<p>Sadly, yes, the public schools in California are abysmal (no quotation marks necessary). The shame is that they didn’t have to be. At least the Southern states which harbor the nations worst schools have the excuse of poverty to fall back on, but that is not true for the wealthy state of California. There isn’t enough sunshine and coastline in the world to excuse that astonishing disconnect in human values. To me, a place which is (or at least was until recently) fabulously rich in money but which sends its children off to spend their days in understaffed, overcrowded, inadequate classrooms is not a place with a great quality of life. If I were a Californian, I would not be defensive about not wanting to see children in my state treated so poorly–I would be on the ramparts fighting for them. Californians who care should be first in line to insist that quality of life should include good education for their children.</p>
<p>Yes, I have done the above and fought to have things improve. I just wanted people to focus on the fact that although challenging at times, a good public education can be achieved in California. That’s all, but this is all just a tad to intense for my blood. Over and out. Happy 4th everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure! </p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I tend to agree with this … almost.
If you are lucky enough to be a resident of a state with a top-notch public university (such as California, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, or Wisconsin), then chances are there really is no good reason to pay much more for any other school. But there are exceptions and they are hardly limited to just 8 schools. Any school that offers something worthwhile you don’t think you can get at your state’s best public university may be worth paying some premium to attend. </p>
<p>For some students, I do think it would make sense to pay a premium to attend Pomona or CMK. These schools offer an educational environment that is very different from what Texas or Berkeley have to offer. By several objective measures one could say either of these 2 LACs (and quite a few others) are better choices. If you are lucky enough to have a choice, you have to decide how much extra it is worth paying for these differences. A top private school like Pomona or CMK may even be cheaper after aid than UT. That is unlikely to be the case for an OOS public uniersity. </p>
<p>Suppose your family is rich enough that cost truly does not matter, and your qualifications are high enough for admission to Berkeley OOS. In that case, there must be at least 20-30 schools that are worth considering as interesting alternatives to either Texas or Cal. The reasons for picking (or not picking) any of them are diverse and complicated enough to keep up the traffic on this forum for a long, long time.</p>
<p>Metrics that seem to favor CMK or Pomona over Cal include:
selectivity (measured by GPA/rank and scores using USNWR’s method); average class sizes (% <20, %>50 per CDS numbers); ratio of full time to part time faculty (see stateuniversity.com); 4 year graduation rates and average debt at graduation (per kiplinger); geographic and ethnic diversity; placements to top professional schools (according to the WSJ “feeder school” study); PhD completions (Pomona > Cal, per NSF/IPEDS, I don’t know the CMK numbers); and average starting salary of alumni with terminal bachelor degrees (CMK>Cal>Pomona per payscale.com).</p>
<p>Metrics that seem to favor Cal over Pomona or CMK include: median mid-career salary among alumni with terminal bacheelor degrees (per payscale.com); the percentage of faculty memberships in national academies and research expenditures (per Washington Monthly); or the number of course offerings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, this is much closer to the example I was offering than the quasi non sequitur response of RML. His rebuttal not only missed the fact that the better value was offered by an instate school WITHOUT scholarships, but also that there was no comparison made to a private school. </p>
<p>What RML missed was that the local state school had a BETTER program than its OOS state peers, and that the cost to attend as an in-state student was a lot less than a OOS school such as Cal could offer. The statement “Unless they’ll give a scholarship stick with your State’s best public university” is not relevant as a instate school will usually be cheaper for its students than any competing OOS state school, with or without a scholarship. In the case I presented, it is pretty clear that a student can attend a program such as Texas’ BHP for a lot less money than attending Cal or UCLA might require. </p>
<p>The issue of scholarships and financial aid really comes in play when private schools are introduced. Again, while my example did not present a comparison between OOS Cal, UT-Texas, and a private school, it was obvious that the private school ended up being the best option. This also means that the OOS was clearly the least attractive on all counts, including academics, cost, logistics, and expected quality of the overall experience. Simply stated, a school that matches 100% of demonstrated need with grants will always be better than a state school that uses mostly loans and leaves a gap. </p>
<p>Obviously, someone blinded by prestige and misguided by faulty assumptions will never understand that the college selection is above all an individual exercise whwre one HAS to remain objective. Circumstances are very different for students needing aid or the lowest cost possible and the students who are able to pay in full. However, it’s pretty easy to look at the data showing the number of OOS students at the institutions listed on the first page of the USNews ranking to ascertain how students make their decision. This is what separates state schools from schools that have more than a local or regional appeal, and clearly establishes the different value for OOS students.</p>
<p>OP,
If money is not an issue and all that matters to you is academics and engineering, then Cal is worth it for an OOS.</p>
<p>
Despite widening income disparities, a middle and upper-middle class still exists. Being able to spend $50k a year is not the same as being able to spend $50k without feeling any burden from the opportunity cost of that decision. And even if you are very wealthy, I don’t understand why a financially prudent ROI calculation isn’t worth doing.
I might modify your list of elite schools slightly, but overall I agree. Those of us who live in states without excellent public universities have a slightly more difficult position, but there are still merit scholarships available OOS at some fine schools.</p>
<p>
You’re missing a few “metrics” here:
Dynamic San Francisco Bay area over sleepy Inland Empire suburb; access to public transportation; Pac-10 college athletics; top engineering and business school programs; “energy” only a large research university can provide</p>
<p>I don’t know why you like comparing research universities to LACs… Both have advantages and disadvantages and will appeal to different, albeit similar caliber academic students. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>Xiggi, why do you claim UT-Austin would provide a better education over a UC?</p>
<p>^ You are not citing metrics (though I get that you put the word in quotes). Those are features of the school or community environment that may be important to some people, and about which anyone can have opinions. Are they important enough, and are the differences between the UC schools and UT great enough, to justify a big price premium? I don’t know, I’ve never been to Austin Texas, but it sounds like a fun place. The SF Bay area is one of my favorite places though.</p>
<p>It may have been a little gratuitous for me to toss in a discussion about California LACs, however, West of the Rockies there aren’t too many highly selective private universities (other than Stanford). My point was that some schools may be worth paying a price premium over a solid in-state public, for some people. I just don’t think those schools are very likely to include any of the UCs when the alternative is Texas-Austin at in-state rates. In my opinion, if you are a Texan interested in California schools, it is easier to justify paying a premium for a selective private LAC than for any of the UCs, and the premium you pay is likely to be much smaller after aid. If LACs have any appeal to you, that is. If you are a computer science wiz, or for a few engineering fields, Berkeley might be worth paying more than Texas. For public transportation or “energy”? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>UCB, check what I wrote about specific admissions’ standards for business, engineering and the availability of programs such as the Business Honors Program at McCombs. </p>
<p>I offered this personal example to illustrate how an OOS student does appraise his overall possibilities.</p>
<p>^ Fair enough…but I wouldn’t categorically claim the education is better. I agree that if a student has UT-Austin in-state, attending a UC is not worth the price premium. </p>
<p>Note that Berkeley does have more rigorous admission standards for its engineering programs because it is more competitive for admission. Also, undergrad at Haas is essentially honors because it is small and selective (having to apply during sophomore year)…in fact, Berkeley is all honors. ;)</p>
<p>tk, don’t you think the “metrics” I listed are more important to a student selecting a college than some “payscale average salary” and “percentage that goes on to earn a PhD”?</p>
<p>
I was comparing Berkeley to the Claremont Colleges - like you brought up…not to UT.</p>
<p>^ Maybe so. I agree that many subjective factors can influence a college choice.<br>
The numbers are useful to the extent they are indicators of something important to you, and help you avoid overly emotional, costly decisions. Most people seem at least to use test scores and grades to size themselves up against school populations. Other measurements can help you take this a step farther.</p>
<p>But heck yeah, if you’re going to spend 4 years of your life and tens of thousands of dollars on a college, there ought to be something that excites you about the place on a purely emotional level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it worth attending McKenna or Pomona over UT-Austin or Rice?</p>
<p>Thanks for all the replies guys. Although some of you strayed off topic - I understand that anything that involves the state of the UCs is going to provoke some pretty fiery debate.</p>
<p>As to address the main concern of having a powerhouse in-state flagship - I’m in a strange situation to say the least. I attend essentially a public charter high school that runs within an actual University (check out Wikipedia’s article on Early College Entrance Programs). Because of this - our program cannot legitimately rank its students - since there is no weighting of GPA, and since we all take the same classes at the same level of rigor (University classes). While Texas is a great school - due to the state’s rule where ANY student in the top 10% of the graduating class MUST be admitted to the University of Texas BY STATE LAW - this severely puts a strain on getting into Texas from private schools or schools with special cases such as mine. It’s why we have cases of students getting into Rice or Northwestern and having to go there because the in-state flagship of Texas rejects them not because they’re not qualified but because they simply don’t have room due to the requirement of accepting top 10% students.</p>
<p>This is mainly why I wanted to apply to the UC system. While many people give the argument “for that cost you might as well apply to better privates” - the fact of the matter is that for fields such as engineering (or maybe for Haas) too - there are actually very FEW private universities that are “better”. </p>
<p>Futhermore - while I can actually afford the COA - I cannot as many people say do it “easily”. While my family has the financial resources - 50K to shell out each year is no joke. I’ve got quite a few transfer credits (seeing as I essentially attend a University) - so that would essentially make it easier. </p>
<p>I just wanted to ensure that it’s a viable choice. With all the media panic about California - I wanted to make sure that it’s not a “bad” idea to apply to a UC, especially since an instate flagship like Texas is no longer a sure bet for a student like myself due to my situation. And no, I just don’t care about academics - but I’m not going to a college so I can cheer for the Big 10 football team - though it’d be a nice perk.</p>
<p>This may give you a little bit more info regarding UC system</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Hennessy</a> describes long-term education challenges | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/07/01/hennessy-describes-long-term-education-challenges/]Hennessy”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/07/01/hennessy-describes-long-term-education-challenges/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IndianOptimist, I would highly suggest discussing your options with your guidance counselor or spending some time researching the admissions’ procedure at UT-Austin. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the 10% rule is irrelevant to students who plan to apply to the McCombs business school or to the Engineering school. While the 10% automatic admissions to any state school in Texas represents the safe ticket for the students who attend ranking schools, it does not mean that students who are not are almost certain of being rejected. There are PLENTY of students who are admitted to Texas from non-ranking schools. In addition, for admissions to the business and engineering schools, all students are placed on equal footing. </p>
<p>As far as “better” programs, the McCombs business school has two separate programs. The Business Honors Program is the honor program of the business school. To show how irrelevant the top 10% rule is to admissions to McCombs, here are a few stats:</p>
<p>Applicants: 6,761
Admitted: 1,213
Enrolled*: 721
Average SAT (admitted): 1289
Average ACT (admitted): 28
Average high school rank (admitted): 2.2%<br>
Average SAT (enrolled): 1266 </p>
<p>The Business Honor Program is much more selective. The SAT scores are between 150 to 200 points higher than the regular business school.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/programs/bhp/admissions/documents/BHP_Viewbook2008.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/programs/bhp/admissions/documents/BHP_Viewbook2008.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also remember that a student does not always get admitted to a business school as a freshman, but had to it as a transfer. And, last but not least, the term TRANSFER is one that has to be clearly appraised when comparing institutions. With the obsessive focus on freshman applications and admissions, it is easy to lose track of the impact of huge transfer classes at a number of schools. </p>
<p>Caveat Emptor!</p>
<p>^ All that aside, I still think it’s a good idea to at least apply to UC Berkeley…maybe UCLA too.</p>
<p>You just need to decide what major to put down…“Pre-Business” or “Engineering - Undeclared”?..both are among the most competitive majors admission-wise.</p>