<p>No, they aren't (despite political correctness).</p>
<p>Top publics are comparable to the schools they are ranked with by US News, so top 20.</p>
<p>Don't forget that top public schools all have Honors Colleges and very often the admission into these programs is just as competitive as admission into the highly selective colleges. The fact is that top publics most likely have the same number of "like" students as the highly selective; the difference is that top publics schools can admit more students and this results in a wider variety of academic abilities.</p>
<p>Hawkette's comment regarding cost/benefit of private vs. public universities is an important one. Two groups of people get an especially good value at top publics:</p>
<ol>
<li>honors students who get preferential treatment and or merit scholarships</li>
<li>middle class people who don't qualify for significant financial aid</li>
</ol>
<p>The best publics are not as statistically strong as the top privates. However, the cost advantage will still sway many to choose their state school. This is especially true for schools like UC Berkeley and Michigan where the reputations are stronger than many of the elite privates.</p>
<p>One of my friends got into top priv schools like chicago and northwestern but was rejected from unc. Although the avg. sat scores might be a little higher at top priv universities the student body is going to be pretty smart at both the top publics and privates. If kids at the ivies got slightly higher sats on avg it doesnt mean that they are smarter. It is just one test and comparing two scores, unless vastly different, doesnt show that one student is significantly smarter than the other.</p>
<p>"slightly higher sats" hmmm</p>
<p>UNC's average SATs range is about 150 points lower than any top 10 ranked school on US News. </p>
<p>The difference in SATs between UNC and any top 10 private is more than the difference between UNC and PSU, Pitt, Drexel, or almost any top 50 school.</p>
<p>So, I'll accept the argument that a top public (Mich UNC UVA...) is as good as a top private (Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth...etc.) if you think that PSU, Drexel, Pitt, and so on are just as good as Michigan, UNC, and UVA. Fairs fair after all.</p>
<p>They do in certain areas.</p>
<p>As most have already said, not really for overall undergraduate given the realities of their larger sizes and missions to the citizens of their respective states. However, all the top publics (not even the "top 5") will have students of exactly the same caliber as HYPS, just not the same distribution.</p>
<p>In various areas, they do clearly match and even exceed:
In terms of facuty quality/academic dept. rankings - UC Berkeley pretty much has them all beat (even Harvard when you consider breadth and depth); Michigan is also very strong in this regard</p>
<p>In terms of history, UVA and W&M are comparable</p>
<p>In terms of libraries, museums, and performing arts spaces UT-Austin easily matches and exceeds most. In fact, not even Harvard and Yale have a library comparable to UT's Ransom Center in terms of significance of holdings. UT also has the largest university art museum in North America, if not the world.</p>
<p>There are various other examples where state schools compare quite favorably with the top privates.</p>
<p>uh oh, dead horse.</p>
<p>but no, top publics are bound by admissions requirements which detract from the quality of the student body they could otherwise have. as it has been stated before, quality of undergraduate education has been largely (if not fully) attributed to the quality of one's classmates.</p>
<p>in this case, the class strengths at top public schools simply can not compete with top privates.</p>
<p>Let's get real. Does anyone know someone who chose a public college over HYPSM without money being the reason? I know all you supporters of the publics being on the same level will say yes, but I'll suggest lots don't admit they can't afford the ivy.</p>
<p>The top state schools are safeties for valid ivy applicants, in state or out.</p>
<p>"The difference in SATs between UNC and any top 10 private is more than the difference between UNC and PSU, Pitt, Drexel, or almost any top 50 school.</p>
<p>So, I'll accept the argument that a top public (Mich UNC UVA...) is as good as a top private (Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth...etc.) if you think that PSU, Drexel, Pitt, and so on are just as good as Michigan, UNC, and UVA. Fairs fair after all."</p>
<p>PSU, Drexel, and Pitt may have comparable student bodies in terms of sat score, however you are only looking at one factor of the school. How good the school is obviously isnt determined only by avg. sat score. Many people in this thread argue that the strength of the student body is what sets ivies and other top privates apart from top publics. However, i dont think that this factor is really all that important unless there is a vast difference in sat scores. Im not saying that publics r better than privates or vice versa, im just saying that the strength of the student body doesnt make ones education at an ivy better than ones education at a top public, although other factors may very well set the ivies apart. One will find very smart peers at both schools.</p>
<p>Top publics and top privates (maybe excluding Princeton) do have something in common in their undergraduate studies...lack of an undergraduate focus. Given that Berkley, Umich, Harvard, Yale, etc. are research powerhouses it is very easy for undergrads to get short-ended when it comes to undergraduate teaching and attention. But like it has been said, graduate school-wise the public schools discussed are amazing!</p>
<p>Actually, Yale and Harvard have tons of faculty-undergrad interaction. I'm not sure who says otherwise, but empirical data such as faculty to student ratios reflect that Harvard and Yale don't do too poorly. Its absolutely a great place for an undergrad. Though Dartmouth Princeton Duke and Brown might have more of an undergrad focus than those two (weaker grad and stronger undergrad comparatively).</p>
<p>Btw, the reason SATs are important is because higher SATs=stronger students, and where the strongest students choose to attend reflects on the institution. Being around strong students is in itself a positive for plenty of reasons. Companies recruit at schools that have strong students too. SATs correlate with class rank, NMS, and other indicators of student body strength as well. </p>
<p>Also, its hard to distinguish between student strength and education - after all, its not certain if the top 10 privates send more kids to top professional schools and top jobs because their educations were better or if the student was strong to begin with. Best to play it safe and choose the private with a strong track record.</p>
<p>Regarding cost, the only public school I considered was UVA (OOS), and it was actually more expensive for me to go there than Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, and Columbia (which all give an average of 20K to kids in need of aid). Just food for thought - lots of top privates spend a good deal of money on allowing talented kids to afford tuition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Top publics and top privates (maybe excluding Princeton) do have something in common in their undergraduate studies...lack of an undergraduate focus. Given that Berkley, Umich, Harvard, Yale, etc. are research powerhouses it is very easy for undergrads to get short-ended when it comes to undergraduate teaching and attention. But like it has been said, graduate school-wise the public schools discussed are amazing!
[/quote]
Not to be rude, but I would venture to say that you know absolutely nothing about the importance of undergraduate education at Harvard or Yale. I won't speak for Harvard due to lack of personal experience there, but at Yale undergraduates receive much more faculty attention and much more comprehensive advising than is offered at most large publics (and before my credibility on large publics is questioned, both my parents teach at UC schools). At Yale, even the top faculty regularly teach undergrads, often at a very personal level. As an example, Harold Bloom, probably the most important living Shakespeare scholar (and possibly literary scholar of any sort) teaches 4 undergraduate classes per year, every one of them a small seminar (based on my experience, probably capped at around 18 students). Universities like Harvard and Yale require all active faculty to teach undergraduates, while many large publics allow faculty members to escape undergraduate teaching entirely, or close to it. Advising at places like Harvard and Yale prevents students from dropping through the cracks, leading to the significantly higher graduation rates one finds at top privates compared to public universities with comparable faculty.
You should not simply repeat a claim that you have heard others make when it has absolutely no basis. In fact, I'm still waiting for the evidence that Princeton (for all its reputation) has any more undergraduate focus than Yale.</p>
<p>Ive heard from many people that harvard actually isnt a great place for undergrads in terms of undergrad focus. Also, you said that where the stronger students choose to attend reflects on the institution. I believe that this reflects on the prestige of the institution more than the quality, not that ivies arent quality instituions.</p>
<p>I'm really surprised by the number of people who have "heard" Harvard and Yale aren't strong for undergrad...confusing to me. Probably 2 of the best, maybe only exceeded by Princeton in the number of opportunities given to undergrads.</p>
<p>I'm perfectly willing to agree to say that Harvard is no good for undergrads (but this only comes from personal bias as a Yale student). Harvard may be somewhat worse than Yale or Princeton in undergrad focus (or it may not), but regardless, it is far better than any large public university in the country.</p>
<p>ses:</p>
<p>“That 4% versus 8% thing is a BIG deal.”</p>
<p>The difference between 12% and 8% is a BIG deal too.</p>
<p>“And 12% hispanic in a state where the MAJORITY of the population is hispanic?”</p>
<p>Er, is 1/3 a “majority” to you?</p>
<p>“As a state university Berkeley does very poorly in supporting diversity within its school system.”</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how many more Hispanics there are in the state; they may or may not be qualified to get in. Columbia is in New York, which supposedly has the largest African American community. Columbia is 11% black, and Harvard is 12% black.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Demographics%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Demographics</a>
<a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3853&type=qfs&word=columbia%5B/url%5D">http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3853&type=qfs&word=columbia</a></p>
<p>Stanford is in California, and it’s 11% Hispanic.</p>
<p>gd016:</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>No, my information isn’t inaccurate; College Board data is, more often than not, outdated. I’m going by the UC site data:</p>
<p>elsijfdl:</p>
<p>“quality of undergraduate education has been largely (if not fully) attributed to the quality of one's classmates. in this case, the class strengths at top public schools simply can not compete with top privates.”</p>
<p>True, quality of undergrad is in part based on the quality of one’s classmates, but do you honestly think that the quality of students at top publics is going to be noticeably inferior to that of privates? I think that logic is more applicable when you’re talking about schools that are on opposite sides of the spectrum: Stanford vs. Cal State Northridge. As I said, the numbers of a public may not be on “par” (and I’m talking about SAT here), but honestly, in pure intellect/intelligence, most at a top public can rival those at a top private.</p>
<p>collegekid100:</p>
<p>“Does anyone know someone who chose a public college over HYPSM without money being the reason?”</p>
<p>Yes, there are plenty. There’s a thread now, I think, just for that.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess:</p>
<p>I would agree that Yale is undergrad-focused (this I’m pretty sure of), but I can’t even recount how many times I’ve heard from Harvard undergrads that they feel/felt as though Harvard cared much more about their undergrads than them.</p>
<p>^Yes, but 11% and 12% is MUCH closer to the national 14% that blacks make up in the US.</p>
<p>And neither Harvard nor Columbia is set up to primarily serve the residents of the states in which they exist. BUT Berkeley is. And it seems to be over-serving California's asian population (40% of the undergraduates) and under-serving other groups that are just as prevalent if not significantly more prevalent (hispanics, for example) in the state.</p>
<p>^^ without setting off the immigrant issue, how many of those hispanics in CA are going to be recognized as citizens? And how many of those that are qualified are going to have dreams of going to college?</p>
<p>And while Stanford doesn't "serve" California, it's almost half Californian.</p>
<p>I personally dont think there's much of a difference between them. I'd choose them over HYPS in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>choose what over HYPS?</p>