<p>barrons,
I'm not making a statement for or against privates or publics. I am making a statement FOR smaller class sizes.</p>
<p>And you're right about the fact that sometimes there will be some annoying student who wants all the airtime. But I see that as a small price to pay for my proximity to the instructor and my increased ability to have a relationship with him/her that will increase my learning and perhaps open doors to other opportunities on or off campus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
proximity to the instructor and my increased ability to have a relationship with him/her that will increase my learning and perhaps open doors to other opportunities on or off campus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To be honest, you can easily get that at a large public university if you make the effort.</p>
<p>Hawkette, 4-year graduation rates are a function of cost of attendence. Most students attending state universities pay less than $8,000/year in tuition, compared to over $20,000/year that the average student at a private university pays. As such, it is not surprising that students at public universities take their time to graduate. If you look at the 6-year graduation rate for Michigan and Cal, you'll see that it is over 85%. </p>
<p>As for class size, I agree that class size matters. The average class at Michigan has 20-30 students. The average class at most private elites has 15-25 students. At Cal and Michigan, 70% of classes have fewer than 30 students, compared to 80% at most private elites. I don't think that's enough of a difference to claim that one group is better than another.</p>
<p>And I agree that proximity to faculty is important. Faculty at elite publics are just as accessible as professors at elite privates. It is a complete myth (or lie) that faculty members at Harvard or Stanford are more accessible or approachable than faculty at Cal or UVa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most students attending state universities pay less than $8,000/year in tuition, compared to over $20,000/year that the average student at a private university pays. As such, it is not surprising that students at public universities take their time to graduate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This appears to be something of a factor here. Nonresidents (who pay more) tend to progress through U-M a little faster. You can't blame the college for the difference, because residency status has no effect on ability to enroll for classes. </p>
<p>Similarly, a long-standing observer of grad rates at U-M told me that things always slow down a bit when the economy is bad. That is, students choose to stay instead of entering the job market. Paying resident tuition makes that strategy more feasible. </p>
<p>Isn't it also the case that some schools with tuition guarantees have set caps on them so students can't linger? They wouldn't do this if it wasn't possible for students, of their own will, to set the pace of progress to graduation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hawkette, 4-year graduation rates are a function of cost of attendence
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure this is true. But even if it is, I'm not sure that it * should * be true.</p>
<p>For example, it would be interesting indeed to compare, say the graduation rates of students at private schools who are paying nothing (because they are on financial aid or merit scholarships), vs. the rates of students who are paying full fare. Granted, endogeneity would be an issue. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting study to run. I would certainly like to see the results. We could also compare the graduation rates of OOS students at the public schools, who tend to be paying full fare, vs. rates at private schools. For example, I strongly suspect that the graduation rate of OOS students at, say, Berkeley, is STILL lower than that of the Ivy League, even though those OOS students are probably on par academically with Ivy students (as it is quite difficult to get into Berkeley OOS).</p>
<p>But secondly, we have to keep in mind that the cost of delaying graduation is not just in the tuition itself, but also in the foregone earnings from not working full-time. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the average college graduate gets about a 33k starting salary. So if you're taking 6 years to graduate from a public school, then that extra 2 years of not graduating translates not only into an extra 16k of tuition, but also an extra 66k of foregone earnings, for a total of 82k. Granted, taxes complicates the calculation, but still, an extra 2 years of a public school basically blows your entire savings from choosing a public school over a private school, and then some. </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that the state itself (and by extension, the taxpayers) are also subsidizing you for 2 more years. By the time you've reached year 6, you've worn out your welcome and you shouldn't be allowed to continue to feed at the taxpayer's trough. I think it's fair that the taxpayers provide you with 4 years of undergraduate subsidies, but no more. You want to be an undergrad for longer? Fine, but you ought to pay full freight. The taxpayers have done their part. You can't just keep milking the taxpayers. </p>
<p>You can also look at it from a fairness standpoint. By just hanging, you're basically just denying a spot from some other student who also wants to study at your school. You should be allowed to hold your spot for a certain number of years, but after that, I think it's fair that you give up your spot back to the pool. You can't just sit on it. Public universities are supposed to be serving the public interest, and it seems to me that the public interest is not being served when some students just sit on their spots, refusing to give them up. </p>
<p>Now of course I agree that some students are delayed through no fault of their own. So, sure, we can offer extensions to those students. But I think we all know that some students, at both public and private schools, are not seriously trying to graduate. At a private school, that's a private matter, as the student (or the school through FA) is just wasting his own money. But at a public school, there is taxpayer money at stake. By lollygagging around, you're wasting taxpayer dollars. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And I agree that proximity to faculty is important. Faculty at elite publics are just as accessible as professors at elite privates. It is a complete myth (or lie) that faculty members at Harvard or Stanford are more accessible or approachable than faculty at Cal or UVa
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't speak for UVa, but certainly, Ankur Luthra - Berkeley's last Rhodes winner - feels that Berkeley sorely lacks in faculty accessibility and contact, and blames that for Berkeley's relatively low Rhodes productivity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This appears to be something of a factor here. Nonresidents (who pay more) tend to progress through U-M a little faster. You can't blame the college for the difference, because residency status has no effect on ability to enroll for classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's not entirely fair. Let's face it. Nonresidents also tend to be better students, as most public schools enact tougher admissions policies for OOS students as opposed to in-state students. Better students tend to be more motivated and are less likely to fail and have to repeat classes. </p>
<p>What you should care are those nonresident students vs. equivalent students at private schools. You could compare Cal OOS students vs. the average Ivy student like I said above, as I would suspect that the average Cal OOS student is probably the equal to the average student of all 8 Ivies put together.</p>
<p>"I don't think anybody is asserting that USNews is perfect. No ranking is. Just like no scientific instrument is perfect. The real question is, what better ranking system is out there? What else are you going to use? Other than perhaps RP (which examines a different metric entirely), I can franky think of nothing better."</p>
<p>You missed my point; the US News bit was an afterthought.</p>
<p>sakky, harvard does have a high grad rate as the students r inredibly bright and self motivated, though it has been knocked for just pushing undergrads through and not really paying attention to them. The issue of grade inflation has also come up. At big state universities they cant pick and choose quite as much and thus will have more students that will flunk out. The goal of many state unis is to edu the states students and give people in the state a shot. Some rnt ready for college and some dont want to be there. Also, state unis dont seem to mind flunking some students out, they count on it happening. Harvard does not and, again, is known for sometimes not letting kids fail even if they deserve 2. I dont think this grad rate has anything to do with the quality of th edu one recieves at the state university, it just shows that a few kids get in that shouldnt and drop out or flunk out. The quality of instruction has nothing 2 do with this. </p>
<p>Also, ive never heard of a student who suffered from a small class size. Whoever argued that small classes rnt for some people prob hasnt been in many, or they dont like to prepare for class and cant learn from others opinions or formulate there own opinions. If this is the case i doubt the student is successful in any setting. Pleae elaorate as to y small classes rnt for some people.</p>
<p>Does an average class size of 20 vs. 30 give you a 50% better education? Doubtful. Yet, private schools charge a huge premium for this (upwards of 25K per year). If state schools were to charge students an extra 25K per year, they could hire enough faculty to erase the difference. </p>
<p>Florida is trying to do this by raising tuition by 40 percent! They might be able to climb the rankings a bit by hiring more professors but I doubt if the education will be 40% better. The most likely scenario will be that the average student will graduate with 40% more debt. </p>
<p>I graduated from a private university in the 90's when the premium over my state school was less than 10K. However, annual cost increases that dwarf the inflation rate have increased the difference now to over 20K per year. I doubt the quality of education has increased by that degree. The academic arms race is unduly burdening students.</p>
<p>"Also, ive never heard of a student who suffered from a small class size."</p>
<p>-I'm sure I could write a book on things you haven't heard of; it doesn't mean they don't exist.....</p>
<p>"Whoever argued that small classes rnt for some people prob hasnt been in many, or they dont like to prepare for class and cant learn from others opinions or formulate there own opinions."</p>
<p>-This is even more absurd than the last quote. I have had my share of small(er) classes, and it is as such that I make my analysis. This has nothing to do with class preparedness; it has to do with the nature of learning. Face it, everyone doesn't learn, or even function, in the same way. To me, saying that smaller classes are always better is the same as saying smaller schools are always better, or that longer class periods are always better. All of these things are all generalizations, and are all incorrect. This sort of one-size-fits-all view of college and learning is precisely what's wrong with much of what's written on CC. Take a class like organic chemistry. What good would hearing people's opinions and having intense discussion do for students in this type of class? Very little I'd bet. </p>
<p>"If this is the case i doubt the student is successful in any setting."</p>
<p>-I've found that my larger classes- classes with more than say 30 people- are much more fulfilling and rewarding to me than those with fewer than 30. Just because this doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, I know several people who feel the same about class sizes. </p>
<p>"Pleae elaorate as to y small classes rnt for some people."</p>
<p>-Some students just function better in a purely lecture-intensive environment wherein there isn't much discussion. Many feel like there's less pressure to be 'right' all the time, and that they can, instead of making 'profound' points during discussion, actually focus on the subject matter.</p>
<p>On the other hand, some students flourish in classes that are full of discussion and get the most out of forming and reforming different opinions in this manner. </p>
<p>Is one better than the other? Nope. I think it quite arrogant for one to assume that his way of learning is 'better' than other ways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that's not entirely fair. Let's face it. Nonresidents also tend to be better students, as most public schools enact tougher admissions policies for OOS students as opposed to in-state students. Better students tend to be more motivated and are less likely to fail and have to repeat classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a valid point, but when I'm tracking students here I'm tracking them semester to semester or fall to fall. I think there must be something to the "hurry up and graduate" phenomenon when I see this at the late junior and early senior level. These students have already proven themselves, and probably aren't facing things like failed classes and repeats. Why do students hang around another semester or more when they're so near graduation eligiblity? </p>
<p>Because tracking this is part of my job, I do understand how being better prepared and having more APs on entrance (for example) can explain onme group of students having a relatively "accelerated program," but I don't believe (based on what I am observing in different academic divisions and class levels) that being "a better student" fully explains the difference.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
Re your comment that 4-year grad rates are a function of cost of attendance, I understand your logic, but there are many exceptions. Two of the most prominent include:</p>
<p>*U Virginia has an 84% 4-year graduation rate while U Michigan has a 67% 4-year rate, yet the cost of attendance is higher at U Michigan (by about 14% for IS students). </p>
<p>*Stanford and Rice each have a 76% 4-year graduation rate yet Stanford’s cost is 29% higher than Rice.</p>
<p>Re faculty accessibility, I disagree with your suggestions that there is commonly equivalent access to faculty at top privates and the higher ranked publics. Sheer numbers would tell you otherwise. I’m not saying that private school faculty are any more inclined to spend time and energy with an individual student, but the numbers of students at most publics inhibit this possibility. While a motivated student at a public school may be fine, the smaller environment of most privates (Nat’l Unis and LACs) would be expected to provide greater opportunities for individual attention, particularly for that student who is low on personal initiative. Is that worth extra cost? I don’t know, it probably depends on the public and the private schools being compared, and that is an individual choice. Nonetheless, I believe that this is an element that works in the favor of the smaller schools. </p>
<p>Here are the Student-Faculty Ratio of some top privates and some top publics:</p>
<p>Privates Ranked in the USNWR Top 30
3/1 Cal Tech
5/1 Princeton
5/1 Rice
6/1 Yale
6/1 Stanford
6/1 U Penn
7/1 Harvard
7/1 U Chicago
7/1 Columbia
7/1 Wash U StL
7/1 Northwestern
7/1 Emory
7/1 Tufts
8/1 MIT
8/1 Duke
8/1 Dartmouth
9/1 Brown
9/1 Vanderbilt
10/1 Cornell
10/1 J Hopkins
10/1 Carnegie Mellon
10/1 USC
10/1 Wake Forest
11/1 Notre Dame
11/1 Georgetown</p>
<p>Publics ranked in the USNWR Top 50</p>
<p>11/1 W & M
11/1 U Washington
13/1 U Wisconsin
14/1 U North Carolina
14/1 Georgia Tech
14/1 U Illinois UC
15/1 UC Berkeley
15/1 U Michigan
15/1 U Virginia
17/1 UC Irvine
17/1 UC S Barbara
17/1 Penn State
18/1 UCLA
18/1 U Texas
19/1 UC SD
19/1 UC Davis
21/1 U Florida</p>
<p>Alexandre:</p>
<p>You are on the right track... I'd suggest we compare 4-year grad rates with income, bcos that's a better correlation, IMO. We know that the Ivies are ~50% full pay, i.e., income brackets of $150k and up; Colgate is 65% full pay. In contrast, the UCs are 33% no-pay, i.e., Pell Grant students. A bunch of other kids are low income and have to work part-time, so they take a minimum class load.</p>
<p>btw: UVa is a case in point. Reasonably high grad rate, but only recently admitted more than 10% Pell Grantees.</p>
<p>kk, if u were in a small orgo class then discussion wouldnt really be neccesary, ur right. But if the class was small there is no doubt that one would recieve more individualized attention and help from the prof then if they were in a class of 300 people. Also, if the class was smaller the prof could prob focus on the points that the class is having more trouble with and not as much on the ones that r coming easily. In a large lecture hall the prof wouldnt have this luxury and niether would the students. Im not trying to say that large lectures cant be just as informative, but i dont see how they are preferable to smaller classes. In small classes ur still going to get all the info that u will in large lectures. U also seem to indicate that in small classes a student cant focus on the subject matter, which is absurd. If that is what u were trying to say please explain how this is true. U say its arrogent of me to assume small classes are preferable to larger ones, yet almost all schools try to make it seem like u will be in several small classes. Obviously the people running the schools seem to think that smaller classes are beneficial to students. U also say that there is less pressure to be right in large classes. Ur not supposed to be right all the time in small classes either. If ur discussing opinions there often isnt even a right answer. Its not like more pressure is put on u to do well on tests in small classes if thts what u meen either. Dont u want to be right in large classes too? Maybe u do just as well in large classes as small classes, however individual attention is not a bad thing. I think that if u talked to most educaters and students they would prefer and benefit from a small classroom setting. Im not saying large classes r bad, im just saying that for most people ive talked to small classes are preferred. Now, i know ur going to say that thats a genralization and i dont know everyone in the world, but schools also seem to make the genralization by pushing small classes and individualized attention. However, maybe there r several people who feel they do better in larger classes so ill ask.</p>
<p>Other people in this thread, do u prefer a smaller classroom setting or a larger one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reputation of most top private universities is also based on their research and graduate schools. If USNews was truly only comparing undergrads, than there would be no reason to seperate universities from liberal arts colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wonderful statement! </p>
<p>Now that we can confirm that AT LEAST 25% of the total score of the USNews best UNDERGRADUATE colleges is based on elements that are NOT directly related to the quality of teaching at the undergraduate level, and that the entire 25% is really SUPPOSED to level the playing field by boosting the scores of PUBLIC research schools, can we move on?</p>
<p>Oh, and regarding the OP request for a separate ranking, I would love nothing more than seeing MORE distinctions in the USNEWS report. Just as I'd love to see the manipulators of data excluded from the rankings and dumped in a separate non-ranked alphabetical listing, I would applaud a decision to list the public universities in their own category. After all, there is plenty of space that could be used where USNews ranks the specialty schools, and to boot they ONLY need the peer assessments results. </p>
<p>But would THAT make the public research universities that have gained a stellar reputation for research and graduate programs' excellence HAPPIER? </p>
<p>One thing for sure, the firms that is currently pretending to cull the data objectively would have a LOT less work as the number of completed surveys would continue to dwindle from 70% past the current 58% to a trivial number. </p>
<p>So I prey your wish comes true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd suggest we compare 4-year grad rates with income, bcos that's a better correlation, IMO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, and that let's introduce a control factor for the number of classes taken at the school versus the number of classes that were credited through boondoggle programs such as AP, IB, and community colleges dual credit programs. Then add the recent practice of forcing students to start in the SUMMER versus the FALL to boost the years to graduation ratios. </p>
<p>Let's also hear from the students who entered with sophomore or even junior status and still graduated in more than four years at our flagship State schools. </p>
<p>Does that matter?</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, harvard does have a high grad rate as the students r inredibly bright and self motivated, though it has been knocked for just pushing undergrads through and not really paying attention to them. The issue of grade inflation has also come up. At big state universities they cant pick and choose quite as much and thus will have more students that will flunk out. The goal of many state unis is to edu the states students and give people in the state a shot. Some rnt ready for college and some dont want to be there. Also, state unis dont seem to mind flunking some students out, they count on it happening. Harvard does not and, again, is known for sometimes not letting kids fail even if they deserve 2. I dont think this grad rate has anything to do with the quality of th edu one recieves at the state university, it just shows that a few kids get in that shouldnt and drop out or flunk out. The quality of instruction has nothing 2 do with this
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Regarding the issue of state schools wanting to give state residents a shot at college, that's perfectly understandable, but that then begs the question why should state residents necessarily be given a shot at* the state flagship school*? Most states run a public school hierarchy, with the University of X being the prestigious flagship of state X, with lesser schools (i.e. X State University) effectively serving as auxiliary schools. For example, in the state of California, Berkeley is the flagship, and the other UC's comprise the rest of the top tier of public schools, and the Cal-States comprise the 2nd tier. </p>
<p>Hence, when you have a functioning hierarchy of schools, why should the flagship (i.e. Berkeley) continue to admit students who aren't good enough to perform Berkeley-caliber work and hence won't graduate anyway? Wouldn't everybody be better off if those students were instead sent to a lower UC or to a CalState? The remaining Berkeley students would be better off, as they would no longer have to compete for access to resources with students who aren't going to graduate anyway. More importantly, those sent-off students are better off, because they will be matched with a school that is more aligned with their abilities. Everybody is better off. </p>
<p>I can perhaps agree with the notion that every state resident should have a shot at getting a degree from a state school. But not necessarily from the flagship. After all, Berkeley and UCLA already reject about 3/4 of its applicants. The University of Virginia rejects nearly 2/3. Michigan rejects more than 1/2. Hence, at the top 4 public schools in the country, the majority of applicants won't get in. If that's happening already, is it really that much of a stretch for these schools to reject some more people - specifically, those who won't graduate anyway? </p>
<p>But secondly, to your point regarding the quality of instruction, while I agree, I also think it's just a sideshow. After all, let's be honest. Most people aren't really going to college in order to receive quality instruction. What they're really there for is the degree. If you don't believe me, think of this thought exercise. If a particular college offered wonderful instruction, but no degrees, how many people would want to spend 4 years there, as opposed to going to a school with worse instruction but that actually offered degrees? More specifically, how many parents would pay to send their kids there? I think we can agree, few would. Most people go to college to get a degree.</p>
<p>Now, surely, somebody here is going to point out those particular college dropouts like Bill Gates or Michael Dell who have done very well. The flaw in that argument is that they left college * in good academic standing*. If Microsoft hadn't worked out, Gates would have just re-enrolled at Harvard. What I am talking about are those people who leave college in bad standing. For example, if you flunk out of Berkeley, not only can you not get back into Berkeley, you probably can't get into any other reputable school either simply because no school wants to admit a transfer candidate who had flunked out of their previous school. Hence, flunking out of Berkeley (or any other school) is worse than never having gone to that school at all. Schools, public or private, should not be admitting people who are going to flunk out. The practice of admitting a bunch of students only to flunk them out later clearly does not serve the public interest. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Does an average class size of 20 vs. 30 give you a 50% better education? Doubtful. Yet, private schools charge a huge premium for this (upwards of 25K per year). If state schools were to charge students an extra 25K per year, they could hire enough faculty to erase the difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet isn't it interesting that the students at the *graduate programs *at the public schools rarely complain about large class sizes. The Berkeley Haas MBA program is one of the smallest and most intimate of any of the top MBA programs in the country - being literally only 1/3 the size of some of the huge private schools such as Harvard Business School or Wharton. Yet Haas still provides a discount to in-state MBA students. Similarly, you never hear the Berkeley PhD students complaining about large class sizes. Last time I checked, their programs were "public" in that all of the PhD students who are state residents receive state subsidies (and hence, one of the first things your department teaches you to do as a Berkeley PhD student is begin the process of establishing state residency so that the department can shift of the financial support burder from itself to the state). </p>
<p>So it begs the question of why is it that the undergrads at public schools are the ones that seem to have problems with class size, but not the grad students? Why is that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have had my share of small(er) classes, and it is as such that I make my analysis. This has nothing to do with class preparedness; it has to do with the nature of learning. Face it, everyone doesn't learn, or even function, in the same way. To me, saying that smaller classes are always better is the same as saying smaller schools are always better, or that longer class periods are always better. All of these things are all generalizations, and are all incorrect. This sort of one-size-fits-all view of college and learning is precisely what's wrong with much of what's written on CC. Take a class like organic chemistry. What good would hearing people's opinions and having intense discussion do for students in this type of class? Very little I'd bet
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that there is one major advantage that small classes always hold over large classes: attendance. Let's face it. Large classes place very little pressure on you to actually show up. If you decide not to go, nobody is even going to notice. Hence, it's very easy to just slack off and cut classes. Yes, there are steps that can be taken in large classes to encourage attendance (i.e. sign-in sheets), but then there are ways to game them (i.e. having your friends sign you in). </p>
<p>But in a small class, your absence will be duly noted. Knowing that, you will probably be spurred to attend every day. </p>
<p>Let's be honest. Most college students are fairly irresponsible. I include myself in that category. You give these students the chance to shirk, and many of them will take it, and realize only later to their chagrin that they should have been more mature and responsible. But by that time, it's too late. Smaller classes enforce better discipline.</p>