<p>Just wondering...</p>
<p>Not in terms of selectivity or quality of study body.</p>
<p>Quality of academics and faculty is debatable, however.</p>
<p>For graduate school, depending on the field of study, top publics can definitely compete with top privates. </p>
<p>For undergraduate, student strength and quality of undergraduate academic offerings are markedly stronger at many top privates and this extends well past HYPS.</p>
<p>One could also argue that the student bodies at top privates are self-selective and they are better able to attract the top students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For graduate school, depending on the field of study, top publics can definitely compete with top privates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And in many cases exceed them, especially in engineering and certain professional fields full-stop.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For undergraduate, student strength and quality of undergraduate academic offerings are markedly stronger at many top privates and this extends well past HYPS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The publics almost by definition have a lower <strong>average</strong> bar to entry no matter how good they are (Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, W&M, UIUC, UCLA, and so on) but they still have a significant overlap statistically with most of the top privates. For the self-directed, upper-tier student especially, many would argue the learning can be on par. In terms of "offerings" as defined by range of classes and diversity, some of the top publics exceed many top privates if nothing else through sheer size. For overall experience for the average student, the quality question is more relevant.</p>
<p>Yes, they are very comparable to HYPS, in terms of faculty, resources, etc. Of course, they are often required to take in more students and thus lower the bar more than the top privates, but they still manage to attract many awesome students, along with not-as-awesome students. Berkeley, for example, has more 1500+ scorers (out of 1600) than any other university, I believe. However, it also has many who scored below that. But really, top publics can rival privates in many aspects, and the measures in which privates triumph are at best indirectly relevant to your experience, at worst completely irrelevant (such as alumni giving rate, etc.). It all depends on your perspective of the measures themselves.</p>
<p>Regarding selectivity, I'd say that generally top privates are more selective, but at the same time, publics and privates will stress different parts of the application. At publics, GPA is immensely important, and SAT scores often can't compensate for a weak GPA. 94% students at Berkeley had a 3.75 or higher UW GPA in high school, and the average UW GPA is a 3.9; 99% were in the top 10% of his/her class. It's difficult to find people with lower GPAs, but it wouldn't be *as *difficult at a school like Stanford, which is more forgiving with GPA if there are other obvious strengths (essays, etc.). The same is sometimes true at publics -- when they'll admit a student despite his/her having a weak GPA. Another thing that I know Berkeley looks extensively into is adversity: Berkeley will go much easier on you if you show you've had much more adversity to overcome (some have said this is a proxy for AA).</p>
<p>But on top of that, publics are required by state law to abide by certain standards: accepting a certain percentage of students (top 12.5% for UCs, I think), accepting mostly in-state students (Berkeley is about 93% Californian), etc. This isn't to say that student bodies are weak, though. At top publics, you'll often find that many of the students are extremely intelligent, but they weren't the four-time winner of a national competition in high school (though you do often come across people like that at a top public, it's not nearly as often as at a private).</p>
<p>All in all, publics will be able to offer an excellent education, a variety of courses, a plethora of resources, and a generally great experience -- different, perhaps, from most top privates, but nonetheless comparable.</p>
<p>Not even close. There is a huge gap between what it takes to get into HYPS and what it takes to get into Berk, Mich or UVA. Huge!</p>
<p>This is not to say that there are not pleanty of HYPS caliber of kids at state schools because of money issues. The average admit to those schools isn't even close to the average at HYPS however.</p>
<p>"The average admit to those schools isn't even close to the average at HYPS however."</p>
<p>The average SAT score is 2040 at Berkeley, I believe; at Stanford, it's 2160. Now consider that Berkeley doesn't superscore, nor does it stress SAT scores much (research has shown that GPA is much more indicative of one's success in college than SAT scores). The gap, then, between the two is very small ("not even close" is far from accurate). And this is just in SAT; the GPA breakdown and average rank of students at a top public will probably outstrip most privates, if not all. And while the top privates are looking for amazing students, top publics will have significantly more applicants, more diversity to choose from, so the competition to get in can get pretty cutthroat -- to the point that you see people getting into top privates but not top publics (there simply isn't enough room, it seems). From those admitted pools, too, publics are able to attract a large number of awesome students from a variety of top schools, even if for only financial reasons.</p>
<p>The only group that brings down scores for UCs is athletes. At the privates you have athletes, legacies, URMs and development (sorry, but I don't think many will shell out big bucks to buy their kid into a UC). The average score for a non hooked Stanford kid is probably 2250, not so any public.</p>
<p>Athletics plays a role in UC admissions, but so does URM status; I've seen many a not-so-spectacular URM get into Berkeley or UCLA. On top of that, I think you'd be surprised by how many people would shell out the big bucks to get their kids into the top UCs; Berkeley has quite the brand name. And look at the financial aid breakdowns:</p>
<p>Berkeley -
% receiving aid: 71%
% not receiving aid: 29%</p>
<p>Stanford -
% receiving aid: 70%
% not receiving aid: 30%</p>
<p>according to IPEDS. So they're very comparable in that aspect.</p>
<p>Sorry, I went to school with a lot of rich kids and UVA was the only public school semi popular among them. 1 guy is going to Berkeley from Andover this yer up from none. </p>
<p>UCs can't use race and consequently they have an amazingly low number of URMs. </p>
<p>We shold also talk about the huge numbers who enter top UCs from CCCs. Never hd to take the SAT! Are they close to HYPSM admits too?</p>
<p>"1 guy is going to Berkeley from Andover this yer up from none."</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence means nothing. (Especially when said evidence is an out-of-stater.)</p>
<p>"UCs can't use race and consequently they have an amazingly low number of URMs."</p>
<p>Harvard -</p>
<h1>8% Black/Non-Hispanic</h1>
<h1>8% Hispanic</h1>
<p>Berkeley -</p>
<h1>4% Black/Non-Hispanic</h1>
<h1>12% Hispanic</h1>
<p>So it seems that each beats the other by 4%. Seems somewhat equal to me. And they tend not to use race, but instead something else: adversity. It's a proxy to AA -- instead of using race as a factor, they'll use the "how much adversity did this person overcome?" assuming that the deserving URMs will be chosen. (Seems more logical to me, actually, since many URMs have had to overcome little adversity, and ORMs much. Defeats the point of AA, right?)</p>
<p>"We shold also talk about the huge numbers who enter top UCs from CCCs."</p>
<p>Um, at Berkeley it was about 1300 in a year, I think, more at UCLA. That isn't a "huge" number considering there are 23,000 undergrads (even when considering multiple years' worth of transfers).</p>
<p>"Are they close to HYPSM admits too?"</p>
<p>Perhaps many of them are, but I really don't like your high-and-mighty attitude toward CC transfers. You seem to regard them as inferior; true, the majority won't have an average SAT score of 2250, but it's asinine and presumptuous to think that they're automatically inferior.</p>
<p>And on top of that, I never said the entire student body will be completely comparable to HYPS. The raw numbers (SAT scores, mainly) won't dictate that. But in non-quantifiable aspects, those who matriculate at Berkeley and such are among the most intelligent and talented students in California (and indeed the country). I would say that the majority of them are comparable to Harvard students in intellect.</p>
<p>IMO there is a very powerful and very true argument that could be used by the public school advocates vs. their private school competitors. A student at many of the top public universities will much more often have a more complete and better undergraduate experience when measured as a complete package of academics, social life, and athletic life. Consider at student at any of the consensus top five publics (UC Berkeley, U Virginia, U Michigan, UCLA and U North Carolina) and compare his/her experience with a student attending any of the Ivies or many other of the top privates. </p>
<p>For academics only, it is true that the public university student will likely be attending classes with a less consistently strong student body and those classes are likely to be larger on average. These classes will often be led by secondary instructors and not the higher profile “stars” who might be more responsible for the strong institutional reputation. Or the classes taught by the faculty “stars” are huge and chances for meaningful interactions are much reduced. This will likely also occur at the top privates, although to a lesser extent, and thus academics and issues generally related to the classroom would be considered a plus for the private universities.</p>
<p>However, outside of the classroom, the public universities typically offer a much greater breadth of social activities and often in more attractive, more interesting, and more fun, unique college towns (eg, Charlottesville, Ann Arbor, Chapel Hill). These schools typically have larger (sometimes much larger) student bodies and the opportunities for one to find their personal niche are broader at a public university. Public universities are more familiar with accommodating the social needs of a greater variety of student types and this would be considered a plus for the public universities. </p>
<p>The athletic life and student involvement is MUCH greater at a public university. Sports teams (usually football and basketball, occasionally baseball and then regionally important sports like hockey, lacrosse, etc.) are a very prominent feature of university life on a public university campus. You don’t have to be a lover of sports to enjoy these events as they are just great opportunities to blow off some steam from your academic responsibilities, have a great time and experience an event on a scale that is nearly unimaginable on the Ivy campuses and most other top privates. An event like U North Carolina vs Duke basketball or U Michigan vs Ohio State or Michigan State football contrasts greatly with virtually any athletic event involving any of the Ivies. It is not a close comparison. These rivalries dwarf anything you might find at the Ivies and most other top privates. And these rivalries will be a part of your life 20-30-40-50 years after graduation as you come back to visit your alma mater or as you check the football scores in your Sunday paper to see if Virginia beat Virginia Tech or if UCLA topped USC or Cal won over Stanford. </p>
<p>One other key consideration that is not discussed frequently enough is the cost advantage of the top publics over the top privates. In some cases, it can be meaningful and especially so when considered for a 4-6 year undergraduate experience. Furthermore, from a career standpoint, if you plan to go to graduate school, the $ spent for graduate study are where you don’t want to skimp as this degree will differentiate you far more than your undergraduate degree. So, if money is an issue, look harder at the top publics and save your money for the more professionally impactful graduate education. </p>
<p>For those concerned with academics, rest assured that you can get a top education at a top public university and you will still have good postgraduate opportunities. But don’t overlook the non-classroom benefits of a public university where you can often get so much more in terms of a better social and athletic life. And 5 years from now, when you are working together at Morgan Stanley and U Michigan is going to the Rose Bowl or U North Carolina or U Virginia are on national TV playing in the NCAA basketball tournament, take pity on your colleagues from the Ivies and some of the other top privates who never enjoyed the wonderful and total undergraduate experience that a top public university can offer.</p>
<p>No university, private or public, is on par with HYPS and MIT. Well, Cal (and maybe even Michigan in some programs) can match those schools at the graduate level, but not for undergraduate education.</p>
<p>This said, for undergraduate education, the top publics (like Cal, Michigan and UVa) hold their own with many of the elite private universities. They obviously aren't comparable with Dartmouth or Brown (too different in most ways), but they compare nicely to elite privates like Cornell, Northwestern or Penn.</p>
<p>Bravo Hawkette! Very well stated.</p>
<p>
Speaking about Penn, at least, this generalization is a bit of a stretch. Look at the stats (School/acceptance rate/SAT middle 50% range/# of undergrads/% of undergrads from in-state):</p>
<p>Penn/15.9%/1330-1510/9700/19%
Michigan/47%/1210-1320/25,555/66%
Berkeley/24%/1200-1450/23,863/93%
UVA/37%/1220-1430/14,676/67%</p>
<p>Penn's acceptance rate, SAT range, student body size, and geographic diversification are much closer to those of HYPS than they are the 3 state schools you mentioned. The average undergraduate's experience at Penn--residential experience, average class size, average aptitude of peers, job and grad school placement, alumni experience, etc.--is also more comparable to HYPS than it is to the state schools.</p>
<p>KyleDavid-</p>
<p>That 4% versus 8% thing is a BIG deal. That's HALF the number of black students in a class, which is a big drop.</p>
<p>And 12% hispanic in a state where the MAJORITY of the population is hispanic? As a state university Berkeley does very poorly in supporting diversity within its school system.</p>
<p>I'd say that's a HUGE difference between privates and publics.</p>
<p>Kyledavid,</p>
<p>not that it matters significantly, but your information is inaccurate.
Cal's average SAT score is 1975 (/2400) according to the College Board, which provides the most accurate and up-to-date scores.</p>
<p>At any rate, I ditto a lot of what was said above, publics are hard to compare with any private elites, let alone any private universities, because the experience you'll get is immensely different. This is not to say publics and privates are incomparable due to one being "better" than the other, but very different in what is intended and expected of the academic profile of the student body, class sizes and academic atmosphere.</p>
<p>On the note of getting a "complete" college experience, I don't think publics are the only contenders. How about Duke, which has a thriving social scene, competitive sports, and a cool college town right next door? </p>
<p>That said, I also think that for some, small class sizes might be very important to getting the right college experience. </p>
<p>I'm not against public schools at all, I just think it's slightly unfair to imply that going to a public school is the only way to get the "ultimate college experience". I know that for a lot of people, a large school just wouldn't be right for them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal's average SAT score is 1975 (/2400) according to the College Board, which provides the most accurate and up-to-date scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those are probably the 25th and the 75th Percentiles and at least a year old!</p>