<p>
[quote]
I think people both inside of and outside higher ed can accept that selective publics are going to have to say no to a lot of people--but they feel there must be a place offered to people who have proved themselves exceptional in their academic and extracurricular accomplishments. They have earned their shot. Would people find it appropriate to the ethos of a public school to seek out and apply psychological and socioeconomic factors implicated in lower grades and dropout, factors previously unused in making admissions decisions at flagships, and use those to deny students who otherwise seem to have earned a fair shot? I can't help thinking that many on campus--and certainly off--would feel that this is too far a departure from the mission such schools generally embrace.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I have always agreed that this is true...but only because the the notion of a public school's mission is itself an arbitrary social construct. Again, as I pointed out, numerous other countries run their public schools in a manner quite different from the way that the US does. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, are far and away the most selective schools in the UK - to the point that most Americans would deem them "elitist" - despite the fact that they are "public". </p>
<p>Moreover, American public schools have themselves changed their mission. For example, it wasn't that long ago when many public (and private) schools, especially in the South, had a specific "mission" to not admit African-Americans or women; for example, the University of Virginia didn't admit women until 1920 and didn't admit African-Americans until 1950. The California public schools were some of the chief proponents of affirmative action (i.e. the Bakke case) until 1996 when it was banned by the voters via Prop 209. </p>
<p>I seem to recall reading a history of UCBerkeley and noting that in the early days, Berkeley used to be both open-admission and free of charge; and not only free of charge to state residents, but free of charge to EVERYBODY. [Of course this was back in the days when few people went to college anyway.} Now, of course, Berkeley is far from open-admissions and far from free of charge. Hence, I think it's quite clear that Berkeley's "mission" has changed dramatically. </p>
<p>The point is that school missions are always changing. Let's face it. These missions are just arbitrary social constructs. They've changed before, and they'll surely change again. Sometimes the mission changes according to the expressed wishes of the public, as in the case of Prop 209 that was passed by the majority of the voters in California by referendum. Sometimes the change happens in spite of the expressed wishes of the public. For example, I strongly suspect that the public in those Southern states in the old days would have voted to continue to maintain the policy of segregation. After all, the majority of the public in those states was white, so of course they would have voted to continue to exclude African-Americans. But regardless, the point is, school missions change all the time. A mission that is embraced at one particular point in time will be abandoned at some later time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that you lump all public and all private schools. The generalizations you have made on numerous occasions are simply not applicable to all public, or private schools. You continue to ignore that all publics are not equal and that all privates are not equal in regard to graduation rates.:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the contrary, I have always agreed that not all schools, public or private, are not equal. That's not the point. We are talking about * general trends * here. For example, it is clearly true that all cities have some neighborhoods of varying crime rates. But given that, it is still true that some cities have more crime than others. </p>
<p>For example, San Jose CA is a safer city than Detroit. Now of course it is true that the safest neighborhoods in Detroit are obviously less dangerous than the most dangerous neighborhoods in San Jose. But that doesn't take away from the fact that San Jose is a safer city overall. Similarly, just because my grandfather smoked several packs a day and still lived to be over 90 doesn't prove that smoking is safe. There are always statistical outliers. What is important from a statistical standpoint is where the data points congregate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
would also note that this statement is completely contrary to your statement in a recent post:</p>
<p>Quote:
Originally Posted by sakky
First off, like I said, I was never interested in talking about the average school, either public or private. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The latter quote is also almost untirely inconsistent with what you have said throughout this thread.</p>
<p>I have tried to understand what it is you are trying to say, but have come to the conclusion that you are not even sure what your point is. If you aren't, how can you expect anyone else to be?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think I have made my point quite clear. Public schools should do a better job of graduating more people. If they do not, then that's a reason to prefer to attend a comparable private school over a public school. After all, ceteris paribus, why should you as an individual choose to risk your career over not graduating, if you don't have to take that risk? That's like choosing to drive your car without a seat belt. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. Obviously, that shouldn't be the *only*criteria to weigh in choosing a public school vs. a private school. But it is one criteria. </p>
<p>Where I think you got confused is that somebody here (perhaps you) asked for evidence that public schools graduated a lower percentage of students than private schools. That question was never part of my argument in the first place. Nevertheless, I provided the data. But that was never part of my main point. I was simply providing a service: somebody asked a question, and since I had the data, I was happy to oblige. The data elicited follow-up questions, and I did my best to answer them. But again, that was never part of my main argument. </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky,</p>
<p>so your argument is that top private schools are easier than top public schools... and therefore are better? Gotcha!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's better for the individual in question. Like I said, why take a risk with your career if you don't have to? </p>
<p>
[quote]
and on your comment about impacted majors at berkeley. now, i don't know anything about which majors are "impacted" but i'm going to guess its some sort of engineering program or science program.</p>
<p>Its likely still easier to get into berkeley, and then into that specific program, than it is to get into harvard. and, if its a engineering or science program, the program is likely better than harvards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Engineering, perhaps. But science? Would you really argue that Berkeley economics is really better than Harvard economics? Yet Berkeley econ is impacted. How about Berkeley psychology - is that really better than Harvard psychology? Yet Berkeley psychology is impacted. </p>
<p>Personally, I would actually say that a far better example would be Stanford. As it stands, if costs were the same (i.e. you are OOS), is there a good reason to choose Berkeley over Stanford? At Stanford, you can major in anything you want, and change at anytime. Can you say the same at Berkeley? Not only that, but the Stanford graduation rate is higher. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that Berkeley's impaction problems and graduation problems hurt its ability to compete with other schools. If Berkeley could fix these problems, then Berkeley would be a more desirable school. Nor am I singling out Berkeley. The same could be said of all schools that have impaction issues. </p>
<p>
[quote]
soooo whats the complaint?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that you just don't want these schools to fix their problems. You're just not interested in having these schools get better. If that's true, then why not just come right out and say so? </p>
<p>If you don't think that any problems exist, then might I invite you to talk to some Berkeley students who tried to get into impacted majors and were denied and so have to major in something they don't really want. Do you think they like it?</p>