No, sir, I'm not saying the admissions criteria are equal.
The University of Nebraska used to be required, by law (not existent anymore), to accept all applicants graduates of high schools in Nebraska, no matter their high school academic records. One just had to be a graduate of a high school in Nebraska.
Pretty lax admissions standards, there (but with which I happen to agree).
What I am saying is that the University of Kansas and Duke University have to meet certain standards for accreditation (accreditation for different things), and they both apparently meet those standards.
There's a difference between "quality" and "prestige" (or "reputation").
I'm sure the University of Kansas has produced just as many high-quality professionals as has Duke University.
Depends on the field, coach. I studied engineering, and out of high school attended one of the most highly regarded schools for engineering in not just the United States, but the world--Georgia Tech. On par with MIT, Purdue, Cornell, Cal Tech, and Stanford. Certainly more selective in their admissions than other state schools (although GT is a public school).
And yet with all the emphasis on engineering and pure sciences, GT does not have the highest SAT scores among incoming freshmen--in the ACC, that distinction belongs to Duke, hands down. GT admits nearly 60 percent of applicants; Duke, barely 20 percent. And Duke, being a private university, has a smaller student-to-faculty ratio, more renowned staff, and greater research funding than a public university of similar size.
Put it this way, coach--trying to compare the academic accreditation might meet some very basic common denominator, and I don't doubt KU has put out some successful people, but if you were a hiring manager in business, engineering, or medicine, would you hire the person with the KU degree, or the Duke degree?
I compare it to the person who says there's no difference between a Chevette and a Corvette because hey, they're both Chevys!
