Public Vs. Private

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Individual attention can means a lot of things. I don't know what exactly falls under the realm of "hand-holding" as it is referenced here, but there are other "personalized" aspects of education that are rigorous. Individualized attention can mean there is nowhere to hide, little way to slack off. Not because the faculty are cooing and chucking students under the chin to make sure they were happy and self-actualized, but because they know who each student is and what he or she capable of. That can raise expectations pretty high. </p>

<p>I don't think personalized attention (whatever form it takes on campus) is detrimental. In my experience, I have seen little evidence in the work world or in graduate school that students from small institutions are deficient in initiative, emotional maturity, independence, or assertiveness upon graduation.</p>

<p>I think both kinds of campuses can be great choices--I just hate to see smaller college get derided in this way.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Individualized attention can mean there is nowhere to hide, little way to slack off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's part of the point-- or at least <em>my</em> point. The implication here is that students at large universities (read: public) don't receive individual attention; therefore, they "hide" and "slack off." You may not have meant that, but that's how it reads.</p>

<p>Again, faculty are quite accessible at large public universities, and all faculty at all universities/colleges have expectations of and for their students. Believe it or not, though-- there are tons of students out there (many in public universities!) who are focused, self-motivated and have high expectations for themselves. They wouldn't dream of "hiding" or "slacking off," regardless.</p>

<p>I have no doubt, of course, that some public universities are far superior than others; then again, that's true of all schools-- public or private.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think both kinds of campuses can be great choices--I just hate to see smaller college get derided in this way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Trust me, smaller colleges don't receive anywhere near the derision that public universities do, at least here on CC. Your own posts about publics contribute to that derision-- albeit in a much nicer and more subtle way than what's usually seen here.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Believe it or not, though-- there are tons of students out there (many in public universities!) who are focused, self-motivated and have high expectations for themselves. They wouldn't dream of "hiding" or "slacking off," regardless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your "believe it or not" is unnecessary. If I didn't believe that students at public could do very amazing, driven things, I don't think I'd be very happy working here. </p>

<p>I admit that by repeating the "sink or swim" type of comments that many in this thread say with pride, I may very well be contributing to the unfair image problem publics have. But frankly, it's one of the very things that people celebrate about publics, right here in this thread: they're proud of the fact that you can, apparently, sink. I presume that's because they feel it adds to the achievement when they succeed, are focused, and hold very high self-expectations. I don't know. </p>

<p>I am sorry that in defending smaller colleges I'm "deriding" publics. Not my intention. I just find it irksome that small colleges are sometimes portrayed as a place particularly appealing to the emotionally weak and intellectually underconfident. It irks me less than the contention that you can be lazy (or "a number", etc) at publics--because while students can be lazier or just one of the crowd, from what I've seen most CCers won't take that route at all. </p>

<p>And yes, there are threads where I have defended larger schools.</p>

44

<p>Only on CC, you'll find people don't like to go to public school. I think the fact that they are on CC, or looking for info on CC kind of indicate their preferences.
I was just analyzing previous years admits and attendances at my D high school. Top 25% kids got into top 25 schools, LAC and top universities. Guess where 95% people decided to attend, Some form of UCs. I've seen top LACs like Amherst got turn down for UCs.
Even my own D said if given the choice of attending that school vs the local state school, she would pick local state school. (It's just make my life a lot easier, I went from a list of 70 schools down to 7 schools) ;)</p>

<p>Most of the kids that I noticed went to non-UC fall in the following categories:
1) Top Asian kids especially kids from Taiwan, Korean, etc..
2) Top Caucasian kids who parents are into academics, like Department Chair at the local college or may be professor
3) High performer Caucasian kids who parents are from the East Coast, like Brooklyn, Toronto.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
. . . they're proud of the fact that you can, apparently, sink. I presume that's because they feel it adds to the achievement when they succeed, are focused, and hold very high self-expectations. I don't know.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I suspect what they are proud of is the fact that they can successfully navigate, on many levels, a [relatively] large university, complete with professional schools and graduate programs. I can imagine the ability to successfully do this gives students, especially those who do well, a tremendous amount of self-confidence and might ultimately offer more growth than being at a small LAC for 4 years. Obviously, this depends on the student. The publics with which I'm familiar are certainly not "sink or swim"-- at all-- but I do suspect that a student has to be a little more proactive than one at a LAC, where the sole focus (reason for being) is its very small undergraduate population. </p>

<p>TooRich: I agree; it's only on CC where I "hear" the derisive comments about public universities, and most of those are from people who don't know much about them.</p>

46

<p>Well, I spent three years on the road recruiting, long before I knew what cc was, and I heard those kinds of comments everywhere. About publics as well as about other kinds of schools. </p>

<p>I think some of it is a desire to simplify the process and justify one's choices. Some students find the college search process pretty difficult, and it's very convenient to write off a a whole group of institutions with a couple of stereotypical remarks. I think there is some truth lying behind the digs people take at LACs/research universities/ publics/single-sex/you name it, but it's never as bad as the sweeping comments suggest.</p>

47

<p>This is a very interesting discussion and I respect the opinions of both sides. However, if the idea that only "CC nerds" have a problem with public schools is true, than why do so many people seem unhappy with their choices? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Cal and UCLA generally have about 25% of their alumni say that they would have gone somewhere else?</p>

<p>And don't schools like Pomona and Amherst usually have much happier students?</p>

<p>I may be wrong about that, but I've read articles to that effect in several different places.</p>

<p>Also, I would challenge the assumption that you can easily float by at LACs but not at publics. My previous experience has been that its MUCH easier to float by at publics schools than at private. Admittedly, I have no experience with regards to COLLEGE, but at private schools there seems to be more pressure to do well because students are more closely observed by their teachers. At publics, teachers don't even notice if you ditch class.</p>

<p>Anyway, thats my two cents.</p>

48

<p>eddyx, I do not have much experience with the UCs, but I do have experience with a public university. Most students who attended my state university would not hesitate to do it all over again.</p>

49

<p>alexandre, you still loiter around the internet forums with the college kids, eh?</p>

<p>by the way, did you enjoy the last rosebowl?</p>

50

<p>uh oh, i see you have been promoted to "super moderator" status. is that some how more prestigious than "regular" moderator status? please dont ban me =(</p>

51

<p>The Rose Bowl was definitely disapointing. I was not surprised though. USC was very good, better adapted to the environment and climate (the Rose Bowl is practically a home game for UCLA and, to a lesser extent, USC) and less rusty (Michigan had been off for 6 weeks compared to 4 weeks for USC). </p>

<p>I think the main difference between moderator and super moderator is that a super moderator can edit any post whereas plain moderators can only edit posts on their designated forums.</p>

52

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>Are you saying that if cost was not an issue, you would prefer to go to a public school over a private?</p>

53

<p>That's exactly what I am saying eddyx77. And it's not just words. Back in my day (1992), I personally chose a state university over 8 private universities, including 4 Ivies. </p>

<p>If a public university has the wealth, academic excellence and resources to equal those of a top private university, is there a real difference in the overall experience? I don't think so.</p>

54

<p>eddyx77: My daughter is at UNC-CH (will be a junior this year). UNC is the only public to which she applied; the others where she was accepted were all privates, ranked in the top 10. She <em>chose</em> UNC and absolutely loves it. (We are also in-state.) </p>

<p>While she did receive a wonderful merit scholarship, cost truly was not the deciding factor. After much research, and after spending some time at Chapel Hill, she decided that it actually offered her more of what <em>she</em> wanted in a school than the others did (including relatively minor stuff like great location and weather). After the finalist weekend for her particular scholarship, she came home and said that this is where she wanted to go, regardless. She loved the atmosphere, the people, the [comparatively] large size (campus and student body), and what it could offer her. She has not regretted that decision for a second, and UNC has definitely lived up to its promise and expectations. </p>

<p>Agree with Alexandre's last paragraph, too.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
But frankly, it's one of the very things that people celebrate about publics, right here in this thread: they're proud of the fact that you can, apparently, sink.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I suspect what they are proud of is the fact that they can successfully navigate, on many levels, a [relatively] large university, complete with professional schools and graduate programs. I can imagine the ability to successfully do this gives students, especially those who do well, a tremendous amount of self-confidence and might ultimately offer more growth than being at a small LAC for 4 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see that both of you guys have restricted yourselves to discussing only a subset of students at the public schools. Sure, one can be proud of and develop great self-confidence from the fact that you were able to successfully navigate a large university... if you in fact were able to navigate through. What if you were one of the students who wasn't able to navigate through? What if you were one of the students that sank? How proud would you feel then? How much confidence would that instill in you? What happens now? </p>

<p>From what I have seen from the smaller elite "hand-holdy" schools, even the students who don't do well there still do allright on a relative basis. They will still probably graduate. Not with top grades, but they'll still graduate. They'll still probably get decent jobs. Contrast that with the students at the public schools who do poorly. Not only will they often times not even be able to graduate,they will find it difficult to transfer to another decent school - as no reputable school wants to admit a transfer candidate who flunked out of his previous school. Perhaps even more ominously, constantly getting terrible grades and having profs and advisors constantly giving you the cold shoulder can crush your self-confidence for years to come. Then you start believing that you are dumb and questioning your own abilities. </p>

<p>As the archetype example, I would point to the engineering programs of the top large public schools. Sure, if you do well, you will have a quite nice career afterwards. But what if you don't do well? Then you may easily flunk out. Believe me, there are a LOT of engineering students at the top public schools who are not doing well at all, with quite a few of them flirting with academic probation, if they haven't landed there already. How confident and proud do you think they feel?</p>

<p>The above leads to a corollary question to which I have never found a satisfactory answer - why exactly do public schools insist on admitting so many students that they can reasonably predict are not going to do well? Of course you never know exactly who is not going to do well, but you can make strong correlations and predictions. For example, if students who don't get strong high school grades in math and science usually tend to do extremely poorly in engineering, then the answer is to admit fewer such students into your engineering program. {Just like while obviously nobody knows when anybody is going to die, smoking is correlated with shorter life and therefore life insurance companies are well-advised to charge higher premiums to smokers.} But be that as it may, as long as public schools insist in not screening out students who will do poorly, then you as a prospective candidate ought to understand that if you get admitted to that public school, you might end up being one of the ones who perform poorly, and then you have to ask yourself whether you can take that risk. Most people in the world are risk-averse and just want someplace to get a safe degree, as opposed to taking the chance that they won't even get a degree at all. {Just like most people would take a guaranteed $1 million over a 50% chance of winning $3 million.}</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
why exactly do public schools insist on admitting so many students that they can reasonably predict are not going to do well?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some of it is a commitment to access. Some public schools are committed to giving students a chance, even if their chance of graduation isn't great. The public and legislators expect it of them. Of course, sometimes the state will turn around and harp on these schools for low graduation rates.</p>

<p>Not everyone thinks this is a great system (I think your concerns certainly have merit) but it's one of the costs of having a big system of higher education and a high college-going rate in this country. There are lots of campuses with many spots to fill. Legislatures are (apparently) willing to fund those spots for students in their state, even those who aren't terribly well-prepared or mature/goal oriented enough to succeed.</p>

57

<p>when i was applying to college last year, i was told to pick wellesley if i like english/writing more than bio/pre-med. but if i am more science-y, to pick UCLA over wellesley. to what extent do you agree with this statement?</p>

<p>would one suggest an LAC for humanities (more attn w/ discussions in writing, history, etc.) and big Us for science (more research opportunities particularly in hospitals, possibly a greater and bigger variety of science)?</p>

58

<p>although it's too late now, i can always transfer next year if i'm not satisfied!</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
. . . constantly getting terrible grades and having profs and advisors constantly giving you the cold shoulder can crush your self-confidence for years to come. Then you start believing that you are dumb and questioning your own abilities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, this is part of my point. You're making a real generalization here, once again, about public schools. As stated before, the public schools with which I am familiar (admittedly pretty much limited to the UNC 16 campus-wide system), professors and advisors are not inaccessible, nor do they offer "cold shoulders."</p>

<p>At <em>any</em> college or university, students may not do well academically--not just at public universities. I doubt doing badly academically is connected to quality of the teaching or faculty/advisor/tutorial accessibility. I can imagine that at any school (or any endeavor) where one fails, self-confidence and second-guessing oneself would plummet--for a time, anyway. That's pretty much a given.</p>

<p>Public universities are supported, in part, by their state taxpayers. Their mission, first and foremost, is to educate the residents of their state. Consequently, publics will always have a broader range of student diversity- which certainly includes academic ability and background. They are also [comparatively] very affordable for their in-state residents. In fact, publics may be the <em>only</em> chance that some kids will have for to enroll in and complete college. </p>

<p>No one, at a public or private school, wants to see their students flunk out. At both types of institutions, they work hard to ensure this doesn't happen. Regardless, I'm sure it does-- at all kinds of schools-- and for many and varied reasons.</p>

<p>Also, with public universities with lots of campuses (not just the flagship), the selectivity and size will vary; the level of difficulty does as well. For kids who want to go the college route, and can't afford a private school, the public university system will welcome them. They may not be able to get into the flagship, based on high school performance, but they may well be able to get into another campus in their system. And they may end up doing very well. Some people are late bloomers, or didn't enjoy high school but find their niche in college. Some public schools actually view the applications more holistically, rather than simply looking at GPA and test scores. I admire them for giving people a chance.</p>

<p>Also, some states have outstanding community colleges. I admire them (and the states that strongly support them) for what they offer and do as well.</p>

<p>I personally don't think that everybody needs to attend college. I think there are plenty of students who aren't cut out for that, but who would do well to learn a trade--and would be better suited for that. More and more, though, this country seems determined to ensure that everyone gets a 4 year college education, whether they need/want it or not. I really don't think everybody does need one. I find it far tougher to find someone who knows how to lay tile, or lay/repair a slate roof, or fix my shoes or my car, etc., and I'm thrilled when I find people who can do this and do it competently and dependably. </p>

<p>On to engineering-- I honestly don't know of any engineering programs (in the UNC public system, at least) that take on poor students. The College of Engineering at NC State University, for instance, requires a separate application. I believe in 2006, they had over 4,000 freshman applications to the College of Eng, of which ~1400 were enrolled. Admission is competitive (moreso than to the University itself). They all have an advisor; they all must meet certain requirements before being accepted, and they must meet some general first year requirements before entrance into engineering. Your experience with university engineering programs/schools that accept unqualified students seems unusual to me.</p>

60

<p>"The above leads to a corollary question to which I have never found a satisfactory answer - why exactly do public schools insist on admitting so many students that they can reasonably predict are not going to do well? Of course you never know exactly who is not going to do well, but you can make strong correlations and predictions."</p>

<p>Because it's high school. Many people are not all that mature or focused in HS. Kids are mostly 14-17 years old. Some have other things on their minds during that period. The predictive power of grades and test scores is still not all that high. Wisconsin has found that some of it's most successful alums came in as marginal students.</p>