<p>In my opinion privates usually have better alumni and more close relations</p>
<p>By jack's comments, I presume he has given up reading this thread. </p>
<p>Regardless, I must admit that I find myself absolutely stupified at his perception that the LACs' emphasis on "individual attention" represents "coddling and handholding". Perhaps this is yet another contribution to the backlash that is accompanying a rising recognition of LACs and their excellence in education.</p>
<p>I only applied to LACs because I wanted to have as many opportunities to achieve and learn as much as possible - handholding? no, the chance to do a first year summer research project with professors, the chance to challenge myself in class discussions and the impetus to challenge myself to take courses that I previously have bias or prejudice against. You can go on and on about how great publics are at coming up at small discussion class sizes and personalized attention - again, while admirable, still do not constitute a indispensible part of what a big public university is. Before you shoot your mouth off about what bias I have against big unis, let me assert that I hold NOTHING against publics, and that there are many, in fact, there may be many MORE students that would do BETTER at attending publics than privates, and yes in this case, the LACs.</p>
<p>You, jack, view this with a skewed perception of what "individual attention" means, and to top it off, alert us to our prejudicing public unis and charging them with various crimes of mismanagement, resource scarcity and overly competitive climates, while happily shooting off (oh yeah, disguised in a "subtler, more sophisticated manner") about how we LACs are nurseries. Will you not stop and think about what you did? You have just accused thousands of talented, motivated students in the LACs of being mother-didn't-give-them-enough-milk-babies. You have turned one of the most sought-after features of the LAC into a derisory characteristic worthy of contempt (by your high and mighty "I beat 1000 other unqualified people to the summa cum laude" public school, Darwinian victor reasoning). </p>
<p>I said this before and I'd say it again. The LACs are places which gives a greater opportunity for all students to gain access to professors and their knowledge and mentorship, versus big unis (public AND private). Small class sizes, much discussion and an exchange of ideas, emphasis on wider breadth of study, a greater feel of community - folks, if you want this experience, go to an LAC. What an LAC teaches you is this: be prepared to get your ideas challenged, every step of the way, be it at start of a intro to econs class, to the midst of a philosophy of ethics class, yea, it even teaches you bias, prejudice and hasty generalizations will not get you anywhere. If you, sir, insist on calling this a nursery, then I'll tell you something. I'm proud to be part of nursery, because nurseries cultivate seedlings to become full grown plants, worthy to be counted amongst the number of plants to bear the vagaries of weather, the pollution of man and the harsh realities of the outside.</p>
<p>I praise public unis - UNC-CH is an extremely underrated uni and is a great place, congrats to your D - in their effort to inculcate aspects of the LACs, while still offering tons of resources to almost any student capable enough, and motivated enough to take advantage of them. But again, different environments appeal to different people, and to criticize or attempt to label any particular student body with little to show for other than a "it seems that the emphasis on blah blah implies that the students who go there are blah blah" is a mark of a well-educated, grammatically-correct, but fatally-inaccurate viewpoint.</p>
<p>I employ a take-no-prisoners approach because like jack, who is irritated with LACs trumpeting their "individual attention" to potential applicants, I too am irked by the persistence of a poisonous, pernicious idea that you go to an LAC to sleep tight and get free As to suckle at while you're lying in the proverbial cradle. I don't speak for the small private Ivys (where you, jack, saw the "handcoddling"). </p>
<p>Let this be known that I hold nothing against ANY type of institution - I came to this thread to view the debate on public vs private, and not to impose my view on anyone (I have no view on this public vs private thing). AND one more thing - never in this post did I discount the possibility that some OR MANY LACs may practice (predominantly) hand-holding and coddling in their belief that this is their preferred mode of education. But I argue against putting a big, fat, white barcoded label on all LACs and by implication, imposing a stereotype on LAC students that they hardly deserve.</p>
<p>jack, I'll defend the right for you to abuse LACs through your posts. I'll defend your right to disagree. But to all other readers, I hope that you have heard me, my impassioned, (yes bias-motivated, but hopefully not bias-centric) case, contrasted it with jack's case, and come to the conclusion that it is extremely difficult to label, characterize and color any huge demographic, based on a limited perception, and limited experience. jack's perception should not stand unchallenged and in so propagate unchecked in CC.</p>
<p>It's all about fit, and which institution you think can nurture you to your fullest potential.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I addressed this issue this way because it was a follow-up to my comment about palatability. And I do think it is relevant, because people believe they have a stake in their public institutions (even those who are so selective that only a small number of taxpayers have a chance of enrolling their kids there). They want universities to give well-qualified students a shot, to give them a chance to succeed. They accept that this is a chance, not a guarantee.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet as I pointed out, many of the public graduate programs, particularly the PhD programs, will matriculate precisely zero state residents in certain years. For example, there are certain years in which not a single incoming student in the Berkeley chemical engineering PhD program was a California resident at the time of matriculation (hence, not counting those Phd students who came in and then later changed their residency to California). Yet the program is still "public" in the sense that it is still funded by the taxpayers. I've always wondered why the public feels such a stake in the public undergraduate, yet not so much in the public *PhD * programs. After all, public is public, right? </p>
<p>And besides, even if we were to accept the notion that we should give people the chance (but not the guarantee) to attend a top university, that doesn't mean that that university has to be a public university. As I pointed out, even for state residents, Berkeley is as difficult to get into as many of the top private schools. In other words, just like the vast majority of Californians will not get into a top private school, the vast majority of Californians will not get into Berkeley either. Yet the taxpayers of the state of California don't go around funding those private schools. But why not? What's the difference? Either way, you'd be funding a school that provides only a small chance of admission to any particular state resident. So why is it OK for the taxpayers to fund Berkeley, but not, say, Stanford? {For example, California could fund statutory public colleges at Stanford the same way that New York funds the 4 statutory public colleges at Cornell}. </p>
<p>But anyway, that's neither here nor there. I think at least we can agree that one of the main purported benefits of a public school - that they provide wide access to education - is not provided by the top flagships, and so we can toss that rationale out the window. Let's be perfectly honest. Public schools like Berkeley, UCLA, UVa, etc. do not provide wide access. They are just as hard to get into as many of the top private schools. The only public schools that could truly be said to provide wide access are the open-admissions community colleges. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not that you're alone in caring about those students who do struggle, and who don't make it. It's just that what you seem to be suggesting--develop an admissions system which admits only those people who are 100% guaranteed to succeed, stay on target, not change majors, not decide to enroll somewhere else, not to skip assignments, etc.... seems like it would lead to an overly restrictive admissions policy that would mistakenly deny potentially successful students. If I believed one could develop a precise statistical model that could accurately predict what a student would do once enrolled, maybe I'd feel differently. But I don't believe it's possible. There are too many variations in student behavior and choices. In an effort to cut out everyone who seems like they might fail, you'd eliminate a lot of people who would do just fine. You wouldn't just be denying students who wouldn't graduate anyway.</p>
<p>What institutions do, and should do more of, is identify admitted students have may be at some greater risk for being among that small number who fail, and try to ensure they succeed through good advising.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me explain my rationale. Keep in mind that, even if your fears are realized, I wouldn't be denying anybody a chance to get a college degree from some school. I would just (possibly) be denying them a chance to get a degree at the flagship school. But is that really so bad? I think of it this way. The dropoff between getting a degree from Berkeley and getting one from UCDavis is miniscule compared to the dropoff between getting a degree from Berkeley or Davis and not even getting a degree at all. </p>
<p>Like it or not, we live in a world where you basically need a degree. That is, unless you're going to be an entrerpreneur, or become a pro athlete or entertainer, or other such rare professions, you basically need a degree to get a good job. Most employers won't even interview you if you don't have a degree. Yes, a more prestigious degree can give you access to better jobs, but the big jump is garnered from having a degree from * some , *any school. If you go to Berkeley and flunk out, employers aren't going to care why you don't have a degree. All they're going to see is that you don't have a degree. Sadly, that's the way the world works. </p>
<p>Since that is the way the world works, I'm trying to come up with a way to maximize the chances for everybody to get that all-important degree. </p>
<p>Most people in the world, and in fact, society at large, is risk-averse. Most people would rather take a guaranteed $1 million rather than take a 50% chance at getting $3 million. I am simply following this principle to devise a system where people are more likely to get a degree from some school. Like I said, it's far far better to graduate from UCDavis than to flunk out of Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What institutions do, and should do more of, is identify admitted students have may be at some greater risk for being among that small number who fail, and try to ensure they succeed through good advising.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would be nice to do, but the evidence has convinced me that schools just don't want to do it. Again, I would point to the culture of engineering schools. Engineering schools, virtually across the board, exhibit characteristics of coldness and harshness to their students. Eng schools simply don't want to help their students. </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><a href="http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=45200041%5B/url%5D">http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=45200041</a> </p>
<p>Given that that's the reality of the situation, and cultural change is extremely difficult, I think it is better to approach the problem from another angle - to simply not admit those students who weren't going to make it anyway. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Overall, your tone to me ("maybe this will whet your appetite".... "Let me outline the logic of this thread for you", etc) seems a little snarky. I don't think it's warranted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, what can I say? I'm a human being with emotions too. I'm not a robot. When I'm under attack, I'm going to strike back. You want to talk about snarky? What about jack's comments in posts #83 and #86, telling me to 'make up my mind', and to 'get a grip'? What about barrons's comment in posts #76 telling me to learn the system before spouting off (when in fact, HE was the one who was spouting off)? I think I've been reasonably equanimous in the face of sustained personal attack.</p>
<p>You had some bad info on how transfers were counted in grad rates in your post #75. It did not come from me. That is why I made the learn the system comment. BTW transfers out are counted as if the never graduate from school while in fact many of them will graduate from the school they transfer to. This seems like bad accounting to me.</p>
<p>California funds a broad range of colleges so that virtually everyone can go to one of them. You don't get the right to decide which one though and the most costly schools to the state taxpayers are reserved for those with a good chance of success which is what you wanted. Now we can argue whether 80% success is adequate but that's another question. I think it's a fine number.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You had some bad info on how transfers were counted in grad rates in your post #75. It did not come from me. That is why I made the learn the system comment. BTW transfers out are counted as if the never graduate from school while in fact many of them will graduate from the school they transfer to. This seems like bad accounting to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I know EXACTLY what you were talking about. And my position remains the same, but for different reasons. I don't call it 'bad accounting'. If somebody transfers out to some other school, then that begs the question of why that person wasn't always going to that other school in the first place? Why was that first school expending its own resources on somebody who was going to transfer out anyway, when that school could have instead admitted somebody else who would have stuck around and graduated?<br>
That first guy effectively took the second guy's seat. </p>
<p>Again, let me put it to you starkly. Harvard has a 6-year graduation rate of 98%. What public school can say the same? One might say that some people are transferring out of those public schools, but then that begs the question of why people aren't also transferring out of Harvard? </p>
<p>
[quote]
California funds a broad range of colleges so that virtually everyone can go to one of them. You don't get the right to decide which one though and the most costly schools to the state taxpayers are reserved for those with a good chance of success which is what you wanted. Now we can argue whether 80% success is adequate but that's another question. I think it's a fine number.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not a fine number to those who don't make it. For those people, the number is obviously 0%. Similarly, most people won't become victims of crime, but that's cold comfort to those that do. </p>
<p>Look, the truth of the matter is that those who don't do well at Berkeley would have done just fine at the vast majority of other schools in the country. That's what's sad - you're damaging the careers of those who would have done well if they had just gone elsewhere. Somebody who goes to Berkeley and flunks out is worse off than if he had never gone at all. Sad but true. </p>
<p>For example, I know a guy who went to Berkeley and flunked out, and now has difficulty getting into other schools as they don't want to take a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school. His chances of ever going to graduate school are permanently tarnished. However, if he had never gone to Berkeley at all (i.e. he had gone straight to the workforce), he could have applied to these same schools and gotten into many of them and almost certainly done decently. Hence, this guy is worse off for going to Berkeley. He says he would have been better off if he had never been admitted to Berkeley at all. I agree. </p>
<p>Now of course, one might argue that he could have just chosen not to go to Berkeley, and therefore he has to bear responsibility for what happens. But come on. He was 17 years old at the time he made that decision. How many 17-year-olds do you know that can make mature, thoughtful life decisions? We don't let them vote, we don't let them sign legal documents, yet we expect them to have the maturity to turn down a school that is too hard for them? If the burden should be on anybody, it should be on the Berkeley adcom. After all, those adcom officers are a staff of professionals with long-standing experience as to who is going to succeed based on the review of tens of thousands of applications over many years. How can that compare to a 17-year-old applying to college for the first time in his life? </p>
<p>But I agree that it boils down to a matter of incentives. The adcom can feel good that they "gave a chance" to that guy. Years later when that guy is left to pick up the pieces of a shattered academic record, the adcom doesn't care. They don't feel his pain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, let me put it to you starkly. Harvard has a 6-year graduation rate of 98%. What public school can say the same? One might say that some people are transferring out of those public schools, but then that begs the question of why people aren't also transferring out of Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At any school below the very top, a certain proportion of the better students will (often before matriculation) decide to "trade up" to a better university. At the top, especially HYPS, the incentive is stronger to stay put or at least finish in 6 years, and the students are a relatively wealthy bunch that disproportionately (compared to UC or CSU students) have the resources to weather the storm and return even if they flunked some courses and were asked to leave for a year. </p>
<p>Actually, I would imagine that most students who transfer out of most schools are in good academic standing, since (as you noted) a decent record tends to be required to transfer even in the "down" direction. The departure of students with good grades can't be screened for at admission, as it generally happens for reasons not under the control of the university.</p>
<p>Yes every school should be exactly like harvard and admit only the very elite students. It makes their jobs so much easier. </p>
<p>The fact is not every student is uber motivated and as you go down the levels of quality students you have more variation. So even the many average students that enroll at very average schools tend not to graduate at very high rates. They are humans and very unpredictable. </p>
<p>As to transfers, most schools take large numbers in as well as sending some out so there is not a real loss of efficiency. They are just moving around for a wide variety of reasons--again that whole freedom and unpredictability thing. There are a subset of people who always think the grass is greener somewhere else.</p>
<p>Flunking out is generally self-inflicted and a result of lots of problems besides academics. Pretty much anyone UCB allows in can graduate if they work at it. Some people rather smoke weed and party or do whatever. Not exactly the school's fault. But Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale and ended up VP and one of the most powerful men in the world with an ABD from Wisconsin in poli sci. The US is very good at second chances and you can always start over at CC or a place like U Wyoming where DC went after Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I'm under attack, I'm going to strike back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't attack you.</p>
<p>It depends on the school. Harvard is well known for grade inflation because if you got into the school, you worked pretty hard and they want to keep you (it looks better for future students that way). And smaller liberal arts schools are generally not as demanding. But privates like JHU or MIT are known for beign quite difficult.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At any school below the very top, a certain proportion of the better students will (often before matriculation) decide to "trade up" to a better university
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you meant to say "before graduation", not "before matriculation".</p>
<p>Nevertheless, that only introduces another question - why are those other schools better? Why can't a public university be the 'better' university that nobody decides to trade out of? </p>
<p>The original topic of this thread was comparing private vs. public schools, and assessing which is better. What you have said only confirms the original sentiment - that the top private schools are better than the top public schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the students are a relatively wealthy bunch that disproportionately (compared to UC or CSU students) have the resources to weather the storm and return even if they flunked some courses and were asked to leave for a year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, if that's true, then the answer is for the public schools to provide better financial resources to its students so that they can graduate. What's the point of bringing in students who don't have the financial means to finish? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes every school should be exactly like harvard and admit only the very elite students. It makes their jobs so much easier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Berkeley does just that. Berkeley's admissions are quite "elitist". Just perhaps not AS elitist as that at HYPSM. But that's just a difference of degree (no pun intended). </p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is not every student is uber motivated and as you go down the levels of quality students you have more variation. So even the many average students that enroll at very average schools tend not to graduate at very high rates. They are humans and very unpredictable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So then the question is, why are these schools admitting unmotivated students? </p>
<p>I can agree that average human beings are unpredictable. But we aren't talking about the average human being. Like I said, the average human being won't get into Berkeley. Or UVa. Or Michigan. Or UCLA. These are top-ranked schools that are supposed to be taking in top-ranked students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Flunking out is generally self-inflicted and a result of lots of problems besides academics. Pretty much anyone UCB allows in can graduate if they work at it. Some people rather smoke weed and party or do whatever. Not exactly the school's fault. But Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale and ended up VP and one of the most powerful men in the world with an ABD from Wisconsin in poli sci. The US is very good at second chances and you can always start over at CC or a place like U Wyoming where DC went after Yale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, Yale shouldn't have admitted Dick Cheney, as I think even Cheney would probably agree. I think he admitted in an interview that he was just wasting his time there. He was taking away a spot that could have been used by somebody else.</p>
<p>And I think that's the missing story here. You keep talking about how 'it's not the school's fault'. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. What matters is that students who are not graduating from these top schools are a problem. They are problem for themselves in that they are hurting their careers. They are also a problem for others because they are taking away spots from other people who would have graduated. What about them? Barrons, you're the one who keeps talking about providing access and opportunity. Well, what about the access and opportunity of those people who aren't getting in because the school would rather admit other students who won't graduate anyway? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't attack you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You didn't, but others did. That's going to inevitably put me in a sour mood. </p>
<p>You want to complain about snarkiness? Then take it up with the people who started it.</p>
<p><a href="sakky:">quote</a>
"At any school below the very top, a certain proportion of the better students will (often before matriculation) decide to "trade up" to a better university"</p>
<p>I think you meant to say "before graduation", not "before matriculation".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I meant "before matriculation". Many students don't or can't get into the schools they would really like to go to, and intentionally matriculate at Plan B universities with the goal of transferring after 1-2 years. There is no way to reliably screen out such students in admissions without overfiltering the students who would never transfer, and those intentional transfers (as well as unpredictable "lack of fit" cases) are probably a substantial part of the total. Other students realize, after matriculating and acing the courses at university, that they underestimated their capability when choosing colleges, and would like to transfer "up". Also unfilterable at admissions. To many things are unpredictable. </p>
<p>I fully agree with you that everything should be done to avoid a situation where students are worse off having gone to college. But solution would be more in things like giving students the ability to drop courses without penalty, expurgate transcripts, or transfer "downward" to other colleges (e.g. within a state system, guaranteed admission to a non-flagship campus).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nevertheless, that only introduces another question - why are those other schools better? Why can't a public university be the 'better' university that nobody decides to trade out of?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Other than the flagship campuses this is impossible. It's a result of having some customer-perceived quality strata of colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I meant "before matriculation". Many students don't or can't get into the schools they would really like to go to, and intentionally matriculate at Plan B universities with the goal of transferring after 1-2 years. There is no way to reliably screen out such students in admissions without overfiltering the students who would never transfer, and those intentional transfers (as well as unpredictable "lack of fit" cases) are probably a substantial part of the total. Other students realize, after matriculating and acing the courses at university, that they underestimated their capability when choosing colleges, and would like to transfer "up". Also unfilterable at admissions. To many things are unpredictable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then, again, my answer is to simply make that flagship public university better so that fewer people want to transfer out of them. Why not? They already that with many of the graduate programs. I don't know too many students in the Berkeley PhD programs who are just using them as a temporary waypoint to transferring to some other, better PhD program (although I do know quite a few PhD students from private schools who transfererred into the corresponding Berkeley PhD program). That's because the Berkeley PhD programs are generally among the best in the world. Why can't the undergrad program be like that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Other than the flagship campuses this is impossible. It's a result of having some customer-perceived quality strata of colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The flagship campuses are precisely what I am talking about. I'm not talking about the CalStates or the lower UC's. I'm talking about Berkeley. I'm not talking about Eastern Michigan or Michigan State. I'm talking about the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. </p>
<p>My salient question is why can't the undergrad programs at the flagship public schools be more careful in their admissions? After all, they're quite selective already. None of them pretends to offer anything near to "open access". So what's the harm in making them still more careful and selective, and in particular, to stop admitting students who are not going to graduate anyway, especially those who will flunk out? </p>
<p>
[quote]
fully agree with you that everything should be done to avoid a situation where students are worse off having gone to college. But solution would be more in things like giving students the ability to drop courses without penalty, expurgate transcripts, or transfer "downward" to other colleges (e.g. within a state system, guaranteed admission to a non-flagship campus).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny you should say that, because these are all proposals that I have floated in the past. However, I also believe that a change in admissions schemes also has to be on the table. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is that there are people who are made worse off by going to public schools. Granted, the same happens at private schools too, but the problems seem to be more acute at the public schools. Public schools should figure out a way to solve this problem using whatever tools are available. Otherwise, if they don't, then to get back to the original topic of the thread, that's a strong reason to prefer to attend a private school rather than a public school.</p>
<p>For once and always, unless you want to reduce the access and class size down to the best 1500-2000 students per class--like most Ivy schools, you get a little less predictable student than those skimmed off by harvard and yale. 80%+ is a fine and acceptable grad rate for schools with 25,000 undergrads. They take the best students they can but "best" is not completely a sure thing. You are demanding the impossible so knock it off and end this now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For once and always, unless you want to reduce the access and class size down to the best 1500-2000 students per class--like most Ivy schools, you get a little less predictable student than those skimmed off by harvard and yale. 80%+ is a fine and acceptable grad rate for schools with 25,000 undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am far more optimistic than you are. Obviously you can't ever reach 100%, but I strongly suspect that we can do better than we currently do. It is really not that expensive to set up a powerful statistical data-mining exercise. Computer hardware is cheap, open-source free software is readily available, and the time of graduate students is cheap. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are demanding the impossible so knock it off and end this now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that censorship? I have freedom of speech and so I am free to post whatever I want whenever I want, within the terms of service. What gives you the right to tell others what they can and cannot say? If you don't like it, then fine, don't read it.</p>
<p>Sakky, correct me if I am wrong. Your premise seems to be that the graduation rates of the flagship publics reflect that they are doing a poor job in selecting students who will succeed, and that this "problem" is more acute than at private schools. You keep bringing up UC-Berkeley as an example.</p>
<p>Have you actually looked at the graduation rates of top publics in comparison to private schools or are you simply voicing an unsubsubstantiated opinion? For instance, Berkeley's 6-year graduation rate is 88.9%, which compares very favorably to the vast majority of publics, exclusing those at the very top of the food chain. The same is true of UVA (92%), Michigan (87%) and UCLA (89%). There are many privates that numbers equal to or less than these. If there is a problem (which is debatable), why is it primarily a public school problem?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You didn't, but others did. That's going to inevitably put me in a sour mood.</p>
<p>You want to complain about snarkiness? Then take it up with the people who started it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is off-topic, so I will consider that your last word on it. And this is mine. I find this a remarkable way to explain/excuse your behavior. I'm supposed to tell other people to speak nicely to you, because otherwise you can't help yourself and will inject unwarranted condescension and sarcasm into a discussion the two of us are having? </p>
<p>It's a lot simpler than that. I just try to speak respectfully to you, and I think it's reasonable to expect you to do the same in return. How other people elect to speak to you--and how you choose to respond to them--is business between you and them. </p>
<p>You have no idea how tempting it is to be snippish sometimes. It's a choice.</p>
<p>God, I sound like your mommy. Just forget it. Off my soapbox.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, correct me if I am wrong. Your premise seems to be that the graduation rates of the flagship publics reflect that they are doing a poor job in selecting students who will succeed, and that this "problem" is more acute than at private schools. You keep bringing up UC-Berkeley as an example.</p>
<p>Have you actually looked at the graduation rates of top publics in comparison to private schools or are you simply voicing an unsubsubstantiated opinion? For instance, Berkeley's 6-year graduation rate is 88.9%, which compares very favorably to the vast majority of publics, exclusing those at the very top of the food chain. The same is true of UVA (92%), Michigan (87%) and UCLA (89%). There are many privates that numbers equal to or less than these. If there is a problem (which is debatable), why is it primarily a public school problem?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe I actually pointed out that those flagship public schools are actually doing a better job than most other schools, public or private.</p>
<p>But they should be. After all, these are not the average public schools. These are supposed to be *the best * public schools. Hence, we should expect them to adhere to high standards. I am not going around pestering, say, Fresno State about why it has such a low graduation rate. I am pestering Berkeley about it. After all, Berkeley chooses to compare itself with schools like HYPSM. Fresno State obviously does not. If you are going to compare yourself with schools like HYPSM, then it is entirely fair that graduation rates be one of those compared metrics. If you want to proclaim yourself as an elite school, then it is fair for you to be subjected to elite standards. </p>
<p>So to reformulate my question, I am asking why is it that the elite public schools do not have graduation rates that are as high as the elite private schools? Similarly, why is it that the average public school does not have graduation rates that are as high as the average private school? Of course you could say that the elite public schools have higher graduation rates than the average public school. But that's not really a fair comparison, because I could just as easily turn around and point out that elite private schools have higher graduation rates than the average public school (i.e. Harvard's grad rate is unsurprisingly higher than Fresno State's). We have to compare apples to apples. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This is off-topic, so I will consider that your last word on it. And this is mine. I find this a remarkable way to explain/excuse your behavior. I'm supposed to tell other people to speak nicely to you, because otherwise you can't help yourself and will inject unwarranted condescension and sarcasm into a discussion the two of us are having? </p>
<p>It's a lot simpler than that. I just try to speak respectfully to you, and I think it's reasonable to expect you to do the same in return. How other people elect to speak to you--and how you choose to respond to them--is business between you and them. </p>
<p>You have no idea how tempting it is to be snippish sometimes. It's a choice.</p>
<p>God, I sound like your mommy. Just forget it. Off my soapbox.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hoedown, I don't recall asking for your opinion on this. I find it ironic that you're complaining those who can't help themselves in providing unwarranted criticism? Look, how I choose to interact with you or anybody else is my business, not yours. I don't tell you how to post. Like I've said to numerous other people here, if you don't like the way I write my posts, fair enough, don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>The content of your posts does not address your question as you have chosen to reformulate it after the fact. Throughout your posts, you treat the graduation rate issue you chose to raise as being a problem only with the public schools. Not once do you suggest that any private school should refine its admission policies as you have argued the publics (including the flagships) should. Time and time again you refer generically to publics and privates, and imply that all privates have the same success as the most selective schools, which is simply not true. In some of your posts you do compare the flagship publics to HYPS. Perhaps this is fair, but it will also be fair to see how other privates compare to the same schools. In fact, many do not fair so well. It is true that most schools, public and private, could stand to see improvement in graduation rates, but to treat this as a viable issue in generally distinguishing between public and private schools is a little disingenuous. </p>
<p>I would be interested to know what kind of statistical information you would hope to obtain from the data-mining effort you suggest should be undertaken by public schools. Just what sort of additional information do you think could be obtained that would allow admissions officers to better predict the success, or potential failure, of applicants?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The content of your posts does not address your question as you have chosen to “reformulate” it after the fact. Throughout your posts, you treat the graduation rate issue you chose to raise as being a problem only with the public schools. Not once do you suggest that any private school should refine its admission policies as you have argued the publics (including the flagships) should. Time and time again you refer generically to “publics” and “privates”, and imply that all privates have the same success as the most selective schools, which is simply not true. In some of your posts you do compare the flagship publics to HYPS. Perhaps this is fair, but it will also be fair to see how other privates compare to the same schools. In fact, many do not fair so well. It is true that most schools, public and private, could stand to see improvement in graduation rates, but to treat this as a viable issue in generally distinguishing between public and private schools is a little disingenuous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hardly say so. First off, like I said, I was never interested in talking about the average school, either public or private. Certainly the average school needs to do a better job of graduating more people. But that's not the point.</p>
<p>My point is, if you're a top public school, I don't find it unreasonable for you to shoot for a graduation rate that is comparable to other top schools. It shouldn't matter that you're public. That's not an excuse. If you're a top school, then it is fair that you should meet high expectations. If you don't, then that damages your claim to truly being a top school. </p>
<p>Look, nobody is saying that the private schools, even the top ones, are *perfect *. Obviously no school is perfect. But that's not to say that some aren't better than others. Just like how I said in this thread that while no city is crime-free, some have less crime than others. </p>
<p>Besides, think of it this way. Surely other colleges have problems. But why should that stop you from fixing your problems? Just because others are doing something bad doesn't mean that you should also do something bad. You can think of it from a positive standpoint. If you fix your problems and others don't fix theirs, then you will be better than them. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is really this. This thread originally talked about whether students should prefer public to private schools. The fact that students tend to be less successful at graduating from public schools is a reason to prefer attending a private school of comparable quality, if you have the choice. After all, like I said, the goal of attending college is getting a degree. Like it or not, in this world, you basically need a degree. Hence, ceteris paribus, you should prefer to attend a school that is more likely to graduate you. Just like, ceteris paribus, you should prefer to live in a city that has less crime. Why make things harder on yourself if you don't have to? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I would be interested to know what kind of statistical information you would hope to obtain from the “data-mining” effort you suggest should be undertaken by public schools. Just what sort of additional information do you think could be obtained that would allow admissions officers to better predict the success, or potential failure, of applicants?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know exactly, for otherwise, if we already knew, we wouldn't need to perform any data mining. But I strongly suspect that one metric will be the specific grades you got in specific classes. This is particularly relevent for certain schools (i.e. Berkeley) that admit by major. For example, I would suspect that those students who didn't do very well in high school math and physics yet were somehow admitted to Berkeley EECS anyway are likely to not do well. </p>
<p>Another metric you could look at is the specific high school that the student came from. Let's face it. Some high schools produce better prepared students than do others. If it is discovered that certain high schools tend to produce a disproportionate percentage of matriculants who later flunk out, then that is a strong indication that that high school is either not doing a good job of preparing its students, or that that particular district just happens to be filled with relatively unmotivated students. The answer would then be for the university to simply admit fewer students from that high school.</p>
<p>Public schools are very aware of how students from particular high schools and even areas of the state do ad use this to adjust their admissions somewhat. OTOH they risk getting very bad publicity and perhaps a lawsuit if they go overboard in this direction--especially if it turns out that they admit fewer kids from minority high schools. The law takes a dim view of discriminating against individuals because their racial group has had a poor record in the past. And in many cases that is where your graduation rates suffer most--minority kids have much lower grad rates than white and most asian kids.</p>