Why do top students from states with AMAZING flagships go to private schools?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>

</p>

<p>No, not field-dependent, because at the time he was an undeclared Freshman and didn’t start taking any engineering classes for 5 more quarters. None of his classes, either in Letters & Science or Engineering, were ever taught by a TA.</p>

62

<p>… from earlier posts.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The “W” means weighted, not “UW” or unweighted as you’re thinking. You’re probably influenced by the 3.5-4.0 range, which would be an uw gpa range. It’s true, anyone who has < 4.0 weighted gpa, sees his or her chances of being admitted to UCLA and Cal significantly decrease. </p>

<p>The link researching provided, is the the [Palos Verdes School District High Schools]( <a href=“http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf”>http://www.pvpusd.k12.ca.us/penhi/collegeacceptance/collegeacceptance2010.pdf&lt;/a&gt;), it appears. Very interesting post, btw, thanks.</p>

<p>I think there are two high schools in the district, and they are both excellent feeders to UCLA, Cal, and UC in general. Excellent schools in wealthy areas, high API rank. </p>

<p>The link provided to UCLA admissions sees the gpa/SAT numbers lessen because UCLA (and Cal, and UC in general) accepts students who best take their native hss to the highest levels - students who use all their hss resources, even with limited AP and limited EC opps, and poor teachers. </p>

<p>There are certain high schools particularly in the LA area that are underperforming with top 5% students there graduating with, say, 3.70 gpas (with w close to uw because of the lack of AP) and 1700 SATs. This is why the means at UCLA particuarly for SAT’s don’t reflect higher numbers. </p>

<p>The mean gpa at UCLA for LA County students is < than the 3.81 mean uw gpa, and pretty significantly so. It’s probably around a 3.75-3.78 for LAC students, which though only .03-.06 gpa points from the mean would reflect pretty significantly on UCLA’s overall means (Palos Verdes HS’s admissions to UCLA and Cal notwithstanding, esp, since there are a lot more underperforming hss in LAC).</p>

<p>(The 4.24 mean w gpa for UCLA might even be a capped UC gpa, which means total gpa without caps could be even higher. I’m sure there are some mitigating factors taht would lessen the overall gpa inflation such as senioritis.) </p>

<p>Since UC is a public institution, there has to be some equity in the admissions process for the students who attend underperforming hss and who are generally poorer; otherwise, both UCLA and Cal would be predominantly wealthy students. And since the poorer students of the state are mostly from under-represented groups, both u’s would probably be 95% white and Asian if admissions were more solely gpa and SAT-based. </p>

<p>As it is, both u’s admit those with lower grades and scores and hope that academic services can get these students up to speed and competitive with the rest of the student body. It’s pretty costly and the dropout rate is extremely high, but the UC’s think it’s worth the cost to see those from poorer backgrounds succeed and become attys and MD’s and high-powered professionals. I agree at least partially. I think the UC is a little too much diversity-based and race-conscious; whereas a race-bline meritocracy wrt admissions would be more in order for those who attend the U, generally because all pay state taxes. And I think the Blue and Gold schollie has potential for abuse, unless the UC caps the %’s.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>I did not mean to insult anyone, but I don’t see how it is so absurd to suggest that bureaucracy and red tape have a stifling effect, or that there is some correlation between how students are treated at different institutions and the roles they are expected to play in later life. </p>

<p>Deresiewicz was a professor at Yale. He had ample opportunity to observe how life works there. He may not have gotten it all right, but I don’t think he was saying literally that the average Ivy graduate can’t make small talk with the plumber as he hands over the check for repairs. “Talking to the plumber” is his English professor metaphor for an educated person’s ability to share a perspective about life, one informed by liberal education, with people from all walks of life. He’s expressing a concern (not his alone) that humanities education is increasingly not “liberal” but technical, highly specialized, and irrelevant to living a good life. </p>

<p>But the plumber thing is not where I wanted to focus. I cited the article for its description of a perceived difference between two different kinds of schools. I think this perception, accurate or not, helps account for why some top students choose private schools over “amazing flagships”. And I’m surprised that some people are so surprised to hear that students at “elite” universities are accustomed to pulling strings and bending the rules to get what they want. Deresiewicz describes this in an entirely negative light, but surely some people see it differently. This is how young Masters of the Universe are empowered. You have a vision? Harvard won’t get in the way with too many silly rules. Your group wants to invite the Dalai Lama for lunch? Here’s his number, go call his people. The college will cover their air fare. </p>

<p>Now … to bring us back around to the OP’s issue … does the same sort of thing happen at private schools less wealthy than Harvard? Do they tend to open more “networking” doors than public universities? Are innovations like online registration eliminating red tape and bureaucracy everywhere? I really don’t know, but I’d have a little trouble explaining the comparative advantage of many large private schools outside the top 20 (e.g. USC, GW, NYU, NEU, or BU) over schools like Berkeley, Michigan, UVa, UNC, Wisconsin, or Texas.</p>

64

<p>

What are some of these comparative advantages? Are they related to alumni network or job placement?</p>

65

<p>The Dalai Lama might come to lunch if he gets a ticket, but he prefers UW Madison.</p>

<p>[Dalai</a> Lama visits Madison, promotes “healthy minds” - WKOW 27: Madison, WI Breaking News, Weather and Sports](<a href=“http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12490463]Dalai”>http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12490463)</p>

66

<p>^ Actually, The Dalai Lama prefers Indiana U. He usually visits annually. His late brother was a former IU professor. His nephew owns a Tibetan restaurant in Bloomington.</p>

<p>[Dalai</a> Lama’s Arrival to Bloomington | News - Indiana Public Media](<a href=“http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/dalai-lamas-arrival-bloomington/]Dalai”>http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/dalai-lamas-arrival-bloomington/)
<a href=“http://www.bloomingpedia.org/wiki/Snow_Lion[/url]”>http://www.bloomingpedia.org/wiki/Snow_Lion&lt;/a&gt;
[Tibetan</a> Mongolian Buddhist Cultural Center - Home Page](<a href=“http://www.tibetancc.com/info/index.asp]Tibetan”>http://www.tibetancc.com/info/index.asp)
<a href=“https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/world/asia/09norbu.html[/url]”>https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/world/asia/09norbu.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

67

<p>massgirl92, i think i’m one of the most guilty people on this board for this. i live in california, and i think i pretty much turned down berkeley (the consensus best public school haha) for cornell. (i’m assuming that i’d get into berkeley. it’s not too hard to get into berkeley or another other UC when you’re from in-state) just last year, my friend turned down cornell for berkeley. he got into both, and decided cornell just wasn’t worth it. i remember telling him then that i probably would’ve chosen cornell. well, i did. whether i made the right choice yet i don’t know</p>

68

<p>O.K. Wuchu, you’re Exhibit A. Almost, that is (because apparently you don’t have an offer from Berkeley).</p>

<p>So, why Cornell not a UC? Was cost not a issue for you? What do you expect to major in?</p>

69

<p>

Considering that a TA is a teaching assistant, it is tautological to argue that they do not teach courses.</p>

<p>It is, however, incorrect to say that graduate students do not teach courses. Indeed, graduate instructors are fairly common. Examine introductory math, English/writing, language, and history courses at any reasonably large university, and you’ll find them in spades. Of course, upper level courses are almost always taught by people with PhDs (not necessarily TT faculty, however).</p>

<p>Of course, the number of students involved in teaching varies, as do the policies involved. Some schools allow only ABDs to teach, while others expect second year graduate students to teach. Some schools expect one to have expertise in that field, while others do not. I know quite a few ancient and medieval historians teaching US history despite having only an exceedingly vague grasp of the material. </p>

<p>

I chose Duke over in-state UNC because it was much cheaper after merit and financial aid. </p>

<p>Duke and UNC is a particularly interesting scenario because the two universities are so close, both geographically and socially. A bus runs between the two every 30 minutes, students can take courses and use libraries at both, the two have some joint PhD programs, etc. I had the opportunity to get to know both quite well.</p>

<p>Duke is smaller, generally has smaller classes, has nicer facilities, has much better advising, has a more uniformly excellent student body, etc. It spends a lot more time and money per undergraduate than UNC, and it definitely shows. Is that worth an extra $30K or so for a full pay student? I would say definitely not…but that is something where personal finances and preferences would play a role.</p>

70

<p>I agree especially for history classes, I have always been taught by a TA and a professor. However, I have never encountered a class where the TA actually taught any important material. I find it hard to believe such actually happens.</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>So, by this logic, ANY University with a large number of graduate students will therefore have a large number of “classes taught by TA’s”. Gee, Harvard and Stanford both have very large numbers of grad students compared to undergrads. So I guess they could also be faulted for the same thing? But no, only the Public Flagships are ever accused of that Urban Legend.</p>

72

<p>@tk: if cost were an issue (it still might be, but hopefully not), i almost positively would’ve gone to berkeley (once again assuming i’d get in)</p>

<p>idk, most of the people at my school want to stay in california, so everybody applies to stanford and everybody gets rejected (literally) but, like i used to live in the northeast and i liked it there, i liked the cold. and cornell is very beautiful, and the surroundings are very beautiful, and i love snow, and i like the color red, and there are too many people at berkeley, and i’ve heard there’s a lot of homeless people in san francisco, and it’s too easy to get into berkeley, and cornell is pretty good at everything (including bio, which i think i’m going to major in), and it’s an ivy. there’s probably more reasons. =)</p>

<p>oh yeah, i don’t have an offer from berkeley because UCs give out their decisions in the spring, and by then my app will already be withdrawn so i won’t ever know if i would’ve gotten in or not. however, i do have a guaranteed admission to UC davis. i just got a very cool email from them, and it makes me feel bad because i won’t be going there.</p>

73

<p>

Many private universities of course have graduate instructors; I had several. (A few, like Princeton and Dartmouth, are notable anomalies in this respect.) The fact that privates have them as well does not mean that publics do not, however, and implying otherwise is deceptive. </p>

<p>The title of the thread is “private schools,” moreover, not “private universities.” Most LACs do not have graduate students, for example, and even introductory courses are typically taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty. </p>

<p>That said, do I think graduate instructors are necessarily a bad thing? Not really. Mine were perfectly good instructors, and that’s how I’m earning my own keep in grad school. I don’t see any point in sweeping it under the rug or being so defensive about it.</p>

74

<p>Well, the Dalai Lama has made 8 visits to Madison and donated $50K to the research institute at UW so his links there are also pretty close and it’s not just family. </p>

<p>[Dalai</a> Lama visit to Wisconsin highlights close ties [Associated Press] | UW-Madison Division of International Studies](<a href=“http://international.wisc.edu/blog/index.php/2008/07/14/dalai-lama-visit-to-wisconsin-highlights-close-ties-associated-press/]Dalai”>http://international.wisc.edu/blog/index.php/2008/07/14/dalai-lama-visit-to-wisconsin-highlights-close-ties-associated-press/)</p>

75

<p>My cousin just turned down Michigan for WUSTL at a 100k cost differential. He just really preferred WUSTL’s environment, undergraduate foucs and campus. We’ll see if it pays off in the end.</p>

76

<p>How will we see whether it pays off? Does he have some machine that tells him the alternate outcome for every decision?</p>

77

<p>^^^Both IU and UW are strong centers for Tibetan and Buddhist studies.</p>

78

<p>Had an acquaintance who said her parents were paying about 40k a year for WUSTL in a way that the people around should be impressed. Um, yea, no. I’m impressed about your parents being so generous and taking an interest in a great university, but not at all about your insecurity and attitude.</p>

79

<p>Welllll living in a bay area suburb pretty much half of the parents went to UC Berkeley. My mom went to UCLA and the main reason I would never go to either is the curve. It’s so hard to beat the kids who do nothing but study to get good grades, but then that leaves no time for EC’s for grad school, personal enjoyment, etc. Not to mention the lack of funding and how impossible it is to get classes.</p>

80

<p>My daughter recently turned down UCLA and Berkeley (and UCSB, UCSD, UCSC, UCI) for Baylor. Baylor gave her a large enough Merit scholarship that the cost of attendance turned out to be the same at all the UCs and Baylor. While it is true that Baylor is not a prestigious name to most, and only ranked #79 currently, they do have a very solid bio/neuro concentration, which outperforms its institutional ranking somewhat. I have heard from other parents that Private + Merit causes the COA to be about the same between Public Flagship and mid-ranked Private (ranked say 50-100 in USNWR).</p>

<p>Baylor has 14,000 total students on campus, with a decidedly undergraduate focus – 12,500 undergrad, 2,000 grad. Just large enough to have a huge diversity of course offerings, research opportunities and extra curriculars, including DI sports, but not so large as UCLA’s 39,000 students + hospital complex contiguous to the campus with another 20,000 employees and visitors. = 59,000. she has called by phone multiple times and been directly connected with academic advisors, orientation advisors, and Bio advisors, and not reached any voicemails machines or told to “call back next week”.</p>

<p>She was also admitted to Wake Forest, but the FA was much less, and she was not, in the end, that keen on THAT small a campus. Every kid has their own take on these things… some places seem too big, some too small.</p>

<p>After visiting all the schools, with the most time at UCLA, she simply did not connect with the bigness and hustle/bustle of the UCs, except for Santa Cruz which she did like. UCLA’s admitted students day had about 5,000 attendees. This gave her an unconnected feeling. UCSB’s high achieving students reception in mid March had about 800 accepted students crammed into a ball room at a hotel near LAX. While the event was really well conceived and implemented, the notion of sitting with 800 people listening to a speaker over a microphone foreshadowed for her the experience of being in a lecture hall with 500 other students taking intro X class. By comparison, when she sat in the Intro Bio class at Baylor while visiting, there were about 125 students, in a lecture had that was designed to make is seem smaller than that. She could have mitigated these feelings of being one among thousands at a UC, somewhat, by joining a sorority and living in the house, but this would not have changed the fact that she just didn’t like the crowded feeling of the place – there was nothing in either experience that communicated, non-verbally, that she had made it, that she was SPECIAL. This despite the fact that UCLA is situated on beautiful gently rolling hills with visually appealing softscape and some architecturally interesting buildings. The tour of the dorms was eye-opening, in that currently 3 students are crammed into a space originally intended to house just 2, and not that spaciously even with 2.</p>

<p>I go back to my prior post on page 2: large publics simply don’t have the budget to scale classes, or living accomodations, or academic services, to a size that a student feels… wanted. It takes lots and lots of money to make classes smaller, and to hire enough “helpers” – academic advisors/mentors, financial aid staff, orientation staff, etc. In short, personal service is expensive, and the Public Flagships cannot afford it.</p>

<p>By way of background, I attended Stanford AND UCLA undergrad, and my wife Cornell AND UCLA undergrad.</p>