<p>There are differences, but I agree it is not apples and oranges. Maybe more oranges and nectarines, lol. Many things are very similar, some are not, for both “good” and “bad”. Even the good and bad can switch depending on the person. In the end, these days at least, the difference between the academically most demanding publics and the few dozen privates that compare in that regard has a lot to do with regionality, size, and a few factors like those, but once in the classroom (especially after the intro classes), out partying, and doing research the differences won’t be so much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Buddy - that was a bit nasty, totally inappropriate and simply just wrong.</p>
<p>Berkeley, Michigan, UIUC, UNC, and UVA were once rated as high as 5, 7, 8, 9, and 15 in the 1980s , all of them struggle to retain themselves in the USNWR’s top 20 in the 1990s, and as of this past decade, all of them were out of top 25 except for Berkeley and UVA (21 and 23 for many years). Something must be wrong. </p>
<p>I sort of agree with Alexandre and UCB. </p>
<p>“The Faculty and Financial resources rankings are ridiculously flawed, and the Alumni Donation Rank is completely pointless”.</p>
<p>In addition, I also would like to emphasize that it is ‘Weighting Games” in college ranking development. It is essential to know that both what indicators (criteria) to be chosen and how much weight to be assigned to them are subjective and should be peer-reviewed. In the upcoming NRC Ranking, to gather data on the importance of the 20 indicators, NRC requested faculty members in each field to rate which characteristics/criteria were the most important aspects (weight) of a quality PhD program. I have no idea if USNWR went through peer-review processes (at all) in selecting indicators (criteria) and determining their weights. That may be the problem.</p>
<p>in my bang for the buck meter, top public has alwasy been better than any Ivy. taken school spirit/sports into the equation, the divide is even further. adding in the d-bag factor, i don’t see why any regular Joe would choose Ivy over top public.</p>
<p>Why is it that to play up their point people feel the need to name-call the others? Would it not have been just as effective to say that you feel that top publics have a number of things, such as big-time sports and the school spirit that goes with it, that the Ivies don’t? Oh well, more than likely you will be working for one of those d-bags someday, and then you can come home and complain like that every night.</p>
<p>I don’t know fallenchemist, in my 14 years as a professional, I never had an Ivy Leaguer for a boss, and I worked for some pretty major companies (2 Fortune 500 companies, 2 BB IBanks and two of major Consulting Houses). Actually, with the exception of my first boss, all of my bosses went to non-descript colleges, like Cleveland State, UConn, tOSU (that was fun!). My first boss (from my IBanking days) did go to a major university (she was a fellow Michigan alum) and recruited me on campus for the London Office.</p>
<p>I wasn’t being literal. Just poking at someone that feels the need to name-call. I have never worked for an Ivy leager either. Not sure I even know all the universities of my bosses over the years, but pretty sure none of them Ivy. Let’s see: Tennessee undergrad/Rhode Island PhD, Virginia, Louisville (PhD, not sure undergrad), and Tulane. Oh, that last would be myself, lol. Well, there is Missouri undergrad/Wisconsin MBA, but that would be the real boss at home.</p>
<p>BTW, love the barb that tOSU is “nondescript”, lol. Nice touch.</p>
<p>“BTW, love the barb that tOSU is “nondescript”, lol. Nice touch.”</p>
<p>Old habits die hard. He was a great boss actually.</p>
<p>I think the relative rise of the Ivy schools vis a vis the large publics is attributable to wider knowledge of private elite universities than existed 30, and even 20 years ago, fostered as much as anything by USN&WR.
Another factor is the rich getting richer, and increasingly leaving the publics in the dust on financial resources. For some time now, a California middle class family will have an easier financial burden at the Ivy schools than at Berkeley. If anything, I see the financial disparity widening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking about class size. I’m talking about the overall experience of being in a university campus with thousands and thousands of students versus a few thousand. To me, that’s a very qualitatively different experience.</p>
<p>
While likely true, all top colleges seem to be squeezing the middle/upper middle class…the ultra rich can afford any price and the poor attend for free…while the middle class gets saddled with debt.</p>
<p>^^ I have been stating this for years, yet some people around here thought I was ludicrous. ::shakes my head::</p>
<p>I cannot imagine who could argue with that tenisghs. Seems beyond obvious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not understand why there is such a mystery regarding the changes in the USNews reports. As UCB has stated the public schools did not lose much ground in the Peer Assessment.</p>
<p>They did change the methodology NOT to lower the ranks of the public schools but because they realize they could not continue to rely on a survey that amounted to nothing more than a popularity contest.</p>
<p>Definitely true, especially since middle class in California is different from middle class in most places that aren’t Manhattan. I know our middle class family gets 0 aid at any school, because the expectations for assets are very low. Just owning a house in the Bay Area is enough to foreclose most schools (a few like Harvard exclude your home equity), but prudent savings has eliminated even Harvard. </p>
<p>Now my brother has to decide whether it’s worth it to pay $120,000 extra to go to a private school instead of Berkeley (applying this fall). Given that he’ll probably go to grad school and probably won’t do investment banking, it seems pretty clearly not.</p>
<p>Has home equity been added to the Federal EFC calculations?<br>
Do many public universities use the CSS/Profile results? </p>
<p>I am confused … aren’t posters saying that the private universities are at an advantage because they are richer and can provide better financial aid? Yet, I believe that those schools are exactly the ones that use your home equity in deciding how much you can afford. OTOH, aren’t the public still working on the basis on the FAFSA results? </p>
<p>/wondering</p>
<p>“They did change the methodology NOT to lower the ranks of the public schools but because they realize they could not continue to rely on a survey that amounted to nothing more than a popularity contest.”</p>
<p>xiggi, the USNWR changed its equation because having schools like Cal and Michigan ranked among the top 10 did not sit well with the USNWR’s largest market; the NE. The college edition alone accounts for 25% of its total sales.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I don’t see the difference between being in a campus with 15,000 students or 40,000 students. Is Columbia, with its 25,000 students crammed into less than 50 acres any more intimate than Michigan, with its 40,000? Again, I agree that there is a difference between a LAC with 2,000 students and a large university like NYU or USC, with their 35,000-40,000 students. But private universities with 10,000-15,000 like MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, BC, Northwestern, Stanford, Georgetown etc… are not going to feel much smaller or cozy that a university with 40,000 students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. I think there is a very different feel – just like a town of 10,000 feels different from a town of 40,000. Different types of housing options. Different size campuses. Again, I’m not saying good or bad. But you can’t tell me that there’s not a qualitative difference walking onto campuses that large, whose facilities and accommodations are scaled to accommodate 40,000 people as opposed to 10,000.</p>
<p>Have you experience both types Pizzagirl? I have. Cornell and Michigan. I honestly felt no difference whatsoever. They are identical. The only difference between those two schools is the architecture and the landscape. Cornell has 20,000 students and Michigan has 40,000.</p>