University of Washington Seattle Makes Washington Monthly Top 10 College List - MIT, Caltech does NOT make the list. UC Riverside (???) also makes the list which is a real head scracther.
Washington Monthly's top-10 national universities
1. University of California-San Diego
2. Texas A&M University
3. Stanford University
4. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
5. University of California-Berkeley
6. University of California-Los Angeles
7. Case Western Reserve University
8. University of Washington-Seattle
9. University of California-Riverside??? Huh?
10. Georgia Institute of Technology
For more: www.washingtonmonthly.com
A few other Washington schools also did well on Washington Monthly's list, which is broken down by three categories: national universities, master's-degree-granting universities and liberal arts colleges. Whitworth University in Spokane was ninth on the list of schools that grant master's degrees, The Evergreen State College was 29th, Seattle University 42nd, Gonzaga University 66th, and Western Washington University, 71st.
Among liberal arts colleges, Whitman College ranks 30th; the University of Puget Sound, 133rd.
Washington State University, which is on the list of national universities, came in 147th.
Originally published August 26, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Page modified August 27, 2012 at 8:16 AM
Washington Monthly ranks UW 8th in U.S.
A nonprofit magazine based in Washington, D.C., included the University of Washington in its top-10 list of national universities, up from the 23rd spot last year, due in part to the school's affordability.
Seattle Times higher education reporter
A national magazine that ranks colleges according to how much good they do for the nation has put the University of Washington as eighth in the U.S. — up from 23rd a year ago.
Washington Monthly, a national nonprofit magazine that covers politics and culture, rates schools based on the degree to which they improve social mobility, produce research and promote social service. The D.C.-based magazine gave the UW a higher rating this year because it scored well on a new measure: the cost of attending school there.
"What it says is the UW-Seattle does a terrific job graduating the students that it gets, at a price they can afford," said Washington Monthly editor-in-chief Paul Glastris.
The No. 8 position is the highest national ranking the UW has ever achieved, aside from issue-specific rankings. (Sierra Magazine ranked the UW first for its sustainability efforts last year, and fourth this year.)
Last year, U.S. News ranked the UW 42nd. Its top-20 list is usually stacked with private schools charging annual tuitions of $40,000 or more. In contrast, the Monthly's top-10 list is largely made up of public research universities. Its number-one school? University of California-San Diego.
Katherine Long: 206-464-2219 or klong@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @katherinelong.
see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/highschoolsports/fbrank.html for complete article
All that said, in absolute terms, it's inaccurate to refer to UW'sundergraduate colleges as a "Harvard of the West," (Make that Harvard AND MIT of the west...) because there are many schools that are much harder to get into and do in fact provide much better undergraduate educations. In 2012, Harvard admitted only 5.9% of its students. Among the Pac12, UW (which admitted 56.8% of applicants in 2012) is 5th by a longshot behind Stanford (9.5%), UCLA (17.7%), USC (18.0%), and Cal (23.8%). Furthermore, it's hard to argue that UW offers abetter undergrad education than any of those; although it may be comparable in some respects. Don't get me wrong, I love the UW; I just think it's important to qualify those types of statements with the overall picture of academic opportunities in the country and along the west coas
comments:
"I would really like this article if kids from our home state could actually gain admission to the UW."
UW's acceptance rate is 56.8%, the highest among "elite" level universities. If you are really complaining about your kid not getting in. Just face it, your kid is dumb.
UW's acceptance rate is 56.8%, the highest among "elite" level universities. If you are really complaining about your kid not getting in. Just face it, your kid is dumb.
essedbl, I just looked it up:
UCLA $12.6k
Cal $12.8k
UW $12.3k
Again, while UW is a great school, there is no arguing that UCLA and Cal have higher admission standards and better academic programs than UW. Therefore when one makes a blanket statement like, "(UW) has to be the absolute #1 public university in America." (based on price) I have to call bull. One can be proud of their university, but hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole only diminishes the argument.
UCLA $12.6k
Cal $12.8k
UW $12.3k
Again, while UW is a great school, there is no arguing that UCLA and Cal have higher admission standards and better academic programs than UW. Therefore when one makes a blanket statement like, "(UW) has to be the absolute #1 public university in America." (based on price) I have to call bull. One can be proud of their university, but hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole only diminishes the argument.
Berkeley is $15k a year. That is 20% higher than UW. That is pretty significant difference. And comparing UW to the top schools in the country only cements the fact that UW is a world-class institution!
"If you take into account the absolute bargain on low tuition rates, it has to be the absolute #1 public university in America."
Instate tuition at UCLA and Berkeley (both public) are $14K, UW is $12K. While UW is a great school for the price, UCLA and Berkeley are better.
Instate tuition at UCLA and Berkeley (both public) are $14K, UW is $12K. While UW is a great school for the price, UCLA and Berkeley are better.
My UW diploma just becomes more and more impressive with every article like this that they publish. We used to call UW the "Harvard of the West". Maybe in a few more years they will be calling Harvard the "UW of the East".
Go Huskies!
That's true. UW is a great school, overall. Go Huskies indeed! That said, the primary thing that drives UW's high rankings -- whether that be programs prestige, affordability, or some combination of the 2 -- is its status as a premier research universtiy and its graduate programs. Medical, nursing, law, hard sciences, engineering, business, and teaching graduateprograms are all ranked in the top-25 nationally, some are in the top-5 and top-10. In that respect UW may be a Harvard of the West in some respects.
However, as far as its undergraduate programs are concerned, it is a good but not elite school, because, as another poster indicated, undergraduate education is a secondary focus for the university. However, I think that's exactly what the Washington Monthly ranking is looking at: value. (1) To get a simillarly "good" undergraduate education, you're going to have to look at a bunch of private schools or higher-ranked, out-of-state public universities, and UW is much cheaper for the same quality when compared against those schools. (2) As for grad programs (if you can get in), you are certainly paying (relatively) bottom dollar for top-quality product.
What college-bound seniors should be considering in choosing their undergrad school is both that value and the skills (qualitative, analytical, and trade/applied) that each potential school will equip them with. If you can afford to go to a top liberal arts, national, or ivy college/university for undergrad, you're going to get top education as long as you put in the work. But the reality is that most students' can't afford it, especially in today's economy. Thus, *value* becomes the more relevant factor, and in that category UW is near the top.
All that said, in absolute terms, it's inaccurate to refer to UW'sundergraduate colleges as a "Harvard of the West," because there are many schools that are much harder to get into and do in fact provide much better undergraduate educations. In 2012, Harvard admitted only 5.9% of its students. Among the Pac12, UW (which admitted 56.8% of applicants in 2012) is 5th by a longshot behind Stanford (9.5%), UCLA (17.7%), USC (18.0%), and Cal (23.8%). Furthermore, it's hard to argue that UW offers abetter undergrad education than any of those; although it may be comparable in some respects. Don't get me wrong, I love the UW; I just think it's important to qualify those types of statements with the overall picture of academic opportunities in the country and along the west coast.
Go Huskies!
That's true. UW is a great school, overall. Go Huskies indeed! That said, the primary thing that drives UW's high rankings -- whether that be programs prestige, affordability, or some combination of the 2 -- is its status as a premier research universtiy and its graduate programs. Medical, nursing, law, hard sciences, engineering, business, and teaching graduateprograms are all ranked in the top-25 nationally, some are in the top-5 and top-10. In that respect UW may be a Harvard of the West in some respects.
However, as far as its undergraduate programs are concerned, it is a good but not elite school, because, as another poster indicated, undergraduate education is a secondary focus for the university. However, I think that's exactly what the Washington Monthly ranking is looking at: value. (1) To get a simillarly "good" undergraduate education, you're going to have to look at a bunch of private schools or higher-ranked, out-of-state public universities, and UW is much cheaper for the same quality when compared against those schools. (2) As for grad programs (if you can get in), you are certainly paying (relatively) bottom dollar for top-quality product.
What college-bound seniors should be considering in choosing their undergrad school is both that value and the skills (qualitative, analytical, and trade/applied) that each potential school will equip them with. If you can afford to go to a top liberal arts, national, or ivy college/university for undergrad, you're going to get top education as long as you put in the work. But the reality is that most students' can't afford it, especially in today's economy. Thus, *value* becomes the more relevant factor, and in that category UW is near the top.
All that said, in absolute terms, it's inaccurate to refer to UW'sundergraduate colleges as a "Harvard of the West," because there are many schools that are much harder to get into and do in fact provide much better undergraduate educations. In 2012, Harvard admitted only 5.9% of its students. Among the Pac12, UW (which admitted 56.8% of applicants in 2012) is 5th by a longshot behind Stanford (9.5%), UCLA (17.7%), USC (18.0%), and Cal (23.8%). Furthermore, it's hard to argue that UW offers abetter undergrad education than any of those; although it may be comparable in some respects. Don't get me wrong, I love the UW; I just think it's important to qualify those types of statements with the overall picture of academic opportunities in the country and along the west coast.
UW is a spectacular university. If you take into account the absolute bargain on low tuition rates, it has to be the absolute #1 public university in America.
The long overdue recognition of this great university only serves to add significant value to each alumnae's degree.
GO DAWGS!!!
The long overdue recognition of this great university only serves to add significant value to each alumnae's degree.
GO DAWGS!!!
kokoPuff - check your "facts" before you hit "Submit"; your two comments regarding the football program were both incorrect - which frankly makes me think the rest of your diatribe likely contains statements misstated as facts.
1) The new football stadium is being 100% financed by the athletic department and is in NO WAY being sbusidized by the college.
2) Reggie Williams was a WR on the football team, not a TE and he never had "mutliple rapes and other offenses".
1) The new football stadium is being 100% financed by the athletic department and is in NO WAY being sbusidized by the college.
2) Reggie Williams was a WR on the football team, not a TE and he never had "mutliple rapes and other offenses".
Man, a bunch of harsh comments here.
It is important to remember that the UW is not a trade school. It is primarily a research institution and secondarily an undergraduate college. There are lots of fine Washington colleges meeting other needs of our citizens. It is a mistake to compare their missions with the mission of the UW.
It is a valid question to ask if state taxpayers should support academic research that might not directly benefit the state. This is a healthy ongoing debate.
It is important to remember that the UW is not a trade school. It is primarily a research institution and secondarily an undergraduate college. There are lots of fine Washington colleges meeting other needs of our citizens. It is a mistake to compare their missions with the mission of the UW.
It is a valid question to ask if state taxpayers should support academic research that might not directly benefit the state. This is a healthy ongoing debate.
I'm quite proud to hear this. UW is a good school! I don't know if it is great as I have not attended any other school - and I only attended UW for one quarter of continuing ed... Nonetheless, I am proud of it!
So, it's better for Very Rich and Very Poor students. The middle class? Not so much. Talented middle class students can likely go to many equal or better private schools for cheaper. Thanks to the Tax and budget cuts the seattle Times has supported for 20 years. What is the point of compelling students out of state?
It would have been useful to tell people what the tuition is at the various schools since that is what helped determine the ranking.
My UW diploma just becomes more and more impressive with every article like this that they publish. We used to call UW the "Harvard of the West". Maybe in a few more years they will be calling Harvard the "UW of the East".
Go Huskies!
Go Huskies!
The UW is a funny oxymoron: The football program gets a new stadium from ticket increases and subsidy from the college-which in tern on paper yields status & visibility for the school>> but where do the priorities for that visibility lie>>more care to the students the institution was established for- or just more visibility for more funding and growth..ie more status and higher pay to top administers like any corporation.
Did the article mention: 1) the current teacher to student ration as opposed to 10/20 years ago; did it mention-what people actually do w/ their "social service" degrees ( how to measure the real impact on society) after the degrees are achieved?
The medical center is a good case in point: 3 years ago on the cover of their web site they noted- they were the highest rated facility in the state, however, they failed to mention- that this was mostly due to "cleanliness of facility" and "high tech equipment on offer"= when it came time to patient satisfaction w/ their quality of care and impact from the MD's- UW was lower than a Spokane hospital.
How much of the UW is pomp- and how much translates to facts on the ground.
Tuition increase "d/t budget cuts"? Well, the UW typically gets the 1st - 3rd most Fed funding for it's medical research/ ie $ that can be translated into economic corporate growth outside the UW later; and that generates then more prestige and, ofc, growth for their (not our) institution- but for who?
UW Medical/ and UW Physicians are a bit of a front. All of medical/ Harborview et al. is under jurisdiction/ oversight of UW Medical overall, but, if you see an MD in the main clinic- you will get billed from both UW Medical and UW Physicians (2 co pays), even if you see a general MD w/ no specialty for 5 minutes in a blank room. If it's a satellite clinic- only 1 co-pay, because it has not the specialty the clinic has, and only billed from UW Physicians. What is the difference, it's like McDonalds corp billing for the bun and and meat separate because they are broken up into a diff economic jurisdiction- but why- $- which the UW is about. And a bigger stadium and more visibility-for ....on and on.
Missing in the article is how much $ the UW overall generates on it's own- and where the priority of the $ is spent is- in relation to results. It's all well and good about the financial aid- but the fact of the drastic tuition increase for students in/or out state- means that has to be paid back eventually.
Remember the medical billing scandal of a couple of years back; remember how they kept on Reggie Williams at Tight End even though he had multiple rapes and other offenses...maybe small time overall, but also a barometer of when the UW looks the other way and is more focused on it's own big picture..not ours.
I question the assessment of the think tank that made this top 10; I criticize the UW in general and if it's true understated impetus is to grow and get prestige, or if it's the people it was founded for.
Personally. medical wise- despite the amount of capability and high tech equipment they have at their disposal- my time and F/u with MDs has been short, linear, and sterile.
My thoughts
Did the article mention: 1) the current teacher to student ration as opposed to 10/20 years ago; did it mention-what people actually do w/ their "social service" degrees ( how to measure the real impact on society) after the degrees are achieved?
The medical center is a good case in point: 3 years ago on the cover of their web site they noted- they were the highest rated facility in the state, however, they failed to mention- that this was mostly due to "cleanliness of facility" and "high tech equipment on offer"= when it came time to patient satisfaction w/ their quality of care and impact from the MD's- UW was lower than a Spokane hospital.
How much of the UW is pomp- and how much translates to facts on the ground.
Tuition increase "d/t budget cuts"? Well, the UW typically gets the 1st - 3rd most Fed funding for it's medical research/ ie $ that can be translated into economic corporate growth outside the UW later; and that generates then more prestige and, ofc, growth for their (not our) institution- but for who?
UW Medical/ and UW Physicians are a bit of a front. All of medical/ Harborview et al. is under jurisdiction/ oversight of UW Medical overall, but, if you see an MD in the main clinic- you will get billed from both UW Medical and UW Physicians (2 co pays), even if you see a general MD w/ no specialty for 5 minutes in a blank room. If it's a satellite clinic- only 1 co-pay, because it has not the specialty the clinic has, and only billed from UW Physicians. What is the difference, it's like McDonalds corp billing for the bun and and meat separate because they are broken up into a diff economic jurisdiction- but why- $- which the UW is about. And a bigger stadium and more visibility-for ....on and on.
Missing in the article is how much $ the UW overall generates on it's own- and where the priority of the $ is spent is- in relation to results. It's all well and good about the financial aid- but the fact of the drastic tuition increase for students in/or out state- means that has to be paid back eventually.
Remember the medical billing scandal of a couple of years back; remember how they kept on Reggie Williams at Tight End even though he had multiple rapes and other offenses...maybe small time overall, but also a barometer of when the UW looks the other way and is more focused on it's own big picture..not ours.
I question the assessment of the think tank that made this top 10; I criticize the UW in general and if it's true understated impetus is to grow and get prestige, or if it's the people it was founded for.
Personally. medical wise- despite the amount of capability and high tech equipment they have at their disposal- my time and F/u with MDs has been short, linear, and sterile.
My thoughts
actually, this is a marketing piece written by...the UW's out-of-state residents program.
More out-of-staters...more revenue.
Which means...fewer (by a lot) in state residents accepted. And those that are will pay a whole bunch more.
This ranking is artificial and will last...this year.
More out-of-staters...more revenue.
Which means...fewer (by a lot) in state residents accepted. And those that are will pay a whole bunch more.
This ranking is artificial and will last...this year.
Oh wait I thought the article was about the amount of junkies on the ave
I would really like this article if kids from our home state could actually gain admission to the UW.
A laugh a day. This column belongs with the funnies.
