<p>isn't state(public) schools have harsher grading scales than private schools?</p>
<p>not necessarily.</p>
<p>Not true Slipper. Michigan is as committed to undergraduate education as most elite research university. If you think that professors at Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Penn or Stanford care more about undergraduate education or if the administation at those universities dedicate more of their resources to undergraduate education, you are wrong. Penn, Columbia and Harvard each have graduate schools with over 10,000 students, and those are the students who command the attention of the faculty and the bulk of those universties' resources. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I never understood your criticism of Michigan's alumni network. It is one of the most influencial, powerful, wealthy (4th wealthiest per capita), largest (#1 or #2 in terms of raw numbers) and loyal alumni networks in the world. They don't come any more loyal. I have known Trojan and Bruin alums who think Michigan alums are crazy because of the extent of their loyalty to the school. Over 80% of Michigan alum return to Ann Arbor on an annual basis for art fairs, music festivals, music festivals, student reunions or sporting events. According to a recent survey, 28% of Michigan alums chose to retire in Ann Arbor. That's partly because Ann Arbor is rated one of the top 5 cities for retirement and also because the University of Michigan hospital is one of the top 10 hospitals in the nation, but I am sure that being close to their alma matter was high on their list of reasons. I challenge you to name me one alumni network that is more loyal. </p>
<p>I agree that Michigan is not as selective as much smaller private universities, but the talent is there and Michigan grads do as well as the grads of any top university. Let us face it, each year, Michigan graduates 2,500 or so brilliant students, most of which join exclusive companies or top 25 graduate schools. How many does Duke graduate? 1,000? Just look at the companies that recruit undergrads from the college of LSA. McKinsey, Carlyle Group, Booz Allen, BCG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lazard, Blackstone, Google, Medtronic, Amgen, Cisco, Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, GE, Honeywell, Motoral, IBM, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, J&J, Merck, Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc... Last year, over 200 LSA graduates joined those elite companies at average salaries that compare with the average starting salaries of Ivy League grads. Engineering and Ross have even more impressive numbers. </p>
<p>Graduate school placement isn't too shabby either. According to a pretty reliable WSJ ranking of graduate school placement rates, Michigan was ranked #17 in the nation among research universities. Duke was #5 and Penn was #10. Admittedly, as a percentage of total total students, Michigan is not quite as impressive as Duke or Penn, but even then, students of equal calibre will do just as well at Michigan as they will at Duke or Penn. Last year, out of 1,500 fresh graduates coming out of Michigan, close to 250 enrolled into top 10 Law Schools and top 10 Medical schools. Another 400 or so enrolled in top 25 Law schools and Medical schools. In terms of MBA placement, last year, 15 Michigan graduates enrolled in Wharton. Only 7 universities (Penn, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, Cornell and Duke) placed more grads into Wharton's MBA program. Michigan is equally as successful at placing students at HBS, Kellogg, Chicago Business School, Ross MBA and Columbia Business School. </p>
<p>There is a simple reason why Michigan gets a Peer Assessment score of 4.5/5.0 (tied with the likes of Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn). There is a simple reason why Michigan is one of just 19 research universities to get the ***** academic ranking according to Fiske. There is a simple reason why top 10 graduate schools accept Michigan graduates by the hundreds annually. There is a is a simple reason why the most exclusive companies list Michigan among their top 10 hunting grounds. It is because Michigan is incredible accross the board, not merely in terms of research as you seem to suggest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, there are exceptions of course, but on average, students from Michigan or California who are good enough to get into Harvard will get a full ride at Michigan or Cal. I'd say very few residents of those states would find Harvard cheaper than Cal or Michigan, although I am sure you have a few such cases each year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that just raises 2 points. #1, different schools define 'full ride' in different ways, and in particular, will provide different emphases on loans, grants, and workstudy. While a given person may get a "full ride" from Berkeley/Michigan and Harvard, that full ride from Berkeley/Michigan may consist of a large dollop of workstudy and loans, whereas the full ride from Harvard may be all grants. So in this case, the Harvard full ride is far better than the full ride from Berkeley/Michigan. </p>
<p>In fact, that's exactly what happened to the 2 guys I mentioned before. They got "full rides" from Berkeley and Harvard. The problem is, the "full ride" from Berkeley included some loans and workstudy. Harvard's offer was a 100% full grant. Now that's a "real" full ride. So the choice was to go to Berkeley, rack up student debt, and have to hold down a job during the school term to fulfill workstudy requirements, or go to Harvard, take no debt and not have to work during the semester. I don't know about you, but that seems like a no-brainer to me. </p>
<p>And #2, even if the allocation between grant/loan/workstudy was the same between a public school and Harvard such that final cost ended up being the same, I think we can all agree that very few people would turn down Harvard. Let's face it. The main advantage that public schools have over the top private schools is sticker price. However, the way that private elite schools dish out financial aid can often times blunt or even nullify that advantage. In my experience, top private schools are far far more aggressive than public schools are when it comes to aid.</p>
<p>Sakky, I was referring purely to scholarship money. I never include loans and work-study when I discuss aid.</p>
<p>And yes, private schools are indeed much more agressive when it comes to scholarships, as well they should be. The average full-tuition at the university of Michigan is $15,000/year. At private schools, it is $32,000. For private schools to even compete with the likes of Cal or Michigan, they have to give their students huge amounts of money.</p>
<p>Alexandre, when I refer to the wealth of a school, I am talking about endowment per capita. I think that this is a more fair way to look at the wealth of a school while admittedly not perfect. I will give you that if you are from Michigan, it is hard to pass up Ross. For me, however, as a student from Wisconsin, it would cost me about $30-35 k to go to Michigan and $40-45 k to go to Duke. As an out of stater, I think that Duke would provide me with a better bang for my buck in terms of opportunities both during and after college. Same goes for Penn-Wharton.</p>
<p>andrew, if you reread the initial post by Alexandre that you responded to, you'll see he's only talking about in-staters when he says it makes no sense to pass up certain flagship publics for non-HYPSM elite privates.</p>
<p>Studies have shown that those who could have gone to places like Penn or Duke but instead go to a state or other less selective school fair just as well later in life economically. I don't see many things you would not get at UM that you would at Duke or Penn except a higher ratio of annoying, wealthy ultra-competitive students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I was referring purely to scholarship money. I never include loans and work-study when I discuss aid. </p>
<p>And yes, private schools are indeed much more agressive when it comes to scholarships, as well they should be. The average full-tuition at the university of Michigan is $15,000/year. At private schools, it is $32,000. For private schools to even compete with the likes of Cal or Michigan, they have to give their students huge amounts of money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's exactly what they do. Schools calculate their aid packages not only on the family's ability to pay, but also on the schools' sticker price. Hence, private schools tend to provide far better aid packages because of their higher sticker price. Coupled with the fact that they tend to hand out a greater allocation of grants, and the true price of a top private school often times tends to be quite close.</p>
<p>The price tends to be even closer when you factor in housing costs. I don't know about Michigan, but Berkeley dorm housing costs are exorbitant. For example, a single at Berkeley with a meal plan for the entire term costs around 13-14k, whereas a single at MIT or Harvard without a meal plan costs 5-6k. Tack on the costs of meals and we're still talking about 7-8k. So when living costs are factored in, Berkeley really isn't as big of a bargain as it might seem. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.housing.berkeley.edu/livingatcal/rates.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.housing.berkeley.edu/livingatcal/rates.html</a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/housing/undergrad/rates.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/housing/undergrad/rates.html</a>
<a href="http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Euho/fees.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~uho/fees.html</a></p>
<p>Finally, I'm sure we can all agree that when it comes to OOS students, there can be no comparison. Out of 300 million Americans, only 50 million live in California, Michigan, and Virginia. What are the other 250 million Americans supposed to do? Even if we factor in the other states that have decent public university systems, the fact remains that the majority of Americans do not live in such states. So for them, a top-ranked out-of-state public school will cost about the same as top private school. and in fact has a high probability of actually being more expensive when you factor in the aid packages.</p>
<p>"Studies have shown that those who could have gone to places like Penn or Duke but instead go to a state or other less selective school fair just as well later in life economically. I don't see many things you would not get at UM that you would at Duke or Penn except a higher ratio of annoying, wealthy ultra-competitive students."</p>
<ol>
<li>What studies?</li>
<li>You get connections and better faculty</li>
<li>Not all students who go to Duke or Penn are wealthy nor ultra-competitive. In fact at both schools they are comparatively laid back and Duke students care just as much about basketball as they do about grades and Penn students care just as much about drinking and partying.</li>
<li>Duke and Penn students are not all "annoying".</li>
</ol>
<p>There are benefits to going to a state college if you have financial issues but other than that, I would choose schools that are peers of Duke/Penn.</p>
<p>"Yet researchers have long found it difficult to tease out the labor market effects of college quality versus other characteristics that employers reward. The problem is that students who attend selective schools are likely to have higher earnings potential regardless of where they attend college for the very same reasons that they were admitted to the more selective schools in the first place. In a recent NBER Working Paper, Stacy Berg Dale and Alan Krueger try two novel approaches to solving this problem. In Estimating The Payoff To Attending A More Selective College: An Application of Selection On Observable and Unobservables (NBER Working Paper No. 7322) they use data from the College and Beyond Survey to match 6,335 students who were accepted and rejected by a comparable set of colleges in 1976. They then compare labor market outcomes in 1995 among students who had the same menu of choices, but among whom some attended more selective schools than others. They also use this data set and the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 to estimate the impact on students' subsequent earnings of the average SAT scores of all the schools they applied to as well as the average SAT score of the school they attended. </p>
<p>They find that school selectivity, measured by the average SAT score of the students at a school, doesn't pay off in a higher income over time. "Students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges," the researchers write. They also find that the average SAT score of the schools students applied to but did not attend is a much stronger predictor of students' subsequent income than the average SAT score of the school students actually attended. They call this finding the "Spielberg Model" because the famed movie producer applied to USC and UCLA film schools only to be rejected, and attended Cal State Long Beach. Evidently, students' motivation, ambition, and desire to learn have a much stronger effect on their subsequent success than the average academic ability of their classmates."</p>
<p>Um...
" match 6,335 students who were accepted and rejected by a comparable set of colleges in 1976. They then compare labor market outcomes in 1995 among students who had the same menu of choices, but among whom some attended more selective schools than others. They also use this data set and the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 to estimate the impact on students' subsequent earnings of the average SAT scores of all the schools they applied to as well as the average SAT score of the school they attended. "</p>
<p>perhaps something more recent? Also do you have the actual link to the site or how this "research' was conducted?</p>
<p>Illinois, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and a few more all have very good state schools.</p>
<p>The study was published just a year or two ago. That's recent for such longterm analysis. Sorry to burst your little elite bubble.</p>
<p>But the study says it tracked data only from 1972-1995. Is this correct or am I missing something here?</p>
<p>Also can you post the actual link?</p>
<p>Lastly, I am saying there may not be a big difference but a difference between Top 10 schools (such as Duke/Upenn) vs state schools? I would definitely think there's a difference since some recruiters/firms do not even come to certain state schools.</p>
<p>Barrons, I once write a number of posts about the subject you are bringing up, which you can search for. Basically, I believe that the study you are citing is flawed for a subtle, yet crucial reason. While I understand that may be a provocative position to take, allow me to explain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges," the researchers write
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right there is where the flaw is. It's what statisticians call 'confounding variables'. Basically, the presumption is that those students who got admitted into highly selective schools but instead chose to go to less selective schools are EQUIVALENT to those students who went to those highly selective schools. However, if we all use our common sense, I think we could all agree that this is a highly questionable assertion.</p>
<p>After all, think of it this way. Those who get into highly selective schools don't just turn them down to go to some lesser schools just "for fun". They usually do it because they have a very good reason for doing so. For example, one big reason is that the lesser school is offering them a big merit scholarship. Another is that the lesser school is offering them admission into a highly prestigious sub-program or honors program. For example, I know a lot of people who would gladly turn down Harvard for a combined BS/MD program at a no-name school, as guaranteed admission to med-school these days is priceless. A variant of that is that those people already know exactly what they want to do, and the lesser school offers better programs or better proximity to what it is that they want. That's why a disproportionate number of teen TV/movie actors and celebrities end up going to UCLA or USC when many of them could have probably gone to Stanford or the Ivy League if they wanted to. They do that often times because they want to stay close to Hollywood so that they can continue working. I know a guy who turned down admission to several Ivy League colleges to go to a no-name night school back home. Why? Because his family had a successful company that he worked for fulltime and he knew that he was going to take over the company after he graduated, so he wanted to build the company up while he was going to school. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he had gone to the Ivy League. </p>
<p>The point is that the study presumes that these 2 populations that are being compared are equivalent. They are not. Those people who get into highly selective schools but turn them down don't just do so randomly. They have a REASON for turning them down. In other words, that group is highly self-selected. This is not a randomly selected group, and randomness is the key to statistics. </p>
<p>The true conclusion of the study should therefore be that those people who have good reasons for turning down a selective school are probably going to be as successful as those who graduate from that selective school. But that just begs the question - do you as an individual have a good reason? If you don't, then you probably shouldn't turn down that selective school. You can't just say "Oh, those guys turned down Harvard and they are successful, so that means that I can turn down Harvard too and I will also be successful." Those guys didn't turn down Harvard just because they "felt like it". They had reasons for turning down Harvard. So if you don't have comparable reasons, then you are not comparable to those guys.</p>
<p>OTOH there are many people with great stats who are happy to go to their flagship school and never even apply to other schools. Also I have known enough people who turned down such schools just because they liked another place more overall and were not as hung up on rankings and prestige.
Every study has some flaws due to limits in how much data there actually is out there.</p>
<p>Also, isn't it likely that most people who manage to get into Harvard but choose a significantly less prestigious state school instead will probably get into honors/scholarship programs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
OTOH there are many people with great stats who are happy to go to their flagship school and never even apply to other schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's not a valid criticism, because there are also people who only apply to those prestigious private schools and don't even bother applying to their flagship state school. So your remark cuts both ways.</p>
<p>While I agree that every study has flaws, I think what I have pointed out is a FATAL flaw in that study you cited. Simply put, every statistical study presumes that various populations are the same and therefore comparable, however, I think we can all agree that there is a strong self-selection bias in the study that was cited, which, as far as I know, has not been accounted for . Hence, the 2 popoulations are not the same. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, isn't it likely that most people who manage to get into Harvard but choose a significantly less prestigious state school instead will probably get into honors/scholarship programs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe, but if that's true, then it should have been easy for the authors of that study to have accounted for that fact. Yet they didn't do so. </p>
<p>The point is, again, nobody has properly accounted for the strong self-selection bias when it comes to those who got into highly selective schools, but chose to go elsewhere. This cannot simply be accounted for the random flotsam and jetsam of flaws that accrue to any statistical study. Rather, this is a potentially FATAL flaw of the study. It means that there is an entirely reasonable and plausible explanation for why the 2 populations demonstrate similar results. </p>
<p>It's like saying that people who go to Harvard and deliberately drop out achieve the same success (or more) than people who go to Harvard and graduate. People can point to famous dropouts like Bill Gates, Matt Damon, and so forth. Yet that overlooks the simply fact that those who choose to drop out of Harvard do so for a reason. Bill Gates dropped out because he had a compelling idea for a company. Matt Damon dropped out because he had a burning desire to be an actor. The point is, people don't just randomly drop out of Harvard. Those who do so have strong reasons for doing so. Hence, a strong bias for self-selection exists.</p>
<p>Also barrons, can you post the original link so I can stop bothering you and actually check it out myself?</p>