taxes...7%.  UW-Madison educates 40,000 students, mostly undergraduate Wisconsin residents.  I can't imagine another part of state government that has that type of return on investment.

Is there a return on the investment? That is hard to quantify. You would have to show that there would be fewer college educated residents without the State of Wisconsin kicking in 7%.  I suspect most of UW's students would still of gone to UW without the 7% State subsidy.

[GGGG]

No, I'm not. Read the link.

"Private support from alumni and friends now makes up about 18 percent of the UW-Madison budget with state support providing close to 17 percent."

Note, it does not say "for one college."

Well then you have two different sources from the same organization saying different things.  Need to see what they use as a basis for comparison.

[Benny B]

No, "average" would put them in the top 500, not the top 100. They are considerably and clearly very good academic institutions.

This is a stupid tangent anyway, can we get back to discussing Marquette to the SEC?

I think the discussion was MU to the Big 10, but perhaps a discussion about the difference between "median" and "average" would be more entertaining.

[Tugg Speedman]

Thats just like, your opinion, man.

But really, those are all great schools, and have improved a lot even in the last two decades.  They don't let every Tom, Dick, and Harry in.

If every state has at least one state university of 40,000 (and some have several) that works out to over a million kids at large state universities, which the residents of that state think is among the best in the country.  So absolutely every Tom Dick and Harry is getting in.  State Universities are designed specifically to let every Tom Dick and Harry ... its their purpose for existing!!

Why do you think after you get in they have standards for applying to colleges after a year or two?  Such as after two years you have to apply to the business school?  Because the standards allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to get into the school and somewhere they have to weed them out.

[Tugg Speedman]

What evidence do you have to back up such a broad statement? Seems silly.

It's my opinion, never been impressed by anyone from large state universities.  Everyone I've ever hired are from small private colleges.

And I'll go one step further, large suburban high schools suffer from the same problem.  5% get a decent education and the rest are pushed along and get a crappy education, just like large state universities. 

Never send you kids to a public high school larger than 500, they are also nothing but warehouses of humanity.  Exception will be made for private or catholic schools above 500.

[GGGG]

If every state has at least one state university of 40,000 (and some have several) that works out to over a million kids at large state universities, which the residents of that state think is among the best in the country.  So absolutely every Tom Dick and Harry is getting in.  State Universities are designed specifically to let every Tom Dick and Harry ... its their purpose for existing!!

UW Madison's admission standards are roughly equal to Marquette's....if not slightly higher.

http://www.admissions.wisc.edu/freshman/requirements.php

http://www.marquette.edu/explore/admissionprofile.shtml

[Hards Alumni]

If every state has at least one state university of 40,000 (and some have several) that works out to over a million kids at large state universities, which the residents of that state think is among the best in the country.  So absolutely every Tom Dick and Harry is getting in.  State Universities are designed specifically to let every Tom Dick and Harry ... its their purpose for existing!!

Why do you think after you get in they have standards for applying to colleges after a year or two?  Such as after two years you have to apply to the business school?  Because the standards allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to get into the school and somewhere they have to weed them out.

You must be old.

I graduated HS with a very good GPA and a very good ACT score and was in countless 'groups' and I got wait-listed for UW.

Furthermore, you probably hire a lot of private school kids because you are a private school graduate.  I wonder who you would hire if you didn't get to peek at which school they graduated from.

Additionally, get your head out of the sand.

[real chili 83]

It's my opinion, never been impressed by anyone from large state universities.  Everyone I've ever hired are from small private colleges.

And I'll go one step further, large suburban high schools suffer from the same problem.  5% get a decent education and the rest are pushed along and get a crappy education, just like large state universities. 

Never send you kids to a public high school larger than 500, they are also nothing but warehouses of humanity.  Exception will be made for private or catholic schools above 500.

I don't do this often to another poster....but your post is idiotic.   My kids had/are having a great time academically and also with athletics at a school that is 4x over your stated threshold for a quality education.