<p>
[quote]
I don't disagree with you either. I'm saying that the safety net and funding make privates more appealing, but even without them, I still think selectivity would make them seem more appealing. Which is lame. Yeah some people go because it's a better fit, but there are some who go mainly because it's more selective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're going around in circles agreeing with each other, but with somewhat different wording than each other each time.</p>
<p>If all the most selective schools gave free birthday parties, people would begin stating that other schools aren't as good because they don't care enough to give free birthday parties.</p>
<p>There will always be more socially acceptable reasons to choose the more prestigious school, since whatever characteristics they possess will always be cherry-picked and turned into something of paramount importance.</p>
<p>Lame? Well, it depends. I can understand why some people would want to go to the most selective college they can. Perhaps these people won't be as happy at those colleges, but they wouldn't be happy at the less selective college anyway.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with wanting your work to take you as far as it can.</p>
<p>You wouldn't argue that if Berkeley was suddenly forced to take on twice of its current undergraduate class that it would stay exactly the same in student quality, would you?</p>
<p>I disagree with you on the point that selectivity doesn't matter--it is probably the absolute most important factor in a university, since it determines the strength of its student body, and thus its intellectual atmosphere.</p>
<p>What I don't agree with is Berkeley's reputation for not being very selective and US News's criteria for selectivity. There is a strong degree of self-selection in most potential applicants for Berkeley.
It is known as more numbers driven than the private schools, and thus random Joes and Janes that would have applied, even with low stats, to Harvard or whatever because they hope that some random stroke of luck will get them in... will not apply to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Even among out of state students--besides the out of state tuition, Berkeley is known for being brutal in its acceptances, thus only the best of the best out of state (this particular pool being the more limited) and international students apply.</p>
<p>These factors, coupled with the fact that Berkeley must take so many, is what kills the US News criteria for selectivity.</p>
<p>I would have little respect for Berkeley and little desire to go to Berkeley if it isn't as selective as it is. If it wasn't selective, professors and academics may be different, but the students and thus the atmosphere would be the same as a party school.</p>
<p>It can improve, however, since the pool it must take IS very large in truth, and few people would deny there is a large disparity in quality between the best students at Berkeley and the worst. Thus, selectivity being less DOES hurt Berkeley in this way (needing to accept more students), especially since it also has selectivity that forces it to turn away many possibly strong OOS applicants for weaker applicants that are in-state.</p>
<p>Some people genuinely use fit to determine schools. Others will look at the prestige of a school and use fit to justify their decision. The second, in my cynical opinion, is more common than the first.</p>