<p>I made no comment about the poster herself, silent or otherwise (and that’s an assumption on your part). I disagree that the way I read her son’s comment was a “pretty big assumption” on my part. How else would you read or interpret that statement he made?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I prefer my own word. You are, of course, free to substitute your word for my own, but I prefer to use my own words when I make statements. Otherwise, they’re not my words or thoughts; they become your’s or someone else’s. </p>
<p>For your benefit, here are the definitions of each word below, which you might find useful:</p>
<p>naive: having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; unsophisticated; showing a lack of sophistication and critical judgment</p>
<p>ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; uninformed; unaware; lacking in knowledge or training of a particular subject; unenlightened</p>
<p>~~~</p>
<p>Let me also add that the use of the word, ignorant, was my “nuanced substitute.” I don’t think I would have been allowed to write here what I was truly thinking. So this was the “nuanced” version.</p>
<p>I interpreted it to mean that in a less competitive environment (say at an average state university versus Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD) in his own department, he might have been able to be more visible. I also thought he might have meant in his ECs, say if he was in music or on the newspaper. A lot of state schools have a huge population of commuting students or older part-time or evening students who aren’t as interested in doing on campus ECs. Also more state students have to work than do private school students because they come from less wealthy families, so a kid who did not have to work and was highly motivated might be able to get more attention from his ECs or scholarly pursuits. </p>
<p>Kids on the law forum on CC talk about this all the time in terms of law school admissions, whether it’s better to go to a competitive college and rank somewhere in the middle or a less competitive school and be number one or two in the graduating class. Most of those who know about such things say it’s better to be at the top of the class no matter which college you go to, so there are advantages in choosing a less competitive environment in terms of “standing out.”</p>
<p>Of course these are all generalities. By son has had his butt kicked by the intensity and academic and EC pressures at Berkeley. Had he gone to a much lower-ranked state university – or a lower ranked LAC for that matter – he would have faced much less competition for grades, positions, etc… </p>
<p>My assumption in reading worrywart’s post was that her son meant that if he had attended a less competitive state school he would have been able to stand out more. And I assume that if we asked him if he might have stood out more by attending a lower-ranked LAC, like the one my D might attend, he would feel the same. </p>
<p>I read the statement not as a slam on state schools but as a general observation on less competitive environments that sometimes exist in state schools. </p>
<p>And naive is just a more polite way for an experienced, wiser adult to talk about a young person not even out of college yet.</p>
<p>Well, there are an awful lot of “ifs” and “sometimes” and “buts” and “some” and “assumptions” in your comments above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I gave you the definitions of the two words above. That’s your view that “naive is more polite,” and you’re certainly free to use that word instead. I prefer to use the word “ignorant” as I think it more aptly describes his viewpoint. We simply differ in how we interpreted what he said, and in our choice of words used to describe that viewpoint. Thanks.</p>
<p>I will also add, since this thread is about public vs private, that your comment above can be said about all schools, public or private. As pointed out in an earlier post, even some departments or majors within certain schools (public or private) can have a more (or less) competitive environment than some other major within the same school.</p>
<p>These sorts of generalizations are pointless, to my mind. I really believe you have to look at specific schools, what they offer (on many levels), and make informed comparisons that way-- not just make assumptions and generalizations about “some” schools versus “some” other schools…</p>
<p>Further, I have no idea what kind of LAC this boy attends. We only know that it is “a most selective” one. Hmm . . . well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. The truth is, his “most selective” LAC might very well be less selective than some publics. It’s all relative.</p>
<p>To be fair, we also have no idea what kind of state school he viewed as his alternative. The comment was given as a personal anecdote, and not intended to be (nor presented as) a statement re: all privates vs. all publics. The “most selective LAC” might indeed, by some measures, be less selective than some publics. But those publics might not have anything to do with those to which this student was referring. And misguided/unfair or not (absolutely impossible to say without knowing the situation), it did answer the OP’s question. </p>
<p>No harm in giving the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.</p>
<p>I think some of us actually have answered the question. (See earlier posts.) The original question, as posed, is impossible to answer definitively. If someone received undergraduate degrees at both a public and private school, they might have better insight, but even so, his or her answer would be specific only to that person and to the schools he or she attended. There are way too many variables to answer the original question in any meaningful way…</p>
<p>Since we’re giving people the benefit of the doubt, though, I will say that many students would do better (grade-wise) at private universities; they’re typically more grade-inflated than publics. I think I’ve seen a chart here that supports my statement, but if you have any doubt at all about how hard you can and will work at a school, go with the private-- you’ll typically get better grades. Here’s another one for you-- I know someone who attended a well-known private (in the top 7), because he said he never wanted to work that hard in college. He knew if he got himself into this particular school-- that it was so well known, and there were so many good networking connections-- (and also known for grade inflation)-- that all he would have to do is attend, and he’d get a good job at graduation. He simply wouldn’t have to work that hard while there, and that’s what he wanted. That’s what he did, and sure enough-- the name of the school and the networking were enough to secure him a decent job/career at graduation.</p>
<p>trying to get this discussion back on track…dke, I believe that most people have fond memories of their college experience and whether they attended public or private colleges, have few regrets years later.</p>
<p>Having had the opportunity to attend both, I discovered first hand that the differences between the two were far less stark than most people realize, both academically and socially. Would this have been true if I had been a humanities major? Perhaps not. </p>
<p>I agree with UCLA dad that future outcomes for almost everyone depends on their own dedication, drive and abilities and very little on the college they happened to attend.</p>
<p>Our son attends a private university, but not because he thought it was superior to one of our state colleges but because it had an academic program that intrigued him. Interestingly, three years later he found another related area of study which he absolutely loves and is offered by very few colleges, public or private. Now that was a serendipidous gift.</p>
<p>janieblue, this will be my last post in this thread as I do not appreciate your personal attack. Just to enlighten you a little, my younger child attends a state flagship U where he is easily (i.e., without effort) earning a 4.0 GPA despite taking 17 credits per semester. It is on this basis as well as the experiences of many of my older son’s high school friends that he made this statement. The OP asked for our thoughts, not universalities. Period.</p>
<p>“The name of the school and the networking were enough to secure him a decent job/career at graduation.”</p>
<p>At my second job as a computer programmer, 2 years out of my lowly public university (where’d I’d graduated with high honors…they were way too backwoods to say magna cum laude), I worked with a guy who had graduated from Harvard. I have no doubt that was what secured him the job at graduation. He was a pompous a**, and dumber than a rock. He left within a year. I ran into him years later, and he had bounced around from job to job. I suspect he kept impressing 'em with his pedigree and his “polish”, but once they figured out he was an idiot, he was “encouraged” to move on. Ironically, when I saw him in an elevator, he had returned to his original place of employment, as a junior contract programmer (he was placed in an area that did not know his background). I enjoyed our conversation, especially since, as a director in IT, I knew that I could have called the director of the area he was in, and he would have been let go immediately. I didn’t; for all I knew, he’d turned things around, and I had no reason to be nasty. A month or so later, I casually asked, and found out that he had been told to leave. For him, I agree—the Harvard degree WAS enough to secure him a decent job/career at graduation. This example is extreme…However, I firmly believe, in the end, the most important thing is the PERSON., moreso than their University Name that makes for a successful career in the long run.</p>
<p>I attend a small LAC, and chose it over an academically equivalent (if not better) State U. Luckily, I received enough merit aid from LAC to make it only about ~$2000 more than State U., so money was not a factor in my decision. I do not doubt that I made the right choice, but if I didn’t receive any of the merit aid and even if I got accepted to other tippy-top, ridiculously priced schools, I would have chosen State U. and still would have been happy there.</p>
<p>astrophysicsmom: Yes, I would like to think so, too. The key phrase, of course, is “in the long run.” Unfortunately, there still exists certain fields where, in order to secure that very first position, the university name itself will often win out-- over the individual person. Sad, but true.</p>