Why would a sports-lover ever NOT go to a public flagship university?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>TheJoker, the Dean of the Business school at Ross left Harvard to come to Michigan. And one of the new profs in Michigan’s Political Science department was taken away from Yale. I don’t see what that has to do with my point about Cornell being co-founded and run by Michigan administrators for much (roughly 50%) of its history. </p>

<p>Anyway, I am not going to debate this point. I am sure we both have ample evidence to support our points of views. I am merely stating my opinion. I believe, from my experience, that the top public universities are excellent. Cal and Michigan are, in my opinion, top 10 or top 15 undergraduate instititions. UVa and UCLA are among the top 20. UNC, UIUC, UT-Austin, Wisconsin and William and Mary aren’t far behind. Most surveys conducted by academe and industry would seem to support my opinion. </p>

<p>And I do not object to the US News rankings. Their statistics are very interesting. But they should be taken with a grain of salt. I think Gerhard Casper, President of Stanford university from 1990-2000, said it best.</p>

<p>“I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27.”</p>

<p>[Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html]Criticism”>Criticism of College Rankings - September 23, 1996)</p>

<p>Gerhard Casper was not in any way related to Michigan or Cal. He attended Yale for most of his education and he was a professor at the University of Chicago and Stanford. And yet, the crux of his argument, his “prima facie” evidence as to why he thinks the USNWR ranking is flawed, is the excesively low ranking the USNWR grants to two schools. You will find that most respected intellectuals and researchers at most top universities share his views on this issue. That explains why Cal and Michigan have peer assessment scores of 4.8 (tied with Yale) and 4.5 (tied with Penn) respectively. </p>

<p>And finally, do not underestimate the alumni networks at some of the elite publics. I would put Michigan or UVa’s alumni networks up against any university’s and I am sure they will compare very nicely.</p>

22

<p>Getting back to the point, for sports fans, you can’t beat the experience at a flagship public. It is a lot cheaper for a Michigan resident to watch football at U Michigan than at Duke, cheaper for a Virginia resident to watch basketball at UVA than Notre Dame, and so on. The debate about quality of education at top publics is important, but, for a 90% discount, sports lovers would have to be out of their minds to pass up their flagship public even if there is a small difference in quality.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the top publics offer very high quality education.</p>

<p>I’m just saying that $25K is too much to pay for a season ticket at Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Boston College, Rice, Vanderbilt, and so on. Wait…do they make you pay extra for the tickets?</p>

23

<p>You’re making some assumptions that just don’t pan out. Namely, that the state U costs 1/10 the cost of the private college. Our state U costs less than a top private, but not 90% less. And when you factor in aid, the state u can cost more. </p>

<p>You are also assuming that every sports fan has access to tickets to games, and for the most popular sports, that is not the case.</p>

24

<p>jude_36-
How hard is it to get tickets to football/basketball/hockey and other popular sports? Why would a sports lover even bother to consider athletics as a basis for selecting a college if you can’t get tickets?</p>

25

<p>Jude, although I agree that a state university is not always a much cheaper option than a private university, for most upper middle income and upper income families ($150k+), the in-state flagship state schools cost roughly 30%-50% of what their private counterparts cost. That works out to savings of $20,000-$40,000/year. To the very weathy, that’s negligible. However, to most people with annual houselhold incomes between $150k and $300k, that’s a lot of money.</p>

<p>Also, tickets for the most popular sports (particularly football) are generally availlable to all students. Of course, in the case of highly popular Basketball and Hockey programs, such as Cornell (Hockey), Duke (BBall), Michigan (Hockey), UNC (Bball) etc…, tickets are often hard to come by.</p>

<p>At any rate, I find this who thread somewhat inflexible. Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UNC, UVa and other elite public universities are not merely elite publics…they are elite full stop! Even OOS students who are paying full tuition at those schools habitually chose to attend them over elite private universities. It really depends on one’s preference. Some people like the complete university experience and for that, top publics are hard to beat.</p>

26

<p>My bad with the UPenn thing, I thought the original post said the following universities (not states) offer great athletics + academics.<br>

No.</p>

<p>By the way, if someone lives in one of the 5 states (North Carolina, Virginia, California, Michigan, and Georgia if you want to be an engineer), then I would definitely suggest going public. On the other hand, most people don’t, and if you’re going to have to pay $40,000 per year, I think it should definitely be for a top private school, not for someone else’s flagship public.</p>

27

<p>“On the other hand, most people don’t, and if you’re going to have to pay $40,000 per year, I think it should definitely be for a top private school, not for someone else’s flagship public.”</p>

<p>That logic escapes me. It is thrown around very often and I never understood it. There are only two reasons people give for such a point of view, and both are flawed:</p>

<p>1) Why should I pay $40,000 when in-staters are paying half that.</p>

<p>2) Private universities are better than public universities.</p>

<p>In the first case, who cares what others are paying. The only thing that matters is what you would pay if you were to attend another school of comparable quality. </p>

<p>In the second case, the top 5 or 6 public universities compete with top private universities. Obviously, none of the publics are quite as good as Harvard or MIT, but they are definitely not far behind and they are definitely comparable in quality, albeit different in “feel” and approach, to any other top rated private university.</p>

<p>There are obviously legitimate reasons for chosing a private university over a public university, but it has nothing to do with quality or reputation. It has to do with personal preference. But then again, that is not usually a function of a school being private or public, as it is very difficult to differentiate between the two in many instances.</p>

28

<p>I don’t know how it works at other state U’s, but at ours, Hockey is big. Season tickets to hockey are hard to come by and very expensive. My understanding is that there are blocks of seats reserved for students, but certainly not every student who wants to attend the event can get a ticket. Selling tickets is a huge money maker for the school, and they aren’t going to sell all the tickets to students at $4 a pop when they can sell them to the general public for $20. I know some of my employers get season tickets and they are fairly expensive.</p>

<p>Just making a point, I have no stake in this discussion at all, and if I’m wrong, oops, sorry.</p>

29

<p>Hockey is definitely popular at many East Coast and Midwestern colleges, and since the arenas seldom hold over 6,000 spectators, those tickets are indeed hard to come by. And Basketball can be very hard to get tickets for at schools like UNC, Georgetown, Duke and some other elite BBall programs. But football tickets are generally easy to get.</p>

30

<p>Alexandre is right about the net total cost of top publics versus top privates after financial aid grant money is taken into account. I compared:</p>

<p>Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, USC, Georgetown, Northwestern, Stanford, Wake Forest, Notre Dame, Boston College</p>

<p>with</p>

<p>Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois</p>

<p>using IPEDS data.</p>

<p>The net cost per year after financial aid was 53% less at the publics, about $21,000 per year, $84,000 over 4 years.</p>

<p>If sports is a big reason for choosing your college, go to your state’s flagship public and save $84,000.</p>

31

<p>for the record - Cornell is 100% private. While NY State provides funding on contract for some schools, Cornell is completely autonomous and privately operated. Thus, why they’re called “contract colleges”</p>

<p>I’m really surprised people make decisions as big as college based on the ability to watch sports.</p>

32

<p>applejack, I also did not understand that whole bit about Cornell. As far as I know, and I am an alum, Cornell’s colleges, even those that receive state funding, are still run and operated independently by the university. </p>

<p>Also, I am not sure anybody choses a university based purely on the ability to watch sports. I think it is a perk many use as a tie-breaker, but I don’t think many people are going to pick the University of Georgia over Harvard University just because they want to watch their Bulldogs obliterate the toothless Commodores on the gridiron! hehe! On the other hand, if one is considering two equally good universities, say Duke and Penn or Notre Dame and Dartmouth, and they really want to watch college sports, then Duke over Penn or ND over Dartmouth makes sense…all other things being equal.</p>

33

<p>One of the things I can think of is financial aid. A lot of publics don’t offer great need-based aid. If you get a merit scholarship there are typically gpa restriction on it’s renewal and that isn’t usually the case with need-based aid. That is why we aren’t looking at publics for our son. You can always root for your state team and be a fan regardless of where you go to school. The booster organizations at those schools will still cash your checks if you choose to support financially. I can tell you though that my daughter chose Vandy over WashU and is surprisingly pleased that she is at a D-1 SEC school for sports. It wasn’t even a factor for her decision but is a pleasant perk.</p>

34

<p>Alexandre, if you really want to watch sports, then Michigan over Duke, UCLA over USC, Virginia over Vanderbilt, all make sense because things are NOT equal financially. That’s the point.</p>

35

<p>They are the same financually to me. I am international. I still chose Michigan over Duke, but it had nothing to do with sports. I didn’t even know Michigan had a good athletics tradition until I was a student there.</p>

<p>pmrlcomm, I think the point of the thread assumes that one gets in-state tuition at their flagship state school. For example, a resident of NC chosing UNC over Duke or a resident of Virginia chosing UVa over Penn etc…</p>

36

<p>Even so I can give you a perfect example. My D could have gone to Ohio State. It’s been a couple of years since I did the math but our EFC would have stayed the same regardless of where she went. Vandy gave her 37k in need based aid and she had to borrow 3k. The loans at OSU would have been in the 5-7k range. That’s my only point about the money. Just because you get a smaller tuition bill for in-state doesn’t mean you won’t be paying more in the long run. I would like to see the numbers that collegehelp used to determing it was 53% cheaper to go to State U.</p>

37

<p>pmrlcomm-
IPEDS provides total cost in-state, average institutional grant, and percent of students receiving average institutional grant. Loans don’t subtract anything from cost. I did my calculation by finding the average net cost of attendance for undergraduates after institutional grant aid.</p>

38

<p>Not sure why this choice would be limited to just athletic life as one could make a similar case for choosing the in-state flagship over a private elite for a whole host of reasons and some much more substantive than athletics, eg, UC Berkeley’s engineering programs would likely be a far better (and cheaper) choice than any of the Ivies for a California student. And they’d get much better athletics as well. </p>

<p>As for the athletic focus of this thread, I think that Alexandre makes an excellent point. No one is choosing a college (hopefully!) using athletics as their primary consideration. But for some students, it most definitely will be a consideration and potential tie-breaker for colleges of similar academic strength as athletic life can materially raise the social life at a college. Choosing U Georgia over Harvard is probably really rare, but choosing U Georgia over Sewanee makes sense if one is attracted by the great athletic scene in Athens and this would be even more so for a Georgia IS student.</p>

39

<p>Sorry college. Maybe it’s a little abstract for my tiny brain. I only know from my personal experience that it would have cost my D an additiona 2-4k per year to attend State U. I think the whole thing has to be looked at and based on a head-to-head comparison. Thanks for the info.</p>

40

<p>1) Yes you can root from afar…but to say that’s comparable in any sense is ridiculous. </p>

<p>2) While it’s not the only thing to base the college decision on, it certainly can be a significant portion - more than just a simple tiebreaker. I, and several of my friends in HS, without a doubt limited our searches to schools with D1 athletics, in particular D1A Football. In my 4 years at a “football school”, I know that thought process is pretty common, and it pervades through all sorts of students, even ones who could have gone to much more prestigious, selective schools. I mean, I can think of quite a few my friends who are in professional or graduate schools of all types who fit this description.</p>