<p>I live in California. Some of my less academic friends are preparing for state schools, while my more academic friends are gearing up for private schools or the UC system. I've heard this myth many times before, from both sides - </p>
<p>** the students at state schools are more open to partying, hanging out, and focusing on their social lives than the students at UC's or private institutions, who are more focused on their studies (even though many of them still do have a social angle on college, in general they're there for the studies) ** </p>
<p>Obviously I know this is a generalization, and all generalizations are * technically * false. But, taking this post with a grain of salt, how much truth would you say this myth carries? </p>
<p>Many of the notorious party schools are in fact, large state flagships. This is because, of the large state flagships that aren’t particularly selective and allow many students in, many of the students there may not be there for academics. (for example, in Missouri this is Mizzou). This being said, there are plenty of state flagships that are more academically-driven, and there are plenty of private schools where partying is big. If there’s anything I’ve learned on this website, college is what you make it. You can go to X Party School and find your place there that does not necessarily involve heavy partying. More academically-driven students in HS apply to privates because among the “Top universities”, most of them are private institutions. Needless to say, many of these schools can be so called “party schools”.</p>
<p>It varies more by school if anything, not a fine line between private / public.</p>
<p>It likely has to do with academic selectivity. Top public and private universities both tend to have high admissions standards (i.e. many in their incoming classes tend to have high test scores and GPA.) People that spend a lot of their time partying generally don’t perform very well scholastically. So, people who spend a lot of their time partying won’t generally be attending top public or private universities.</p>
<p>It also likely has to do with drive. The students at my alma mater were generally very driven. Many of my social gathering with my friends generally consisted of brief lunches or study sessions (and sometimes, a combination of both.) Many were trying to juggle the internships they might be taking, jobs they might be working, other side projects they might be doing, friends, family, and their studies. There isn’t much time for partying when you’re very busy.</p>
<p>That being said, I think you’re being a bit harsh on less selective state schools. I met many students in community college that were really just trying to better themselves. Many tried really hard to integrate college into part of their lives. Most of these people weren’t highly intelligent, or the most driven. They were just average folks. The types that don’t really care about websites like CC. Many of these less selective state schools appeal to these types of students who might be balancing work, families, and other responsibilities with their academics. I, personally, am proud to be part of a state that has such a balanced system for educating its many different citizens.</p>
<p>It’s not a myth, it’s an unfounded generalization, based on slivers of truth. I mostly agree wth what byephy said, it’s really up to the individual. Even at elite schools students can sometimes get a bit “lost”.</p>
<p>As a general rule, the myth is true, but it’s so general, it’s difficult to apply it to any one individual school. I’ve found that the existence/non-existence of a Greek system might be a better predictor, but even that’s a general rule. And there are plenty of high performing private schools with a study hard/play hard attitude, Lehigh comes to mind as a prime example.</p>
<p>Your best bet is to check out a reliable source on individual schools. I’d recommend Princeton Review’s Best 37X Colleges (new edition out in September) to get a good indication of the party scene at any individual top school.</p>
<p>Er, I disagree with this. I personally spent a lot of time partying in college and I also did quite well academically. I’m at an Ivy League graduate school and many of my friends, colleagues, classmates and acquaintances here also like to party a lot. It all depends, I suppose, on what you mean by “partying a lot”, as well as the other things a person is doing in their life. I’ve always had a work hard/play hard mentality.</p>
<p>My take on it is that it has to do with a combination of selectivity, the purpose/mission of the university in question, and good old-fashioned skewed perceptions/stereotypes.</p>
<p>Take Ohio State, for example. Ohio State has a reputation for being a party school, I think; it also doesn’t have the same kind of academic reputation that places like Michigan, UVa, UCLA, and Berkeley have, for whatever reason. It’s publicly supported, with over 40,000 students at the main Columbus campus. Given that it’s a state-supported institution, Ohio State’s mission isn’t to serve only the best and brightest in the nation - it’s to serve Ohio’s college-bound population and their taxpaying parents. That, in part, has to do with the selectivity being lower than - say - NYU or Harvard or whatever. Ohio State also isn’t as attractive to out of state students like the four public institutions I listed above, so they don’t have the rejection of too many OOS students driving down their acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Given that, OSU’s student population is going to be a range of mostly (86%) Ohio state students - from the middle-class valedictorian who couldn’t afford to go anywhere else, to the solid-B, three-generation legacy, to the first-generation student with little outside support, to the college senior dreaming of fraternity parties and boozy football games. Many public institutions, in that way, have to sort of be all things to all people. In addition, their sheer size means that they have more of everything, including more of a bunch of different kinds of students. Ohio State is only 6% Greek, but 6% of 44,000 students means over 2500 students in Greek organizations. That’s larger than many small LACs! So naturally they garner a lot of attention for students with those qualities. Any school with 44,000 students has tons of students in tons of niches - the theater geeks, the band geeks, the academic superstars, the future CEOs, etc. If even only 20% of Ohio State’s students are there primarily for the academics, that’s still 8,800 students, which is larger than the entire undergrad population at some of these top schools. </p>
<p>But the other thing is that a lot of this is completely fueled by stereotypes. I’m sure that the students at Ohio State party a lot, just like 18-22-year-olds tend to do regardless of what kind of college they’re at (or whether they are in college at all). But Ohio State is also ranked #52 in USNWR - which is awesome, given the number of universities in the country. And although Ohio State admits 56% of its applicants (which really makes it somewhat selective), the middle 50% score range is between roughly a 1700 and a 2000 - above average SAT scores. 58% of Ohio State students were in the top 10% of their high school class, and 92% were in the top quarter. Your average Ohio State student appears to be a good student - at least a solid B/3.0, maybe a bit higher - who got above-average scores on the SAT. Not Ivy League astronomical, but still great. But Ohio State gets the reputation as a party school because it’s a large public university and it already has been painted by that brush, so that’s what people pay attention to.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think that the students at some private institutions aren’t as open to partying and hanging out not because they don’t want to be, but because they feel like can’t. The curricula at these top schools (many of which are public - like the UCs or Michigan or UVa) tend to be much more rigorous than at some of the so-called party schools, and the students are more competitive. And by competitive I don’t mean smarter or more talented - I literally just mean “more competitive”, as in, they like to compete with each other. I think that universities like Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, Columbia, etc. tend to attract academically talented but also very ambitious, driven, competitive students because they have a reputation of being competitive places for ambitious driven students. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.</p>
<p>At least in my experience, the students often push themselves beyond what is necessary to seem competitive. For example, a full-time courseload here at Columbia is 12 hours (4 3-credit classes); at most colleges with 3-credit classes, a 15-credit semester is the norm, with 18 hours considered an overload. But here at Columbia, a 15-credit semester is seen as a “light” semester, with most students I’ve talked to taking between 18-21 hours - that’s 6-7 undergrad classes - every semester. And for no apparent reason; taking 15 hours a semester with an overload one or two semesters will net you the 124 credits needed for graduating here in the normal 8 semesters. I once advised a student who was considering taking 8 classes; she was also in a school musical and a resident assistant and on a student council and did a number of other things. I had another student who really wanted to drop to a 15-hour semester because she was soooo stressed, but was worried about what her friends would think - about being perceived as a slacker. In my own experience at a lower-tier but less competitive LAC (Spelman), these kinds of concerns just don’t exist in the same way.</p>
<p>Even still, though, having worked in residential life here - the students definitely party. But again, since this school has a reputation for being an academic powerhouse, nobody focuses on or asks much about the partying; they’re more interested in the academics, perpetuating the stereotypes and perceptions that make them comfortable.</p>
<p>That’s why I qualified my statement with “generally.” If you spend a large part of your time partying, you’ll have less time for the other things you need to do. If you combine that with a need to work, you’ll have less time for family, friends, academics, etc. When all those things are taken into consideration, something’s gotta give. Sure, some people are exceptional students: they can cram at the last minute and still pull of the A or they can balance studying with their many other obligations. However it’s been my experience that most people aren’t capable of doing that. </p>
<p>For me, trying to get an A could be excruciatingly difficult at times, especially since it was only given to the top 5-10% of the class. If I made even a small mistake, it would shift me from an A to an A-. With the amount of studying I was putting in, I’m of the opinion that I would have graduated with a significantly higher GPA in a major with a more concrete grading criteria. (and I graduated with a fairly high GPA.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Presumably, your IL school offers a strong graduate program in your field, which is itself selective. If that’s the case, many of these students are likely exceptional students like yourself. And so, my general qualifier stated above would not include these students as well, since they are likely capable of partying and still achieving top grades at (presumably) selective and rigorous alma maters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s actually a really interesting observation. I thought kids weren’t as open to partying because it just wasn’t something that the majority of the students were in. Sure, partying is fun, and we all like to party. But we’re also really busy doing other stuff too. You might go to a party at the very beginning of the semester / quarter when school is beginning, but you just have less time to do that when papers and midterms are near. As an undergrad, I kind of felt that there was a pressure to be ‘pre’ something: pre-med, pre-law, pre-grad school, etc. And if you didn’t know what you wanted to do, it felt like you didn’t have your stuff together. This has to do with a lot of factors, including the quality of your peers. I agree that there’s a lot of pressure, and that this pressure isn’t necessarily the most conducive to a partying atmosphere.</p>
<p>Another difference could be whether a school happens in semesters or quarters. There’s just a lot less time to do the work in a quarter than there is in a semester. I’ve heard several professors complain about this on multiple occasions. And they do a variety of things to compensate. For example, in some science classes, professors give you work over holiday break BEFORE class starts that you need to complete before the quarter begins. In one of my classes as an undergraduate, our professor forced us to spend an extra 2-3 hours every saturday to come for an additional class (this was NOT part of the original class schedule.) So to do all of that, while still balancing work, family, internships, etc. with a social life is very difficult. That’s not to say that some don’t do it, but it can be very difficult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That might also be the result of where the colleges are located. Columbia is in integrated very well into NYC; UCLA, on the other hand, is on LA’s Westside which, imo, has always seemed to me to be isolated from the rest of the city. And it can be difficult to get from one side of the city especially if you lack a car.</p>
<p>Overall, I think our experiences have been quite different for a variety of factors. I still stand by my original post however. I think balancing academics with partying is a skill, and it’s one that many are not that good that. I also think that there’s a bit of vagueness to what ‘partying’ means. Are we talking about going to a party until 10 or 11pm and going home? Or staying out till 3-4 in the morning on Fridays and Saturdays? My original post was more in the latter category’s spirit, but if you were doing the former, I suppose you could say you ‘partied’ a lot in college and still had great academics.</p>
<p>^ I’ve heard many people make that observation, and I’d agree. Downtown LA has a completely different feel than Koreatown, which has a completely different feel than Westwood, which has a completely different feel than The (San Fernando) Valley. It also doesn’t help that there are several cities in LA in and around the area. I think what contributes to the fact that The Westside has a different feel than the rest of LA has to do with the fact that it’s composed of many independent cities. Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City, and Santa Monica are all their own cities with their own mayors, city councils, and school districts. But all of them are really small and they take a second place behind LA.</p>