<p>IMO, a private is really only worth the cash if it has the name recognition to make it matter. If your talking about 2 schools, one private and one public that are not known at all than go to the one that is cheaper, even if the private provides a better education. Its not like it will make a big difference in future careers either way, what matters is being able to say you went to college and graduating without debt. Yet, if you can afford it easily than this is a moot point.</p>
<p>It saddens me that you think the prestigious private will somehow magically be better for future careers...</p>
<p>And what if the private and the public are both prestigious? What then?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And what if the private and the public are both prestigious? What then?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said this "IMO, a private is really only worth the cash if it has the name recognition to make it matter." </p>
<p>Meaning that if their is a public school that offers a comparable reputation and it is cheaper than it is better to choose that school. I was clearly making a differentiation between privates with good reputations and publics without, so even though you love to come into every thread I post in and criticize me, maybe just maybe you should look at what I say?</p>
<p>To that end, the top 5 State Schools are really the only ones that can compare with the higher end private insitutions, leading me to make my statement. Also in my belief, I do not think state schools offer anywhere as good an undergraduate education as the Elite privates. The immensity of their schools, their requirements to admit in-state students, which sacrifice quality and diversity, the lack of as much financial resources to spend on their students and the extremely large classes in my opinion make them by far less attractive options. My previous post was not on this, but now I do believe that a person will be better served at a private school. Also I don't think its question, whatever a minority of people say on these forums, that no state school is as prestigious as the Ivy League, Duke, Stanford +MIT...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was clearly making a differentiation between privates with good reputations and publics without
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You hadn't said that--you said that between two schools, private and public, without much reputation, you should choose the public; and that a private is worth it if it has a good reputation. However, you may have held the opinion that one should choose the prestigious private over the prestigious public for a more personalized education, or for some other reason. So no, I can't just "look at what you say" when you don't say it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also in my belief, I do not think state schools offer anywhere as good an undergraduate education as the Elite privates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...exactly why I asked, "What if the private and the public are both prestigious?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
The immensity of their schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's wrong with large? Columbia has 25,000 students. It's huge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
their requirements to admit in-state students, which sacrifice quality and diversity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does it sacrifice "quality"? What defines "quality" in your narrow view? And what diversity is lost other than the inconsequential geographic diversity?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the lack of as much financial resources to spend on their students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Lack"? There is no "lack." There are the financial resources, I guarantee it. They may not "lavish" their undergrads with money and resources, but there's still plenty of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the extremely large classes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Extremely large classes? Many of the top-20 privates have comparable class sizes...</p>
<p>Really, you just spout the same drivel that's repeated over and over again on this site from people who haven't investigated the issues and who are, more often than not, obsessed with top-20 privates. I've gotten sick of having this discussion--same arguments, same results (i.e. you walk away with the same view that elite privates are "superior").</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's wrong with large? Columbia has 25,000 students. It's huge.
[/quote]
That includes grad students as you well know. Don't change the discussion its for undergrad, and if you include grad where is Berkeley at...
[quote]
How does it sacrifice "quality"? What defines "quality" in your narrow view? And what diversity is lost other than the inconsequential geographic diversity?
[/quote]
There acceptance rates are higher, their students are on average weaker (GPA, SATs). Also I do believe that enthic diversity can enhance the education of a school...
[quote]
"Lack"? There is no "lack." There are the financial resources, I guarantee it. They may not "lavish" their undergrads with money and resources, but there's still plenty of it
[/quote]
Columbia has the same exact endowment as Michigan at around 7.1 billion (penn is about that as well) and Michigan is twice as large as both those schools (44k students)...so that means it has half as much money per student. Berkeley a school of 34k students has an endowment of 3.4 billion, which puts it even more severely at a disadvantage to those private school.
[quote]
xtremely large classes? Many of the top-20 privates have comparable class sizes..
[/quote]
Complete false statement, look at the student:faculty ratio, its not even remotely close. Yes at a private you can have some lectures, but overall they have many many more smaller classes. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing...</p>
<p>
[quote]
eally, you just spout the same drivel that's repeated over and over again on this site from people who haven't investigated the issues and who are, more often than not, obsessed with top-20 privates. I've gotten sick of having this discussion--same arguments, same results (i.e. you walk away with the same view that elite privates are "superior").
[/quote]
Everyone of my points was substantiated, every one of yours disproved. You may call it drivel, others call it fact. You always walk away from this with a view that public universities are completely equal to or superior to the elite private schools and that is proved unfounded time and time again. Look at the facts, and maybe you should reevaluate you position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That includes grad students as you well know. Don't change the discussion its for undergrad, and if you include grad where is Berkeley at...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Believe it or not, grad students have a presence on campus and also suck up resources (probably 2x as much as undergrads, even if undergrads outnumber grads). People complain about the huge size of the top publics, when if you count the total students at many of the top privates, you'd see how huge they are too. (Harvard and Stanford have 20,000 students each.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
There acceptance rates are higher, their students are on average weaker (GPA, SATs). Also I do believe that enthic diversity can enhance the education of a school...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Weaker"... again with the trite arguments that students at top publics are somehow inferior to those at top privates on average. It's a ridiculous statement. Nobody can really distinguish among the students at these schools.</p>
<p>And what does ethnic diversity have to do with anything? I think Berkeley is about 20% URM, which is about the same at my top privates... many Asians? Sure. They too add tons of diversity, since "Asian" encompasses many, many different Asian countries (these students tend to retain their cultures as well, whereas students of European descent tend not to). And just look at the Asian populations at top schools: 25% at Stanford, ~30% at MIT, 40+% at Caltech... nobody criticizes them for that.</p>
<p>So the "ethnic diversity" point is moot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia has the same exact endowment as Michigan at around 7.1 billion (penn is about that as well) and Michigan is twice as large as both those schools (44k students)...so that means it has half as much money per student. Berkeley a school of 34k students has an endowment of 3.4 billion, which puts it even more severely at a disadvantage to those private school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, the same argument about endowment/student. I'll make this short: a university spends about 5% of its endowment, and Berkeley receives between $500 million and $600 million from the government each year, just to spend. In order to a private school to match that, they need $10+ billion dollars in their endowment. The same can be said of many top public schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Complete false statement, look at the student:faculty ratio, its not even remotely close. Yes at a private you can have some lectures, but overall they have many many more smaller classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that so?</p>
<p>MIT:
under 20: 61%
over 50: 14%</p>
<p>Cornell:
under 20: 60%
over 50: 16%</p>
<p>Rice:
under 20: 62%
over 50: 9%</p>
<p>JHU:
under 20: 66%
over 50: 9%</p>
<p>Then look at the top publics:</p>
<p>Berkeley:
under 20: 62%
over 50: 14%</p>
<p>UCLA:
under 20: 55%
over 50: 20%</p>
<p>UVA:
under 20: 50%
over 50: 15%</p>
<p>As you can see, the gap between Berkeley and some of the other top-20 privates isn't too big, if even present. It's slightly larger for the others, but a difference in 10% is not really going to matter that much in your undergraduate career.</p>
<p>Student:faculty ratios can be embellished so easily. For example, some will include total faculty and only undergrads; others will include medical school faculty; others won't account for part-time faculty. The ratios don't matter so much as the actual class sizes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone of my points was substantiated, every one of yours disproved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You haven't substantiated any of your points with real data, other than endowment figures, where you failed to account for government revenue for the top publics. Arguing against a point doesn't mean that the opposing point is "disproved," either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You always walk away from this with a view that public universities are completely equal to or superior to the elite private schools and that is proved unfounded time and time again. Look at the facts, and maybe you should reevaluate you position.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've looked at the facts much more in-depth than you have, obviously, and I still maintain the same opinion because people like you continually fail to support your points, to disprove mine completely, and to offer a sound conclusion based on what you have offered. </p>
<p>I don't think they're "completely equal"; but neither do I see any clear inferiority or superiority. There are differences, of course, and some may prove better in lavishing opportunities on their students, but as far as I've seen, top publics also have tons of opportunities that students can take advantage of.</p>
<p>UMich AA does not have 44,000 students Bescraze. Do you always like to throw out incorrect numbers to prove a point? Furthermore, Michigan is a state supported school. I hope you understand that the state of Michigan sends money to the institution. I doubt the same could be said for privates like Columbia and Penn.</p>
<p>"Columbia has the same exact endowment as Michigan at around 7.1 billion (penn is about that as well) and Michigan is twice as large as both those schools (44k students)...so that means it has half as much money per student. Berkeley a school of 34k students has an endowment of 3.4 billion, which puts it even more severely at a disadvantage to those private school."</p>
<p>This only makes sense if you make the preposterous assumption that you need to spend twice as much on something to accommodate twice as many students, or that something is twice as valuable if half as many people use it. I'd imagine it's far far more relevant to look at absolute endowment as opposed to endowment per student.</p>
<p>"Again, the same argument about endowment/student. I'll make this short: a university spends about 5% of its endowment, and Berkeley receives between $500 million and $600 million from the government each year, just to spend. In order to a private school to match that, they need $10+ billion dollars in their endowment."</p>
<p>You fail to mention that the elite privates also receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants themselves.</p>
<p>I believe apple2pie that kyledavid80 was referring to state dollars for spending. Research dollars from the federal government are another source that all top private/public universities receive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Believe it or not, grad students have a presence on campus and also suck up resources (probably 2x as much as undergrads, even if undergrads outnumber grads). People complain about the huge size of the top publics, when if you count the total students at many of the top privates, you'd see how huge they are too. (Harvard and Stanford have 20,000 students each.
[/quote]
That still does not change the fact that the publics are much bigger period, including grad students. Not to mention that grad students at many schools live and learn in different areas than the undergrads leading to minimal cross over. The same thing can not be said at a school like Berkeley, where the whole entire undergrad population does live in the same area and utilize the same resources.
[quote]
"Weaker"... again with the trite arguments that students at top publics are somehow inferior to those at top privates on average. It's a ridiculous statement. Nobody can really distinguish among the students at these schools.
[/quote]
Not remotely trite. By every single metric that colleges use to determine intelligence and academic capability the publics fall behind the elite privates (GPA and SAT)...those matter and statistically the publics are weaker in that area....there is a reason top students pick the elite privates over the elite publics when they can afford it. Trust me I know plenty of both types, and it is very easy to distinguish between the two.
[quote]
Again, the same argument about endowment/student. I'll make this short: a university spends about 5% of its endowment, and Berkeley receives between $500 million and $600 million from the government each year, just to spend. In order to a private school to match that, they need $10+ billion dollars in their endowment. The same can be said of many top public schools
[/quote]
That money does not eliminate the fact that they have many many more students and a weaker endowment to fall upon. If you want to take that argument look at the amount of money in fund raising and donations that the elite privates get and spent to build up their campus, just look at Columbia's and Penns recent fund raising campaign or Stanford's, it dwarfs anything the state can give a public or what they can raise for themselves. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Is that so?</p>
<p>MIT:
under 20: 61%
over 50: 14%</p>
<p>Cornell:
under 20: 60%
over 50: 16%</p>
<p>Rice:
under 20: 62%
over 50: 9%</p>
<p>JHU:
under 20: 66%
over 50: 9%</p>
<p>Then look at the top publics:</p>
<p>Berkeley:
under 20: 62%
over 50: 14%</p>
<p>UCLA:
under 20: 55%
over 50: 20%</p>
<p>UVA:
under 20: 50%
over 50: 15%</p>
<p>As you can see, the gap between Berkeley and some of the other top-20 privates isn't too big, if even present. It's slightly larger for the others, but a difference in 10% is not really going to matter that much in your undergraduate career.
[/quote]
You fail to make the point that in a public with a class size over 50, there may be and commonly will be 500 students or more, while in a private that may simply mean 75-100. Student:faculty ratio is more important since it shows the capacity for a university to have smaller class sizes and a more intimate experience (ie the columbia core classes max out at 22 kids in a class---show me a public with that).</p>
<p>Penn, Stanford, Yale and Columbia have a 6:1 ratio,
Berkeley and Michigan have a 15:1 and UCLa has a 16:1</p>
<p>Lets be honest you dismiss these numbers, because it hurts your argument. If the professional at USNWR look to them as to be a viable statistic, than I think their opinion and expertise trumps yours.
[quote]
I've looked at the facts much more in-depth than you have, obviously, and I still maintain the same opinion because people like you continually fail to support your points, to disprove mine completely, and to offer a sound conclusion based on what you have offered.</p>
<p>I don't think they're "completely equal"; but neither do I see any clear inferiority or superiority. There are differences, of course, and some may prove better in lavishing opportunities on their students, but as far as I've seen, top publics also have tons of opportunities that students can take advantage of.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again your points do not debunk the prevailing evidence that the top publics are not on par with the elite privates. There is a reason top kids choose if they can afford it to attend the privates and there is a reason that the alumni rates for Michigan, Berkeley and UVA range from 14%-18%. For the Ivies and Stanford they are all 30%+ and even much higher in some cases. What does that say about peoples experiences at these schools or even dare I say their financial resources afterwards?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a reason top kids choose if they can afford it to attend the privates and there is a reason that the alumni rates for Michigan, Berkeley and UVA range from 14%-18%. For the Ivies and Stanford they are all 30%+ and even much higher in some cases. What does that say about peoples experiences at these schools or even dare I say their financial resources afterwards?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It says nothing about their happiness with their school. (Indeed, IMO, the biggest school boosters ever are those who went to Michigan -- it's like a religion to go there!) It says nothing about their success levels, because donating to one's alma mater has little to do with one's economic success. It has everything to do with the fact that many people don't want to donate to a school that they already support through their taxes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That still does not change the fact that the publics are much bigger period, including grad students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And your point? Big does not mean bad. I’m sure many students at Dartmouth would say that Harvard is too big, or even that Yale is too big. Columbia sits at 25,000 students. Penn and Cornell are 20,000. UVA has 20k-25k. UNC is about the same. W&M has about 8,000. Sure, Berkeley is much larger, but that hasn’t stopped it from being the #1 public, and often in the top 10 (or top 5) in rankings other than US News.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not to mention that grad students at many schools live and learn in different areas than the undergrads leading to minimal cross over.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really, I know you’re just a high school student, but try to understand: grad students have a huge and visible presence. They will be taking up professors’ time. They will be in student activities. They will even be in many of the same courses as undergrads (either the grad student is taking an undergrad course for background, or an advanced undergrad is taking a grad course). The crossover varies, but in many cases it’s much more than “minimal.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not remotely trite.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In all my time on CC, I’ve seen that argument dozens and dozens of times. (No joke.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
By every single metric that colleges use to determine intelligence and academic capability the publics fall behind the elite privates (GPA and SAT)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, I was going to point out the obvious flaw that the “metrics” that colleges use to determine those factors are highly subjective. But then you make the laughable claim that GPA and SAT somehow “determine” intelligence. Could your claims be any more na</p>
<p>There is no debating a person who is so set in their views they can't see the abundance of facts that disprove them. S:F ratio demonstrates just that, the number of professors in relation to students. Profressors at many of these privates are required to teach atleast some, so they do come into play. The comparable weakness of public school students is obvious enough to anyone willing to pay attention (fyi being top 10% of a crappy school means nothing, it depends on the school, but at least the SAT is a standardized test). Size does matter, and public schools suffer because of it. Their alumni giving rates are extremely low demonstrating a lack of commitment at best or a lack of any fondness for their experience at worse....either way it bears mentioning, especially in comparison to every single private which has a much higher rate. I agree this argument is overdone, and I if you want to suffer through an experience where you are a number and nothing else go ahead.</p>
<p>You keep making the same claims ("the abundance of facts," "Professors ... are required to teach at least some," "The comparable weakness ... is obvious," "Size does matter," "demonstrating a lack of commitment," etc.) without any support whatsoever. At least put some effort into it. Please.</p>
<p>like you did? None of your statements change the facts. Public schools have less money (fact), have more kids (fact), are required to take a certain amount of in-state kids (fact), which hurts the strength of their student body(fact) and they have higher student:faculty ratio (fact). Finally, their comparable lack of undergraduate prestige may be subjective but tends to hold true. I doubt you will find most educated people saying that Michigan is as prestigious as an Ivy</p>
<p>Bescraze, I think you forgot to add the letters "un" in front of "educated". Most educated people I know, myself included, think as highly of Cal, Michigan, UVa and a couple other publics as we do of the Ivies. Last time I checked, the academic community (they tend to be pretty educated), on average, shares our opinion. Most of those who are likely to think less of a public university are uneducated... typically, high school students and not-so-educated adults. Of course, you have some educated people who just favor private universities. Prestige is, afterall, just an opinion.</p>
<p>so..many...words...@_@</p>
<p>One of the most underrated - Wayne State University, no doubt. For a school with so much to offer, it sure as hell doesn't get its fair share of respect. One of the reasons I joined this community is to defend the school from people who keep bashing it. Mostly its students and their parents from the Metro area who have no clue what they are talking about. If anyone wants to know anything about the school, feel free to ask me.</p>
<p>Also, I would add Hope College to the list of underrated.</p>
<p>overrated Harvard, Penn, Wash U, Duke</p>
<p>underrated Rice, Yale, Berkeley</p>