Talk:Public Ivy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Material copied from Talk:Public Ivies

[edit] "Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting out

For reference, here are the conference affiliations for each of the Public Ivies that play 1-A football...

Atlantic Coast Conference

Big East Conference

Big 10 Conference

Big 12 Conference

Mid-American Conference

Pac-10 Conference

Southeastern Conference

...And those that don't play 1-A football

CoolKatt number 99999 01:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

As I noted on the "Little Ivies" discussion page, this is an almost completely arbitrary label. What, exactly, makes a public university an "Ivy"? What differentiates Penn State, Rutgers, SUNY or Vermont from the universities of Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and so on? The Ivy League -- which does not, of course, include Stanford, MIT, Duke, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice or any of the elite liberal arts colleges -- is an eight-school football conference, not a comprehensive group of the top schools in the United States.

Take the term for what it is worth and what it represents. Those other schools you name are top notch private universities. These public ivies are schools that provide a similar enriching academic experience and ambiance to the ivy league schools in the Northeast.

What it represents is completely wrong. Putting aside the merits of these schools and the Ivy League schools, these schools are not similar in ambience to Ivy schools. They feel quite different, as I know from personal experience. I'm quite flabbergasted that the people who created these lists feel otherwise. --C S 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for every school on either list (Public Ivy or Ivy League), but I can tell you that of the two schools I have seen up close and spent time at, the University of Virginia and Dartmouth College are surprisingly similar, given that one is in New England and one in the South. They are mostly dis-similar in size and not much more. The ambiance is very similar at the two universities, from the Palladian architecture to the frat boys, and I could easily confuse the Tuck School of Business for something that belongs near the Rotunda, or the Thayer School for SEAS (both tiny engineering programs not well known). Not to mention, both of the schools' strengths are the liberal arts, and both sets of student bodies are "preppie" faux-outdoorsy types. And, U.S. News would seem to agree with me. –Uris 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your feedback, and others have told me similar things about the University of Virginia. But I was thinking more along the lines of how the University of California (at Davis) compared to Cornell. They are so extremely dissimilar it's funny that anybody would claim the opposite. --C S 01:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand the apprehension with some of the "other" public ivies (by Greene) which I think tends to dilute the "true" public ivies (incidentally--public ivies included all the UC schools not just Berkeley--i.e. including UCLA and UCSD which are perenially ranked high in the US News rankings). So as to truly emphasize what's going on here (i.e. the public ivies by Greene vs. the "true" public ivies as they were originally named and to allow the real comparison), I will separate them if that's okay.

In my opinion, it's not the prestige but the education that counts. Since the public ivies are generally cheaper than the real ones, and at times give the same education, for those who are not the Clintons and Bush's of the world it is much more worth it. Unless you have the money to pay for Yale and the political career that would need such social prestige, then public ivies stand as the much wiser choice. --User:Ummakynes 15:29, 15 March 2006

I happen to agree with you. But the prestige counts for those to whom prestige is important. It isn't doing anyone a service to pretend that the United States is an egalitarian, classless society. There are people whose goal is to become one of the Clintons or Bushes of the world. Gerald Ford proves that it is possible for a University of Michigan graduate to become President, but nevertheless the odd favor the Yale graduate. (Me? I wouldn't want to be President, those grapes are sour, anyway). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

All -- I feel that including photographs in this article can only lead to ill will. There's not enough room to include photos of every campus mentioned, so then we're left with trying to mediate which ones get included. Feelings are bound to be hurt. It's not as pretty, but I think all the photographs should just be deleted. Thoughts? · Katefan0(scribble) 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0... that solution would indeed be less aesthetically pleasing! But in response to your concerns, I think we should have photos of all 8 of the universities listed in Moll's 1985 book Pubilc Ivies. I've already put up 6 of the 8, but Miami University and the University of Texas at Austin (Hook 'em!) don't seem to have any usable photographs as of yet. I was able to find one in the Commons for Vermont, though there was none on the actual Wikipedia page.
The photos...
  • have 1 descriptive line and are set to 162px to avoid spillover in IE (160px was all it took for Firefox)
  • Preferably depict a notable campus landmark.
  • Are wide instead of tall, to make room for all 8 schools.
  • Are listed by school name in reverse alphabetical order, since the list on the page was arbitrarily alphabetized.
  • Are in color, not black and white.
–Uris 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I had to remove a photograph of Miami University that was way too tall. Please see above about my reasoning. Cheers! –Uris 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have since replaced it with a "wide" image (that is also much crisper) that I found in the public domain at the EPA website. Now we just need a wide photo from the University of Texas and we're done with the 8 photos. If the photos go too far down the page, it will be easy to add a bit more to the article. Cheers! –Uris 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found a fair use photo for the University of Texas. Moll's original 8 now all have photos down the side! –Uris 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why have the photos at all? There are links to all of the schools, which each apparently have photos. The title "Public Ivy" is an indisputably malleable term, denoting at least two sets of schools. If we are to include pictures, why only of the "original" PI's? I doubt they add much either way, though, and I would be for cutting. Rkevins82 - TALK 19:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public Ivies do not exist as a group

This is an article about the public ivies... those other schools may be ranked by US News as the top public schools but that doesn't belong on this article

I will certainly grant that "Public Ivies" is a term that has been used in a published book, and therefore is not undeserving of mention. However, the "Public Ivies" do not exist as a group, in the same way that Ivy League schools do (The Ivy League after all is an organized athletic conference). To compare public schools to the ivies, and characterize them as similar to certain Ivy schools is fine, but to present Public Ivies as either a commonly used term or as though it were a set group is misleading. And given the diverse nature of the various Ivy campuses (urban, rural, large population, small, varied graduate schools, undergraduate schools, affiliates etc) comparisons between these Public schools and specific Ivies should be reserved for their individual article pages. I would suggest limiting the detail of this page to summarizing the content of those books that specifically mention the term "Public Ivies," so as to avoid boosterism and a "runaway" article. IvyLeagueGrunt 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, the term isn't misleading in the least. While you may think you're serving some elitist purpose by "protecting" the Ivy branding, the term public ivy" is actually a tremendous (and perhaps undeserved) compliment to Ivy-League Schools. As you point out, Ivies differ in various ways; you do not mention that one of those variables is quality. Some ivy-league schools benefit from, well, merely being in the same athletic conference as others. At the same time, the term "Ivy" has come to connote high-quality education. To be sure, everyone knows the only Ivy League schools are those in the Ivy League. The whole point of this article, then, is that some public schools are considered the peers of Ivy League schoos, which, painting with a broad brush, are considered superior. It is to your snobby benefit to promote use of the term. It confers a patina on Ivy League schools that isn't uniformly deserved. unsigned comment by 71.137.234.129

  • The public "Ivies" are only considered by most people to be comparable to the Ivy League Schools in terms of academics. The only thing worse than having a class structure in the United States is having one but pretending that we do not have one. People who attend the University of Michigan can receive a fine education, but are much less likely to be be listed in the Social Register than people who attend Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Clearly I went to a public school - I don't even know what the Social Register is. Rkevins82 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
See The Straight Dope and, of course, Social Register. Let's put it another way. In this great land of ours, anyone—even a graduate of the University of Michigan—can become President of the United States. However, the odds are noticeably better for graduates of Harvard or Yale. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparable only in terms of "academics?" The prestige conferred on Ivy League schools comes from their academics (not, you'll be shocked to discover, their athletics), so I'm not sure what this means. Also, regarding the odds of becoming President or "making it big": Many studies have concluded that individuals who had the choice between Ivy League schools and state institutions (or private schools with scholarships) and chose the latter ended up doing just as well as their Ivy League counterparts. The individuals who graduate from Ivy League schools do better because of who they are, not necessarily what the institution is.

The talk page is for discussions about the article, not criticisms of its subject matter. Dave 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Dmlandfair|Dave] I think it's borderline but on-topic because it relates to what ought to be in the article. Anon, the prestige conferred by Ivy League schools comes, or traditionally came, from the selectivity they exercised in their admissions which was not based solely on academic merit but on judgements of "lineage," social standing, etc. I agree with the "who" factor, but the prestige of the Ivies depends on part on "who" attends. The prevalance of Ivy Leaguers in the Social Register and in the White House is not completely explained by the academic excellence of the Ivies. It's all very unpleasant (to me), and I believe the "social" factor in Ivy League selection is less important than it was some decades ago, but it still exists. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miami (of Ohio) University

Referring to revert of [3 November 2005], yes, there is another university associated with "Miami" - the University of Miami. Even though it's private, these schools are routinely confabulated which is why it's "Miami of Ohio" in virtually every press account. TV and newspaper accounts in Cleveland even refer to this institution as Miami (Ohio) or "Miami of Ohio."

I'm from Ohio and thought the Public Ivies article was referring to the football factory in Florida, which seemed strange. Miami alumni may hate the reference, but it saves a lot of confusion for the rest of us. Personally, I'd think that alumni would want to differentiate. MARussellPESE 20:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My comment should have made the issue clear. There is only one Miami University and the other is University of Miami. If clarification is necessary, the user can click the link...that's why it is a link. Newspaper accounts are also a bad example. Newspapers and television are cramped for space and saying "Miami (OH)" or "Miami (FL)" allows them to conserve the space that would be used by full names. Of course, you never see Cornell University listed as "Cornell of New York," either. Given that Cal and SUNY combine for three dozen schools, without clarification, I find it obtuse that Miami is singled out. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is very obtuse; but I think that's what encyclopedias are for. Not trying to step on toes here, but I do think that Miami University deserves to be distinguished clearly and not get confabulated with the football factory in Florida. I had no idea Miami University was on this kind of list. (Point against my own ignorance.)
No one's going to confabulate Cornell with anyone else; but which UC Campus does the book talk about? I doubt UC Davis or Irvine were (albeit fine institutions), but I don't know if it was Berkeley or UCLA, or both. (As an aside, "Cal" means UC Berkeley exclusively. Mom's a golden bear.) I think that that would be good to clarify, but I don't have the reference at hand.
"Moll's book considered the entire University of California system as one institution." http://www.answers.com/topic/public-ivy#wp-_note-2 Unsuspected 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is some way to clarify this that's acceptable, let's do it. The article does identify UNC Chapel Hill and UT Austin. Say: Miami University, Oxford, Ohio?
If we were really trying to be pedantic about this, we'd call out UM - Ann Arbor, Illinois - Urbana-Champaign, etc., but these schools aren't likely to get confused with another school like Miami. (Can you guess which one I mean?)
MARussellPESE 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The University of Washington, Seattle (a public university) and Washington University, St Louis (a private university) have the same problem. Writers either list them as I have done above or sometimes shorten them to Washington, Seattle and Washington, St Louis.--Highdesert 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I can forgive you not knowing Miami was on the list. The list is a joke. But that's beside the point. I do find the current form more than acceptable. It is informative, without being insulting. I'll add info on the rest of the schools tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. Aside on UNC and Texas...the full and correct names of those schools include the city name. Michigan does not, but I think Illinois does. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who is familiar with Miami University recognizes its unique place in American higher education. This school screams ivy league ambiance and top notch academic and intellectual climate but unlike these Big 10 schools, it's focus is entirely high quality undergraduate education. Miami is absolutely deserving of being on this list. Just step on campus and you'll see the Miami magic.
Why, then, has the Ohio State University now surpassed Miami University in the U.S. News rankings? "Miami magic?" That's laughable. I have a friend who goes to Miami and can't wait to transfer.
Miami and Ohio State are hardly competing peer institutions as far as focus. Miami is primarily focused on top-notch undergraduate education while Ohio State is a ultra-large Big 10 doctoral extensive (Miami is classified as a doctoral intensive) research university. Historically Miami has always ranked higher than Ohio State and only in recent years due largely to the increasing caliber of their graduate programs has Ohio State peaked Miami. Without Miami, there would be no Ohio State if you read into Ohio State's history as a small agricultural college in Columbus. Also, there's a certain charm to Miami's campus that just isn't like any large tower dorm you're going to get in downtown Columbus on High Street. Numbers only tell part of the story. Good luck.

I have to admit that after reading this article, it became pretty clear that one of its authors had an obvious agenda to promote Miami of Ohio. Really, when it comes down to numbers OR reputation, Miami is not is a class with these other schools. Since when did people bring up Miami of Ohio in a conversation with UVa, Michigan, Cal, William and Mary, etc?

I agree. Just how in the hell does Miami (Ohio) compare in any way to Michigan, UCLA, Berkley, Virginia, UNC Chapel Hill or William and Mary? I'm sure it's a fine school and all but not good enough in reputation to be included with the afore-mentioned group. Ridiculous, another example of how a small group with vested interests makes Wikipedia fall short of quality. 71.50.13.185 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The affection that these lists show for Miami is a product of its history. It has produced presidents, supreme court justices, business leaders, and many other notables. When Ohio State University was teaching animal husbandry and metallurgy, Miami had established departments in many of the liberal arts. Up until the last few decades Miami could legitimately claim to be the top in the state. Quality indicators, such as those already mentioned have nullified and reversed this. That said, Miami has a strong tradition of focusing on undergraduate education and is an excellent institution. Rkevins82 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it's a fine institution and all, but when the phrase "public ivy" is uttered by an institution like say the NY Times, Miami (Ohio) is and as far as I can tell, never been associated with the term like the other schools mentioned. It's obvious parochial interests are at work here making the whole article sub-par. Virgil61 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that the concept of a "Public Ivy" is of limited value, not that the article is sub-par. The article gives a fair explanation of the concept, as rendered by multiple authors. Rkevins82 15:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
For the overall college experience, ivy campus ambiance, and razor sharp focus on undergraduates, Miami is very deserving to be among the ranks of these other research-based mega-universities. From the outsiders perspective, it's completely understandable however a closer look at the founding of this frontier university from the early days in our country to its unwavering (and unique for a national university) focus on undergraduates elevates the academic caliber to a level of rivalring parity to Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina. Lest we forget, only the ignorant public and ESPN calls this school Miami (Ohio). The institution is chartered as "The Miami University", called for by the U.S. Congress and approved by the state of Ohio in 1809. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.37.112 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
the academics at Miami rival UVa's and Michigan's?!? That's laughable! Take the caliber of students admitted: my high school (outside of Ohio) had 5-6 students admitted to Miami and positively NONE of these students would have had a ghost of a chance at getting into UVa, for example. There are many other ways to objectively quantify the quality of the student body, and I am sure that whatever parameter used will reveal that Miami has no business being mentioned in the same breath as these other schools. Someone with a hard-core pro-Miami agenda has obviously co-opted this page and made some absurd claims. Find me one guidance counselor at a high school outside of Ohio who thinks Miami belongs in the same league as these other schools. This page has become a laughable example of what happens when someone wants to forcefully apply their views onto a wikipedia entry.
Not to mention that Ohio State's admission standards are MUCH higher than those of Miami. Many students admitted to Miami don't come close to getting into OSU. Ohio State is really distancing itself as the flagship institution in the state of Ohio, and with the new education leadership, I don't see that gap getting any smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.53.4 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location, Location, Location

The UC campus is Berkeley. [1] & [2]. I'll bet the SUNY campus is Binghamton, but could be Stony Brook. [3] MARussellPESE 18:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, [1] and [2] are unreliable. They both are copies of old Wikipedia data. I am willing to bet it is Berkeley, but would just like confirmation. -James Howard (talk/web) 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In the 1960s and 1970s if you referred to the University of California it meant the Berkeley campus only. Other campuses were referred to by their location UCLA, UC Davis, UC Riverside, US Santa Cruz etc. Times change and now you have to state the campus location. The UC System is headquartered in Oakland.

[edit] Big Ten Schools

Maybe this is just my opinion, but isn't Minnesota more of a Public Ivy than Penn State or Indiana? Consistently, it seems to have more top-notch faculty members than either of the other schools and is generally recognized as less of a "party school" (IU) or a "jock school" (PSU). 129.105.104.223 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A few things: 1. these ratings are dated, 2. these ratings do not appear to be based on a great deal of obective criteria, 3. Penn and Indiana are both very good schools, as is Minnesota. I'm not clear on what you mean by "jock school" or even "party school." The three have similar admission profiles, athletic programs, and college drinking cultures. My experience has been that students either overrate their school's reputation in one of the categories (if they approve) or overrate another school (if they disapprove).

This is the point of other editors - what separates a Penn State from a Rutgers, Wisconsin from Minnesota, Cal from UCLA. Rkevins82 00:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, has this one been up for deletion? I think the whole "x Ivies" categorization is, to be blunt, stupid. The Ivy League isn't the end-all be-all of American education that all other schools strive for. Why people continue to use terms like "small ivies" or "public ivies" is beyond me. Let me put it this way: if I were an engineering student, I would rather graduate from Illinois engineering or Michigan engineering than ANY Ivy League engineering program. Isn't it something of an insult to continually use such term? Arbitrary, pointless article. Sonofabird 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it has been up for deletion. It just rehashes the books and explicates a somewhat common term, no matter how useless. Rkevins82 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Academic Comparisons"

The academic comparisons section risks becoming a collegiate statistics sniping contest if this page is going to be used to highlight the individual achievements of public colleges in the United States. Is this page really going to endeavor to list every single outstanding department in every good public school in America? If not (and it shouldn't), the academic comparisons section really should only contain commentary that applies to most or all of the "Public Ivies" (so, for instance "UVA has a really good law school" should be on UVA's page, not this one). - JDoorjam 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This page keeps attempting to slowly add obscure statistics that make the "Public Ivies" seem as though they equal or surpass the Ivies in various areas, usually by leaning on UVA, Cal, and the University of Michigan. But the fact is that most of the "Public Ivies" are not and will never be seriously considered peer institutions to the Ivy League, period. If you're going to make a general statement comparing the Ivies to the "Public Ivies," that's prettymuch the only one you can make. You really can't generally claim that they "outpace Ivy grad schools," because the Ivies have some of the best grad programs in the country, too. Are there some public schools with good grad programs? Of course! Do all of these public schools have grad programs that out-do those of the Ivies? Absolutely not. If you want to make puffy statements about these schools, find some individual stats and list them on THEIR PAGES. But if you can't make a general (and accurate) statement about the entire collective of "Public Ivies," then leave it off the page. The attempted glorification through twisting of statistics on this page is rather ridiculous. JDoorjam 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Do not remove relevant, factual references. The statistics are relevant and factual. That alone is enough to include them here. –Uris 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Factual, yes. Relevant, no. Not unless you're comparing ALL or even MOST of the "Public Ivies" to all or most of the actual Ivy League. Otherwise you'll end up mired in delightful statistics about 38 different schools on this page. JDoorjam 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
50.001% would be "MOST" as you so emphatically put it, so I'm assuming you have no problem with 50.000% of the Public Ivies that were so-named when the 1993 Guide came out. With 1/2 of the original 8 Public Ivies having lower acceptance rates than one or more Ivies in that year, it is certainly relevant and thus the information should and will stay on the page unless you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands (but, you know, whatever). –Uris 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Which ones? And which Ivies? JDoorjam 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
UVa, UNC, Berkeley, and W&M all had lower acceptance rates than Penn. Some were lower than other Ivies... but of course you said this shouldn't be about the individual schools. So that's as far as this conversation should go. It's enough that 50% were higher than at least one, since this is the Public Ivies page (50% lower) and not the Ivy League page (12.5% to 37.5% higher). –Uris 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Humor me. I want to know the breakdown so we can reach some sort of finalized wording we all can live with. JDoorjam 21:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You are bothered about the wording? How would you like to change it? You need no more information to know that what I have worded is factual. –Uris 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't seen your wording yet. To be honest, I'm really just curious what the breakdown was. I agree: your wording is concise, factual, and informative. I'd add "good job!" but fear that, given the, erm, passion of the discussion so far, you'd think I was trying to patronize you, which I'm not. I'm still not clear on why you insist on mentioning that Cornell has publicly funded units, unless you wanted to start a new section explaining how "Public Ivies" is a bit of a misnomer because of it, but I think that's probably been argued to a stand-still.

[edit] Cornell's public affiliation

You also keep claiming that Cornell is "100% private". That is wrong. Cornell may not want to advertise their partially public status, but they obviously charge less in tuition to New York State residents in their schools of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Human Ecology, and Industrial and Labor Relations.[4] That would be illegal if those parts of Cornell were private as you falsely claim. –Uris 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Illegal? What are you talking about? They're a land-grant institution and they receive funding from the New York State. They're not the only private land-grant institution. "Not want to advertise." Why wouldn't they? It'd be a great statistic for them to say they consistently are the highest-ranked public school. Receiving funding from the state does not a public university make. JDoorjam 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
MIT was founded as a land-grant institution...
The three colleges for which Cornell receives state funding are "contract colleges," which are run through a contract with the state of New York. To paraphrase User:Nohat, it is akin to a contractor working on a public road, or a consultant working for the federal government. They do work for the government but they are still employees of private companies. JDoorjam 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a source? Jim Apple 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For what? That the contract colleges are contracted with the state of New York? BTW, your justification for submission is not entirely correct (Cornell has always been funded by the state, yes, but was created privately), and can also be applied to another land grant institution, the Massachussetts Institute of Technology. Does Wiki count as a source? Go check out statutory college (a page my quill has never touched, for the record.) Please tell me what's inaccurate about that page, or let's change the wording to reflect Cornell's fully private status. JDoorjam 20:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a good source, but if that information is correct, it convinces me. Of course, the NY state code external link is broken. Jim Apple 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That link was interesting. It proves that Cornell includes degree-granting units of the State University of New York. "Public" or "private" may be pure semantics, so let's be specific. –Uris 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The statutory colleges are partners of the State University of New York, but they are wholly controlled by Cornell's Board of Trustees (which, by Cornell's 1865 Charter, includes the Governor of New York as an ex officio member). What the sentence about being degree-granting units of SUNY means is that all statutory colleges grant degrees (with standards of admission and completion of academic programs determined wholly by the rules of the institution) and that these colleges, which predate SUNY, are affiliated with SUNY (as they have been since 1948). In other words, the state funds that go to the statutory colleges are a piece of the SUNY operating budget (hence they are administratively a part of SUNY), and SUNY gets a say, but ultimately has no control. btm 08:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out this misleading sentence on the statutory college page. I changed it over there. I'm proposing a new wording on this page; feel free to discuss here. btm 08:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the point of the entire article is that there are public schools that have the juh neh say qua of the Ivy League, and we've now established Cornell is 100% private,and the whole point is to make a strong juxtaposition (Ivies: private; "Public Ivies": public but Ivy-like), and this article is not Quirky things about public-private relationships in colleges and universities in the Northeast, and the content at the top simply reworded the footnote at the bottom without mentioning Cornell, I consolidated it at the bottom. I also made the language even more technically correct: there is only one SUNY-affiliated school at Cornell; the rest are colleges. JDoorjam 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Humorously put. I agree; the lead section (and in particular lead sentence) should an overview of the "Public Ivies" and doesn't need to include clarifying facts about the nature of Cornell's relationship with the state. The footnote should suffice, as it may be interesting to some — however, that is really what wikilinks are for. (BTW, I believe it's je ne sais quois =).
For those who are interested in this whole Cornell-NYS relationship thing, you can read about the rulings of the courts when one of the statutory colleges was sued under New York's Freedom of Information Law, which applies only to state agencies [5]. btm 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Side pictures and edit links

There seems to be an issue with the side pictures in Firefox 1.5 on my computer. I made this edit correct the problem, since reverted by an anonymous user. On my version, the section edit links appear next to their section headings, as appropriate. On the preceding and succeding versions of the page (current version as of this post), all the section edit links are clumped together at the bottom of the page, with "See also"'s underscore running through the links.

There is a little bit of discussion mirrored on my talk page and Rkevins82's talk pages about this.

I'm not trying to make an edit which breaks the appearance on everyone else's browser. Can other people take a glance and tell me if it looks right or not?

To note, the problem isn't reproducible without editing the page and breaking WP:POINT, because section edit links do not appear in archived versions or previews. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A new design idea

What would y'all think about getting some photos of some of the Ivies that look similar to those photos we already have of the Public Ivies? Instead of eight shots down the side, we could have, say, three sets of pairs of photos demonstrating visually the similarity in aesthetics. JDoorjam 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic comparisons

And here, for some reason, I thought at least the aesthetics section would be non-controversial! (I thought we could all agree with "everybody's pretty", eh?) My concern with the "U.Va. should come first because it's a World Heritage Site" logic is that, as you state, it's the only college campus that's been given such a designation... so it's not much of a comparison, is it? I mean, it's neither something that stands out as contrasting all or most (my favorite phrase, I know) of the Public Ivies from the Ivy League, nor does it bring them all together... it seems to simply be a flattering thing to mention about the University of Virginia. Is there an explanation as to how the World Heritage site designation makes U.Va. more Ivy-like, especially considering the other world heritage sites are mostly non-Ivy-like national parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone, or the Statue of Liberty? -- JDoorjam

Point taken about World Heritage, I have removed it. However, you yourself admitted that Dartmouth had not built the similar buildings until much later than U.Va. did, yet you say that "predate" is undocumented? You seem to not believe yourself. Also the quote by the New York Times is a comparison between U.Va.'s campus and all others in the country including those of the Ivy League. Did you expect them to say "a better campus plan than any of those in the Ivy League" instead of comparing its aesthetics to all others, such as Stanford, as well? –Uris 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't U.Va's page. If you want to put that on U.Va's page, please do -- it seems factual and relevant (and I'm sure it's already there). But yes, if you're going to put it on this page, then that's exactly what I expect: a direct comparison between the "Public Ivies" and the Ivy League. Just because it has to do with U.Va., and is factually true, does not mean it belongs here. JDoorjam 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It was a relevant comparison between U.Va. and the Ivy League. Between the "Public Ivies" and the Ivy League, no. The whole section was only about U.Va. and W&M which is why, sadly, I did delete it. I don't think the other Public Ivies are comparable in those ways to UVa and W&M due to the limited history of the other states. In the days these universities were being founded, New England and Virginia were much more prominent than what is now the rest of the country. Uris 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Then perhaps that section should say that some are similar and some are dissimilar. My point remains the same: that the New York Times thinks U.Va. has an excellent layout really doesn't have much to do with its similarity to the Ivy League. But, IMHO, I think that this section might be worth bringing back at some point if it can say "these are similar, these are not." JDoorjam 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps..... it seems like it would be an unusual section though? Uris 17:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of California

With regard to the California schools being originial or new, I have no idea. I only saw the 2001 book. UCLA is definitely included in the new list and as far as I can tell "University of California" is on the original. At very least UCLA should be included in the updated list here. UCLA was added anonymously (08:37, 21 December 2005 71.137.227.23) at first to the original list. Psyx 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Irvine and Davis are mentioned in several books Public Ivies listings... Check out page 53 in Cool Colleges: For the Hyper-Intelligent, Self-Directed, Late Blooming, and Just Plain Different (ISBN 1580081509) and page 117 in The College Finder, Revised Edition (ISBN 0449003892).
Do the books refer to them as Public Ivies in a list, or does it say they are cool, geared toward the intelligent, or something else? Those can be added along with the other colleges those books identify as Public Ivies. However, I would like to note that University of California, Irvine and University of California, Davis are already included as members of the University of California System. Rkevins82 00:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Moll's book considered the entire University of California system as one institution." http://www.answers.com/topic/public-ivy#wp-_note-2 Unsuspected 21:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not "prestige."

The public Ivies are said to provide a collegiate experience and quality of education comparable to the Ivy League. They are not comparable to the Ivy League in social prestige. Despite some degree of egalitarianism in the United States, there is still a social pecking order, and the George W. Bushes of the world go to Harvard and Yale, not to the University of Wisconsin. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're approximately 24% right. While it's true that many unthinking people confer more prestige on a graduate of an actual Ivy (as opposed to, say, MIT -- ha!), it's not true that the George W. Bushes of the world go to Harvard and Yale. Yes, THE George W. Bush did, but plenty of other powerful people were educated elsewhere. Take, say, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton. He did go to Yale Law; he also went to Georgetown for undergrad. Turned out all right for him. unsigned comment by 71.137.234.129

He also went to Oxford, which one could argue is more like a "public ivy" than most on the list.... I don't recall anyone, for obvious reasons, calling Georgetown or MIT a Public Ivy, and as you point out, Clinton went to Yale, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. JDoorjam 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You proved my obvious point even more: The George W. Bushes of the word do not necessarily go to Ivy League schools. The point is that Clinton isn't strictly Ivy League; many others are not either. Note that the above comment, the one that prompted my response, said that "the Geroge W. Bushes of the world go to Harvard and Yale...." The implication was that they go to Ivies. My point was that that is the case less often than indicated. Thank you, though, for helping me to make my point by pointing out that Georgetown and MIT are not Ivies, something at which I had not even hinted.

An MIT degree does not confer much if any social prestige on its holder. This is probably because MIT admissions have always been pretty much meritocratic. You'll notice, too, that no MIT graduates have reached the White House (although Carter attended Georgia Tech). The presence of "MIT" on a resume certainly opens some doors, above and beyond the actual academic achievement of the candidate, but they are not the same doors that are opened by Williams or Yale. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


What exactly is the point you are trying to make? The original statement was that public ivies don't hold the same *prestige* as the real ivies, and you arguing back that there are successful people who didn't go to an ivy. No shit, but that doesn't counter anything the original poster said. It's a subjective statement so perhaps there is no point in arguing it here anyway. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). Rm999 00:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Notion about prestige should be removed. That is education eliticism, which is way too rampaged in Wikipedia. This is a discussion about Public Ivy as defined by the author. --Mcks 17:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell

Cornell? What's Cornell doing here? Cornell is an honest-to-gosh member of the Ivy League, nothing public about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was founded in part as a state land-grant institution and seems at least partly public. But because it's in the Ivy League, you're certainly right, it can't be a Public Ivy.

[edit] Faulkner?

13:08, 11 August 2005 208.254.206.41 inserted the sentence saying that the term was

coined by the writer William Faulkner to describe the University of Virginia, where he served as Writer-In-Residence from 1957-1962.

I can't find a source for it. Googling on "William Faulkner" "Public Ivy" turns up dozens of Web hits... but most of them seem to be derived from Wikipedia, or don't themselves give a source.

Anyone have a source? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetization

The two schools of thought on this, that I can tell, seem to rotate around whether to consider the words "University of" or "College of" when alphabetizing, or whether to eschew these and get straight to the "Virginia"s and "William and Mary"s. I, for one, am a fan of ignoring the "College/University of" language, but given the number of times this has flopped back and forth recently, are there other thoughts on this? (Given the conflict with which this page was rife for a while, it's nice that the editing process has calmed down to this being the main bone of contention....) JDoorjam 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree on skipping to "Virginia"... Rkevins82 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The 2005 Times Almanac with Information Please alphabetizes by entire name, i.e. all the "University Of's" collate together near the bottom; e.g.
IDAHO
Albertson College of Idaho
Boise State University
Idaho State University
Lewis-Clark State College
Northwest Nazarene University
University of Idaho
University of Phoenix-Idaho Campus
I personally don't care, but if you want to alphabetize them the other way I think you should permute the name, "Virginia, University of." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
When I added the missing schools from the book, I ordered them in the same order as the book. In the book they appear as follows:
University of Arizona
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Indiana University Bloomington
University of Iowa
University of Maryland College Park
Miami University (Oxford, Ohio)
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Michigan State University
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
State University of New York at Binghampton
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Ohio State University (Columbus)
Pennsylvania State University (University Park) 
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (New Brunswick)
University of Texas at Austin
University of Virginia
University of Washington
College of William and Mary
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Note each is basically alphabetized by "keyword", there is no "The" on OSU, and all the California schools are listed seperately. Psyx 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, i like the idea of alphabetizing by the actual name of the institution (ie. "University of..." comes toward the end of the alphabetical list). The list above is not in alphabetical order, even if the "keywords" in the names are. If you are going to alphabetize by keyword, which is not such a bad idea even if it's not my personal favorite, then the names should be reordered so that the list is alphabetical, that is: "Iowa, University of" and William and Mary, College of" because when you look at the list as it is, it looks fairly arbitrary and random, and the idea is to make it readable. (Dpbsmith, sorry! i had to look!) -Bindingtheory 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The list should look alphabetized. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons to the Ivy League as an Athletic League

There must be an unbiased way of pointing out the incongruity of a school like the University of Virginia claiming to be a Public Ivy and granting athletic scholarships at the same time. Admittedly, the "Public Ivy" ethos (if one exists) does not ban scholarships, but the Ivy League generally does, and it is, after all, officially an athletic league at heart.

In the ongoing discussion of how to phrase this, the article has acquired a few statements to the effect that "Ivy League sports programs and in Division I-AA and don't generate much television revenue; some Public Ivies are in big leagues and depend on such revenue and therefore give their players scholarships." Doubtless that's the way the world works (isn't it like responding "But the sex is given in return for money!" to a charge of prostitution?), but it's missing the point: the Ivy League is staking out an educational policy position when it restricts the emphasis on athletics, a position that many of the Public Ivies (presumably for very good reasons) decline to adopt even as they are being commended in this article for imitating all of the other aspects of the league (except the price, of course).

The "public ivies" do not imitate or resemble the Ivy League schools in all aspects. The only respect in which they are said to be comparable is: 1) academic quality, and 2) "collegiate experience." I rather question even the latter. I can't personally speak to the "collegiate experience" at Moll's original list of eight;—I can believe the College of William and Mary might be very Ivy-like—but the undergraduate experience at a place like the University of Wisconsin or the University of Colorado is not very Ivy-like. There is a fine education to be had at these schools, but a student needs to be proactive to get it, and students frequently sink and drown without anybody noticing, much less pitching them a life preserver.
By the way, I was digging up some stuff on Harvard president Charles W. Eliot, who pretty much turned Harvard into a modern university (and set the model for other universities), and, boy, did he ever hate football. He tried (unsuccessfully) to abolish it altogether at Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
See University of Chicago if you like Charles Eliot's animosity toward football. Rkevins82 08:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done some work on this section; IMO, it's worth mentioning the difference (as the Ivy League is itself technically only an athletic conference), but not over-emphasizing it. The Ivy analogy can only go so far, as large public universities have a different mission. VT hawkeyetalk to me 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social prestige

The Ivy League, particularly Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and the "little Ivies," have or had a special and privileged relationship to the U. S. power structure. This can be shown objectively by the overrepresentation of graduates of these schools in the Social Register.

Cause and effect are not clear, but certainly during, say, 1920 to 1970, these schools' "selectivity" in admissions included many factors other than academic merit, such as "lineage." Graduation from these schools is or was considered a stamp of social approval as well as certification of academic accomplishment.

The "Public Ivies" admissions is meritocratic, and graduation from a"public Ivy" does not convey the same kind of social prestige.

All of this is ugly and not clearly spoken of, because in the United States we are reluctant to speak openly of the class structure that exists here.

I'm working on trying to find good, neutral sources documenting the social differences between universities. I don't have them lined up yet, but they exist.

Meanwhile, "Ivy" implies that the school indeed shares some characteristics with the schools of the Ivy League. In the case of the "little Ivies," this includes social prestige. In the case of the public Ivies (with the possible exception of William and Mary?) it does not.

Three Presidents attended "little Ivies." Jefferson, Monroe and Tyler attended William and Mary, but there have been none since. Aside from that, I believe Gerald Ford, who attended the University of Michigan, is the only President to have graduated from a "public Ivy." [6] Given the huge disproportion between the total enrollment of the "little Ivies" and the "public Ivies" that, I think, speaks fairly clearly to the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

-It should be noted that President James K. Polk was a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill [7]SuMadre 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, I think "offer a superior education, but at a public/state institution" is a fairly reasonable statement of what is claimed of "public Ivies." I'm afraid I have not yet gone to the trouble of getting a copy of Moll's original book to see exactly how he phrased it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBHE Report

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education has released a report entitled Comparing Black Enrollments at the Public Ivies which should probably be incorporated into this article -- if nothing else, it says the Moll list referred only to U.C. Berkeley, but that there are four other U.C.s that should be on the list, as should Georgia Tech. Thoughts on integration? JDoorjam 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I decided to Wikipedia:Be bold. I think that's a find. It gives the quote from Moll... I've been procrastinating on getting a copy of the book just to find out what he really said. It confirms Moll and the 2001 book by the Greenes as reasonable authorities for the term. And it gives a flattering description of the schools, but one which, IMHO, taken together with Moll's quote establishes that what the public Ivies share with the Ivy League is academic rigor, not social prestige.
Of course... given current trends... these days the cost of attending a "public Ivy" is climbing rapidly. It is tautological to say that public universities provide education at "a public school price" but that certainly doesn't mean what it meant when Moll said it. And let's not even talk about the effects of "enrollment management." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UVM's take on itself

It's interesting to do a Google site search on the University of Vermont, "public+ivy"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 site:www.uvm.edu "public ivy" . Scanning the hits reveals numerous references to the university's "Public Ivy era," with the clear implication that that era is in the past. DId the Greenes or anyone else pronounce the University of Vermont to have lost its "public Ivy" status? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here, a university office comments on "UVM's poor image: The reputation of UVM as a party school affects the university at all levels; it is more difficult to attract students and dollars because people no longer consider the institution the public ivy it once was." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think age factors in

Recently added:

The phrase "Public Ivy" is also used to refer to the age of an institution. At the time of the signing of Declaration of Independence, only nine colleges were in existence: Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, Brown University, University of Pennsylvania, College of William and Mary, and Rutgers University. The last two, now public institutions, are as a result commonly referred to as "Public Ivies."

However, the source citation supposedly supporting this is Rutgers: Public Ivy of National Distinction.

Yet, Rutgers own (self-promoting) article opens:

What It Means to Be a Public Ivy: Rutgers has recently been listed, along with such institutions as Berkeley, the University of Virginia, and William & Mary, in The Public Ivies, a volume in the Greenes' Guides to Educational Planning Series. The term "Public Ivy," introduced by college admissions officer Richard Moll in a 1985 book, is meant to identify a distinct class of public universities offering educational opportunities similar to those found at schools like Columbia, Harvard, Brown, and Dartmouth, but at a much lower cost.

This is in complete accord with what our article already says. It accepts Greenes' Guides as the current defining authority, it mentions Moll, and it gives Moll's definition: "Public Ivy" = Ivy-League-like educational opportunity at lower cost.

It then goes on with a second paragraph "Although many 'Public Ivies' are, historically speaking, of relatively recent date -- Berkeley, for example, was founded in 1868 and the University of North Carolina in 1795 -- a few are much older. Rutgers belongs to this group." In other words, Rutgers is not saying that being a "public Ivy" has anything to do with age. It is boasting about being a public Ivy that happens to be venerable in addition to being old. An extra added attraction, above and beyond its "public Ivy" status.

If someone can point to evidence that the Greenes or Moll considered institutional age to be an important factor in deciding whether an institution qualified as a "public ivy," that could reasonably go in the article... with a source citation. But I don't think they did.

Digression: Most of the "public Ivies" are, in fact, very roughly the same age: dating from a wave of such foundings that occurred after the Civil War, between 1870 and 1890, connected with the Morrill Act and with a new American conception of the "university" as nonsectarian and career-oriented... often with founders drawn from the ranks of businessmen rather than scholars.

Not only do many public Ivies belong to this wave:; so do Stanford, MIT, and the University of Chicago—and the Ivy League school, Cornell. It's true that the Ivy League is called the "Ancient Eight," but that's extension of the older phrase "Ancient Three" for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; Cornell is an Ivy League school that is conspicuously not "ancient."

Anyway, Rutgers and William and Mary are notable for their age, but I don't think age factors in at all into the definition of what it means to be a "public Ivy..." any more than it is is requirement for belonging to the Ivy League itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic comparison with Ivy League

I'm reinserting, in slightly modified form, the recently removed statement to the effect that the Public Ivies "generally rank below those of the Ivy League." The statement now reads:

Five of the top public universities rank among the top 30 national universities in the U.S. News & World Report rankings for 2006. Public universities have accomplished significant achievements, especially in their graduate-level and research programs. U. S. News ranks Berkeley's mechancal engineering program higher than that of any Ivy[8]; all three of the top-ranked pharmacy programs (UCSF, University of Texas—Austin, and UNC-Chapel Hill) are at public universities[9]. Still, as colleges, U. S. News generally gives them a ranking below those of the Ivy League. For example, in 2006, the highest-ranked "public Ivy" ranked 20th, while the lowest-ranked member of the Ivy League ranked 15th.[10] Nevertheless, the refusal of both the Ivies and the "Public Ivies" to publish standardized test results, such as LSAT, MCAT, GMAT and GRE scores, for their students makes objective academic comparisons difficult. [1]

I think this is valid because the phrase "public Ivies" implies a comparison to the Ivy League (as do the phrases in the opening paragraph about "an Ivy League collegiate experience at a public school price" and "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor."

I changed "many" to "several" in the phrase "many of the top public universities rank among the top 30 national universities" because, by my count, in the 2006 list, I see UNC, Michigan, UCLA, UVA, and Berkeley. I don't think four (Moll's list) or five (Greene's) quite qualify as "many."

But I'm bothered anyway, because I'm not sure why the dividing line was set at "top 30." "Top 10," and "Top 20" seem like natural breaks. "Top 30" does not. Had the dividing line been set at "top 20," only Berkeley would have make the cut. I have to wonder whether 30 was picked in order to bring in several others.

I'm also bothered by the vague comment about public universities having "accomplished significant achievements, especially in their graduate-level and research programs." I'm leaving this in (and giving some sourced particular examples), just as I'm leaving (but particularizing) the "top 30" comment, but they both seem to me to be an attempt to put a positive "spin" on things.

In any event, on the current U. S. News list, the "public Ivies" as a group does not even overlap the schools of the Ivy League. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "New Ivies"

Maybe it's time for a page on what seems intended as a replacement for the "Public Ivy" idea, the "New Ivy" (I guess it includes both public and private...) New Ivies --Editing 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • One recent news article doesn't make a new category notable or worth throwing away an established category. The New Ivy article recently put up might deserve an AfD as a result. —ExplorerCDT 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Deleting redundant lists"

Why do we have so many lists of Public Ivy? The list of Public Ivy listed in the Hidden Ivy is not only located in the Appendix but is also similar. I propose we delete it as it is just very confusing. 128.208.83.87 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular point. Personally, what I think is important is that we include only public ivies for which there is a reference... that is, a reasonably authorative published source that calls the school a "public ivy." It should not degenerate into a list of schools whom Wikipedia editors think deserve that title.
This is, thus, an article about "schools that have been called Public Ivies," and it's not unreasonable to have several lists.
The third list does serve two functions. It serves as a reference for a few other schools' being called "public ivies" that are not in the other lists. Boosters of those particular schools would probably not like to see it removed. More important, it shows that the concept of "public ivies" is pretty subjective and varies from authority to authority. But I don't think it adds much to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
On looking at this again, the Greene's second list from the appendix of "Hidden Ivies" does not add any schools. It does single out five University of California campuses by name, which the other lists don't. Also, if the book was quoted correctly (I don't have access to it and it doesn't appear to be searchable in a9 or Google Books) it appears that they omit Rutgers... which actually seems very odd to me.
It seemed to me that the right thing to do was mention the differences without either omitting the Greene's second list or giving it in full, so that's what I've done.
The Rutgers thing really bothers me... anyone who could check it would be doing the article a favor. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I own the book, Hidden Ivies (which is still in print and available for purchase if you want to check yourself) and Rutgers is not listed. I think that either we offer full lists from all of the books or summarize from all of the books in order to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Summary from each is probably best in terms of space, and in doing so you can note the differences between the two lists. For the moment I have restored the Hidden Ivies list, but you can take it off if you decide to summarize all of the lists. -Classicfilms 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I can probably get it by interlibrary loan. I shouldn't have said "I don't have access to it," I should have said "I haven't bothered."
I don't question what you say, I just wanted to be sure it wasn't a typo when you transcribed the list. I don't suppose they say why they added Rutgers?
(I somehow missed the rather obvious point that the Greenes' book "Hidden Ivies" is earlier than their books on the "Public Ivies." They didn't drop Rutgers, they added it). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material

I'm not sure Rutgers should necessarily be on this list before the likes of, say, Ann Arbor or Chapel Hill. I'd like to see a little discussion about what schools would qualify for this distinction. (I don't disagree with the other three listed.) --BDD 01:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that it's almost completely arbitrary which schools are listed. I'm sure nearly every major state university has been described as a "public Ivy" at some point; how is the University of Vermont any more or less "Ivy" than the universities of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine? The Ivy League -- which does not, of course, include Stanford, Duke, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Caltech, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Emory, Tufts, or any of the elite liberal arts colleges -- is an eight-school football conference, not a comprehensive group of the top schools in the United States. If Miami University is a "public Ivy," does that make Lehigh, Syracuse, and Pepperdine "private Ivies"?


Take the term for what it is worth and what it represents. Those other schools you name are top notch private universities. These public ivies are schools that provide a similar enriching academic experience and ambiance to the ivy league schools in the Northeast.

[edit] Removal of "flagship" language, Geneseo picture

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

Many public ivies are also so-called "flagship institutions" or "flagship universities" of a state, due to the perception of them being the best public university in a particular state.

because it is uncited and pure opinion. I have also removed the picture of Geneseo from the article because the custom has been to only put photos of Moll's list because adding more or all of the colleges would simply clutter the article. An arbitrary line had to be drawn somewhere, and I think the decision to only have those eight schools pictured was a good one. JDoorjam Talk 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Rkevins82 04:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

google +"public ivy" +flagship. there's two lists. simply because "clutter" is not a good reason to leave out a list of equal stature. good layout can overcome this.

Re pictures: It's not reasonable to have pictures of every school in this article. At some point, download speeds for dialup users becomes an issue. All of these schools have their own articles, and the image of the Grainger Library can be seen at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Re "flagship." The dictionary definition is:
1. A ship that carries a fleet or squadron commander and bears the commander's flag. 2. The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a newspaper chain; the flagship of a line of reference books.
In the case of a university, the term has a well-defined meaning. It refers to the university in a multi-university system where the administrative headquarters for the entire system are located. It has nothing to do with academic quality. Public universities are often part of multi-university system. Flagship campuses are usually the oldest, biggest, and often academically the best campuses in the system. Therefore, it is not surprising that some universities that are considered "public ivies" are also the flagship campuses of a system, but the two concepts are completely unrelated.
The University of California, Berkeley is both the flagship campus of the University of California system, and also a "public ivy."
The University of Massachusetts, Amherst is the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts system, but it is not a public ivy, because although it is a good school with a number of excellent departments, it does not rise to public ivy stature.
The College of William and Mary is certainly a "public ivy," arguably the iviest of them all, but it is not a flagship campus because it is not part of a multi-university system; it is not "William and Mary-Williamsburg," and there is no "William and Mary-Lexington," "William and Mary-Alexandria" or anything like that.
Harvard University, the most esteemed of the Ivy League schools, is not a flagship university either, for the same reason.
Re consensus. You need to make your case here and get consensus from the other editors of this page before you make your changes. Frankly, if we can't get a stable consensus on guidelines for including pictures I'm going to be tempted to just remove them all. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
P. S. The title of Richard Moll's 1985 book was given incorrectly; I don't know how long this was true. He did not use the word "flagship." The Greene and Greene book does use this word, but, what can I say? They simply are incorrect. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sept. 21

Many public ivies are also so-called "flagship institutions" or "flagship universities" of a state, due to the perception of them being the best public university in a particular state.

was added by 128.174.180.2 with no edit comment or discussion here. I've removed it again, per the above. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I've found a source which says:

It was in the context of this massive expansion, then, that the term "flagship" came to be used to refer to the original campus of the system, the campus from which branches were developed or other institutions attached. The metaphor obviously had a naval origin; each fleet has a flagship, the largest battleship or aircraft carrier from which the admiral directs the movements of the entire fleet. [11]

A recent edit comment challenged my statement that the "flagship" is the campus where the administration headquarters is located, noting that the University of California system has Berkeley as its "flagship," but administrative headquarters in Oakland. This is correct. I was wrong. I think this is an unusual case. I note that the University of California does not have any branch educational campus at Oakland--there is no students that attend "University of California, Oakland."

But in any case it's clear that there's no particular connection between "public ivies" and "flagship campuses." Flagship campuses are the oldest, and tend to be the larger and more academically distinguished campuses in a state university system, so it's logical that those public ivies that are state universities tend to be the flagship campuses. But, as I noted above, William and Mary (and for that matter University of Virginia, UVM, and Miami of Ohio) are not "flagships" no matter how good they may be, because they are not part of a system with multiple campuses. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm about ready to remove all the pictures

...for reasons articulated above by Katefan0. This portion of the article has always been unstable and contentious. Everyone seems to want to add their fave, and reorder them so that their fave is at the top. The pictures are mostly taken from and available at the articles for the individual schools.

If a picture of every school mentioned were included, there would be a serious download-speed issue for dialup users.

If we can't agree to keep the pictures limited to pictures of Moll's original eight, then I think we should remove the pictures altogether. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we not agree to that? We did a while ago; let's do a straw poll here. This might end conflict, but is a rather Pyrrhic victory. (FWIW, support limiting photos to Moll's 8.) JDoorjam Talk 05:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

  • There should be eight small thumbnails in the article depicting representative scenes at Moll's eight original "Public Ivies," and they should appear in alphabetical order.
  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is sensible and we've proven it works. JDoorjam Talk 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. agreed--Jiang 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. This was a much better looking article with the photos. SuMadre 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Of Course. These are after all the original 'Public Ivies'. YankeeGal 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Make Other Proposals Here:

  • There should not currently be photos on the article depicting "Public Ivies" as they add little to the article, attract vandalism, and slow-down page loading.
  1. Exclude Rkevins82 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. --Dmgz 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. --128.208.83.87 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Photos will cause other schools not part of the original Moll-8 to say "me too" and promote vandalism, edit wars, etc. ergo, Oppose. —ExplorerCDT 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Exclude. Both Moll and Green are legitimate Public Ivies. No distinction should ever be made. 202.156.6.54 04:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. No photos. This is drawing false equivalence with the Ivy League article, which this article should not try to do. The Ivy League is an official atheletic league, and this article is about a colloquialism that has been used by different folks at different times for different academic institutions. This is not to denegrate the institutions listed as Public Ivies, but this article should not try to be done in parallel with the Ivy League article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus is indeed the flagship campus...

A recent edit removed the statement that the University of Michigan is the flagship campus of the Michigan's state university system, on the grounds that "MSU and UM are co-equals concentrated differently." But "flagship" status has nothing to do with academic merits, and it is irrelevant that University of Michigan and Michigan State are "coequals." It is simply a statement of which campus is the oldest campus in the system, and the University of Michigan was founded in 1817 while Michigan State was founded in 1855. Michigan State, whatever its merits, is not the original campus from which the state university system grew.

It's like saying "Rhode Island is one of the thirteen original colonies and Texas is not." Texas may well be "coequal" with Rhode Island. Indeed, it may be bigger, better, wealthier, healthier, and more moral. Nevertheless, Texas is not one of the thirteen original colonies and never will be.

For example: (Google Book searches): Canada and the United States: Differences That Count by David M. Thomas says "States such as California, Michigan, and Texas operate entire 'systems,' with the original campus—say, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor or the University of Texas in Austin—now serving as the 'flagship' and major research institution...."

Funding a College Education by Alice Drum, Richard Kneedler states "Every state has its flagship university or universities; that is, the principal state university (or universities). Then include the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor..." followed by a list which does not include MSU.

A University for the 21st Century by James J. Duderstadt refers to "the flagship UM-Ann Arbor campus..." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, MSU is not part of the University of Michigan System. Apologies if this has been brought to your attention before.... Tomwithanh 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed: Rutgers and W&M asked to join Ivy League

I am disputing the claim that Rutgers and W&M were asked to join the Ivy League but declined. William & Mary was a public university at the time, and had been for a long time. The Ivy League, in contrast, was purposefully made up of private schools. W&M also had never played Yale in football, had only played Princeton 1 time in 80 years of the sport, etc. It had no rivalry with any of these schools. While Rutgers did enjoy a football rivalry with Princeton at the time, Rutgers had just merged with the University of Newark and so was a very large university with branches in different geographic locations... it would be hard to see them being asked as well. I find it highly doubtful. Also, would not one writer in the Internet Age have written an article lamenting the fact that one of these schools did not accept the invitation? ExplorerCDT cited numerous rolls of microfilm as his "source", saying that if he had to list an article, it would be a list of over 500 and too lengthy. He has consistently avoided the question as to why he can't list just one or two articles with actual dates, that someone could easily verify. Until specific articles with specific dates can be listed and verified, I am disputing the accuracy of these claims. Wise 13:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use Ivy League (talk) to discuss this issue. Uris 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed: Reversion from/deletion of University of Mississippi

I dispute the following, taken from the history page:

"00:20, 4 January 2007 ExplorerCDT (Talk | contribs) (reverting. OleMiss ain't relevant, and there's nothing in the reference to substantiate OleMiss making a "bid for inclusion" to a group that doesn't exist formally.)"

The above, frankly, is a pile of horseshit. I was the person who mentioned Ole Miss. I alluded to the school's current advertising slogan ("One of America's Great Public Universities") and added a footnote cite and link to the school's website. The use of the slogan, therefore, is not in dispute. The claim that "OleMiss[sic] ain't relevant" manifests ignorance of the meaning of the word "relevant." I won't re-edit the article yet, but I think this reversion raises (or rather re-raises) the question whether this article is about the substantive pretention to Ivy League-level prestige or whether it's just about the the use of the word "Ivy". I would argue that the subject, to be articlae-worthy in the first place, must be the general idea of prestige for public universities; I would further argue that a necessary part of this must be the aspirations of public schools themselves. It seems that other parts of the article comports my view: the word "Ivy" is the only word distinguishing Ole Miss's slogan from Murray State's and SUNY-Geneseo's. ExplorerCDT in his infinite wisdom did not edit these out. The Ole Miss slogan, like the Murray and Geneseo slogans, expresses an aspiration towards Public Ivy-hood as a concept - something which, as the reverter himself states above, doesn't exist formally. (It bears noting here Ole Miss's colors are called "Harvard Red" and "Yale Blue," further proof of the school's longstanding aspiration or pretension to Ivy League status.) So, if in fact this Wiki is nothing more than a list of schools which have been referenced with the specific term "Ivy," I would submit that the entire article should be reduced to a simple list or else deleted as trivial. If on the other hand this wiki is about the pretense of public-academic prestige rather than name-dropping, must the article suffer the editing of fools like ExplorerCDT?

-Maalox