Hope For American Public Universities?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>It seems to me that everywhere, but the US, has a thriving public university system. Canada with McGill, the UK with Oxford and Cambridge, Japan with U of HK and Tokyo, ect ect. But, in the US it seems more than ever that we value private education. Everyone knows the top University in the US is Harvard, followed by Princeton and Yale. Why is that? </p>

<p>Yes, I know we have some excellent public universities in the US. I attend unarguably the best one, University of California--Berkeley. There is also the University of Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas. However wonderful those universities are, they pale in comparison of the quality, accessibility, and affordability of other countries. Furthermore, our publics are declining at a rapid pace. I believe, one of the reasons that this is so, is because, as Americas, we take advantage of our public goods, but choose not to heavily in invest them. Why is this? Someone tell me why, as a nation, we have evolved differently and why we value education differently. </p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

2

<p>The US certainly does value education: per capita expenditure is greater at every level of education in the US than it is anywhere else (from kindergarten to graduate studies). As well, the post-secondary opportunities in the US are unrivalled; no other nation has a large a variety of colleges and universities; the best US schools are among the best in the world (and the US has a disproportionately large share of the best universities). Community college education is incredibly inexpensive in the US, affordable to almost anyone.</p>

<p>But, of course, your question is why the US values education differently. I would suggest that the US places a much greater emphasis on the value of freedom than it does on equality, relative to other countries. US citizens have great freedoms, wonderful choices, and more opportunities than the citizens of other countries; however, because of a de-emphasis on equality, many US citizens are unable to take advantage of these opportunities. </p>

<p>Equality is not on the agenda in the US in the same way that it is in places like Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Britain. In these countries most citizens cannot fathom that the richest nation that has ever existed is unwilling to extend health care to everyone; most of the rest of the civilized world thinks of universal health care as being part of promoting equality amongst humans, as are universally accessible educational opportunities. </p>

<p>The above is not a criticism of the US; rather it is merely an observation. Differing values produce differing educational systems. Most of the world envies the US post-secondary educational system.</p>

3

<p>In terms of quality, Berkeley is the best public university if the world - only Cambridge and Oxford are arguable, and certainly UCLA, Michigan etc are in the top few. It’s true that many countries have cheaper universities, nearly free, but Berkeley in-state is only about 5500 per semester in-state (for UG and graduate - professional schools are a different story), which is reasonable given quality, and really not a significant sum compared to the normal costs of living and opportunity costs.</p>

4

<p>

The top schools in, for example, Canada are on roughly equal footing with the top publics in the US. The fact that some excellent private institutions also exist here does not detract from the overall quality of public systems.

The US is different culturally from many other countries. Most states do not fully subsidize tuition at their publicly-supported universities. With that said, many do offer significant financial aid to economically-disadvantaged students. For example, [url=<a href=“http://admissions.unl.edu/financial_aid/assistance.php]collegeboundnebraska[/url”>http://admissions.unl.edu/financial_aid/assistance.php]collegeboundnebraska[/url</a>] guarantees full-tuition financial grant aid to in-state students who qualify for a Federal Pell Grant. One might argue that our aid programs should go further, but it is disingenuous to imply that little effort is made to make education accessible to those of lesser means.</p>

5

<p>Ummm, the US dominates higher education (public and private). Why do you think foreigners are clamoring to attend US universities?</p>

<p>

Foreign rankings say otherwise.</p>

<p>World Rank, Institution
1 Harvard University Americas
2 University of California, Berkeley Americas<br>
3 Stanford University Americas
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Americas<br>
5 University of Cambridge Europe<br>
6 California Institute of Technology Americas
7 Princeton University Americas
8 Columbia University Americas<br>
9 University of Chicago Americas
10 University of Oxford Europe<br>
11 Yale University Americas<br>
12 Cornell University Americas<br>
13 University of California, Los Angeles Americas
14 University of California, San Diego Americas
15 University of Pennsylvania Americas<br>
16 University of Washington Americas<br>
17 University of Wisconsin - Madison Americas<br>
18 The Johns Hopkins University Americas
18 University of California, San Francisco Americas
20 The University of Tokyo Asia/Pacific<br>
21 University College London Europe
22 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Americas
23 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Europe
24 Kyoto University Asia/Pacific<br>
25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Americas
26 The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Europe
27 University of Toronto Americas<br>
28 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Americas
29 Northwestern University Americas<br>
30 Washington University in St. Louis Americas
31 New York University Americas<br>
32 University of California, Santa Barbara Americas
32 University of Colorado at Boulder Americas
34 Rockefeller University Americas<br>
35 Duke University Americas<br>
36 University of British Columbia Americas<br>
36 University of Maryland, College Park Americas
38 The University of Texas at Austin Americas
39 Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris Europe
40 University of Copenhagen Europe<br>
41 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Americas
42 Karolinska Institute Europe<br>
43 Pennsylvania State University - University Park Americas
44 The University of Manchester Europe<br>
45 University of Paris Sud (Paris) Europe
46 University of California, Davis Americas<br>
46 University of California, Irvine Americas<br>
46 University of Southern California Americas
49 The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Americas</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not picking a bone with your belief about the great quality of a whole number of US schools. I agree there. But I do not believe the above point about ‘clamouring foreigners’ is a reasonable argument. </p>

<p>You only see the inputs to the US and the lack of Americans going abroad. And as an American, you don’t appreciate how many are clamoring to other foreign countries as well or in what proportion. </p>

<p>Moreover, those coming to the US for school may find it easier to come to the US (vis a vis American schools being open to international students relative to other countries, and the ease of coming to a country where you already speak the language as your second one). Going from China to the US is a heck of a lot easier and realistic than going to say France or Germany. </p>

<p>Moreover, they may be coming with the goal of immigration, not necessarily education per se.</p>

7

<p>The university of Hong Kong isn’t in Japan. It’s in the Chinese SAR of Hong Kong. My mother, who us a Hong Kong alumni would be going off her rocker from that statement.</p>

<p>Also, foreign public universities are nowhere as great as you proclaim. McGill or Toronto is only comparable to Michigan. There are only a handful of foreign publics comparable to American publics: Tokyo, ETH Zurich, Oxbridge, etc. and some of them still pale in comparison in terms of research.</p>

<p>The problem with publics, Berkeley included, is that their undergraduate education is awful. Overcrowding is a serious issue. Undergrad education is the most transparent because everyone is out to get a Bachelor’s; however, it will always be graduate education that is most fundamental to progress. </p>

<p>By this measure, American publics are not lacking. It isn’t necessary for the government to monopolize the less important undergrad education. </p>

<p>To the poster who brought up France and Germany, you should be aware that French universities are awful and German universities quite mediocre. Those are far more compelling reasons why foreigners avoid those countries if anything.</p>

<p>Not all first world nations provide a world class education. Most universities across Europe are lacking.</p>

8

<p>World Ranking, removing Privates, leaving only PUBLIC:</p>

<p>Public Ranking / World Ranking
1 / 2 **University of California, Berkeley Americas **
2 / 5 University of Cambridge Europe
3 / 10 University of Oxford Europe
4 / 12 **Cornell University Americas <a href=“part%20of%20Cornell%20is%20Land%20Grant%20and%20Contract”>/b</a>
5 / 13 **University of California, Los Angeles Americas **
6 / 14 **University of California, San Diego Americas **
7 / 16 **University of Washington Americas **
8 / 17 **University of Wisconsin - Madison Americas **
9 / 18 **University of California, San Francisco Americas **
10 / 20 The University of Tokyo Asia/Pacific
11 / 21 University College London Europe
12 / 22 **University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Americas **
13 / 23 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Europe
14 / 24 Kyoto University Asia/Pacific
15 / 25 **University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Americas **
16 / 26 The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Europe
17 / 27 University of Toronto Americas
18 / 28 ** University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Americas **</p>

<p>It looks like the US Universities are doing just fine as far as RESEARCH universities go. If your comments are about undergraduate education only, then that is a different question entirely.</p>

<p>If, however, you’re asking why, besides Berkeley, the seven highest ranking US Research universities are Private (Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, Yale, Chicago), that is a good and appropriate question. Or why the OLDEST public university in the US, William and Mary, did not develop to a similar level of faculty acclaim as those above, that is another interesting question.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Economies of scale.</p>

<p>I was a consumer of public higher education. It was far from “awful”.</p>

10

<p>To my first question, "why, besides Berkeley, the seven highest ranking US Research universities are Private (Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, Yale, Chicago), "</p>

<p>Harvard and Yale (and I believe Princeton as well) began as colleges for the education of future Christian ministers. With the emerging sentiment in the Colonies at that time for Church and State to remain separate enterprises, (for the protection of the State from the Church), it makes sense that Colleges for Ministers would not be made Public.</p>

<p>Stanford and MIT are both of very recent formation, within the past 120 years. Stanford was clearly the vision of a very rich Robber Baron; I’m not sure how or why MIT was founded. Why for example UMASS Amherst did not assume the role in Massachusetts that Cal Berkeley did in California… I’d like to know that as well. It clearly created a vacuum in which MIT formed.</p>

11

<p>I became curious about MIT’s founding because of this thread … </p>

<p>I just discoved MIT is actually quasi Public… that is, it was originally founded as a Land Grant college, with public monies.</p>

12

<p>oops, drat this 30 minute edit limit! </p>

<p>To continue with my MIT comments, it was founded as a private college (Boston Tech), but when it was short of funds in the 1880s, the MIT Corporation petitioned the Commonswealth of Massachusetts to invest in the school. Between 1887 and 1921, Massachusetts invested $1.6 million into MIT. I assume in today’s dollars that would be equivalent to about $160 million. These investments by the Commonweatlth aided in Boston Tech’s move to its current location across the Charles River in 1916.</p>

<p>I’ve always wondered about the close proximity of MIT and Harvard, the cross registration agreements, and the seemingly simbiotic relationship. It turns out that Harvard proposed twice in the 1870s a merger with MIT, and again in 1914. The 1914 merger was approved by the MIT Corporation, but the State Judicial Court disapproved of the merger.</p>

13

<p>Re; Posts #10-12:</p>

<p>Yes, MIT did benefit from land-grant monies from Massachusetts. So did Brown and Dartmouth benefit from the land grant proceeds in their respective states. I believe Brown repaid the State of Rhode Island when it became clear that it did not offer a proper agricultural course. Cornell, as you know received the land grant monies in NY State, and operates its Ag school under contract with NY State.</p>

<p>It is interesting that at the time Cornell was founded, there were no more federal lands in NY State. So, Cornell’s land grant came from prime timber lands selected from Wisconsin, which yielded much higher returns than U Wisconsin received from the lands it was given. IIRC, Ezra Cornell had some involvement in the Wisconsin holdings and their was some controversy over whether he personally benefited. There is a town of Cornell, WI in the vicinity of these lands. IIRC, the land grants for Rhode Island, which also did not have any remaining federal lands, were located in Kansas. </p>

<p>In its early years, Harvard definitely was “public” in the sense that it undoubtedly received monies from the Commonwealth. It is even mentioned in the Massachusetts constitution and until fairly late IIRC, a state official sat on its board. </p>

<p>If I’m not mistaken, the proposed 1914 merger with Harvard had more to do with the ambiguous status of the Lawrence Scientific School (engineering) at Harvard within the larger university. I have the impression that Harvard saw itself as the senior partner in this transaction. Even so, by the 1880s, MIT was one of a select few universities that were viewed as elite institutions to which families on the Boston and NY Social Registers would send their sons.</p>

<p>Due to the presence of a good number of great private colleges and universities in New England, state universities were underfunded and those states never attempted to develop public universities of the quality found in California, and the Midwest States. In part, I think this was due to the tight-fistedness of Yankee legislatures but in part it was due to the political influence of private schools that did not want the competition from public universities. To this day, among many people in the Northeast, public universities are viewed as second-rate (and, of course the underfunding continues.) In addition to the usual stereotypes of the Midwest as “flyover country”, many people in the Northeast blindly fail to acknowledge the quality of Midwestern Universities due to a perception that public universities (based in part on their experience with their own public universities) are mediocre at best. Possible exceptions to this are U Michigan, U Wisconsin, and Miami of Ohio which have attracted a good number of Northeastern students for many years. (Though in the case of Michigan and Wisconsin, I recall hearing somewhere that often many of these were Jewish students who at one time faced admission quotas at top private universities in their own region.) I have known many students from the Northeast who would prefer to go to second rate private universities in their region and assume excessive debt to do so, however, than to even consider a much lower cost, higher quality public university outside their region.</p>

14

<p>Here’s another international ranking from the Times Higher Education Supplement (UK):</p>

<ol>
<li> Harvard</li>
<li> Caltech</li>
<li> MIT</li>
<li> Stanford</li>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> Cambridge</li>
<li> Oxford</li>
<li> UC Berkeley</li>
<li> Imperial College London</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Swiss Federal Inst. Of Technology Zurich</li>
<li> Michigan</li>
<li>Toronto</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>U of Hong Kong</li>
<li>University College London</li>
<li>U Washington</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>U of Tokyo</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
<li>Pohang U of Science & Technology (Korea)</li>
<li>UC Santa Barbara</li>
<li>U British Columbia</li>
<li>UNC Chapel Hill</li>
<li>UC San Diego</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>National University of Singapore</li>
<li>McGill </li>
</ol>

<p>Clearly THES thinks highly of British universities, and most would say it overrates them. But that aside, U.S. publics do extremely well in this ranking, with 3 of the top 15 and 9 of the top 35 universities in the world, 10 if you include Cornell—far more than any other country including the UK (4 of top 35) and Canada (3 of top 35). China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Switzerland weigh in with one apiece; the rest of the world is shut out of the top 35. So I’d say by this ranking American publics are, as a group, the leading public universities in the world.</p>

15

<p>

Another interesting tidbit to add onto this is that Caltech was originally going to become a public school but Stanford and Berkeley (which historically does everything it can to cripple other institutions of higher education in California) lobbied against and defeated the bill. </p>

<p>Caltech rose to prominence anyways as one of the premier scientific institutions in California with the help and favoritism of the National Research Council. Today, many Berkeley students ironically look up to Caltech.</p>

16

<p>Source? </p>

<p>Caltech’s strength is earth science. Cal has stronger engineering and physical sciences.</p>

17

<p>American public universities are doing better than those in other parts of the world. Cal, Michigan, UCLA and UVa are four of the top 10 public universities in the World and US public universities are standing their ground. Another 7 (Georgia Tech, Texas-Austin, UCSD, UIUC, UNC, Washington and Wisconsin) or so would make the top 25 list of public universities in the world. </p>

<p>The primary factor in the academic strength of US public universities is their financial stengths. Michigan’s endowment of $6 billion makes it the second wealthiest public university in the World. Cal, Texas-Austin and UVa are also among the 6 wealthiest universities on Earth. The financial stability of America’s public elite universities is the envy of the academic world. Below is a list of endowment (as of mid 2009) of some top public universities:</p>

<p>University of Cambridge $6,400,000,000
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor $6,000,000,000
University of Texas-Austin $5.600,000,000
University of Oxford $4,800,000,000
Texas-A&M University $4,000,000,000
University of Virginia $3,600,000,000
University of California-Berkeley $2,300,000,000
University of Toronto $1,300,000,000
Australian National University $1,000,000,000
University of Melbourne $1,000,000,000
University of New South Wales $1,000,000,000
University of Sydney $800,000,000
McGill University $800,000,000
University of Edinburgh $250,000,000
University of Manchester $200,000,000
Imperial College $85,000,000
London School of Economics $85,000,000
University College of London $85,000,000
University of Bristol $60,000,000
St Andrews University $50,000,000
University of Warwick $7,000,000 (not a typo)</p>

<p>Not only are US public universities much wealthier, they also raise far more money from alumni and from tuition fees. Public universities in other parts of the world are practically free for residents, whereas US public universities cost anywhere from $8,000-$10,000 for residents. </p>

<p>In this day and age, universities need a lot of money to operate at the highest levels. It is not by mere coincidence that the top 2 universities in the UK also happen to be the two wealthiest. Or that the top universities in the US all have endowments that run in the billions of dollars. Federal or state funding alone will simply not cut it anymore. American universities are much better positioned financially to maintain their academic prowess and dominance.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, first of all, that would be “etc, etc”—not “ect, ect.”</p>

<p>Second, I’m not sure how you conclude that top U.S. publics like UC Berkeley and Michigam “pale in comparison” to top foreign publics. One of your chief examples is McGill, by all accounts an excellent-to-outstanding public university. But by any reasonable measue, McGill “pales in comparison” to Michigan. Here are some relevant stats:</p>

<p>Acceptance rate, Fall 2009: McGill 54%. Michigan 50%
Freshman retention rate: McGill 92.7%, Michigan 96.0%
6-yr grad rate: McGill 85.0%, Michigan 89.0%
ACT 25th/75th percentile: McGill 29-32, Michigan 27-31
Average HS GPA: McGill 3.52, Michigan 3.8
Classes < 20: McGill 34.8%, Michigan 46.1%
Classes > 50: McGill 31.3%, Michigan 17.1%
Student-faculty ratio: McGill 16: 1, Michigan 15: 1</p>

<p>Princeton Review ratings for McGill: Great college town #14; Long lines and red tape #18; Least accessible professors #14; Class discussions rare #2 </p>

<p>Princeton Review ratings for Michigan: Jock schools #19; Students pack the stadiums #3 </p>

<p>THES ranking of world universities: McGill #35, Michigan #15
QS ranking of word universities: McGill #19, Michigan #15
ARWU ranking of world universities: McGill #61, Michigan #22</p>

<p>Now I don’t say the ranking systems are always right, but here there’s a pretty strong consensus across these rankings: Michigan is a cut above McGill. Michigan’s got more small classes and fewer big oness, it’s got better retention and graduation rates, it’s got a slightly lower student-faculty ratio which translates into more personalized attention— a feature of McGill that’s sorely wanting, and is reflected in its mediocre ratings for S/F ratio and class size, and in McGill’s Princeton Review ratings which reflect one’s worst nightmares of a big, cold, uncaring institution with huge classes, long lines, and a stone-faced bureaucracy. The only area where McGill has a slight edge is in ACT scores, but I suspect that’s because at McGill the only applicants who would submit ACT scores are probably kids fom the U.S., a smallish fraction of the student body and probably slightly better qualified than the average McGill student—whereas at Michigan just about everyone submits ACT scores. Bottom line: as between the two schools, Michigan’s the better, and certainly not worse. The idea that Michigan somehow “pales in comparison” to a school like McGill is simply ill-informed.</p>

19

<p>OP, I can’t agree that US public universities are lower quality than foreign universities, though US universities shouldn’t be complacent</p>

<p>In terms of accessibility, it depends on the country. On the one hand, in some countries, top students are culled at an early age for a university track and others have fewer opportunities to attend a university later if they didn’t make the first cut . (Though in some of these countries, opportunities for postsecondary vocational and technical education for students who do not attend a university are much better developed than in the US, e.g., in Germany. However, in many countries, the vocational and technical majors found in US public universities simply are not offered at the university level.) Also, in some countries, university admission may come down to a student’s performance on a single entrance exam.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the top universities in some countries draw a higher percentage of students from a broader socioeconomic base than the top universities in the US. This is a matter of greater affordability, differences in admissions criteria (which rely on more on strictly academic criteria (and not on extraneous criteria such as legacy status, athletic talent, extracurricular activities, and less etc.), and a more even quality across the secondary schools in many countries. Nonetheless, I doubt there’s any country in which there’s anything approaching total equality of access and in which a higher socioeconomic status doesn’t provide greater opportunity and access.</p>

<p>In terms of affordability, in some European countries, universities are free (except for taxes that support them, of course), but this is not true across all countries. Still, the cost of attendance tends to be much lower than in the US. Besides lower taxation in the US, there are many reasons why it costs more in the US. These might include higher salaries for professors, more nonacademic amenities at US universities, more administrators, poor fiscal management, public policies that favored private lending for student loans, etc. all of which push up costs. As college costs have outpaced the inflation rate, student financial aid has not kept pace with these increased costs. At the same time, due to fiscal constraints and competing priorities, state governments have provided an increasingly lower percentage of subsidy to their public universities so universities have raised tuition and fees. At the same time the US values higher education as a public good, it also sees it as a benefit to private individuals so students are expected to pay a greater share.</p>

20

<p>OP, I think most of the other posters took exception to your statement that US public universities do not compare well to universities in some other countries in terms of quality. I agree with the other posters that for the most part, US universities are the best, in terms of world rankings. Even though these rankings tend to emphasize graduate/research accomplishments of universities, I also don’t think most foreign universities top the US at the undergrad level, either. The US system remains the model that most of the rest of the world emulates. </p>

<p>The OP’s initial post raised two other questions, however: 1. Why are private universities at the top? 2. Why do we not invest in public universities?</p>

<p>As to the first question, there appear to be many interrelated and complex reasons for the preeminent place of so many private universities. These include greater financial resources; a historical preference of political and economic elites for these institutions; their smaller size and selectivity; etc. </p>

<p>As to the second question, it’s very clear that rising COA has made it difficult for many families to afford public universities. States have provided a decreasing percentage of financial subsidies for public universities and this is unlikely to change. In this country we seem to have a schizophrenic attitude toward public higher education. While everyone seems to acknowledge education as a public good, we don’t back this view with the requisite political and financial support and often in our individualistic and competitive society, a college education is only seen as a private benefit. The most able students and their families opt for a private university when given a choice and the means to afford it. Every one is a seeking a competitive edge. This is understandable perhaps given the choice of private vs. public, but it serves to diminish indirectly the support for public universities by some of the most politically-connected and affluent families. This is unfortunate in other ways since private colleges and universities educate only a very small percentage of students in higher education. Moreover, in my opinion, private universities contribute much less to the common good compared to public universities, and, arguably have contributed to significant public harm out of proportion to the percentage of students that they educate. States like California, Michigan, and Wisconsin deserve great respect for endeavoring to build the great public universities that they have; many other states with equal or greater resources failed to do so.</p>