<p>
[quote]
Many, many majors from which to choose, certainly more than many smaller private schools. That's a great thing for college students. Yet, how is this measured? This never shows up in rankings. It's one of the advantages to attend a large public school, yet when it comes to rankings, they only measure things like selectivity, which are obviously biased against large schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This has to be tempered by the fact that many large state universities limit the ability of students to choose certain majors. Specifically, many highly popular majors at certain large universities are capped in enrollment. Hence, you can go to a particular school and find out only later that you can't get into the major that you want, and hence are forced to major in something you don't really want (or transfer to some other school). If you can't get into the major that you want, then from your perspective, it is almost as if that major doesn't even exist. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Let's say I attended UCLA and want to find a job in California. There are many many UCLA alumni and surely it wouldn't be too difficult to find a few who are willing to give me a job. Now let's say I attended CalTech. Well...it graduates what, 200 students a year? Much tougher search for alumni connections. This is pretty darn important for getting job interviews and a good job, yet...it can't be measured with numbers. Now I admit some top private schools have great networking (like Harvard, but even so, it's still much easier to find a Berkeley graduate who has positions you want in a close area), but for those small private schools that don't, this is a great advantage to those public-goers. Again, it goes unnoticed and unaccounted for in rankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, this is far more complicated than has just been stated, for reasons that you have alluded to already. You mentioned Harvard, so let's talk about Harvard. The value of the Harvard alumni network comes not from its size, because frankly, Harvard really isn't THAT big of a school and so doesn't have that many alumni, at least, relative to the behemoth public schools. What makes Harvard's alumni network so strong is not so much its size, but rather it's QUALITY. What I mean by that is that the average Harvard alumni, frankly, tends to be in a better career position than the average state school alumni and is therefore in a greater position to help you. For example, having a connection to one person at Microsoft is better than having connections to a thousand people at Microsoft if that one person is Bill Gates. Now, that's obviously an extreme example, but I think you see my point. Steve Ballmer is a billionaire basically because he was Bill Gates's old poker-playing House buddy at Harvard. That's how he got hired into Microsoft in the first place. What matters is not so much that you have access to lots and lots of alumni, but rather than you have access to some alumni who are in, or will be in, key positions.</p>
<p>Secondly, we can't just talk about the 'supply' of alumni. We also have to talk about the 'demand'. In economics, there is no such thing as the 'law of supply'. There is only the law of supply AND demand. A state school will surely have lots of alumni. The problem is that it will also have lots of students who are COMPETING for access to those alumni. Basically, a successful state-school alumni can easily pass over you, because he can pick from thousands of other students. What you really want is not only a strong and extensive alumni network (hence, large supply), but also very few other fellow students who are trying to access that network (hence, low demand). </p>
<p>To give you a case in point, when there are 1000 available jobs, but 2000 people qualified to get them, then any way you cut it, half the people will be jobless. However, if there is only 1 available job, but only 1 person qualified to get it, then you will have a situation of full employment. </p>
<p>So in the case of Caltech, sure, the alumni network is small. But the number of students competing to use that alumni network to get jobs is also small. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Faculty: if you were in upper-division, majoring in something like...neuroscience, you would probably want a professor who is very knowledgeable in the field, or perhaps even won a (nobel) prize, over a new professor who just recently got his PhD, and has only written a paper or two on the subject. Large publics with great research attract excellent faculty. Berkeley features professors who have done some amazing things. And yes, SOME professors care about research more than teaching, but MANY professors are very welcome towards undergrads. I've met a few, and hear of many more. Let's face it, there are bad professors everywhere. Even at Harvard, there are professors focused on research and don't care about undergrads. But wait...no numerical way to measure faculty quality.</p>
<ol>
<li>Research: this does not just concern grad students. Many, many undergrads do research. It's very important for getting into med school, grad programs, etc. Wouldn't you rather attend a university where you can get involved in some important research? Look at this article:
<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...l/15774546.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...l/15774546.htm</a>
Berkeley recently just discovered another element. Exciting, ground-breaking research are done at top publics all the time, and it's a boon for students, yes even undergrads.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>I think this depends, frankly, on what the students really want. And the fact of the matter is, plenty of students at Cal and elsewhere just want to set themselves up for a good job to make money. That's all they really want. I am convinced that this is why consulting and investment banking are so popular, because people see them (correctly) as a fast track to a strong career that makes plenty of money. Heck, I know people who have gotten PhD's (and not in business/economics), and then immediately took jobs in consulting or banking. McKinsey, in particular, has been extremely aggressive in recruiting newly minted PhD's. And of course these firms hire plenty of undergrads. Undergrads line up around the block in order to get interviews with these firms.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the real problem comes down to macro-economic trends. The truth is, sadly, a research career pays very poorly, relative to what you can get in banking or consulting. And the career opportunities are often times far steadier. I know one guy who got his PhD and wanted to be a researcher, and the best he could do is get some post-doc/lecturer positions. So he ditched that to become an investment banker - and he says that in his first year alone, he easily made more than 5 times what he would have made if he had just remained as a researcher. And that's just in his first year. He's been there for a while now, and has easily far more power and money than he would have ever had if he had stayed in research. </p>
<p>But anyway, that's neither here nor there. The point is, many (probably most) students at Cal and elsewhere aren't that interested in becoming researchers. They just want to get a good job. </p>
<p>
[quote]
5. Prestige: whether you like it or not, prestige does matter. A lot. Many top publics have a lot of prestige. Prestige helps in getting into a good grad school, or getting a good job. Ever heard of people who go to college just to get a degree? Sometimes a degree from a prestigious school is all you need to land a good first job. You attended Bowdoin? Want an interview? You're not going to get a chance to explain to your employer how it's very selective, it has a smaller environment which is what you prefer, that it was closer to home and your parents wanted you to go. Many unexperienced employers tend to go by prestige, and if they've never heard of Bowdoin, and decides to hire someone else from say, Penn State, well that's really too bad for you. Prestige does have its advantages.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. But we have to distinguish between mass prestige and specific prestige. I agree that many 'normal' employers have never heard of Bowdoin. But I would argue that many of the highly exclusive specialty firms know about Bowdoin. The question then becomes, how much are you willing to trade away access to 'normal' employers for access to those specialty employers? </p>
<p>
[quote]
6. More clubs, more people, more activities. Something most college students experience are...football games. It's an exciting activity, chanting with thousands of other students for the home team. But many small private schools don't even have football teams. More students also means more clubs/student groups. With a large school you can almost guarantee that you'll find people/groups you love
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This I agree with, but it depends on the person. It sounds like the difference between living in a large city and living in a suburb. Some people hate living in the city. Some people love it. I would argue that the total population in the US of people not living in cities is larger than people living in cities. Granted, some of those people just can't afford to live in cities, but I would still surmise that plenty of people who could live in them prefer not to. </p>
<p>I would also argue that even if we were talking about just the availability of activities, that probably has more to do with the greater environment than with the school specifically. Swarthmore, for example, may not itself have a lot of activities. But it is located close to Philadelphia. So you basically have the resources of an entire large city. Cooper Union is right in New York City. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that everybody should prefer LAC's. But the point is, there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But again, rankings look at more students and say "less selective = worse school."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
they only measure things like selectivity, which are obviously biased against large schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've said it before, I'll say it again. There is no absolute inverse correlation between size and selectivity. Berkeley is bigger than all other UC's except UCLA, but is also the most selective of all of them. UCMerced is (right now) the smallest of the UC's, but I think we can all agree that it is probably among the least selective of them. Hence, you can have a school that is both large and highly selective.</p>