<p>What would be the major difference in attending Penn, Colgate, or Emory(privates) vs Michigan, Cal, or UNC? I know the privates are smaller but are there any other real advantages or differences?</p>
<p>Of course there are real advantages and differences. The smaller privates will tend to have</p>
<ul>
<li>less bureaucracy</li>
<li>more 'customer service'</li>
<li>smaller classes</li>
<li>better access to courses</li>
<li>better housing options (usually)</li>
</ul>
<p>The big question often arises -- are these advantages worth an extra $80,000+ over four years...</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Not all privates are smaller, and not all publics are big. </p></li>
<li><p>There's no difference in the academics at top publics and top research focused privates. Class sizes at top publics are small, they are just not into number manipulation as much as the privates, since their purpose is to educate the future scholars for the benefit of the state, as opposed to the privates which have other incentives. (thus they advertise smaller classes)</p></li>
<li><p>Many times people view more expensive as better, as if public status schools aren't as good just because they are cheaper, which is false ,because the public universities obtain funds from the state to subsidize instate tuitions. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In my opinion, the top publics are just as good as the top research focused privates(save HYP) at educating students at the undergrad level.</p>
<p>Michigan, Cal and UNC are 3 of the best state U's in the country. Other state U's may not be in their league in many ways. You are asking to compare the very best publics to some of the best privates.</p>
<p>Another difference between the small privates you list and public U's is predictability of funding. The privates you listed all have large endowments, which ensures them of a fairly steady stream of income. Some publics may have good endowments (I would assume Michigan and UNC do, with their strong alumni networks), others do not (e.g. UMass). Publics with small endowments are at the whims of their state legislature for funding. If the economy goes south and tax receipts decline, the university's funding from the state may go down as well, and they may be forced to cut programs, or faculty, etc.</p>
<p>In general, I'd say it's better to go to a public school versus a private school if they are equally ranked.</p>
<p>First of all, no matter what ranking bracket the public & private school are in, you will be saving about $80,000, assuming you aren't given money (which is more likely at a private school). </p>
<p>I've found through my own research that graduates from private schools make a little more than graduates from public schools, assuming that the schools in comparison are equally ranked. However, the difference is usually less than about $5,000. If we assume these figures, then it would take about 16 years for that difference in income to actually matter (since you paid so much, up front, for the private school).</p>
<p>I've also found that you lose out even more if you go to a low-ranked private institution. It seems as if low-ranked private institutions charge similar tuitions to high-ranked colleges, even though mean incomes, in general, decrease as the school ranking goes down. This means that low-ranked private schools offer the least value of any school.</p>
<p>If we assume the previous fact, then it follows that high-ranked public schools offer the most value of any school. They offer a top-notch education, at prices that are similar to that of low-ranked public schools.</p>
<p>So, if we assume the previous, then the best schools to go to are the top-ranked public schools (assuming you're actually concerned about value - not just prestige, esteem, or earning power). Also, if it's a low-ranked public school, you still have netted much more value than if you had gone to a low-ranked private school.</p>
<p>------Best:
High-ranked public colleges such as Chapel Hill, UVa, Cal, UCLA, etc., etc.</p>
<p>------Worst:
Low-ranked private colleges such as Adelphi, Widener, St. John's, etc. ,etc.</p>
<p>Obviously, my simple analysis did not take a LOT of factors into account, but I stand behind its basic ideas. So, to answer your question, attending a high-ranked public school means that you are taking advantage of a fantastic value.</p>
<p>
[quote]
. There's no difference in the academics at top publics and top research focused privates. Class sizes at top publics are small, they are just not into number manipulation as much as the privates, since their purpose is to educate the future scholars for the benefit of the state, as opposed to the privates which have other incentives. (thus they advertise smaller classes)
[/quote]
This is simply not true. Class size at large publics can be in the hundreds for intro courses, and if you pick a popular major such as econ you may seldom take a class in your major with less than 75 people in it.</p>
<p>Cornell has several intro classes with over 500 students and some even over 1000. Thre also is little evidence that college classes need to be small to be effective.</p>
<p>^ The social science and humanities courses that I took at Cal were very small...20-25 max. </p>
<p>Intro math, econ, and science courses do not need to be small because the curriculum is more standardized and rooted in fact...there is little need for discussion and debate. Also the larger courses have smaller discussion sections. Class size is tailored for the curriculum being taught...public colleges are just being efficient with the resources.</p>
<p>While publics are typically (although not necessarily) larger than privates--there are two other significant advantages that the better endowed private schools have over their public counterparts: reliable funding and freedom from political constraints. When the economy turns sour (like now), publics tend to get their budgets cut which causes a myriad of problems. Publics are also subject to admitting mostly in-state students, and are frequently constrained by affirmative action and other government mandated policies. Ask any faculty member of a top public university (Cal for example) if they would rather have a faculty position at a comparably ranked private university and the vast majority will answer in the affirmative. In fact, UVa has seriously considered going private just to avoid these types of problems.</p>
<p>I think it's funny how nowadays, the wealthy are the ones who benefit most from publics, while the less wealthy are better served attending a private school. Public schools are notorious for not providing sufficient, wheras there are plenty of privates that provide full rides to needy students.</p>
<p>Kind of funny how something in the private sector has become focused on helping the needy, and schools in the public sector are much better options for those who don't need aid.</p>
<p>^ True. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Kind of funny how something in the private sector has become focused on helping the needy, and schools in the public sector are much better options for those who don't need aid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or those who don't qualify for aid, esp. in state.</p>
<p>Michigan, Cal, UCLA, Uva and UNC are the top 5 public schools, and they are better than the vast majority of private schools. Then again, so are top private schools such as Ivy's, NU, UChicago, Duke, et al. It's impossible to compare the entire range of publics to the entire range of private schools, but it's safe to say that <em>generally</em> in state publics are financially responsible choices.</p>