<p>By my definition (post 58), I would say the schools you mention are not elite either.</p>
<p>It’s safe to say that I agree with you. But then again, I believe only a handful of universities are truly elite.</p>
<p>“Yes, USC is non-elite because it needs to offer financial incentives to attract top students. But that is also true of public schools like Michigan, UNC and UCLA which have built-in financial incentives, especially for their in-state students. Many of them would have chosen private alternatives if it were not for cost.”</p>
<p>What a silly statement. You’re saying that no public school could ever be considered elite because it offers a lower rate to it’s residents. Many of the tippy-top schools offer financial incentives for students to attend there as well. If not we’d have Harvard, for example, with ONLY rich kids attending and not necessarily the best students. I do agree with you that there are only a few truly elite schools in this country, which all happen to be private. They do however offer “discounts” to some of those who cannot afford to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I am saying that the quality of student bodies at the top publics is inferior to that of the top privates, despite (lower) in-state tuition. So theoretically speaking, state schools could be considered elite if they had stronger student bodies. But in reality, they do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Need-based aid is perfectly acceptable. It allows qualified students to attend a university that they could not afford otherwise. If public institutions were to offer in-state tuition on a sliding-scale basis (by income), I’d have no problem with that.</p>
<p>USC is not top tier nor prestigious. </p>
<p>Its main claim to fame is in sports.</p>
<p>As an international student from singapore, it’s safe to say that schools like ucla and Berkeley are much more prestigious. Moreover, usc’s admissions standards seem to be much lower, at least for internationals. Put it this way, kids in my school apply to ucla and Berkeley as reaches and USC as a safety. However, I’m not trying to knock usc or anything. I do see it as a peer of schools like nyu and perhaps even UVA. Coolbrezze, to call USC more prestigious than cal tech is just preposterous, sorry.</p>
<p>By the way, I meant to say that from an international perspective schools like the uc’s are more prestigious. My first sentence seems a bit ambiguous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I’ve been saying for a long, long time. Fanboys just don’t understand, or refuse to understand.</p>
<p>Actually, the top 50% of the freshmen class of top publics have test scores and grades equal to those of the top privates. So “inferior” in what sense, I don’t know. Perhaps you meant socioeconomic background? But what does that say about students with less money able to achieve the same as those with more?</p>
<p>^ KWU, I don’t think anyone is arguing that <em>generally</em> the students at UCLA, Berkeley, UVA, Mich, UNC are not lower statted students.</p>
<p>We ARE arguing that if you take the top X freshmen, where X is the # of freshman students at Y presitgious Private University, the stats will be comparable.</p>
<p>The top 25% (1100) entering freshmen at Berkeley will have higher average stats than the average of the entire 1500 freshman class at Northwestern; The top 1100 will have higher average stats than the entire 1500 person freshman class at Duke, etc.</p>
<p>The counterargument is that these top 1100 are not segregated from the hoards of great unwashed at Berkeley (the other 3,200), UCLA (the other 3,500), UVA, MIch, and UNC.</p>
<p>The counter-counter argument is that these highly statted students at the elite Publics DO tend to coalesce around each other. They are the ones who are admitted into the Honors Program, admitted into impacted majors like Business, Business Econ, Communications, pre-med, and of course Engineering, who take leadership positions in student government and clubs.</p>
<p>I’ll take the top 1100 out of the entering classes at Berkeley and UCLA and bump them up against the 50% student at HYPSM any day of the week. That Berkeley student, aside from having taken 7-10 AP classes and carrying a 3.9 unweighted and 4.5 weighted GPA, will have scored a low of 1500 on the 2-part SAT (1460 75% + 40 points “single sitting correction”), up through 1600.</p>
<p>Where can you show me an entering class of 1100 with a midpoint SAT of 1550 and 4.5 weighted GPA? Not even Caltech’s 300 entering freshmen will show that highly statted a group of students.</p>
<p>Funnily enough, with regard to the topic of this thread, USC, one can make the same argument that the top 1100 at USC, out of the entering class of 4,200, would likewise stand as a subgroup above the average stats of the approx. 1100 member entering classes at HYPSM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t kid yourself. The student bodies at top publics such as Michigan and UVa are predominantly upper middle class. They are no more socio-economically disadvantaged than typical ivy applicants. In fact, many Michigan and UVa students applied to the ivies themselves and would have gone there otherwise.</p>
<p>For a student whose family makes less than $150k or so, it is cheaper to attend HYPSM than a state flagship. Would you consider a student whose family income is $150K “underprivileged” in any sense of the word? The students who truly do more with less are those who attend HYPSM on free-rides (because their families make only $60K or less).</p>
<p>UCLA Pell Grants: 35%
Berkeley Pell grants: 32%
Princeton/Yale: 10%</p>
<p>its safe to say it; no harm will ensue. It may not be accurate, however ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA Pell Grant recipients would’ve gotten free rides at Princeton and Yale as well as every other ivy. It is the responsibility of the ivies to give low income students equal opportunity, not equal results. Their obligation is to provide affordability to low income students, not to guarantee admittance. No top schools, including the publics, can do this. Nor would this be fair.</p>
<p>And for what it’s worth, I was specifically referring to Michigan and UVa: “The student bodies at top publics such as Michigan and UVa are predominantly upper middle class. They are no more socio-economically disadvantaged than typical ivy applicants.” So your point is moot.</p>
<p>FYI, University of Virginia Pell Grants: 8%</p>
<p>chrerokeejew – do Pell Grants go to students who are 100% need-met by HYPSM type schools? I’m not sure what the Pell Grant says about the economic status of students at 100% need-met schools.</p>