As states further reduce funding for public universities there is a crisis building. For those who have a choice, you might want to consider attending a solid private institution.
The issues:
Private institutions endowments dwarf public universities by billions of dollars.
State budgets are constantly under pressure to reduce funding on higher education.
There are no public universities in the top 20 (there used to be several), in 20 years there might be none in the top 50. (Even if you don't like rankings the trend is what is concerning)
State legislatures have some control over public universities limiting there ability to raise in state tuition to cover costs. (Very popular for getting reelected, but giving away free money then not reimbursing the university is a recipe for disaster)
Some state legislatures also limit the number of OOS/International full pay students further limiting revenues. (Another popular item for voters, but again no reimbursement to the university)
High population states are artificially keeping there applicants numbers up as there are simply more in state applicants who really can't afford to go anywhere else than available slots. This causes an artificial rise in an universities prestige (they can turn away more applicants and be seen as selective) without the corresponding rise in the ability of the university to retain top quality faculty due to lack of funding. UIUC is an excellent example as they are losing top faculty to private institutions.
While you can succeed and do very well at a large public university, you are essentially "on your own" to do so. There are simply too many students at large public research universities to have any personalized attention. This is especially true when you compare them to top LAC's.
These are only a few of the reasons that public universities are facing a financial crisis.
The choices:
I know not everyone has that choice to attend a private university but if you don't, an in state public is still a reasonable deal especially in STEM.
OOS full pay students are just wasting their money, however I recognize that it is theirs to waste, and if your wealthy enough is just doesn't matter.
Still in 20 years from now your public university alma mater may not look like a very good school at all unless things change drastically, which is highly doubtful.
@ucbalumnus I figured you would be one of the first to comment… =D> but I disagree in that there are only a few privates that are struggling and they are mostly LAC’s, still point taken, top privates are not having any issues at all. Most privates just have a better ability to adapt (less oversight) in a changing financial landscape then public unis.
There are lots of private universities in the lists below. The wealthy elite universities have A+ grades, but many non-elites (where most students in private universities attend) have lower grades, including C and D grades.
A reader said this:
"Every year we meet a new batch of Yalies. As they internalize the elitism that wafts through the air at elite colleges and universities, I worry about them. When you hear how great you are over and over again, you tend to come to believe it. They and their parents all assume that a Yale degree is a golden ticket and their lives will be wildly successful-- they’ll change the world for the better and make loads doing it.
I recently had a conversation with some incoming Yale students and told them about [a relative] who is a a lawyer at a white shoe law firm in CA. He’s hired many people over the years. And his policy is simply to not look at anyone who went to Harvard or schools like it. In his experience, it’s better to hire smart people who have had to navigate the big, excellent state schools like Berkeley. The future Yalies were outraged."
Though he also said this:
“I pointed out that they were now part of a privileged club where many more employers would look hard at them simply because of the school that they went to.”
But also this:
"People in the Ivy bubble tend not to question the world of intellectual privilege that we live in. We are the best and totally deserve to run the world. We ignore the unfair reality of the insanely competitive admissions world that rejects most fully qualified applicants so that the schools can create the classes that they desire-- with good students to be sure, but also top athletic teams, geographical diversity, racial diversity, etc. We forget that the schools are not impartial, fair judges, but regularly change admissions criteria based on their own desires, which are molded by various interest groups such as alumni, professors, and political and social forces.
I’m afraid that in the new Trump world, we’re going to find out that our assumptions about the unassailable position of our top schools could be completely wrong."
I think there is some truth to what OP is saying but there are many exceptions. Public chools with strong athletic programs, particularly football and basketball, will always have plenty of money. These schools help fund tuition and keep rates down with this revenue and offer good merit and FA. U of Alabama, VTech, etc.
You say OOS public schools are a waste of money. But the difference in price between OOS public schools and privates is between $20k to 30k per year. No small difference and not a waste of money but a BIG savings of money. Unless, of course, you think that you can’t get a good education from a public U.
While I acknowledge that some public U’s may be running into some financial difficulty in the coming years, I believe the cost of private schools is so out of control, rising every year at rates far in excess of inflation, that for many people it is difficult to justify. Many students and families will need to take on crushing debt that they will have to pay off for decades. THAT sounds like a waste of money to me.
@NPKR01 Yes, the cost of attending a top tier university is getting out of control in recent years. But, don’t forget that many of them offer need-based grants to students with financial issues. You are only required to pay what you can afford , and this is only available through the huge endowment (especially in the ivies) they have, which is almost never possible nor will be possible to the state schools, even if you are talking about top state schools like UCLA or UCB.
The OOS public school debate matters very much based on where you live. Someone in Virginia debating whether Michigan OOS is worth it is in a FAR different boat than someone in many other states debating about attending UVA or Michigan OOS versus their own state school.
Is this post really a marketing ploy for private loan companies?
It’s a position of privilege to be able to confidently tell people to choose a private university over a public.
Most privates do not meet full need and are much more expensive than instate publics. Those that do meet full need and have those hefty endowments are already difficult to gain admittance to even for high stat students. Typical stat kids, or even the average excellent kids, aren’t getting accepted in any significant numbers.
So basically, this is great advice for those families who can afford full pay and/or have super high stats and ECs and can gain acceptance to a handful of highly selective universities.
For the vast majority of posters here, in the majority of states, it makes more sense to keep an open mind towards their instate public universities.
It really depends on the private university. For a school like Harvard and MIT, there are good endowments that can be used as need based aid. Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception to the rule. For most, if not all private schools I’ve done a net-price calculator on, the EFC, student loans, and work/study ends up costing the same as an out of state public school. It’s the same story with Georgetown, Duke, SMU, TCU, Baylor and Villanova. That’s with a combined salary of 80k.
In fact, economically, that’s a strong indication that their tuition is far too high. It’s an outdated model. If they lowered their tuition and expanded their capacity, they could charge tuition rates competitive to a public university without having to rely on funding.
@PurpleTitan Get some extra popcorn to throw at the screen.
I assume that you picked Top 20 because if you said Top 25, you’d have to admit that UCB, UCLA and UVA are all top notch public institutions. And if you went to Top 35, you’d add in UMichigan, UNC Chapel Hill and William and Mary to the mix. And that assumes that the rankings have any validity. .
The broad sweeping assumptions that you make are so absurd, that they aren’t even worth responding to. The number of slots available to top students remains limited, The tuition bubble is out of control with many qualified admitted students unable (or unwilling) to pay $280k for an undergrad education. These students have to attend school somewhere, as do the really strong students who are not qualified to attend a Top 20 school, yet will make significant contributions to society (and their alma mater) in their lifetime.
@Angelababy30 The statement “You are only required to pay what you can afford” is strikingly absurd. The financial aid policies and practices at these schools squeeze out more qualified students than they assist because “affordability” is based on the EFCs as computed by the colleges, which has little bearing as to what a family can actually “afford.” Every year, families learn the hard way what “meets full need” actually means. The socioeconomic gap created by these policies is remarkable. I know dozens of families who have selected State schools over Top 20 due to the cost disparity. It wasn’t a choice for them.
NYS offers free tuition at the SUNYs to state residents whose families earn less than $125k. Our universities are very good, and we have articulation agreements between our cc’s and 4-year schools so students with a cc degree have guaranteed transfer to a 4-year university.
I’ve worked at a selective private. Possessing a large endowment isn’t a guarantee that it will be spent. Departments are under constant pressure to reduce spending. It’s a struggle to get approval to hire tenure track faculty, and in some departments the number of visitors is equal to, if not greater than, the number of tenured faculty. Departments spend a large proportion of their time searching for visiting faculty every year. That’s time not spent on curriculum development, research, or student interaction. Half the professors on the departments’ rosters when first years enroll will likely be replaced by other visitors by the time they’re juniors. This revolving door can drastically alter departmental course offerings if the specialties of new visitors differs from the specialties of departing professors.
I’ve attended both public and private universities. My son was accepted to both, and our choice was an in state public, but that choice may not be right for everyone. People need to examine each school their children are accepted to and decide which is best for their student.
The cited change in the USNWR ranking of state universities occurred mostly in the late 1980s, apparently reflecting fairly abrupt changes in the ranking methodology (which in the beginning depended entirely on peer assessments). For the past ~decade, the top state university rankings have remained fairly stable. http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/
I’m not suggesting there isn’t … or is … a crisis, or that more support to state universities wouldn’t be a good thing. However, I’d want to see more evidence to be persuaded that state universities are in serious decline relative to private schools (if that’s what anyone here is claiming).