<p>Hawkette-
If I were speaking to a student who had already made the final decision to attend their flagship public uni in lieu of an Ivy or Stanford or MIT, I would say encouraging things to them about their choice.</p>
<p>Since we are speaking to students here who have not yet made their choice, I would say what I really think. Choose the Ivy, Stanford, or MIT type school for many reasons.</p>
<p>What makes more selective colleges better?
talent of fellow students
fellow students are academically motivated
talent of faculty
quality of instruction
level of instruction that challenges excellent students
faculty-student mutual respect and interest
professional maturity and accomplishments of faculty
personal maturity of faculty
resources and facilities
academic climate
mentoring/role models
maturity and dedication of fellow students
originality and sophistication of ideas that are presented/discussed
opportunities for research and academic/professional experience
advantages seekeng jobs and grad schools later
professional contacts of faculty
quality of academic advising
special culture, tradition, history
imparts a sense of pride and accomplishment
prestige factor
environment that imparts desire for excellence
social consciousness/moral awareness/cultural growth
fun and pleasures that are not malicious or self destructive</p>
<p>I do realize that there are a few really great public Ivy's out there, but I think the student bodies are more mixed and less homogeneous (in terms of talents).</p>
<p>The top LACs also offer the benefits I listed above.</p>
<p>Collegehelp,
In thinking about your latest post, many of the characteristics that you list ring true for me. Broadly speaking, your list breaks down into the following categories:
1. Quality of student body
2. Quality of faculty
3. Quantity and quality of postgraduate opportunities
4. School environment and history
5. Social life </p>
<p>If you can group the traits more effectively than this, then please correct me. </p>
<p>What is not as true to me is your conclusion that the most highly ranked schools necessarily do a better job with these traits than many mid-sized, less prestigious, lower-ranked universities. For example, based on your prior statements I suspect that you would feel that Dartmouth would automatically be a better choice for students than Wake Forest or William & Mary. Clearly, Dartmouth has more prestige and most would consider it as the “better school,” but is it really going to offer a measurably better undergraduate experience and one that will have lifelong benefits? If you believe this, can you help me understand how you reach this conclusion? </p>
<p>In addition, the state universities, by virtue of their size alone, can offer far greater breadth of exposure and opportunity. While the talent level of the average student may be diluted in larger environments, there are still abundant and diverse numbers of intelligent students and faculty in these environments. This alone provides learning opportunities not available in most of the Ivies or the top LACs. For example, consider the University of Wisconsin and Brown. Wisconsin has many talented students, some excellent faculty, outstanding facilities and undoubtedly a broader offering of academic options than might be available at Brown. Do you believe that a top student, choosing between the University of Wisconsin and Brown, would really be disadvantaged in life by choosing Wisconsin?</p>
<p>Hawkette,
Wisconsin, Wake Forest, and William and Mary are great schools and it would be a privilege to attend any of them.</p>
<p>My neighbor from home is now a PhD student in Chemistry at Wisconsin. He loves it (as much as you can love the pain of a PhD program). He got his bachelors degree from a SUNY school. Another friend from high school went to a SUNY school and is now a PhD student at U Maryland in math. I don't think their lives have been "impaired" by attending a SUNY school and then a flagship public.</p>
<p>Some top students would simply feel more comfortable at a flagship public. Fit is important. Wisconsin is probably a lot of fun.</p>
<p>But, I think the quality of the academic experience, the quality of fellow students, the quality of the intellectual climate...these things would be better at Brown or Dartmouth. I also think prestige has real benefits; opinions to the contrary smack of sour grapes.</p>
<p>I would recommend a Brown or Dartmouth every time to students who had the choices you named above. I think four years in one of the elite private LACs or universities is preferable academically to four years at a flagship public. Better to spend four years at an elite private school. After those four years, a lot of other factors come into play. </p>
<p>The diluted student body at publics detracts from the experience. Sorry if that sounds elitist. I think a uniformly excellent student body and faculty is preferable to mixed abilities and achievements.</p>
<p>The top publics are great schools nonetheless. But if you pit Berkeley versus Harvard, choose Harvard.</p>
<p>College years are four years that you can't ever get back. Its an incredibly important choice in my mind. My college years were the BEST ever, and I got alot of traction from there as far as finding jobs, connections, etc. I also made not situational friends, but lifetime friendships. Its been 30 years this spring since graduation, and I e-mail daily with many of them. I don't know a ton of people who can say that. My college was "second tier" but I got a terrific education and a great start in adult life. H graduated from Harvard and feels the way I do about his experience. He wouldn't trade it for the world. Different institutions but perfect for each of us.</p>
<p>collegehelp. I disagree with you that the "diluted" student body at a large public university detracts from the undergraduate experience. It goes back to "fit." Some brilliant kids thrive in the "diluted" atmosphere. They have have interests beyond high-level academics that can be better pursued in a "diluted" atmosphere with students other than the academically driven students. Moreover, the ambitious brilliant kids at a large public university will more likely rise to the top academically leading, perhaps, to more opportunities to get to know professors and get involved in research than they would have had at an elite.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Collegehelp that there's a tremendous value in going to the best school that you can get into, and whenever I've posted something similar on CC it's generated some controversy as well. The influence of the peer group in college is profound. The only change I'd offer to Collegehelp's take is that I believe that while surrounding yourself with peers who set very high standards is an irreplaceable plus, I don't feel that a lower concentration of those kinds of peers will be perceived by most students as a minus. Ultimately, most people only experience one or two colleges and will never know what a different experience might have been like. The college years are so impactful that most people will feel very positive about whichever choice they make.</p>
<p>Success in school (college) does not always guarantee success in life. </p>
<p>For example, you might have a Ph. D from Harvard but fail to find a (good) job, or be unhappy with the amount of money you earn in your career, despite the fact that you graduated from one of the most prestigious universities in the world with honors. On the other hand, you might earn a two-year associates degree from a community college with not-so-good academics, but have excellent connections, and end up as an executive at a big company or start your own company which could end up as a Fortune 1000 company. </p>
<p>Now I'm not saying that Harvard/PhD graduates are not extremely successful and community college graduates become businessmen, but the point is that it's not just academics that's important when it comes to being successful and making money. There are other factors, like social relationships, that will make you successful, and thus happier (come on, money, success, happiness; they're all synonyms).</p>
<p>collegehelp,
Can you help me understand how you are judging "the quality of academic life" and "the quality of the intellectual climate?" I agree that these are very important parts of a college experience-I just don't think I can agree that such things can only be found in the highest-ranked schools. Part of our differences may go to life-view, ie, what do we value in post-graduate life and how our college experiences prepare us for that. You may value a more theoretically-based intellectual environment that you believe best develops the mind while I favor a more pragmatic and results-oriented approach that best prepares the student for life after college. Am I reading you right? If not, would you help me understand where I've missed your points, why you value the "top school" approach and what this means in real post-graduate life?</p>
<p>Maybe what he means, hawkette, is that a college that attracts the turf management students will have a different atmosphere, academically, from the ones who attract the Chaucer students.</p>
<p>I don't think that's it, dke; since so much of what Collegehelp says resonates with me, I'll give you my take and let Collegehelp decide if s/he and I are in sync.</p>
<p>When you enter any new organization, you pick up cues from the others in the organization as to the culture and norms of the group, and then consciously and subconsciously, begin to make yourself viable in that culture. We often use the term "peer pressure" to mean something bad, but peer pressure can be for the better as well. My freshman D, who decided to attend an elite university rather than go for big merit $ elsewhere, went off to school with great credentials in the humanities, but a somewhat more limited grasp of global politics. At all but a few campuses, that would be absolutely fine - in fact, it might be the norm. In her current setting, she would be on the outside looking in when it comes to classroom discussions, lunchroom debates, activities with other students, etc. Her school's Institute of Politics brings in world leaders to address the students; she rarely misses them now. She's become passionate about the civil rights of indigenous groups in Latin America and is volunteering with the preparation of a paper for a U.N. committee that's being done under the direction of a faculty member. All this is not only getting her a seat at the table when her peers launch into animated discussions; it's fundamentally changing the way she views the world and her own role in it. Her peers not only discuss global issues, they strive to get the approval of one another by the keenness of their insight and grasp of related issues. My D is now competing in that challenge as well. I went to another university that's in the USNWR top tier - this never happened to me there, though my peers there did bring me along and elevate my ambitions somewhat. I loved my experience there, but had no way of knowing how much more I could have grown in a setting like my D's.</p>
<p>Several posters have used the words "elitist" and "elitism" as though they're perjorative. Why should anyone feel uncomfortable about becoming an elite individual, when that eliteness is available to anyone who's willing to put in the effort? Only about a quarter of American adults have baccalaureate degrees, so any effort towards a college degree is a matter of seeking to join an "elite" minority. I'm an unapologetic supporter of encouraging young people to strive for the most "elite" level of accomplishment that they can. Indeed, I think that our future as a socity depends to some extent upon those with the ability taking on the challenge of becoming elite.</p>
<p>I think student should think twice before passing an oppertuinity to study at the top colleges.
It is true that studying at top colleges on its own won't bring happiness but will certainly open many doors to achieve the success and happiness in life.</p>
<p>Few examples:</p>
<ol>
<li>You won't get pass the Google HR department untill you have a degree from the top schools. You may say I give a damn about working at Google but ...</li>
<li>A good education go a long way. Even after 10 years of work at the time of changing the jobs it does matter where you graduated from.</li>
<li>From one companies boardroom to another, if you graduated from top school it will be easier for you to make it to these room than otherwise.</li>
<li>First impression is that last impression, so your resume will always convey that you are from CHYPMS and will get noticed.</li>
</ol>
<p>Whether all the above points will bring happiness or not is unconclusive but will certain bring opertunities to be a happy contended person.</p>
<p>Ignoring the irony of the outsider with his nose against the glass, any one who can get into Harvard can afford it. Financial aid is available for families with incomes of up to $200,000, occasionally higher if needed, and it is likely completely free if one's parents earn $60,000 or less.</p>
<p>Having gone to a selective college immediately prescreens you when you're looking for a job. THe HR person will assume that you're bright because you went to XYZ U.</p>