<p>I was wondering how much of a difference it makes between going to an ivy league school and a top public school (e.g. UC Berkeley) to evaluate whether it is really worth the extra cost. It would be great if I could have former students respond (especially those that were admitted to both and picked one over the other), but everyone's feedback is appreciated. Some factors I am considering are: </p>
<ul>
<li>Career Prospects </li>
<li>Quality + Utility of Networks</li>
<li>Difficulty of succeeding academically<br></li>
<li>The College Experience</li>
</ul>
<p>For alumni networking and career prospects: This is going to be different at every school. It really depends on what you are aiming for. Do you want to be a banker at a Wall Street firm? I would choose Penn over Berkeley. If I want to be an author, id choose Berkeley and expect to find stronger connections there. But in general, your undergraduate degree by itself is not very important when it comes to getting jobs. Itâs internships that really make a difference.</p>
<p>Rigor: Again, it depends. It varies by major.</p>
<p>Experience: This is extremely vague. All schools have different experiences. Being in Ithaca at Cornell and in Manhattan at Columbia are very different experiences.</p>
<p>@AnnieBeats Why would you find better connections at Berkeley if you wanted to be an author compared to the Ivy League? Wouldnât the better networking and access to alumni from the Ivy League lead to more opportunities to meet famous alumni in the literary field compared to a place like Berkeley which doesnât connect students to graduates?</p>
<p>@mikemac A few years back? That article is thirteen years old, lol. However, it was eye opening to see that the average cost of an ivy (tuition, room and board) was $32,000 a year - about half of todayâs cost. Half!</p>
<p>If you are wanting a Wall Street type job, go Ivy. If you want to be a doctor or engineer, a top public could be just fine. Peers? There are smart kids everywhere, but more consistently smart kids perhaps at Ivies. More geographical diversity at Ivies than at a UC or UT. You might get a moreâŠclassic⊠college experience, with football and Greek life at a top public. </p>
<p>Work load and depth of learning? It depends on the kid and the school. The Ivies offer a great experience, but the kid has to do the reading and go to class. He has to think about the material, not just go for an easy grade. Some publics have honors programs, like UTâs Plan II, that offer a more in depth experience. </p>
<p>I think it depends on the kid, too, how much he takes advantage of all the opportunities at a school. A student who wants to do research as an undergrad can go talk to a professor and find a way to get involved. He can do that at either kind of school. A kid can sleep walk through his time at Harvard, just doing the minimum, and he can work like mad at a large public, learning all he can.</p>
<p>Well, the Ivy League is an NCAA Division I athletic conference (including football, though at the championship subdivision level instead of the bowl subdivision level). Fraternity and sorority participation among those schools varies widely, perhaps much more so than at state flagship universities.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus You would be surprised how different D1 A is compared to D1AA for football. The games are no where close in comparison and it doesnât draw nearly as much attention as D1 schools. It might as well be D2. </p>
<p>Same thing with basketball. I went to a Penn-Yale game (which is D1). Decent turnout, decent competition but no comparison to a D1 game at most highly competitive places like Michigan, Duke, etc. </p>
âTop public schoolâ is pretty vague. To pick two extreme examples, William & Mary and Ohio State are pretty different in almost every respect.</p>
<p>I chose a top private university (not an Ivy) over my in-state flagship years ago because it was cheaper and stronger for my intended majors. Due to the nature of my program, I ended up taking a lot of classes at my flagship anyway and even had a professor there serve on my senior thesis committee. I found the two pretty comparable academically. The private university had noticeably smaller classes in my majors, classes were a bit more fast-paced and rigorous, and students were more uniformly excellent, but the public had a great quality of life (awesome college town, great athletics, friendly students), caring professors (if you took the time to meet with them), extremely diverse course offerings, and many highly intelligent students. </p>
<p>For grad school, I chose a public university over Chicago, about half the Ivies, and a couple other places. Attending (and teaching at) UCLA has confirmed my impressions from college; for a motivated student, there is little difference in the quality of academics between a top private and a top public. </p>
<p>Of course, thatâs not to say thereâs no differences. UCLA - I wonât generalize to other publics or even other UCs - is not funded as well as most of the Ivies or comparable privates, and in some ways it shows. As one example, library hours, even at the main graduate research library, fall short of what they should be due to UCLAâs limited funds. (In fact, itâs closed altogether on Sundays this summer, something I find intensely frustrating as I write my dissertation.) I was spoiled at my undergrad with a 24 hour library, though I hadnât realized that at the time. Advising can be pretty lackluster as well; I got so frustrated with the Fulbright advising (or lack thereof) here that I contacted the fellowship office at my alma mater, which was in contrast amazingly helpful and efficient. A lot of public universities noticeably lag in Rhodes and other elite fellowship production for this reason; they have no shortage of top students, but theyâre not advised nearly as well as they could be. That said, itâs hard to justify an extra $30+K a year based on these comparatively minor differences that may not even directly affect you. </p>
<p>Sit down with your parents and go over the finances, especially if youâll have another sibling in college soon or plan to attend an expensive professional program after graduation (e.g. law or medicine). Only you and your parents can decide if itâs âworth itâ to attend an expensive private for college. About 50-60% of the students at the Ivies pay full freight each year, many of them from states with good flagships. Thereâs even more students who prefer their in-state public and/or find it a much more cost-effective option. </p>
<p>Haas gets kids in to high finance as well, but I believe that entrance in to Haas isnât guaranteed out of HS. Obviously, Cal grads are heavily involved the Bay Area tech scene like few other schoolsâ alums.</p>
<p>Not all Ivies (or other elite privates) are the same, and not all top publics are the same.</p>
<p>@warblersruleâ has a great summary. A bright motivated kid (especially if from a middle-class or above background) can get virtually the same experience and outcomes out of a top state school like Cal as from an Ivy. Certainly, the quality of the professors at a place like Cal would be no different from an Ivy (no, actually, it would be better than some Ivies). Probably more services and better advising at a private (only a few publics can match in some areas, like UMichâs Rossâs career advising). An elite private would be better for those brilliant slacker types who manage to get in as thereâs less hand-holding at publics. The top privates would also probably be better for those from disadvantaged/URM/immigrant backgrounds unfamiliar with American upper-middle-class mores or need extra help. If you donât fit in to those categories, I donât think itâs worth paying a lot extra for if you are full-pay.</p>
<p>In terms of career, what are you considering? If youâre considering between Cal and Ivies, they likely can get you the same places (assuming youâre bright, motivated, and at least middle-class).</p>
<p>In terms of network, Cal would be terrific for the Bay Area and CA in general (really only Stanford and maybe Harvard would be better). Elsewhere, most Ivies would be stronger. </p>
<p>BTW, in terms of alumni success (prestigious student awards, PhDs, âAmerican Leadersâ, & elite professional school placement), Cal is pretty impressive; best of the top publics (though UMich, UVa and maybe W&M are really close behind) and towards the tail end of the Ivies by most of those metrics (which is still impressive considering that Cal has more undergrads than any 4 of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown added together).</p>
<p>The business major at Berkeley does not admit frosh. Students have to apply to the business major after completing the prerequisites (at Berkeley for those who entered Berkeley as frosh, or at their current colleges for those applying to transfer from another school).</p>
<p>Iâd say career prospects are pretty similar. I know that fairly recently UCLA (along with UCSD and Cal Poly SLO I think) were added to the list of schools McKinsey recruits at at the undergraduate level. I always found the lack of McKinsey recruiting at UCLA quite puzzling for several reasons: 1) they recruited at much less selective schools (e.g. Texas A&M) 2) UCLAâs campus is only like 5 - 7 miles away from McKinseyâs Los Angeles office and 3) McKinsey recruited at both UCLA"s SOM (Geffen) and its business school (Anderson) but not the undergraduate school. So thatâs been fixed. </p>
<p>Other big-name companies that recruit are Blackstone, Deutsche Bank, Houlihan Lokey, Deloitte, many of the Silicon Valley companies, and probably any Fortune 500 company that recruits for its west coast, California, or Los Angeles offices.</p>
<p>Iâm only a recent alum, but Iâd say networking hasnât been very helpful. I donât think Iâve met any alums whoâve gotten where they are through the UCLA network. Like many successful people, theyâve gotten where they are through intelligence and hard work.</p>
<p>âSucceeding academicallyâ is a vague statement. I can tell you that getting top grades top grades is very competitive though. You can probably manage a B+ average without killing yourself in many liberal arts majors, although that can become a lot harder in the STEM majors.</p>
<p>Iâd say college experience is really what you make of it. If you wanted to go out and party every weekend, you could do so. If you wanted to spend all of your time with your friends in the library studying, you could do that too. It really depends on what you wanted from the experience. Some of the students I knew either had boardgames once or more a week, or joined a variety of clubs in order to socialize. Depending on what you wanted, you could really shape your own experience.</p>
<p>I canât tell you my own experience of turning down an Ivy as I didnât apply to any. I can, however, share the experience of someone that did. Hereâs what another poster had to say about his experience post UCLA:</p>
<p>I live in the heart of the bay area, so I am quite naturally leaning more towards Silicon Valley than Wall Street. </p>
<p>Also, my parents expect me to help finance my little sisterâs education, so a job right out of college is critical. Would anyone say that the ROI of an ivy, in terms of salary bump for the next ten years, is consistent with the price to actually attend the ivy (or top private school)? </p>
<p>One more thing- by âsucceeding academicallyâ I meant more along the lines of how competitive is the environment? I have heard programs like Berkeley EECS are cutthroat (kind of like my high school) and the atmosphere is more relaxed and focused on education at the ivies. Is this true, or is it the other way around? I want to spend time getting involved with research opportunities and internships (which Iâve heard help the most for getting jobs), so it would be quite helpful if less time was used up competing in a ârat raceâ. </p>
<p>Again, thanks for all the anecdotes- exactly what I am looking for!</p>
<p>âWould anyone say that the ROI of an ivy, in terms of salary bump for the next ten years, is consistent with the price to actually attend the ivy (or top private school)?â</p>
<p>Over a directional school that no one has heard of? Possibly.</p>
<p>Over Cal? Thatâs a very poor assumption. As Iâve said, Cal can get you anywhere an Ivy can. Iâve also already said that by alumni achievements, Cal alums do as well as those of some Ivies/Ivy-equivalents (and actually better than those of some other elite privates).</p>
<p>You have to understand that a big reason why Cal is much cheaper than full-pay at an Ivy if you are in-state in CA is because the state (and full-pay OOS students) are subsidizing your education there. If you are full-pay at an elite private, youâre subsidizing poorer kids who are on fin aid at that private.
However, thatâs assuming that youâre full-pay. How much does your family make? At some income-levels, HYPS may actually be cheaper than Cal.</p>
<p>Itâs going to be competitive in STEM at Cal; but it could be competitive at an Ivy as well. The main difference is that it may be competitive to <em>get</em>in<em>to</em> certain majors at Cal and you may get shut out (while at a private, usually anyone who wants to major in anything is allowed to).</p>
<p>You can focus on research and internships where ever you go.</p>
<p>The main thing to understand (once you get in to any pretty good school in the major that you want) is that your success is mostly dependent on you, not the school that you went to.</p>
<p>This may be true at HYPSM (assuming one takes the needed course work for the desired major), but not at all privates, including Cornell, Columbia, Penn, and USC, where they are internal administrative barriers around popular majors (e.g. GPA requirement higher than needed to stay in good academic standing).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Donât underestimate the local advantage of Berkeley and Stanford for Silicon Valley (and the local advantage also helps those at SJSU, UCSC, SCU, and UCD). The small startups have neither the needs nor resources to recruit all over the country. (Of course, this assumes that you major in CS or something like that which makes you attractive to those small startups.)</p>
<p>Of course, the east coast schools have a local advantage to Wall Street and such.</p>