<p>{{Well, then I am glad it is not your decision. I guess I will just have to go with the opinion of the author Richard Moll, that guy that wrote the book on Public Ivies}}</p>
<p>You do know that book is a quarter century old and based on data and assumptions even older than its publication date. It has absolutely no relevance in today’s college market.</p>
<p>Even in its heyday it was accused of including a couple of colleges over far more respected publics (UCLA, Wisconsin, Illinois) just to create a little bit of buzz and controversy to sell books.</p>
<p>Besides, it’s a ridiculous term. The top public universities have nothing to be ashamed about being public, and this imprecise and lame attempt at comparing themselves to the ivies just comes off as needy.</p>
<p>As someone who has both studied and taught at top publics and elite privates (including several Ivies), I must concur with starbright. Every school has a bottom half, and the beer-swilling fratboys at Cornell, the uber-jocks at Duke, and the pampered “legacies” and “development cases” at Yale are in many cases no better prepared and no more attentive to their studies than the bottom half of a public university, though they may (or may not) come in with higher SAT scores. </p>
<p>And at the top end, consider this: with a 75th percentile SAT of 1470 and approximately 24,600 undergrads, UC Berkeley enrolled about 1,500 freshman with (CR + M) SATs above 1470 in its 2007 entering class. Duke enrolled few than half that many. Big universities like Berkeley are too big to have the entire class constitute your “peer group”; students gravitate toward others who share similar interests, academic and otherwise, and form their own “peer groups.” A smart, academically motivated kid who goes to a place like Berkeley will have absolutely no trouble surrounding herself with as many other smart, academically motivated kids as she can handle; in fact, there are far more choose from at Berkeley than at a smaller school.</p>
<p>Good to hear from some folks with experience in a variety of environments. I guess if I was forking over big bucks for an elite, I would want to believe there is a significant difference in quality between an Ivy (like Cornell) or one of the better publics (and big ten publics seem pretty good to me).
But really, if you dropped into a upper level class in engineering at Cornell, do you think it would be vastly different from an upper level class at Michigan? Or PSU? The weak kids have been weeded out and the classes are smaller. Is there a huge gulf there?<br>
A family member went to Cornell and complained about huge classes in the first two years…things got better after junior year. Going to an Ivy is not guarantee of personal attention and small classes.</p>
<p>I would not go to an Ivy for engineering. The state schools are better, in my view. It’s the liberal arts areas where there is more of a difference. Employers like the state university engineering grads, so why spend the money.</p>
<p>“I am not one to pay a whole lot of attention to rankings.”</p>
<p>Obviously.</p>
<p>“You will get a fine education at a Big Ten school. I also happen to like many of the SEC schools. Just don’t pretend you are at a highly-selective private school. You aren’t.”</p>
<p>I never did. I said that there are many experts who say that the education you receive at the top publics can be just as good as your private schools, and I agree. I have seen your posts, well not all of the 4,600 posts you have made, and using your children as your references for a private school education is not a representative sample. </p>
<p>“jec- looking back at your older posts, you are obviously VERY hung up on rankings and I hit a nerve. Sorry about that.”</p>
<p>I use an acknowledged system on which to base my opinion, rather than basing the system on my opinion. </p>
<p>“I would not go to an Ivy for engineering. The state schools are better, in my view. It’s the liberal arts areas where there is more of a difference. Employers like the state university engineering grads, so why spend the money.”</p>
<p>I think you are very good at generalizations, but that seems to be the extent of your abilities when it comes to giving opinions.</p>
<p>“Just don’t go in thinking your peers (or class size) are going to be the same as you would find at Penn or Cornell. Some will be, but you are going to have to find them.”</p>
<p>Quite the pretentious statement. It is even more absurd because you obviously would have no idea. You did not go to an ivy league school. </p>
<p>LennyPepperidge,</p>
<p>"{{Well, then I am glad it is not your decision. I guess I will just have to go with the opinion of the author Richard Moll, that guy that wrote the book on Public Ivies}}</p>
<p>You do know that book is a quarter century old and based on data and assumptions even older than its publication date. It has absolutely no relevance in today’s college market."</p>
<p>Hence why I referenced Greenes’ Guide on the last page, which was released in 2001.</p>
<p>I actually did go to an Ivy for part of my education and also attended a top 5 law school.
I have a lot of experience with graduates of all kinds of schools as well as with students who currently attend a range of schools.
What’s your claim to fame? Relying on old data?</p>
<p>Taking a class in your spare time doesn’t mean you went to an Ivy League school. Top 5 in the country, or top 5 in the world of MomofWildChild? For someone that is critical of my use of data, you sure do not use much of your own.</p>
<p>As a U of I graduate who lives far away from Illinois now, I’d have to say people are impressed when I tell them where I went to school. Big Ten schools are recognized as being great schools that have the added attraction of great sports too. Tried to get my kids to consider it but we live in the south and they would not consider going “north” even for the ivies. Happy, balanced adults come from great schools all across the country. Most of the people I know that are my age went to the best school in their state that they could get into. Most are well-adjusted successful people. With two kids in college, I understand the stress but you should really just try to find the right fit for your kid. Concentrate on them being happy and successful in college, not on which college has the highest WOW factor.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>While most Ivies are not especially strong in engineering, Cornell has a distinguished engineering program that is competitive with the best publics. Although they aren’t Ivies, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and Carnegie Mellon also have extremely strong engineering programs, as good or in some cases arguably better than the top state schools. It’s just not true that in general “the state schools are better,” though the best of them are among the very best engineering schools.</p></li>
<li><p>The best publics in engineering (Cal, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Michigan, Purdue) are a great bargain for in-state students. But they can be as pricey as privates for OOS students, generally don’t have as good financial aid, and in some cases may be just as difficult to get into for OOS students as the top privates. There’s no clear advantage of publics over privates for OOS students.</p></li>
<li><p>A lot of state flagships don’t have especially distinguished engineering programs. Students in those states must either settle for a less distinguished in-state program; go to a better public in another state and pay high OOS tuition; or go private.</p></li>
<li><p>Even for in-state students, it can sometimes be cheaper to attend a private with a generous need-based financial aid policy than an in-state public with less generous financial aid, depending on family income and assets. For example, the Project on Student Debt calculates that a California resident with a family income below $80,000 would have a lower net cost-of-attendance at Stanford than at Berkeley due to differences in the financial aid policies of the two schools; while for those with family income over $100,000, it’s cheaper to attend Berkeley. In my judgment, these are comparable schools for engineering.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Not necessarily. This is perhaps ancient history now, but I studied philosophy at Michigan as an undergrad. Took all small classes, mostly in the honors program in the first two years, then straight into small upper-division classes, all taught by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty in by all accounts one of the most distinguished philosophy faculties in the nation, indeed in the world. By the time I was a senior I was taking mostly graduate-level classes; my classmates were grad students in one of the the top 3 or 4 graduate programs in the country. I got to know my professors well, got great recommendations that got me into two Ivies for subsequent graduate work. I canculated at the time that there were exactly two Ivies that could have provided a comparable undergraduate education in my chosen field of study, a core humanities discipline. As best I can tell from this distance, it’s much the same in the Michigan philosophy department today. (As a regular and grateful contributor, I do hear from them regularly). The Michigan philosophy department is still ranked as one of the very best in the country—currently ranked #3 (tied with Princeton) by the Philosophical Gourmet based on a survey of philosophers in the English-speaking world. FWIW, Harvard is #7, Columbia #10; Brown, Cornell and Yale are tied at #16, and Penn #27 in that survey.</p>
<p>I also investigated Michigan for Classics last year when my D1 was leaning toward that subject, and concluded it was much the same story—a huge and distinguished faculty in the field, among the very best in the country, and a small number of undergrad majors, combining to spell almost limitless opportunity to work at the very highest levels of the field as an undergrad—opportunities that only a tiny handful of private colleges could match.</p>
<p>Bottom line, I think it’s a gross generalization, and a grossly misleading one, to say that privates in general or the Ivies in particular are stronger that state schools “in the liberal arts.” It depends on which field you’re talking about, which state school, and which Ivy. There are plenty of fields in which it’s possible to get a comparable (or better) education in a liberal arts field at a strong state school like Michigan.</p>
<p>Is the OP even checking in on this anymore? I believe we have thread drift…and yes, I’m guilty of contributing to it.
Bottom line, Big Ten schools are fine. They don’t have the prestige of the Ivies ore even elites like Duke - but they offer quality programs. Some argue the programs are equivalent to what’s offered at top rated schools…especially big ones like Cornell.
But when you hang out with folks from the northeast, you won’t hear many who give Big Ten schools the the proper respect they deserve. It’s just the way it is.
I have to say I’m tired of hearing the publics downgraded because of the “lower half”. Yeah, there are partying do-nothings everywhere…and it’s not always correlated to high SAT scores. Maybe more at the state schools, but I believe they get filtered out pretty quickly. But some of those “lower half” kids are late bloomers, others have different types of gifts to share. I’d rather not sit in a room where EVERYONE thinks they’ve been chosen due to their exceptional brain power and test taking skills. Isn’t that what Enron was like? Hey, didn’t Morgan Stanley and Lehman recruit from Ivy halls?
I’d rather live with some balance…thank you. Like real life (with the exception of certain companies of course). I know, I know, off topic, but the lower half comment gets me going :)</p>
<p>I’ll stick with my “lower half” opinion. When I went off to college, the whole “prestige” issue just wasn’t there. I picked a Big Ten out of state school for a certain major and off I went. I came from a good suburban east coast high school where most kids stayed in-state, a few went to Ivys but many went to non-flagship “area” state schools. When I got to the Big Ten school I was absolutely shocked at the academic level of many of my classmates and dorm friends. I heard the same thing from friends at other schools, and even from people who attended years before me. The percentage that doesn’t make it past first semester or first year is pretty high, and it all sorts itself out, but it truly was shocking to me. Things are more competitive today, but there is still more of what I am describing (this was recently reported by someone at UTexas, too) than most will admit.</p>
<p>I agree that it is nice to have balance and not everyone has to be at the top of the SAT pool. I’m a big advocate of admissions based on other factors than GPA/SAT. However, I want classmates who can write and speak coherently.</p>
<p>Well, my GPA was pretty high but my SATS were mediocre in HS and I went to a state school ranked in the 100s. My high school wasn’t the best…poor funding, low grad rates, unengaged teachers. Well, the first paper I submitted came back with a D-. I guess I would qualify as one of the classmates who couldn’t write coherently. I worked harder and did just fine. And I believe I made out OK as an adult too…as do many of those “lower half” types.<br>
I think the bigger problem might be kids who go to school to party. Are there more in state schools? Probably. But, they have to shape up or ship out at a state school…no hand holding going on there. And state schools don’t have a corner on the party market. Smart kids get wasted too. Anyone for BYU?</p>
<p>A lot of people who got into UW-Madison in my day wouldn’t get in today- the test score mid percentiles has gone up a lot. Honors programs also make flagship public U’s into two-tiered schools. Mowc- your last statement is ridiculous. I also want students who can do the math- can you? Folks- remember Yale let Bush go there…</p>
<p>Absolutely agree. Tons of variance that can not be captured in simplistic USNWR rankings or acronyms and labels of tiers. </p>
<p>I’ve taught multiples of thousands of students across three different majors (I sit at the crossroads of a professional school and a social science and a quant field) across a two decade period. I’ve taught at three different levels (ug, masters, PhD) at six different schools, across the gamut of ‘tiers’, and if we want to add in my own education (4 degree) and ongoing visits it’s more than I can report (e.g. I’m spending about 3 weeks at 4 different institutions in the month of February alone). I’ve sat on adcoms at three schools, and regularly write letters of reference and connect my undergrads to potential graduate schools across the board. I’ve served on two advisory boards for accreditation. I go to maybe 4-5 professional conferences a year- one just on teaching- and most of my network of friends who I talk to daily and work with are at about several dozen schools across the US as well as numerous other countries. </p>
<p>Having said all that, I see tons of beliefs out there about school differences that I (and my colleagues) do not see in real life. Even with very objective information, such as class size, there is this disconnect between reality and mythology. It’s not surprise is it? Just like we’ve been convinced that buying Tide really makes our clothes whiter, so too do you believe that buying Princeton makes your kids education. Nothing wrong with Tide or Princeton of course but marketing and rankings and reputation have taken on a weird life of their own that isn’t necessarily accurate. Most detergents have the exact same ingredients it turns out. </p>
<p>Contrary to the marketing and hype, I don’t see are differences in core curriculum, texts, readings, or required knowledge to graduate. I also do not see the supposed vast differences in student body. I see a RANGE of ability in every classroom and major I’ve ever taught. And a range of motivation. </p>
<p>The reality is there is a tremendous “error” in our predictive interpretation of HS kids that that no one seems willing to admit. Some of the most brilliant students I’ve encountered look terrible on paper; other perfect scoring students make me shake my head in disbelief. Some who did not excel in HS really blossom in college, and some grinding students from HS really can’t cope at the university level. I probably can’t tell the difference between the student with the 650 and one with the 750, or which one had ‘more passion’ about their ECs. Everywhere I go I see students that blow my mind and ones that make me wonder how on earth they got in.</p>
<p>The vast majority of students who get into one college could also succeed in another. There is a supply and demand problem right now, so colleges can come up with lots of criteria to choose among what would be equally successful students (they could save a lot of trouble and have a lottery). And those criteria don’t really matter in the classroom. At least not the way they want you to believe. </p>
<p>Finally, there are kids that end up at schools for a wide range of reasons that have little to do with ability-- such as wanting to be close to home, not caring about prestige, being a legacy or athlete and so on. So unlike CC land, the system is not just resulting in kids filtering into the most highly ranked school their SATs would allow. </p>
<p>I know parents have to justify $50k a year. I do believe they are getting something for it. There is huge value in the feeling of security and trust about the quality of education that comes with buying a brand. There is inherent psychological and social value in a prestige school. Maybe even some practical value with the first job and networking oportunities. But I think in terms of education and student body, the differences are VASTLY overrated.</p>
<p>great post starbright. I think you should write an article (or editiorial) for the NYT. With the tough economy, I think it would help parents to consider the impact of branding as they look at schools.<br>
That said, Princeton and Harvard are offering some pretty good deals lately, even for folks making close to 200K, so why not? Unless you REALLY like football of course…</p>