<p>eddieb,
i would stay away from the laverne business program. it's almost as bad as cal poly pomona's, which as you attest is very weak and getting much worse. if you have the bucks shoot for marshall and if you fall short try drucker or even argyros which just hired a nobel laureate. i have taught there and it's solid. on the public side nobody touches anderson in the south though rady is coming on.</p>
<p>dawritingmachine:</p>
<p>I have wondered the same thing about LACs vs. publics for humanities. I want to be an English Major with a Spanish minor or possible double major. It seems like a LAC would be the best place for me, but I also have a shot at Berkeley and UCLA. Doesn't Berkeley have one of the highest regarded English departments in the country? Of course, departmental ranking are usually for grad students so I don't know how much of a difference it will really make.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that it's a matter of politics. What seems to be important for the politicians is to appear that they are offering access. I would argue that having a conspicuous percentage of students flunking out is not true access to education at all; but that's apparently irrelevent - as long as you * appear* to be providing access, that's all that matters. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Statistics is about generalizations. The outlying data points are not as important as where the data points congregate. In this case, I believe I am on quite safe ground when I say that the graduation rate at the average public school is lower than that at the average private school. </p>
<p>I am less concerned about the coldness of teaching staff per se, and more interested in the graduation rate. Coldness of the teaching staff is simply one symptom that tends to contribute to lower graduation rates. A teaching staff can be the nicest in the world, but if you flunk out anyway, what does it matter? What a cold teaching staff does is pushes students away from the school and ultimately contributes to a lowered graduation rate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course at ANY school, some students will flunk out. The issue is - where is flunking out more prevalent? Which school provides students with more resources and more opportunities to avoid flunking out? The analogy would be that while anybody can die in an accident while driving any car, some cars are safer than others. Some cars have more safety features and a better track record of protecting passengers. Given that, why would you prefer the more dangerous car, all other things equal? In fact, consumers have spoken via to their willingness to pay thousands more for additional auto safety features. Safety features are in fact THE most popular feature-set option chosen by car buyers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have heard this line of argument time and time again, and it always elicits the same response from me: why then aren't the public graduate programs, especially the PhD programs, more open and accessible? After all, they too are funded by the public. So why doesn't, say, the UCBerkeley Chemistry PhD program, the #1 Chem PhD program in the country, going around providing easier access to less qualified state residents? Or the Berkeley Civil Engineering PhD program? Or the Georgia Tech Industrial Engineering PhD program (again, the #1 IE PhD program in the country)? In fact, if you look at any of the major public research universities - Berkeley, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Illinois, UCLA, Wisconsin, etc. - you will find that in some years, some of their PhD programs will bring in ZERO state residents. Every new student will be from another state or be a foreign national. As a case in point, I know for a fact that there have been several years in recent history during which the Berkeley Chemical Engineering PhD program matriculated precisely zero students who were California state residents. Every matriculant was from outside the state. </p>
<p>How can that be? How is this possible? Last time I checked, all these PhD programs were "public" in the sense that they all received funding from the state. So why aren't they bringing in boatloads of less qualified state residents? In fact, I am not aware of any preference whatsoever that these programs have towards state residents. </p>
<p>Lest you think that I'm just talking about PhD programs, we can talk about other graduate programs as well. Take the Boalt Law School at UCBerkeley, which is one of the best public law schools in the country. Boalt specifically states that they provide no admissions preference to state residents. Yet Boalt is clearly supported by state taxpayers. So one might reasonably ask how exactly Boalt is supposed to be serving its "mission" to the state if it doesn't provide any preference to state residents.</p>
<p>*
"Do in-state applicants have higher preference than those from out of state? </p>
<p>You have a roughly equal chance of being admitted regardless of your residency. We strive to enroll a class that has a majority of residents, but we offer admissions to an equal number of residents and nonresidents in order to obtain the ration we seek. " *</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am well aware that there are plenty of public graduate programs that do indeed provide preference to their state residents. But the point is, there is no general mission that they do so. Many public graduate programs, especially PhD programs, do not provide such preference. Heck, many public school PhD programs actually specifically state that they will not consider applications from their own undergraduate program, which by extension means that they are automatically excluding many state residents by rule. For example, the Berkeley Chem Eng PhD program specifically states that without significant post-graduation experience, the department will will not consider students from their own undergrad program, which are mostly California state residents. The reasoning has to do with academic inbreeding - that it is often times considered preferable to earn your PhD at a different school from where you obtained your bachelors so that you can familiarize yourself with different schools of thought. Nevertheless, the end result is that many of the best chemical engineering undergrads from California are automatically *excluded*from the best public chemical engineering PhD program in the state. </p>
<p>*
"Q. My undergraduate degree is in chemical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. I have such happy, fond memories of the department that I cannot bear the thought of pursuing graduate studies away from Cal. Can I go to Berkeley for graduate school, too? </p>
<p>A. Although nearly all of the best chemical engineers are Berkeley graduates, this department, like most other top chemical engineering departments, feels strongly that its' undergraduates are better served by pursuing graduate studies in a new and different environment. Thus, unless you have obtained a degree elsewhere or have substantial industrial experience since you graduated from Berkeley, we will not admit you to the department for graduate work" *</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some institutions seem to work far harder than others are helping their students avoid flunking out. And some public programs don't seem to be working that hard at all in preventing students from flunking out. The attitude of many public schools is that if you flunk out, oh well, there will be another batch of students coming in next year. Heck, some public programs actually seem to delight in flunking out as many students as they can, via weeder course sequences. </p>
<p>Here's a snippet from somebody at UCLA:</p>
<p>*Weeder?? What's That?
At UCLA there is something called a "weeder" class. "Impacted" courses (courses that have strict guidlines about adding or dropping them due to their high demand) are often "weeders." Most majors have at least one weeder course. Many have more than one (called "weeder series"). A weeder is a course that is designed to flunk out kids who aren't good enough for the major, thus "weeding" them out. FEAR THEM. You're at a school with the best and the brightest... and these courses are designed to flunk a big chunk of them out, of course not on an official level. Most of the time you won't know your class is a weeder until you go to UCLA for a while and you hear the rumor. I will do my best to inform you of what classes you may take as an incoming freshman that may be weeders. UCLA is a pre-med school... remember that. Anything here that is pre-med is *<strong><em>ING HARD. All of the chem courses are considered weeders. Computer science and engineering in general is considered one giant weeder. No, they do not get easier as you move up; in fact, they get really *</em></strong>ing hard. To illustrate, I have a friend who is a graduating senior, Electrical Engineer, I quote him saying, "A's? What is an A? I thought it went from F to C-." It's his last quarter here and yet at least once a week he won't come back from studying until four or five in the morning... and yet it's not midterm or finals season.</p>
<p>...I once took a weeder course in North campus (largely considered the "easier" side of campus). It is the weeder for the communications major (Comm 10). However, because this is an introductory weeder (anybody can take it), it is considered by many as North campus' hardest class. I didn't know this and I took it as an incoming frosh. I was quite scared. The material is ****ing common sense; you get a ton of it. I had 13 pages of single space, font 10 notes covering only HALF of the course (this is back when I was a good student and took notes). I was supposed to memorize the entire list including all the categories and how the list was arranged by them. And I did. Fearing it yet? My friend told me about his chem midterm... the average grade was a 16%.. No, they didn't fail the whole class; I'm sure they curved it so only half the kids failed. My freshman year, I met this friend of mine who was crying because she got an 76% on her math midterm. I told her that she should be glad she passed, she told me, "the average grade was 93%, the curve fails me." Weeders can have curves, as these three examples show... but only to make sure some people pass... and some fail. Famous weeders are courses like: Communications 10, Life Scienes 1 (and 2 & 3), Chemistry 14a (and all the subsequent ones get only harder), English 10a (OMG that class was hard), CS33, etc. Oh, and if you're wondering, my friend ended up getting a C- in her math class after studying her butt off. Lucky her!!! *</p>
<p>Again, it gets down to risk aversion. Let's face it. Most people are risk averse. Most people would prefer to drive a safer car if they could - to the point that most people would pay a premium to install safety options in their car. Ceteris parabus, why wouldn't you prefer a safer car? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, if there is any set of schools that are more likely to look at an application holistically, it would be the private schools. Let's be honest. Most public schools are so large and have so many applicants that they simply can't afford to give much personalized attention to each application. Last year, the Berkeley undergrad program alone had 35000 freshman applicants, and that doesn't even count all of the transfer applicants. While Berkeley may try to run a comprehensive admissions process, the truth is, with that many applicants, it isn't easy to get much beyond simply looking at GPA and test scores. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hardly say so. It isn't about being "unqualified" in a general cosmic sense. Rather, the benchmark is about being "unqualified" relative to the standards of that particular school.. </p>
<p>Furthermore, while I can't speak specifically about NCState, I would say that it is YOUR stories that seem to be unusual. Numerous studies have shown that over half of ALL incoming engineering students will not actually complete their engineering degrees. While some leave engineering simply because they find something more interesting to study, plenty of others leave involuntarily, meaning that they basically flunk out. </p>
<p>In fact, high engineering attrition rates are a well-known problem that has become the subject of considerable research. Take the University of Pittsburgh, a fairly well regarded public school. A whopping 25% of Pitt's engineering students landed on academic probation within their first year. Even if you manage to barely avoid probation, it is highly probable that you will leave engineering. </p>
<p>I can certainly attest to the fact that at Berkeley, probably around half of the students leave engineering, many of them doing so involuntarily. Hence, while I admitted that I don't have personal knowledge of NCState, I would argue that if NCState engineering exhibits a high graduation rate, then that is the exception to the rule, as the fact is, most engineering schools out there suffer from poor graduation rates. Private tech schools tend to do better than public tech schools - as even an extremely difficult private school like Caltech still graduates a higher percentage of its students than Berkeley does within its OVERALL student body (of which engineering is only a subset). </p>
<p>The REAL issue is, as I said, a matter of meeting the standards * of that program*. For example, I am quite sure that plenty of the Berkeley engineering students who flunked out could have graduated just fine if they had just gone to an easier school, and if they did, then they would be practicing engineers right now. The issue is not that they aren't good enough to be engineers at all. The issue is that they aren't good enough to be Berkeley engineers. In other words, these students are qualified enough to graduate from most other engineering programs out there. Hence, in that sense, they are "qualified". They just aren't qualified enough to graduate from *Berkeley's * program. </p>
<p>And in fact, even if what you say regarding NCState is true, it is irrelevent. The fact is, NCState only graduates 66% of its class within 6 years. That's not exactly the best graduation rate in the world. Even if NCState really were to carefully select its engineering students from among its freshmen as you say it does, then that only pushes the problem one step further. It only begs the question of why NCState isn't being more careful about admitting high school seniors. Again, there has to be a reason why only 66% of its incoming class will graduate. Even Berkeley, for all its problems, still manages to graduate 87% of its class. I have been sitting here pointing out Berkeley's problems, yet from the graduation figures, NCState is clearly doing worse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Are you sure about that? For that begs the follow-up question - why is it that the private * schools are able to exhibit such high graduation rates, relative to the public schools? After all, the private schools are *also admitting high school students too, just like the public schools, and are also relying on the same grades and test scores that you said don't have strong predictive power. So why is it that the private schools are somehow able to identify and matriculate a group of students who are more likely to graduate? </p>
<p>Let me put it to you more starkly. Take MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is one of the most difficult and rigorous schools in the world. I think nobody here is going to accuse MIT of being soft on its students. Yet why is it that a place like MIT can still manage to graduate 94% of its students, and yet a competing public school like Georgia Tech can graduate only 76% (or why NCState can graduate only 66%)? Of course y'all are probably going to answer that MIT's students are better than the students at Georgia Tech or NCState, but that simply elicits another question - why can't Georgia Tech and NCState bring in better students?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To reinforce what I said regarding engineering programs nationwide. </p>
<p>*"Even today, the assumption is that engineering classes have to be painful to be effective," said Kerns, who is now vice president of research and innovation at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (Needham, Mass.). "Professors who have happy students are suspect because their classes may not be rigorous enough." </p>
<p>...Engineering schools, meanwhile, have traditionally congregated in the "bottom 20." In a category titled "Professors get low marks," for example, engineering schools took The Princeton Review's first five spots and seven of the total 20. Similarly, engineering claimed four spots in "Professors make themselves scarce," six spots in "Class discussions rare" and seven in "Least happy students." </p>
<p>...Educators say that such results aren't a surprise, in light of the fact that the majority of engineering undergrads drop out or flunk out of the curriculum within the first two years. With a few notable exceptions, U.S. engineering schools typically have attrition rates hovering between one-half and two-thirds" *</p>
<p>So, like I said, I don't have any first-hand experience with NCState, but I would say that if NCState cannot be characterized by the phrases above, then it is a school that is clearly in the minority. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of engineering programs nationwide are stacked with unhappy students, uncaring profs, and high attrition rates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why then aren't the public graduate programs, especially the PhD programs, more open and accessible? After all, they too are funded by the public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a good question. I think there are a couple of reasons. </p>
<p>The public takes a different view of graduate programs. Not as many people think of them as essential; rather, pursuing a graduate degree is a choice for a select group of college graduates. Public policy comes into play when people express concerns about having enough doctors and dentists and other professions that require a graduate degree, but this differs from the public policy discussion about baccalaureate degrees (which focuses more on college degrees as opportunities for socioeconomic advancement and engines for the state's economy). When it comes to grad schools, I just don't see the same public concern about access or giving marginal students a chance. That said, there are plenty of graduate programs that aren't terribly selective.</p>
<p>In my state, most state appropriations decisions are oriented towards undergraduates. I would say 75% or more of all the reporting and accounting we have to do to the state regarding the boilerplate in the approps bill is focused solely on undergraduates, whether that be financial aid, residency mix, tuition rates, graduation rates, degrees awarded, and so on. It's what they care about, at least here in this state. Few people seem to care about what grad-level opportunities public universities might be offering to marginal students.</p>
<p>Whether or not residents get any consideration in admission to graduate programs, at some public schools they do get a break in tuition.</p>
<p>sakky: I don't know anything about the California system, but you seem to have a real beef with it. You obviously do not like public universities, either, and that's fine, too. </p>
<p>I don't have the time, energy, nor inclination to answer all your points w/regard to my earlier statements. However, on the graduate/professional school point, with regard to having preference for residents, I believe the UNC system does. That's certainly true for the medical school and the law school. I don't know if that's true for its graduate programs. Tuition is lower for in-state residents, too. </p>
<p>However, no well-respected medical school, law school, or PhD program, in a public or private university, is going to accept students who don't have what it takes to get in and do well. That's just not going to happen. And do you really think that anyone unqualified would be attempting to attend a top medical school, law school, etc.? I doubt it. I'm sure there are less selective graduate programs/law schools/medical schools out there, though.--no doubt. I also agree with hoedown's points on that topic.</p>
<p>I also agree that most public universities need to work on their graduation rates, although the flagships of most good publics have much better graduation rates than their other campuses. I do think that 5 or 6-year graduation rates are a better indicator of what's going on, though, than 4-year graduation rates. Students switch majors; they may drop out for financial reasons, or have to work long hours and reduce their academic load; public universities tend to take in more transfer students than privates as well, which might set back graduating in 4 years; students may go on a study abroad that sets them back a semester; they may decide to do a double major that requires an extra semester-- any number of reasons why people don't graduate in 4 years. In fact, for a few majors I can think of, unless one enters with advanced credit, or takes classes in summer school, to graduate in 4 years would be next to impossible.</p>
<p>My personal feeling (with no evidence or facts to support this, except personal experience) is that no private school charging ~$50K per year is going to allow their students to flunk out. That's just not going to happen. In part, grade inflation helps in that regard (and, typically, grade inflation is much worse at privates than at publics), along with a lot of hand-holding. Also, students at private schools tend to come from much wealthier families, overall, meaning they don't have to work a part-time job to make ends meet. Life is a whole lot easier when all costs are covered, and a parent is simply writing the checks every semester.</p>
<p>Why can't a public university bring in students more like those accepted to MIT or any of the Ivys? I think many do. The top students at UNC-CH and, certainly, other top flagships will match any of the top students at these privates. Absolutely. As I'm sure you know, many of them turned down such schools to attend their public flagships. </p>
<p>I think your question really is, why can't a public be more like a private? Well, I think some actually are, in what they can and do offer. Again, though, a public school will always have a broader range of student than will a top private school. As stated before, part of its mission is to educate the sons and daughters of the residents of the state. These schools are, in large part, tax-payer supported; as such, they don't have the luxury of skimming <em>only</em> from the top with every single application. Rest assured, those that can do that are not receiving much money from their state legislature/taxpayers. </p>
<p>Although their admissions policies are never as vague as those at top privates, I do believe some publics look at applications more holistically than simply SAT scores/GPA. I also like that publics are willing to give some students a chance. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I find that both admirable and healthy.</p>
<p>If that's something that does not appeal to you, then by all means, you should go the private route.</p>
<p>Oh really? Are you sure about that? For that begs the follow-up question - why is it that the private schools are able to exhibit such high graduation rates, relative to the public schools? After all, the private schools are also admitting high school students too, just like the public schools, and are also relying on the same grades and test scores that you said don't have strong predictive power. So why is it that the private schools are somehow able to identify and matriculate a group of students who are more likely to graduate? "</p>
<p>There is more risk associated with taking a broader range of students based on HS records. Some will shine and others will not. It is in the best interest of the state to develop its human capital and like any investment you don't always hit a homerun but the net impact is highly positive. Also a far higher number of public students are working and paying a significant portion of the cost of their education. The top privates typically have the funds to cover the cost of all their lower income students. The publics don't.<br>
Not all private schools have high graduation rates. When you get below the top tier they do no better than many of the better publics. The average six-year graduation rate for private, non-profit four-year institutions is about 64 percent.
Here's a summary from a recent Syracuse study</p>
<p>Rank Institution Six-year Graduation Rate
1 Duke 92%
1 Northwestern 92%
3 Georgetown 90%
4 Washington University 86%
5 Emory 84%
6 Vanderbilt 82%
7 University of Rochester 74%
8 Case Western Reserve 73%
9 New York University 72%
9 Syracuse University 72%
9 Tulane University 72%
12 Southern California 70%
13 Boston University 69%</p>
<p>That's interesting, barrons. I looked up to see what UNC-CH's 6-year graduation rate is, and it's 84%. While university officials acknowledge that internships, study abroad, transferring, working part-time, etc, all impact graduation rates, about 10% do drop out because of academic trouble. They've recently instituted some changes to help turn this around (more intense advising, an early-warning system, expanding its summer program for incoming students who need academic advising). They also did recently change their minimum threshold for academic eligibility (mentioned in this link) which was too low-- now raised from what was previously a 1.5 GPA to a 2.0. (I gather UCLA, Berkeley, and Michigan have 6 year graduation rates at 87%.)
<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/664/story/421379.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.newsobserver.com/664/story/421379.html</a></p>
<p>Getting dinged for transfers hurts publics as more kids tend to transfer for a variety of reasons. Many move to other state schools closer to home or whatever.</p>
<p>Yes, transfers both in and out-- which will certainly impact the graduation rates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: I don't know anything about the California system, but you seem to have a real beef with it. You obviously do not like public universities, either, and that's fine, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely disagree. Speaking about the California system, I have always had tremendous respect for the UC graduate programs, and they are all public. I have always had great respect for UCSF, which is exclusively a graduate school. Heck, I freely recognize that even the Berkeley undergrad program, for all its problems, still manages to graduate a greater percentage of its students than most other public undergrad programs. And I have always had tremendous respect for the great foreign public schools, like Oxford and Cambridge.</p>
<p>The real question to me is why the US public undergrad programs are not as good, in terms of graduation rates and student support/satisfaction, as schools like HYPSM. To this day, nobody has yet to come up with a coherent answer as to why not. For example, why is it that I can choose another major I want at HYPSM, and can switch majors at any time, but I cannot do so at Berkeley? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't have the time, energy, nor inclination to answer all your points w/regard to my earlier statements. However, on the graduate/professional school point, with regard to having preference for residents, I believe the UNC system does. That's certainly true for the medical school and the law school. I don't know if that's true for its graduate programs. Tuition is lower for in-state residents, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am personally not aware of ANY public school that provides preference to state residents in its PhD programs. If UNC does so, then it is in the minority. </p>
<p>With regard to tuition for PhD students, it may be "lower" for state residents, but that hardly matters because PhD students are, with few exceptions, supported by their departments anyway, either in the form of fellowships or TA/RA-ships. What happens at UC and many other public schools is that PhD students are encouraged to apply for state residency as soon as possible, which is relatively easy to do because most PhD students are old enough and can demonstrate sufficient financial independence (through their PhD funding) to be eligible for state residency relatively quickly, and when they get it, the state will "charge" these students less, meaning that the department has to provide less financial support to cover the extra OOS charges. But that's just an accounting exercise that the UC's perform to save money. It doesn't affect the PhD students. At the end of the day, you are going to be supported by your department one way or another, and hence, the final analysis is that whether you are in-state or OOS. you end up getting the same funding. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, no well-respected medical school, law school, or PhD program, in a public or private university, is going to accept students who don't have what it takes to get in and do well. That's just not going to happen. And do you really think that anyone unqualified would be attempting to attend a top medical school, law school, etc.? I doubt it. I'm sure there are less selective graduate programs/law schools/medical schools out there, though.--no doubt. I also agree with hoedown's points on that topic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly right, so that begs the question of why public schools are so willing to accept unqualified undergrad students, yet far less willing to accept unqualified graduate students. Or, to incorporate hoedown's point and my rejoinder, why are Harvard's and Berkeley's graduation rates for graduate students highly comparable, but not that for undergraduate students? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I do think that 5 or 6-year graduation rates are a better indicator of what's going on, though, than 4-year graduation rates. Students switch majors; they may drop out for financial reasons, or have to work long hours and reduce their academic load; public universities tend to take in more transfer students than privates as well, which might set back graduating in 4 years; students may go on a study abroad that sets them back a semester; they may decide to do a double major that requires an extra semester-- any number of reasons why people don't graduate in 4 years. In fact, for a few majors I can think of, unless one enters with advanced credit, or takes classes in summer school, to graduate in 4 years would be next to impossible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The figures I quoted in previous posts were 6-year graduation rates. Berkeley graduates 87% of its undergrads in 6 years, NCState graduates 66% in 6 years, etc. </p>
<p>But nonetheless, even if we were talking about the comparison of 4 and 6 year graduation rates, that still raises the question of why public school students need to take longer to graduate? Undergrads at private schools will also switch majors, also sometimes drop out temporarily due to financial problems, also do study-abroad, also sometimes have to work long hours, also want to complete double-majors - yet they manage to graduate in 4 years at a far higher rate than students in public schools. Why is that? You also talk about how public schools admit plenty of transfer students who are unable to graduate on time, but again that begs the question of why these public schools are admitting so many transfer students who don't have the credits or the motivation (or whatever it is) to graduate on time? </p>
<p>Let me put it to you another way. You and others have stated that one of the greatest benefits of public schools is that they are cheaper than the top private schools for state residents who aren't poor enough to qualify for large amounts of financial aid. Yet if your graduation becomes delayed, than that benefit attenuates. Think of it this way. If you have to spend an extra 2 years to graduate from Berkeley, then that translates into not only an extra 15k in tuition (7.5k per year for in-state), but more importantly, *about an extra 70k in lost earnings<a href="taking%20the%20fact%20that%20the%20average%20college%20grad%20makes%20about%2035k%20to%20start">/i</a>. Right there, the entire financial advantage of a public school has gone up in smoke. Not only that, but you will have lost 2 years of progression in your career. </p>
<p>Now, of course, that is the most extreme example, as obviously not everybody at public schools take 6 years to graduate, and not everybody in private schools takes 4. But the above illustrates the point that delayed graduation is not a good thing. It's obviously better than not even graduating at all, but it's still a problem. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My personal feeling (with no evidence or facts to support this, except personal experience) is that no private school charging ~$50K per year is going to allow their students to flunk out. That's just not going to happen. In part, grade inflation helps in that regard (and, typically, grade inflation is much worse at privates than at publics), along with a lot of hand-holding. Also, students at private schools tend to come from much wealthier families, overall, meaning they don't have to work a part-time job to make ends meet. Life is a whole lot easier when all costs are covered, and a parent is simply writing the checks every semester.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then that again, simply relocates the point of uncertainty. Now the question is, why can't the public schools provide better financial aid? Harvard now offers completely free rides to every undergrad whose family makes less than 60k. Can any public school say the same? Now of course Harvard doesn't have a lot of undergrads who come from such backgrounds, making such support easy for them to provide. Nevertheless, it simply indicates that if you're poor, then by far the best higher education financial deal for you is available not at your public school, but at Harvard. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I know 2 guys who were both admitted to both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that Harvard would actually be cheaper once financial aid was factored in. I will always remember one of them mordantly joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard. That example of black humor simply indicates that public schools don't provide the best support to poor students. </p>
<p>Your other points simply enumerate more reasons to prefer private schools. Again, ceteris paribus, who doesn't want more hand-holding? Who doesn't want grade inflation? Like it or not, grade inflation works in terms of boosting your chances of getting to a top graduate school or winning a major scholarship (i.e. Rhodes, Marshall, etc.). If you can get that support, why wouldn't you take it? Why make things harder on yourself? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why can't a public university bring in students more like those accepted to MIT or any of the Ivys? I think many do. The top students at UNC-CH and, certainly, other top flagships will match any of the top students at these privates. Absolutely. As I'm sure you know, many of them turned down such schools to attend their public flagships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's verbal sleight-of-hand there. Of course nobody disputes that the BEST public school students are highly comparable to those at the top privates. But what matters are the AVERAGES. Let's face it. The average student at UNC (or Berkeley or Michigan or Virginia or wherever) is simply not as good as the average student at HYPSM. Why not? </p>
<p>The real problem is that public schools admit a long tail-end of rather mediocre students; many of which will not graduate. Why? Like I asked before, why do public schools insist on admitting so many students who are not going to graduate? Who does that help? They should just go to some other school. Heck, even if you did barely graduate, you probably still would have been better off at another school. For example, somebody who earns a 2.1 GPA at Berkeley will indeed graduate, but his chances at a competitive grad school or job are basically shot. Why did Berkeley admit this guy? Everybody would have been better off if he had simply gone to another school where he could have performed better. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is just a hypothetical case, let me say that I know a guy like this. Even in his final semester, he didn't even know if he was going to graduate, because if he got poor grades in his final semester such that his overall GPA dipped below 2.0, then he wouldn't graduate. Think about that psychological turmoil. It is your final semester and spending many years there, and you STILL don't know whether you are going to graduate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think your question really is, why can't a public be more like a private? Well, I think some actually are, in what they can and do offer. Again, though, a public school will always have a broader range of student than will a top private school. As stated before, part of its mission is to educate the sons and daughters of the residents of the state. These schools are, in large part, tax-payer supported; as such, they don't have the luxury of skimming <em>only</em> from the top with every single application. Rest assured, those that can do that are not receiving much money from their state legislature/taxpayers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said it before, I'll say it again - then why are the public graduate * programs able to be just as selective as the private graduate programs? Again, the Berkeley Chemistry PhD program is arguably THE most selective Chem PhD program in the world, and certainly engages in just as much cream-skimming (if not more) as any other top Chem PhD program. I am certainly not aware of any mission that that program has to educating the children of the residents of the state. Relatively few of the Berkeley Chem PhD students are true California state residents according to your definition of the word (in the sense that their parents actually live in California and pay state taxes). Heck, in any given year, about half of those students are foreign nationals. Another large chunk come from OOS. Yet the Berkeley chemistry department receives public funding anyway. Granted, many of these students *become California state residents for the purpose of saving money for the department. But that's not residency according to the way you have defined it. They certainly are not the sons or daughters of taxpaying state residents. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Although their admissions policies are never as vague as those at top privates, I do believe some publics look at applications more holistically than simply SAT scores/GPA. I also like that publics are willing to give some students a chance. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I find that both admirable and healthy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, they look at applications more holistically. But the top private schools REALLY look at applications holistically. You say that public schools are giving some students a chance. Why can't the same be said for the private schools? In other words, why is it OK for a public school to run a holistic admissions process, but not a private school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
If that's something that does not appeal to you, then by all means, you should go the private route.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I've always said, I have nothing against public schools * per se*. For example, I have always maintained that Berkeley has many of the best graduate programs in the world. I have absolutely no problem in recommending somebody to consider Berkeley for grad school, especially for a PhD. Heck, I have stated that, depending on the discipline, people are often times better off getting their PhD from Berkeley than from HYPSM. </p>
<p>The question in my mind is why can't the Berkeley *undergraduate * program be that good? The same holds for the other public undergrad programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is more risk associated with taking a broader range of students based on HS records.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, I can agree that there is more risk. But so what? After all, the state is not the only entity assuming all of the risk. You as a student are also assuming some (indeed probably most) of the risk. For example, if you choose a public school and then flunk out, prospective employers are not going to chalk that up the faulty admissions practices of the public university. All they are going to see is that, for whatever reason, you don't have a degree. Most employers that offer good jobs won't even grant you an interview if you don't have a degree. They won't care WHY you don't have a degree. All they will care about is that you don't have a degree. </p>
<p>Heck, if they are going to hold anybody to blame, it is YOU. They are going to blame YOU for flunking out. They are not going to blame the university for wrongly admitting you. They are going to blame you. Like it or not, that's the world we live in. </p>
<p>In other words, what we have here is a misallocation of incentives. The state chooses to take the risk, but the negative consequences of that risk is redirected back to the students, because it is the student who assumes the risk of not getting a degree and having his academic record permanently ruined by bad grades. </p>
<p>In fact, this discussion leads to a prescriptive policy option. If the state is going to insist on taking risks, then the state should be responsible for rehabilitating those students who perform poorly. For example, if the state takes the risk in admitting you to a public school that is too difficult for you, then your failing grades should be expunged, therefore allowing you to attend some other school with a clean slate. Just like if the US chooses to go to war, then those soldiers who get hurt should be nursed back to health as much as possible. You don't just tell a wounded soldier: oh well, his injuries are his problem and we're just going to cast him aside. Yet that is PRECISELY what happens now with public schools. They admit a bunch of students knowing that some of them will do poorly, and those that do poorly are basically cast by the wayside. </p>
<p>But be that as it may, that's just a reason not to go to a public school. After all, you might end up being one of those poorly-performing students who is cast away. Just like if the country refuses to take care of its wounded soldiers properly, then it should surprise no-one that fewer people would want to join the military. If you're not going to take care of your people ex-post, then fewer people are going to want to join ex-ante. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
Some will shine and others will not. It is in the best interest of the state to develop its human capital and like any investment you don't always hit a homerun but the net impact is highly positive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if the net impact is positive, that is not an excuse for not optimizing the system. The results could be improved by simply not admitting students who predictably aren't going to graduate anyway. </p>
<p>And besides, if you want to talk about the development of human capital, you don't need public universities to do it. A voucher system could do just as well. After all, HYPSM clearly also develop tremendous human capital. Human capital, just like any other capital, should be optimized. Instead of public universities, we could simply hand every high school graduate a "scholarship" that they can use to attend any school in the state that they like. After all, if a California high school student whose parents have been paying taxes for years wants to go to Stanford, MIT or Harvard, why shouldn't he get those tax receipts back? Why should he get that subsidy only if he attends UC? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also a far higher number of public students are working and paying a significant portion of the cost of their education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And like I said, that only begs the question of why public schools can't provide satisfactory financial aid so that their students don't have to work? </p>
<p>In fact, this point you raised actually makes the situation even worse. Think about it. You have these relatively poor students who have to work to make ends meet, and then they don't even graduate? In other words, these students have to pay tuition costs and forgo full-time jobs just to attend school...and yet they don't even get degrees? How does that make these students better off? In fact, I think it's quite clear that these students are now FAR WORSE OFF. They didnt' have much money to begin with, and they got charged for their education, and they don't even end up with degrees. It would have been better if they had not even gotten admitted to the school at all - then, at least, they would not paid out so much money to a school that won't grant them a degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not all private schools have high graduation rates. When you get below the top tier they do no better than many of the better publics. The average six-year graduation rate for private, non-profit four-year institutions is about 64 percent.
Here's a summary from a recent Syracuse study</p>
<p>Rank Institution Six-year Graduation Rate
1 Duke 92%
1 Northwestern 92%
3 Georgetown 90%
4 Washington University 86%
5 Emory 84%
6 Vanderbilt 82%
7 University of Rochester 74%
8 Case Western Reserve 73%
9 New York University 72%
9 Syracuse University 72%
9 Tulane University 72%
12 Southern California 70%
13 Boston University 69%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And ALL of these rates are better than that of the average public school. And in fact that 64% figure you cited as better than the graduation rate of the average public school. What's your point? All you are doing is actually reinforcing MY point that public schools, relative to private schools, don't do a good job of selecting students who are going to graduate. They need to do better. </p>
<p>"Backing up the CAE report, figures from ACT, formerly the American College Testing Service, show the graduation rate at four-year public institutions fell to 41.9 percent in 2000, while the rate at private schools was 55.1 percent. "</p>
<p>"The question in my mind is why can't the Berkeley undergraduate program be that good? The same holds for the other public undergrad programs."</p>
<p>Because it does not have the same role in the state's education plan. They could if they wanted to, but they don't and that's that. Many people are happy with that. "Good" is a value laden word. Most people in California would feel that UC undergrad education is as good as any. The "long tail" of the class is not likely studying chem eng. That's the source of you education and similar majors. We need teachers too and they don't need to have a 1500 on the SAT to teach third graders.</p>
<p>Your idea of opimization is good old elitsm. People work because they don't want to graduate with debt and don't want to burden their parents. It also gives you a real feeling of satisfaction to pay your own way in life. You should try it sometime. Everyone should have an opportunity to succeed or fail on their own in college and not have one test decide that fate before they even try. If they fail, so what? They are not really any worse off than if they never had tried at all and there still are many schools that don't care if you flunked out of Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's interesting, barrons. I looked up to see what UNC-CH's 6-year graduation rate is, and it's 84%. While university officials acknowledge that internships, study abroad, transferring, working part-time, etc, all impact graduation rates, about 10% do drop out because of academic trouble. They've recently instituted some changes to help turn this around (more intense advising, an early-warning system, expanding its summer program for incoming students who need academic advising). They also did recently change their minimum threshold for academic eligibility (mentioned in this link) which was too low-- now raised from what was previously a 1.5 GPA to a 2.0. (I gather UCLA, Berkeley, and Michigan have 6 year graduation rates at 87%.)
<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/664/story/421379.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.newsobserver.com/664/story/421379.html</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what are the graduation rates at HYPSM? They're all in the 90+% range. Harvard has a whopping 98% rate. Again, why can't the public schools do that? </p>
<p>Now of course you might say that it's unfair to look just at HYPSM, which are the top private schools. But the response to that is that it is equally unfair to look solely at Berkeley, UNC, Michigan, and UCLA, which are the top public schools. At the end of the day, what is indisputable is that the average private school does a better job of selecting students who will actually graduate than does the average public school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Getting dinged for transfers hurts publics as more kids tend to transfer for a variety of reasons. Many move to other state schools closer to home or whatever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, transfers both in and out-- which will certainly impact the graduation rates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said in my previous post, if public schools insist on admitting transfers who can't or don't want to graduate, then they SHOULD be dinged. The answer is to then stop admitting these students. This is a specific instance of a general rule - don't admit students who aren't going to graduate anyway. Let those students attend some other school from which they will graduate. </p>
<p>Similarly, if public schools admit a large portion of students who become unhappy later and choose to transfer out, then again, they deserve to get dinged for it, for that only begs the question of why are those students unhappy such that they want to transfer out? For example, why doesn't Harvard have such a problem with unhappy students who are clamoring to transfer out? Whatever you might say about the happiness of Harvard undergrads, at the end of the day, 98% of them graduate. What public school can say the same?</p>
<p>They are not admitting transfers--people transfer out. Learn the system of how these things are computed before spouting off.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because it does not have the same role in the state's education plan. They could if they wanted to, but they don't and that's that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By "it", I am assuming that you are talking about graduate programs. What you have just illustrated is the sheer arbitrary nature of public schools. You said it yourself - they could if they wanted to, but they just don't. But that means that they COULD. The rules are arbitrary, and can be changed at any time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people in California would feel that UC undergrad education is as good as any.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? So then why are the UC yield ratings so low? Berkeley is the best, yet even Berkeley yields only about 40% of its admittees. On a cross-admit basis, Berkeley is clearly beaten by Stanford: the vast majority of high school seniors who get admitted to both Berkeley and Stanford will pick Stanford. And of course if you were to compare the cross-admit ratings of any other UC vs. Stanford, the figures would be even more dramatic. So, explain to me again how most people in California feel that UC undergrad education is as good as any? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The "long tail" of the class is not likely studying chem eng. That's the source of you education and similar majors. We need teachers too and they don't need to have a 1500 on the SAT to teach third graders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's completely irrelevent. I am talking about people who won't even graduate. How exactly can you become a teacher if you don't even graduate from college? Again, this gets to the problem that I have pointed out time and time again - public schools are less careful about picking students who are actually going to graduate. Why should graduation rates at public schools be so low? Why can't public schools do a better job of picking students who will actually graduate? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your idea of opimization is good old elitsm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? I would argue that your resistance of optimization is just callousness. After all, people who attend a school and don't graduate have a problem. In most cases, their academic transcripts are ruined. They spend money on a school that won't grant them a degree. What's good about that? But I guess that's their problem, not yours, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
People work because they don't want to graduate with debt and don't want to burden their parents. It also gives you a real feeling of satisfaction to pay your own way in life. You should try it sometime
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you continue to insist on missing the point - that if these people are not graduating because of financial difficulties, then the REAL answer is to provide better financial aid for them. You don't just take their money via tuition charges, knowing that they won't graduate anyway. That is unconscionable: these people are not rich, you know they're not going to make it to graduation, but you take their money anyway, money that they don't have much of. Give me a break. It would be far better for these students to either be given the proper financial backing such that they actually can graduate. Or go to another school entirely from which they actually will graduate. But again, you don't seem to care about that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are not admitting transfers--people transfer out. Learn the system of how these things are computed before spouting off.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you should read my posts before YOU spout off. Like I said in post #75:</p>
<p>"Similarly, if public schools admit a large portion of students who become unhappy later and choose to transfer out, then again, they deserve to get dinged for it, for that only begs the question of why are those students unhappy such that they want to transfer out? For example, why doesn't Harvard have such a problem with unhappy students who are clamoring to transfer out? Whatever you might say about the happiness of Harvard undergrads, at the end of the day, 98% of them graduate. What public school can say the same?"</p>
<p>So, who's the one who is spouting off?</p>
<p>Sorry, but I actually work and don't have time to read 500 word posts.
The schools only have so much money. That's all there is and they need to use it as best they can. I'm sure they would love to give money to everyone but they cannot. </p>
<p>They don't transfer because the are only unhappy. There are 100's of reasons why they might do it. Save money by living at home, change programs not at the first school, want to be with their GF at another school etc etc. </p>
<p>I'd bet the 50% or 60% of lower stat admits who do graduate and go on to better lives are thankful that elitist people like you are not running the state schools that are to serve all the public.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, but I actually work and don't have time to read 500 word posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then don't lecture others about spouting off, when you don't have time to read what other people have to say. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The schools only have so much money. That's all there is and they need to use it as best they can. I'm sure they would love to give money to everyone but they cannot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fine, then the answer is, don't admit those students who you can't properly support. </p>
<p>
[quote]
They don't transfer because the are only unhappy. There are 100's of reasons why they might do it. Save money by living at home, change programs not at the first school, want to be with their GF at another school etc etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet why doesn't this seem to happen at the top private schools. Don't students at Harvard also want to save money by living at home, change programs that Harvard doesn't have, have girlfriends at home that they want to be with, and so forth? Yet at the end of the day, you can't argue with a 98% graduation rate. That's the bottom line - why exactly is the graduation rate at private schools better than at public schools, and why can't public schools do something about it? </p>
<p>If public schools don't want to do something about it, then that's a strong reason to not go to a public school. After all, you may end up being one of those students who doesn't graduate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd bet the 50% or 60% of lower stat admits who do graduate and go on to better lives are thankful that elitist people like you are not running the state schools that are to serve all the public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See - there's that phrase again: "serving all the public". How is that? Like I said, the state PhD programs clearly don't serve "all the public". There are PhD programs at Berkeley who in certain years won't matriculate a single state resident. How does that "serve the public"? </p>
<p>Even if we are talking about undergrad, the top public schools don't really "serve all the public". Only 25% of high school seniors who apply to the Berkeley undergrad program are actually admitted. Most of these HS seniors are obviously California state residents. What that means is that the vast majority of Californians who want to attend Berkeley undergrad are not given the option to attend. How does that "serve all the public"? Similarly, the majority of the applicants to UCLA, Virginia, UNC, and Michigan are not admitted. "Serve all the public", you say? They don't even serve most of the public who apply. And of course plenty of other state residents don't even apply because they know they won't get in. Let's face it. If you're a California HS senior who graduated last in your high school class with terrible test scores, you know you won't get into Berkeley, so why even apply? </p>
<p>Hence, let's move beyond this false trope that the top public schools are "serving all the public". They clearly are not. I don't know of a single top-tier flagship public school that actually offers open admissions. Not a single one. Only if you offer open admissions can you then say that you are truly serving "all the public". Plenty of state residents would like to attend their flagship state school and can't get in. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would hardly say that my proposals are "elitist". Like I said, these people aren't going to graduate anyway. So what exactly is the harm in simply not admitting them in the first place? They're not going to graduate. In fact, they are clearly better off in not being admitted, so that they can go to another school that suits them better, rather than waste their time and money and ruin their academic records at a school that doesnt' fit them. That is better for everybody. </p>
<p>But you don't seem to care about that. These people wasting their time and money and trashing their academic records; that's their problem, not yours, right?</p>