<p>You're wrong to even assume they're better in the first place, let alone "much better".</p>
<p>More prestigious? Yes. But hopefully you judge a university by more than just that.</p>
<p>
Rubbish. I'm at a top private but have taken several courses at a top public. I would say privates are by no means better. I'm constantly impressed by the resources and offerings of the public university, as well as the expertise and availability of the professors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan is going to be a lot larger and less personal undergrad experience. Here in north America people see that as a con (which is kind of ridiculous, because i think it is a better way to become more independent), which is sad, and they tend to "rank" schools with this idea in mind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would actually argue that this is not 'sad', but rather highly rational for many people. Now, sure, I can agree with you that a larger, less personal school may be a better way to become independent...if you can handle it. But let's face it. A lot of students can't handle it. </p>
<p>Think about who we're talking about. We're talking about 17-18 year old kids, almost none of whom have ever lived away by themselves before. Let's be honest. Most of them don't really know how to take care of themselves. And while some of them will indeed learn how to become independent at a large impersonal environment, others will make bad decisions. I too went to a large impersonal public undergrad school, and I saw many of my classmates fall into a lifestyle of drinking and drugs, would rather spend more time on their new-found boyfriend/girlfriend (who they ended up breaking up with anyway), or otherwise decide to engage in a hedonistic lifestyle and hence never go to class, never study, and basically not be responsible. </p>
<p>The story continues below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's sad how people in the US don't seem to understand (most of us in the US) what makes schools incredible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, actually, I would argue that it is equally sad that people in other countries don't understand what makes the undergrad-centric schools so incredible. In other words, international people attribute grad-school excellence to the undergrad program, yet I think we can all agree that those schools that you mentioned have better grad programs than undergrad programs. How does having a great grad program really help you if you're not a grad student? </p>
<p>Again, more below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So yeah, basically Michigan might not be the "desireable" elite academic experience in terms of smaller classes, profs that will hold your hand, etc. But the competition is going to be as cutthroat as it gets (which imo is awesome)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The cutthroat competition may be "awesome" if you do well. But what if you don't do well? What if you're the one getting your throat cut? Probably not so awesome anymore. </p>
<p>Which leads to what I think is by far the greatest advantage of the top private schools over the top public schools, in that the former schools are safer. At a school like Brown, you're not going to flunk out. Not only will you will graduate, but also probably with a pretty decent GPA. It's practically impossible to actually get a truly terrible grade at those schools. Not so at many of the top public schools, in which you really do run an actual risk of flunking out. Even if you avoid that, you may nonetheless barely graduate, with a GPA that is completely trashed, hence preventing you from getting into any decent grad school or from getting many good jobs, or even generally, just enjoying the undergrad experience. I recall one guy, at a major public university, who went into his final semester with a GPA that was so uncomfortable close to a 2.00 that he didn't even know whether he was going to make it to graduation, or whether he would simply flunk out completely. Just imagine you're heading into your final semester of college, but with the legitimate fear that you still might flunk out. </p>
<p>Private schools are optimal for the risk-averse, and most people are risk averse. The guys I know who flunked out of their top public schools would have almost certainly been better off if they had gone to Brown, for, at least there, they would have graduated. Probably not with top grades, but at least they would have their degrees. As things stand now, they don't even have degrees at all. Nor are they likely to get degrees, at least at any half-decent school, for no such school wants to admit a transfer candidate who flunked out of his previous school. </p>
<p>What I find ironic is that you say that the top public schools don't offer, as you say, the 'desirable' elite academic experience in terms of small class sizes, professor hand-holding, protection from cutthroat competition, and that sort of thing. But that's not entirely true; in fact, the top public schools offer precisely that...for graduate school. The graduate classes at places like Michigan or Berkeley tend to be much smaller than are the undergrad classes. The graduate programs offer significant "professor hand-holding" - indeed, you work very closely with professors as a PhD student at those schools (as you would at a PhD program at a private school). There is little if any truly cutthroat competition in the graduate programs; I highly doubt that very many people actually flunk out of the grad programs at Michigan. In other words, the graduate programs at the public schools are run quite similarly to the undergraduate programs at the private schools. Yet - you said it yourself - the graduate programs are the best part of those public schools. </p>
<p>So it begs the question of why it is so good for schools like Michigan and Berkeley to offer small class sizes and lots of hand-holding to their graduate students, but not the undergraduate students. Let's be honest. Who needs the hand-holding more? An 18 year kid who is living on his own for the first time in his life? Or a 22 year old grad student who has been living on his own for several years now?</p>
<p>I would definitely apply to other top schools, just to have options. I don't know why you would limit yourself willingly when it comes to colleges, even if you're 100% sure it's your first choice. You're 17/18 and your mind may change from now to April. It won't cost that much and take up much time and you don't want to have any regrets. Coming from a Stanford guy though, I am convinced that Michigan would equal Stanford for the undergrad education/job opportunities. I used to believe that HYPS>public schools by a longshot, but when I came here, I realized either that's simply not so. The whole thing about an extremely impressive student body as compared to those schools is just not true. We are in the long run, as a whole, talented students that have been ahead of the pack since day one, but not geniuses. Almost everyone from my high school who went to Michigan, Virginia, UNC, etc would fall into that category too. In terms of opportunities, yes even here, you need to work to go get them. They aren't handed out to you. No doubt that's what occurs at Michigan as well. We too have large lecture intro classes that suck the big one. If you want that "prestige" though, the guilty pleasure that a lot of people want but won't admit it, definitely consider other prestigious schools. But yeah, those who tell you that a top public school is worse than a top private school in terms of quality of education or opportunities for job employment are just wrong, unless they're talking about Kal. Which sux, harder than Chico state even. ;)</p>
<p>William & Mary, and to a lesser extent UVirginia, are the only public schools that offer an experience similar to that of the top privates. Small classes, residential campus, undergraduate focus. But that is not to say that Michigan, UCLA, UNC couldnt offer a great education and possible a better experience (sports/social scene) than say Georgetown or Cornell. It just depends on what you are looking for in a school.</p>