<p>^^ choose top publics over HYPS.</p>
<p>And I agree, loslobos71; I personally would choose Berkeley over, say, Stanford.</p>
<p>I'd choose UVA, Mich, UCLA, UF, UNC over any of them.</p>
<p>why>??????????</p>
<p>Oh, please. Is this thread intentionally incendiary? Or is it suprising to anyone that the staunchest defenders of large publics are the students who go there?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally would choose Berkeley over, say, Stanford.
[/quote]
...says the Berkeley student, also the author of this remark:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, Stanford's such a vain f**k.
[/quote]
<p>MorsVenit: sorry to say, but you're rather imperceptive and presumptuous.</p>
<p>"Or is it suprising to anyone that the staunchest defenders of large publics are the students who go there? ... says the Berkeley student"</p>
<p>For one, I'm not a student at Berkeley. And for another, I like Stanford almost as much as Cal, but Cal has a slight edge for me. Notice that when I said, "I personally would choose Berkeley over, say, Stanford," I didn't say "in a heartbeat" as loslobos71 did.</p>
<p>"also the author of this remark"</p>
<p>When I made that comment, I was being facetious, in response to someone's comment that Stanford assumes "that they are everyone's dream school."</p>
<p>And how in the world is this thread incendiary?</p>
<p>Simply because someone says he/she would rather attend a top public over a top private doesn't mean that he/she is putting down the private schools. If anything is "incendiary" in this thread, it's the comments made about public schools (obviously inferior to privates, and the like).</p>
<p>At any rate, I'd suggest you refrain from striking up ad hominem arguments in a feeble attempt to disqualify one's opinion (in this case, in favor of publics). Notice I haven't pointed out that you're a student at Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Notice I haven't pointed out that you're a student at Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't forget that top public schools all have Honors Colleges
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, not all of them. Berkeley, in particular, does not have an honors college. I think it should, but it does not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And 12% hispanic in a state where the MAJORITY of the population is hispanic?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, since when are Hispanics the majority of the population in California? 35% is hardly a "majority". </p>
<p>
[quote]
As a state university Berkeley does very poorly in supporting diversity within its school system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that depends on what you mean by diversity. Berkeley actually has a higher percentage of minority students than almost all of the top private schools. </p>
<p>It's just that most of those Berkeley minority students are Asian-Americans, representing a whopping 41% of the total undergrad population. But so what? They're still minorities. They still add diversity. Granted, it's a different kind of diversity, but it's still diversity. Since when do certain minority groups possess a monopoly on diversity?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's get real. Does anyone know someone who chose a public college over HYPSM without money being the reason?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I happen to know several people. Some of them chose a public school because doing so allowed them to enter combined BS/MD programs; in this day and age, holding guaranteed admission to med-school is priceless. Not all premeds at HYPSM will get into med school. </p>
<p>I can think of another guy who chose his public school over HYPSM. Why? Football. His public school is a Division 1-A football powerhouse, and he wants to take his best shot at making it to the NFL. True, he could have gone to Stanford, which does have a (terrible) 1-A team, but his public school is a more prolific NFL factory. </p>
<p>Put another way, the best football player in Harvard history and arguably in Ivy history, a player by the name of Clifton Dawson, didn't even get drafted despite rewriting the Ivy record books, including becoming the all-time rushing leader in Ivy history. True, he did sign as an undrafted free-agent with the Colts, but the odds are he won't actually make the roster (as most of those undrafted free-agents won't make the final roster). A few Ivy players will make it to the NFL, but most, including many stars, won't.</p>
<p>Wow, I really have sparked quite a debate here, haven't I?</p>
<p>Anyway, here's my 2 cents:</p>
<p>The top publics are great. Seriously - can you beat Cal for grad? All of them have awesome research facilities, and a ton of well-regarded profs.</p>
<p>BUT, it's easy to become a little fish in the vast ocean in a public univ. You have to reach out for everything; nothing will come to you served on a platter with cutlery. YOU create YOUR college life. If you want to get drawn in with the tide and party your college years away, you can do that. If you want to be a focussed, honours student, you can do that as well. It depends on how the individual exploits his college life - it can be brilliant, or it can totally suck.</p>
<p>On the other hand, at HYPSM and the other top publics and Ivies, firstly only the students with top credentials are taken. These kids have been high-achievers throughout their HS lives, and chances are they're gonna remain so throughout univ as well. They can hit the ground running. They are going to have to work hard, whether they like it or not - that's the deal they've signed up for. Plus, a lot of top Ivies such as Pton have that huge undergrad focus, which makes it that much easier for the student to get into research with that Nobel prize winner (just a random example, but you get what I mean, right?). It will never be easy at one of the nation's top colleges; it will definitely be academically rigorous. But the major difference is that at such an institution, there is no easy way out. </p>
<p>That's my honest opinion (coming from a soph, ha!).</p>
<p>I would attend Berkeley over Stanford. To me the extra tuition is simply not worth it. Berkeley has a excellent rep, in my opinion better than most of the ivy's, but this is likely because of the graduate school. However, had I been admitted to Yale/Harvard/Princeton for undergrad, to me those schools would be tough to turn down. Still, in state tuition, for 7k a year, and the Berkeley name doesnt sound half bad. Just my thoughts.</p>
<p>Lejeune:</p>
<p>"You just did."</p>
<p>That was the irony of it...</p>
<p>The short answer ... NO.</p>
<p>There might be reasons for somebody to attend a top public university rather than HYPS, like the cost of tuition, strength in a specific program, or location. But other than that, NO, the top public universities do not compare to HYPS in terms of overall academic excellence, quality of research, opportunities, and worldwide reputation and significance.</p>
<p>^^ back up your bare claims with evidence, would you? I was sorely tempted to do so for you, but I'd like to see how you came to the conclusion that the above items are somehow better at privates.</p>
<p>Look at Berkeley:
*academic excellence - I think it got a 4.7 on peer assessment of academics
*quality of research - it's one of the major research universities, runs one of the most prestigious labs, is affiliated with over 60 Nobel Laureates, etc. (you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who finds that Berkeley isn't one of the most important research developers)
*opportunities - some would argue that there are more opportunities at a large public, by the sheer fact that they're larger (more competition, but nonetheless more opportunity)
*worldwide reputation - it's extremely reputable outside of the US, in large part because of its contributions and connections with the general people (being a public school); easily more well-known than most Ivies internationally
*significance - this is ambiguous, but I'll add that it was ranked 2nd in a ranking of 1) social mobility, 2) research, and 3) ethic of service to the country. Well ahead of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc.</p>
<p>Most top privates are better places for undergrads than top publics (in my opinion about 10-15 top privates, with the publics comparable to some of them but still overall a bit behind). </p>
<p>I think its hilarious how many people say that they would choose a public over Harvard or Princeton 'hypothetically'.</p>
<p>As good as the top publics like Cal, Mich and UVa are, I would never chose them over schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Penn, Columbia and Chicago.</p>
<p>I agree with thethoughtprocess that it would be very hard to turn down HYPS. However, privates being a "better" place for undergrads is questionable. Define better, academic quality? undergrad focus? undergrad exp? The publics are better in several areas, for instance undergrad exp. in my book. The ivies dont have good d1 sports to get interested in and many students really look for that in an undergrad exp. Also the ivies are all located in the cold northeast, another turn off for many students. I dont think you can say that the privates are better for everyone. They may be better for you, but some students might be better suited for and have a better time at a public university.</p>
<p>"Most top privates are better places for undergrads than top publics"</p>
<p>"Better" is such an arbitrary term, I can't even begin to explain the flaw of your argument.</p>
<p>"I think its hilarious how many people say that they would choose a public over Harvard or Princeton 'hypothetically'."</p>
<p>What's so funny?</p>
<p>patsandheels: oops, posted at the same time -- but you voiced my thoughts precisely on the "better" point.</p>
<p>patsandheels - I actually agree with you, D1 sports make college a lot more fun. It also correlates with having a more vibrant campus atmosphere. For example, I would choose Michigan (or any leet public) over Chicago in a second because the social life sucks there, and the social benefits of Michigan outweigh the academic benefits of Chicago to me. So I kind of agree that non-academic considerations need to be taken into account too. This is why I think places like Duke and Stanford attract similar minded students as Mich - top academics and fun sports life too. Thats actually exactly why I chose my school - you are able to have a great social life and a great academic pedigree as well.</p>
<p>I think if you made a graph with social life on the X-axis and academics on the Y-axis, Top Publics such as Mich, UVA, UNC and Top Privates such as Stanford and Duke would have the most equal proportion of the two. I'm so obviously an Econ major...</p>
<p>Is there a single person here who would choose even Berkeley, Michigan, or UVA over Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford if the tuition were equal and distance from home was not a factor? I didn't think so.</p>
<p>RCMan, thats true. But also keep in mind publics aren't necessarily cheaper. UVA was more expensive for me than several Ivies/privates.</p>