<p>is a private school education really that much better than a public school education?</p>
<p>id imagine that it wouldn't be that much different. i mean you read books and take exams. how much different could that possibly be?</p>
<p>say maybe ucla engineering vs. usc engineering. besides the price, i really can't conceive that much difference between how one can learn better in one envir0nment as opposed to another.</p>
<p>I think that private schools offer more support services than public schools do.</p>
<p>Publics are subject to the state political system so they can cut programs, staff, maintenance, etc. Private schools can do this too unless they have the pricing power to increase costs to maintain their levels of service.</p>
<p>Not really. Public schools tend to be more prestigious than private schools of equal quality.</p>
<p>it seems that for engineering, most of the good schools are public schools</p>
<p>^^ I do believe that the difference rests in funding available. I mean you can really be under"the conditions" to ignite a research project in a private schools thanks to money whereas in public schools, it much more difficult. There is also the constant exposure and thus influence of the government policies toward education.</p>
<p>In terms of prestige, privates are generally better regarded. This is largely a fixture of US News and obsessive parents. In terms of academic differences, privates (i hear) generally have better advising and most are smaller than public schools, which means a more personal feel (students don’t feel like they are just a number). And as far as the engineering goes, publics generally have better engineering depts. because they are larger, with the exception of Caltech and a few others. Small LACs and most ivies generally do not have huge, renowned engineering programs because it would not be money put to good use (which is why it shouldn’t be surprising that massive Cornell has a fantastic engineering departement).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Check out the US News and World report engineering rankings where UCLA is 20 and USC is 29 (which is quite good).</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/382751-usnews-2008-engineering-ranking-compilation.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/382751-usnews-2008-engineering-ranking-compilation.html</a></p>
<p>If by ‘prestige’ people mean a school that’s highly selective and a school where the grads have a lot of employment opportunities by well established and well respected companies and where grads are frequently accepted by selective grad schools, then a number of public schools fare better than a number of privates but I don’t think that’s the distinction that’s relevant. I don’t think any focus should be placed on public as opposed to private but rather, the actual attributes I just mentioned. In the case of UCLA and USC, they both have those attributes. Also, what appeals to one person doesn’t necessarily appeal to another so a lot of it just comes down to personal preference and often personal circumstances.</p>
<p>Also, the University of Texas at Austin is ranked 9th, and Rice is 17th.</p>
<p>I think the rankings should be adjusted by size and age of the institution. More graduates over a longer period of time inflate the peer rankings/prestige and donations.</p>
<p>In any case, if people are thinking that there are more top publics due to better funding, what will be the result when state budget cuts in this economic era cause public budgets to be scaled back as well? Of course, private endowments are tied to market investments as well as those of publics, but private colleges are not also competing with funding for the other parts of state budgets.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should small schools get a handicap? I’m confused. You sound exactly like those people who are currently debating the NRC ranking methodology into oblivion with exceptions and special cases.</p>
<p>^^^ Don’t forget about Texas A&M ranked right below Rice.</p>
<p>Texas=The *****</p>