SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
An interesting letter to the editor in Sat's Trib from UIC professor of bioenginerring Wm O'Neill:

O'Neill claims that the state of Illinois's policy of having only one flagship state university (UIUC) has hurt the state because it has tied the hands of his own institution (presumably the second flagship, based on academic status as well as its Chicago location) to provide the type of service a major university should be able to provide. He used the California model to show how UCSD, a school that began around the same time as UIC, has been able to position itself in a number of areas (generating spin off companies, assocaiting with corporation in the field of technology, becoming the county's largest employer, becoming the seventh university in the nation in R&D expenditures, having annual research expendituress of $725 milion, producing 8 nobel laureates, etc.)

SO HAS ILLINOIS BEEN HURT BY THE ONE FLAGSHIP M0DEL?

Not only in comparison to the California model where UC campuses like UCSD are allowed to compete more evently with the likes of Cal and UCLA, but here in our own part of the country where Indiana has IU and Purdue and Michigan has U-M and MSU?

Should we have a model similiar to Indiana, Michigan, and Iowa as opposed to Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Ohio with their one flagship models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
Well yes, because UIUC has become such a popular university that its recieving tons of very qualified out of state students, willing to pay out of state tuitions but yet since there a state university they have no choice but to accept less qualified in state applicants who will pay a much lower in state tuition and thus take up space and the university in the end losses a ton of money.
if the state had another big university, such as states like oregon, texas, california, florida etc, then they would be able to accept more out of state students.

anyways I'm applying to UIUC NEXT YEAR HOPEFULLY I GET IN.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The Mad Hatter!! said:
Well yes, because UIUC has become such a popular university that its recieving tons of very qualified out of state students, willing to pay out of state tuitions but yet since there a state university they have no choice but to accept less qualified in state applicants who will pay a much lower in state tuition and thus take up space and the university in the end losses a ton of money.
if the state had another big university, such as states like oregon, texas, california, florida etc, then they would be able to accept more out of state students.

anyways I'm applying to UIUC NEXT YEAR HOPEFULLY I GET IN.
your point that having another flagship in state would help UIUC. Illinois has been hurt due to its high percentage of in-state students who attend the university, far higher than what you see at a prominent school like Michigan.

Having Illinois and UIC as the two flagships would make great sense. The state of Illinois has done a miserable job of providing the Chicago area with public universities. UIC is the only major institution in the metro area (unless you believe that the metro area now truly does extend to DeKalb). The other state operations (i.e. N'eastern, CSU, Governors) are minor in comparison. A flagship in UIC would go a long way to rectify the situation. Think of how Chicago would benefit if UIC was a state flagship along with Illinois; I think both institutions would benefit from such a set up.

(I do believe that the Chicago area would further benefit if NIU were able to become a more prominent university).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
The state simply just sucks at funding education.. UIUC is tremendously underfunded in comparison to its Big Ten peers, and for a state as big as IL, it should be able to fund two flagships, but it can barely support one. I think we should only bring UIC up to par once the state makes a serious committment to higher education, otherwise our best students will continue to head to Michigan and Wisconsin and elsewhere. Being called a "flagship" won't do anything for you unless the money follows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
is is harder to get into UIUC nowadays?
i graduated back in 1995
and it wasnt that hard to get into in those days,
great school,
its good to get away for college, and its a great college town,
IMHO its better than college in chicago in general,

great place for the frat types, ive heard it had the largest greek system in the country but im not sure if that is true
and ofcourse great place for pot head types and everyone else,
i couldnt imagine going to college at a small school, too much gossip and such like highschool,
big universities are small enough as it is,
 

·
padisha emperor
Joined
·
392 Posts
edsg25 said:
An interesting letter to the editor in Sat's Trib from UIC professor of bioenginerring Wm O'Neill:

O'Neill claims that the state of Illinois's policy of having only one flagship state university (UIUC) has hurt the state because it has tied the hands of his own institution (presumably the second flagship, based on academic status as well as its Chicago location) to provide the type of service a major university should be able to provide. He used the California model to show how UCSD, a school that began around the same time as UIC, has been able to position itself in a number of areas (generating spin off companies, assocaiting with corporation in the field of technology, becoming the county's largest employer, becoming the seventh university in the nation in R&D expenditures, having annual research expendituress of $725 milion, producing 8 nobel laureates, etc.)

SO HAS ILLINOIS BEEN HURT BY THE ONE FLAGSHIP M0DEL?

Not only in comparison to the California model where UC campuses like UCSD are allowed to compete more evently with the likes of Cal and UCLA, but here in our own part of the country where Indiana has IU and Purdue and Michigan has U-M and MSU?

Should we have a model similiar to Indiana, Michigan, and Iowa as opposed to Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Ohio with their one flagship models.
Uh, keep in mind that it isn't just UIUC or UIC as state universities in Illinois. You're forgetting the directional Universities (Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western and all of their respective satellite schools) and Illinois State University, ALL of which are state universities and not to mention a slew of smaller schools, perhaps not as prolific as some of the larger schools mentioned, but equally important. Therefore I think you're argument (or more accurately O'Neil's) lacks some merit, because Illinois does have a multi-public system, much, much more akin to California that Indiana or Michigan.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
CHIsentinel said:
Uh, keep in mind that it isn't just UIUC or UIC as state universities in Illinois. You're forgetting the directional Universities (Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western and all of their respective satellite schools) and Illinois State University, ALL of which are state universities and not to mention a slew of smaller schools, perhaps not as prolific as some of the larger schools mentioned, but equally important. Therefore I think you're argument (or more accurately O'Neil's) lacks some merit, because Illinois does have a multi-public system, much, much more akin to California that Indiana or Michigan.
CHI, I don't believe there is a state in the union that doesn't elevate one or two schools above the rest. The feeling is that a state must have that one or two high profile, nationally recognized school that maintains a high academic reputation and is a research giant. The thinking is, by giving equal status to all state universities, none will be able to serve that high level, prestigious, and lucrative role for the state. The result is no peer universites of NIU, SIU, EIU, WSU, ISU, etc., have that type of status...even such academic stars as Ohio's Miami U.

Therefore, the real issue facing Illinois is this: Does it want to retain the one flagship model with UIUC on top, or should another university share that role. If there were to be two flagships, rationally thinking, there could not be another choice for the second flagship than UIC whose academic reputation is second to Illinois in-state and, more importantly, whose Chicago location best warrants the honor.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
CHI, one additional point on your observations on Michigan. Michigan operates with two flagship universities, U-M and MSU....neither EMU, CMU, WMU, or Wayne have the status of the U-M and MSU.
 

·
padisha emperor
Joined
·
392 Posts
edsg25 said:
CHI, I don't believe there is a state in the union that doesn't elevate one or two schools above the rest. The feeling is that a state must have that one or two high profile, nationally recognized school that maintains a high academic reputation and is a research giant. The thinking is, by giving equal status to all state universities, none will be able to serve that high level, prestigious, and lucrative role for the state. The result is no peer universites of NIU, SIU, EIU, WSU, ISU, etc., have that type of status...even such academic stars as Ohio's Miami U.
Good point actually, perhaps I misunderstood your original question. Two things, I think that in terms of state university prestige, even though it is technically primarily UIUC in Illinois, UIC is catching up quite rapidly in terms of quality of incoming students, quality of facilities, types of research/international recognition of research, etc. etc., to the point that it is being recognized more and more individually from UIUC. This isn't something that happens overnight, but eventually perhaps UIC, as one example can help in distinguishing itself more distinctly from it's original progenitor. Secondly, in terms of California, keep in mind that because of the sheer size in the state's population and distances between schools, universities such as UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego are able to distinguish themselves more clearly as individual examples of excellence in academia (also also in terms of funding from the State). Each one is also located within a city that has a metro area of at least 4-5 million people as well, whereas the only place in Illinois where that can be found is Chicago (with that type of logic, UIUC seems almost like some type of wonderous anamoly). Hopefully my post makes some sort of sense.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
CHIsentinel said:
Good point actually, perhaps I misunderstood your original question. Two things, I think that in terms of state university prestige, even though it is technically primarily UIUC in Illinois, UIC is catching up quite rapidly in terms of quality of incoming students, quality of facilities, types of research/international recognition of research, etc. etc., to the point that it is being recognized more and more individually from UIUC. This isn't something that happens overnight, but eventually perhaps UIC, as one example can help in distinguishing itself more distinctly from it's original progenitor. Secondly, in terms of California, keep in mind that because of the sheer size in the state's population and distances between schools, universities such as UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC San Diego are able to distinguish themselves more clearly as individual examples of excellence in academia (also also in terms of funding from the State). Each one is also located within a city that has a metro area of at least 4-5 million people as well, whereas the only place in Illinois where that can be found is Chicago (with that type of logic, UIUC seems almost like some type of wonderous anamoly). Hopefully my post makes some sort of sense.
Makes sense. CHI, the real trick: make sure when one looks at the UC system, s/he understands there is nothing comparable to it in the nation in the way it is structured. The UC system, alone out of such organizations, instantly confers a credibility to all its members and also applies a standard of exellence and admission selectivity that no other system has. Compare this with the UW system: UW Madison is in a league by itself and while other member institutions (like UWM) are quite good, there is no sense of high academic uniformity throughout the system.

California set up UC, CSU, and the juco's to meet the varying needs of the state's college age population. UC and CSU have different missions. There are no UC campuses that considered to be "branches" of Cal; they all manage to stand up pretty darned well on th eir own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
edsg25 said:
The thinking is, by giving equal status to all state universities, none will be able to serve that high level, prestigious, and lucrative role for the state.
It's interesting that you bring up this point. Under Governor Jim Rhodes that's exactly the model that was forced upon Ohio during the 60's and 70's. His mantra was "a four year university within 30 miles of every resident." He also tried to undo almost 100 years of history and make all universities roughly equal.

It was an unmitigated disaster! While some of the worst consequences were undone in the 80's, the effects are still felt, particularly in regrards to overlap and redundancies. Ohio's decentralized public higher education system has massive redundancies--9 Ph. D programs in history, 5 law schools, 4 university owned airports and aviation programs to name just a few examples.

I'll leave it to the psychological historians to figure out to what degree these policies were rooted in the fact that Rhodes flunked out of Ohio State his freshman year.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Sam_Harmon said:
It's interesting that you bring up this point. Under Governor Jim Rhodes that's exactly the model that was forced upon Ohio during the 60's and 70's. His mantra was "a four year university within 30 miles of every resident." He also tried to undo almost 100 years of history and make all universities roughly equal.

It was an unmitigated disaster! While some of the worst consequences were undone in the 80's, the effects are still felt, particularly in regrards to overlap and redundancies. Ohio's decentralized public higher education system has massive redundancies--9 Ph. D programs in history, 5 law schools, 4 university owned airports and aviation programs to name just a few examples.

I'll leave it to the psychological historians to figure out to what degree these policies were rooted in the fact that Rhodes flunked out of Ohio State his freshman year.
sam, i find ohio to be an unusual state. OSU's creation was among the later institutions of the Big Ten and its status as "flagship" was challenged more than other peer institutions. For years, OSU fought Ohio Univeristy's ability to call itself Ohio. Also, it OSU changed its name to The Ohio State University to enhance its role as state flagship.

meanwhile, Ohio has traditonally had secondary state universities that exceed what other states have in this category. How many secondary state u's can compare with Miami U?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
edsg25 said:
sam, i find ohio to be an unusual state. OSU's creation was among the later institutions of the Big Ten and its status as "flagship" was challenged more than other peer institutions. For years, OSU fought Ohio Univeristy's ability to call itself Ohio. Also, it OSU changed its name to The Ohio State University to enhance its role as state flagship.

meanwhile, Ohio has traditonally had secondary state universities that exceed what other states have in this category. How many secondary state u's can compare with Miami U?
Actually, the "The" was in the name as of 1878. They only started emphasizing it in the 80's. I would guess in response to the Rhodes nonsense.

Historically, Ohio State was pretty much deemed as the state's flagship by 1906. In founding the university, the legislature--and in particular Gov. Rutherford B. Hayes--decided to give the land-grant funds to a new university because they considered Ohio U. and Miami to be borderline sectarian colleges (OU-Methodist; Miami-Presbyterian) and neither having provided Ohio with a real state university in over 60 years of existence. In 1891, the first permanent tax-levy to support higher education was enacted. It specifically left out Miami and OU. In 1906 the Ohio legislature considered the Lyberger bill, which would have shifted almost all funding to Ohio State, funding only the "normal school" functions of OU and Miami. While it narrowly failed, the bill that did pass banned OU or Miami from conducting basic research or offering doctoral level education. That arrangement stood for fifty years. A 1921 building fund for higher education was split 72-14-14 between Ohio State, Miami and OU. Probably the single biggest indicator of the difference between Ohio State and the other two universities was AAU membership. Ohio State was invited to join fairly early (1916). The other two are still waiting.

I'm not that enamored with Miami. I think several other states have stronger secondary schools: Purdue, Michigan State, UIC, Pitt, Arizona State to name a few. There's also some debate as to which Ohio school is the number two university, and I think it depends on what you're talking about. If it's undergraduate education or admissions selectivity, then Miami is number two. If it's graduate/research, then Cincinnati is probably number two. OU, in each case, would be number three.

The two older schools have never reconciled themselves to their younger sibling taking charge. That's why, in certain circles, they're refered to as the Fredo Universities: FredOU and Fredo(OH).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Sam_Harmon said:
Actually, the "The" was in the name as of 1878. They only started emphasizing it in the 80's. I would guess in response to the Rhodes nonsense.

Historically, Ohio State was pretty much deemed as the state's flagship by 1906. In founding the university, the legislature--and in particular Gov. Rutherford B. Hayes--decided to give the land-grant funds to a new university because they considered Ohio U. and Miami to be borderline sectarian colleges (OU-Methodist; Miami-Presbyterian) and neither having provided Ohio with a real state university in over 60 years of existence. In 1891, the first permanent tax-levy to support higher education was enacted. It specifically left out Miami and OU. In 1906 the Ohio legislature considered the Lyberger bill, which would have shifted almost all funding to Ohio State, funding only the "normal school" functions of OU and Miami. While it narrowly failed, the bill that did pass banned OU or Miami from conducting basic research or offering doctoral level education. That arrangement stood for fifty years. A 1921 building fund for higher education was split 72-14-14 between Ohio State, Miami and OU. Probably the single biggest indicator of the difference between Ohio State and the other two universities was AAU membership. Ohio State was invited to join fairly early (1916). The other two are still waiting.

I'm not that enamored with Miami. I think several other states have stronger secondary schools: Purdue, Michigan State, UIC, Pitt, Arizona State to name a few. There's also some debate as to which Ohio school is the number two university, and I think it depends on what you're talking about. If it's undergraduate education or admissions selectivity, then Miami is number two. If it's graduate/research, then Cincinnati is probably number two. OU, in each case, would be number three.

The two older schools have never reconciled themselves to their younger sibling taking charge. That's why, in certain circles, they're refered to as the Fredo Universities: FredOU and Fredo(OH).

sam, interesting stuff. i certainly never knew that both miami and ohio u started with private, religious affiliation. the one place i would disagree with you would be in calling either purdue or MSU secondary state universities. both michigan and indiana truly have two flagships. in fact, in Indiana, both IU and Purdue have traditionally had similiar academic ratings...and often Purdue has exceeded IU. U-M is a unique midwestern powerhouse, one that probably never would have risen to its current status if a second flagship in East Lansing wasn't there meeting the needs of the state when Ann Arbor was creating an institution where Michiganders were just one part of th mix.

I still contend: in Michigan, U-M and MSU are flagships; EMU, CMU, WMU, WSU are not

in Indiana, IU and Purdue are flagships; Ball, Ind St, and IUPU are not.

and that Illinois (U of I) and Ohio (OSU) are examples of one flagship states.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Sam_Harmon said:
The two older schools have never reconciled themselves to their younger sibling taking charge. That's why, in certain circles, they're refered to as the Fredo Universities: FredOU and Fredo(OH).
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Mama Corleone actually loved Fredo the most!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
edsg25 said:
I still contend: in Michigan, U-M and MSU are flagships; EMU, CMU, WMU, WSU are not

in Indiana, IU and Purdue are flagships; Ball, Ind St, and IUPU are not.

and that Illinois (U of I) and Ohio (OSU) are examples of one flagship states.
That makes sense to me.

Here's a pretty interesting speech by the Chancellor of UC-Berkeley concerning flagship insitutions and the threats they face from the lesser schools in their states.

Berdahl Speech at Texas A&M
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Sam, I have a question that you may be able to answer:

how close does the early history of Ohio University parallel that of Indiana University? The naming system (no Univ. of ____) is similiar. And if I'm not mistaken, the Bloomington campus once belonged to a seminary, so the religious link is there.

in addition, both schools are in the southern portion of their states, indicative perhaps of a more southern than midwestern lineage from a migration from places like Virginia that flowed down the Ohio River in the early part of the 19th century.

I believe that while IU was founded before the University of Michigan, it was U-M with its solid midwestern roots that actually served more than any university as the model for the traditional state university.

I also wonder (and don't know if anyone knows) if IU was assured flagship status from the start. I find it interesting that out of virtually all the states, Indiana's second flagship, Purdue, never went through college status (always a university) and was seen as a major institution of higher learning long before other states' second flagships (i.e. MSU, UCLA, Iowa State, Texas A&M, etc.). Was IU's southern leanings in a midwestern state have anything to do with the quick rise of Purdue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
edsg25 said:
Sam, I have a question that you may be able to answer:

how close does the early history of Ohio University parallel that of Indiana University? The naming system (no Univ. of ____) is similiar. And if I'm not mistaken, the Bloomington campus once belonged to a seminary, so the religious link is there.

in addition, both schools are in the southern portion of their states, indicative perhaps of a more southern than midwestern lineage from a migration from places like Virginia that flowed down the Ohio River in the early part of the 19th century.

I believe that while IU was founded before the University of Michigan, it was U-M with its solid midwestern roots that actually served more than any university as the model for the traditional state university.

I also wonder (and don't know if anyone knows) if IU was assured flagship status from the start. I find it interesting that out of virtually all the states, Indiana's second flagship, Purdue, never went through college status (always a university) and was seen as a major institution of higher learning long before other states' second flagships (i.e. MSU, UCLA, Iowa State, Texas A&M, etc.). Was IU's southern leanings in a midwestern state have anything to do with the quick rise of Purdue?
Interesting questions. In short, I don't know.

I do know that Indiana was homesteaded in large part by a south>north migration, which is why it's always been more socially conservative than the rest of the Great Lakes states which were settled through East>West migration. What bearing this had on IU, I couldn't say. I also can't speak knowledgebly as to why IU was not given the land grant, and Purdue was founded instead. There may be some interesting parallels. The biggest difference, however, would be that the two Indiana insitutions were set up to be rough equals; whereas in Ohio, the two older institutions were clearly relegated to secondary status.

The area of southeastern Ohio was at one point the Virginia Military District and lands were set aside to settle Virginia vets of the Revolutionary War. Interestingly enough, when Ohio liquidated the unused lands in the 1880's, those funds went to Ohio State (not part of the original land-grant, as this was later). In essence, OU had to watch as huge tracts of lands in the surrounding area were sold off by land agents working for Ohio State--not exactly the stuff of which healthy institutional egos are made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Regarding the original thread topic, I think there's good and bad to UIC becoming a true equal of UIUC. On the one hand, it could be positive if it freed up space in Urbana for more out of state students (lowest in the B10), which is what the administration wants. However, when they floated that idea this past year, they quickly had to retract it because of a huge uproar in the Chicago suburbs from parents scared that their kids' chances of admission would be sacrificed for increased out of state enrollment.

As to the larger picture, however, I don't know that Illinois has the size or demographic disbursement for two flagships to peacefully co-exist a'la Cal/UCLA. This is particlularly true in light of the fact that the existing flagship is already the land-grant school, which means UIC would have to carve out its niche in the hard sciences/liberal arts, which I can't see UIUC being comfortable with.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top