<p>I hope I live to see the day when ignorant people are able to value the university as a whole, not just look down upon it because it's "public".</p>
<p>Because private university kids need to feel at least somewhat justified in spending that extra $30,000+ a year.</p>
<p>Getting an education at a public university is like getting into a raunchy affair with a woman who sends her kids to private schools-- it's so easy to get in, but so hard once you're in.</p>
<p>Because most state schools aren't as good as the UC system, so people in those states do not know better.</p>
<p>It's the same reason why people pay $60 extra for an alligator or a checkmark on their clothing. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because private university kids need to feel at least somewhat justified in spending that extra $30,000+ a year
[/quote]
i agree</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's so easy to get in, but so hard once you're in.
[/quote]
that's what she said</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"Because most state schools aren't as good as the UC system, so people in those states do not know better."</p>
<p>Um, kind of an arrogant stance, don't you think? Without a doubt, UC has some fine schools, but I assume you've heard of UVA, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Texas-Austin, etc., etc. California does not have a monopoly on top publics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that's what she said
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh wow, I almost missed that one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
California does not have a monopoly on top publics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one said CA does; it does, however, have the best public university system.</p>
<p>I think most would agree that UCB and UCLA are a cut above UT-Austin, with all due respects.</p>
<p>I would say:</p>
<p>UCB
UVA/UM
UCLA
UNC
Wisconsin
UCSD
Texas</p>
<p>In my opinion anyway :/</p>
<p>Because they are so much bigger.</p>
<p>And things that cost more are thought of to be better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>"Because most state schools aren't as good as the UC system, so people in those states do not know better."</p>
<p>Um, kind of an arrogant stance, don't you think? Without a doubt, UC has some fine schools, but I assume you've heard of UVA, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Texas-Austin, etc., etc. California does not have a monopoly on top publics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why I said MOST state schools. Gee.</p>
<p>For example, the UMass system. UMass Amherst is the state flagship university. Yet, it's about the same as UCR, UCSC. UMass Dartmouth would be a cut lower. That's why in the northeast, the concept of public schools is extremely foreign to top students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why are public undergrad universities so looked down upon?
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...rch-selection/%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...rch-selection/</a></p>
<p>I hope I live to see the day when ignorant people are able to value the university as a whole, not just look down upon it because it's "public".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think the answer is implicit within your question. You say that people look down on public undergrad schools. But think about that. Why are they looking down on public undergrad *schools? I don't know too many people who look down on public *graduate schools. In fact, I think there is widespread consensus that many of the public graduate programs are among the very best such programs in the world and are fully competitive with their private counterparts.</p>
<p>The real issue seems to be that, sadly, public universities, especially the most prominent ones like Berkeley, tend to run undergrad programs that are simply not as good as their graduate programs. I have myself often times remarked that the Berkeley graduate programs are what the undergrad program ought to strive to be, in terms of heightened selectivity, close personal attention and support, access to faculty and resources, and myriad other advantages. </p>
<p>Berkeley (and other top public schools like UCLA, Michigan, etc.) are great places to be for graduate school. While they're still relatively good for undergrad, the difference is strong.</p>
<p>i think its really funny tho...
if u compare a business school in berkeley and USC
i m just comparing using number crunching...
the tuition is about 25000 more expensive...
assuming you transfered in... so its about 50,000 more total for ur upperdivision undergrad....
on average a fresh grad from UCB makes 57k USC makes 58k...
difference is 1k a year... ASSUMING there is no preference due to USC alumni and such...
it would take 50 years to make them even on numbers alone
even upen making 60k
lets keep it simple and keep it at 25k
they make 3k more
50 / 6k its still a good 8+ years</p>
<p>then again its just numbers =) who knows how much impact they have in real society</p>
<p>^ tuition is after tax. salary is pre tax.</p>
<p>maybe using "look down upon public undergrad universities" is too strong a phrase. but stuents, and parents alike, in general place greater value on higher education in other components as well. to name a few, diversity, class size, accessability to faculty, students/faculty ratio, personal attention to individual students and so on.</p>
<p>a number of public universities like ucb, ucla, u michigan, are overall top-notch. but it comes down to diversity, there's a dramatic difference between top privates and publics. ucb in-states are now well over 90% with asian americans 40% plus (because of the top 10% privilege given to in-state hs graduates in ca, tx, fl and mi). total student body reaching 30-40 something ks, making some of them look like a state school in terms of diversity. tas taking over classes and so on. this is strictly undergrad schools we're talking about. it's not that things like this are not happening at some privates but to a much lesser degree or rarely at all.</p>
<p>actually, it is the very fact that many parents/students value the college as a holistic output that many seem to be turning away from some of the public schools. they highly value other elements too.</p>
<p>btw, i personally don't like the tone of the talk against these elite publics either. sometimes too harsh and many times irrelevant to the points discussed, not on this thread though.</p>
<p>middsmith,</p>
<p>Evidently I misread your initial post and reacted too harshly. My apologies.</p>
<p>i think the compariosn on the Cal business program and USC business program isn't a good one. CAL has one of the elite business programs. O_o at a cheaper price and such an elite program for recruiting isin't it obvious? i'm sure USC has the network but can it really compare to the prestige? don't get me wrong though, i'm not bashing USC, it was my #1 school this fall</p>