<p>leanid – I think if you read what I wrote, rather than just jerking your knee at it, you will see that I said pretty much the same thing you were saying, but without the tone of resentment. So let me be really clear about what I think: Public universities have as part of their mission educating a broad range of students, including students who are indistinguishable from “Ivy” students and students who are distinguishable from them. The Ivy universities educate a much narrower range of students. If you compare tip-top to tip-top, the two will be almost the same; if you compare average to average, or median to median, the Ivies will come out way ahead. But that doesn’t mean the Ivies are better than public universities; it means that their average student is a different student than the average student at a public university. </p>
<p>If you really wanted to compare the two using data, you would have to look at what happened to comparable students over reasonably long periods of time (but not so long that your analysis was swamped by things that happened in the 60s, not now). The only study I have seen that did that (a) did show better results at Ivy-like colleges, but not better-enough than top-tier publics to amortize the price differential (it was better enough to justify the price differential against non-flagship publics, although not by as much as many people would think), and (b) limited its consideration to people with no graduate degrees, meaning that it excluded probably 90% of the comparable students on both sides, rendering it functionally useless. I don’t think it is possible to make a data-based analysis of this much-discussed question, not without going out and gathering the data yourself from nonpublic sources.</p>
<p>Madaboutx – Yes, the different types of universities have different markets they serve, but there is meaningful overlap. There isn’t a single student at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford so gifted as to be outside the educational capabilities of many top public universities. The difference between the Ivies and public flagships is that the former are narrow-spectrum and the latter broad(er)-spectrum, not that they serve different “tiers” of students.</p>
<p>As I read the Op’s post, it is about how the IVIES have failed us, and by almost all subjective and objective manners, they have. The ivies produced the leaders of our financial markets that brought the economy to its knees and caused so much misery to the middle class, have provided us with the business leaders who have shirked their loyalty to their own workers and shareholders, paid themselves huge amounts of compensation while sending their employees jobs overseas, utterly decimating our middle class, and of course they provided us with our political leaders who have brought untold misery to hundreds of thousands of people by waging unnecessary wars for the benefit of the military industrial complex, and who have ignored the threat of global warming to the extent that Carbon Dioxide has built up in our atmosphere at a level not seen for millions of years. It is really hard to avoid politics when discussing this type of topic. If the Ivy League were a person, I would judge that person to be a narcissist devoid of compassion, conscience or morality. I read the posts of the pro Ivy people here, and they actually believe the students who go to the Ivies are superior and smarter to almost everyone else, totally ignoring the fact that most qualified students neither have the money nor the desire to attend the ivies, and that the ivies have only a very small percentage of the truly gifted students out there. The ivies are all about prestige and status and little about substance. That’s why our country is in the mess it is in. We do need new and better leaders than we have gotten. We know they will not be coming from the Ivies, which teach our students that money is more important than anything else. So where are they going to come from? My guess is its already too late for the US.</p>
<p>However, the narrowness or broadness of the spectrum of students does differ by state. California’s 32 public universities tend to serve much narrower ranges of students than Arizona’s 3 public universities, for example. That affects public perception and prestige. Berkeley is more prestigious than Arizona State because the worst students at Berkeley are much better than the worst students at Arizona State (counting only regular admits, not special admits like recruited athletes at each school). But many of the CSUs which are more selective at the low end than Arizona State have little or no prestige in comparison to Arizona State because they have fewer of the top end students.</p>
<p>Of course, whether the prestige actually matters depends on the student and his/her career goals.</p>
<p>I agree about the overlap. The tier terms I used were meant to divide the schools based on what each is best at teaching. There are publics that offer an education for gifted students on par with the Ivies but they may have only a few hundred students out of thousands learning at the level. Those same schools would be overwhelmed if they had to provide a similarly enriched program if instruction to a couple thousand gifted students.</p>
<p>So the there is no inherent deficiencies with the schools or the students. It’s just that each school is best equipped and designed for a niche market but I agree that no school is limited to that niche or incapable of teaching kids outside of that niche.</p>
<p>But some of them do have many students at “Harvard level”. University of Texas probably has an “embedded Harvard” in terms of its students (i.e. the top quarter of the University of Michigan students likely have academic credentials similar to Harvard students).</p>
<p>Also, not all Harvard courses are super-rigorous or enriched like Math 55a-55b. Harvard offers Math Ma-Mb, which is like a high school AP calculus AB pace frosh calculus (Math Ma-Mb is equivalent to Math 1a, the normal first semester frosh calculus course for those with no previous calculus).</p>
<p>nolaw, I’m not sure we’d agree on how to define “exceptional,” but I’ve got an “exceptional” kid (if you go by SAT percentiles) and his odds are slim to none that he’d be admitted to any Ivy League school next year, even though he’s a legacy at one. The competition is just too fierce for those few spots, but go head and tell yourself that your kid is “probably bright enough” to go to one if he wanted to. Why do you even care? And why are you stereotyping kids who attend Ivy League schools as all being one in the same? </p>
<p>There are plenty of great options out there, although few that offer the need-based financial aid that the Ivies do. For MANY students, attending an Ivy, IF admission has been offered, is a less expensive option than attending the “Flagship State School.” For a family making under $100k a year, Penn is likely more affordable than Penn State. It’s a mistake to make broad generalizations about these things. Speaking of which…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, do share all those “objective” measures!</p>
<p>JHS – Do I detect a note of hostility in your response? isn’t that usually the result of having to defend a position or (in this case) an entity that one holds most dear – like religion? Is Ivydom the new religion then?! Please do tell.</p>
<p>As you may know, football is the religion in Texas, but I didn’t fall for that one either…</p>
<p>As for my “resentment”. The only thing I resent is the preposterous view that the Ivys were, are and always will be the top of the heap – irrespective of the strides made by many other colleges, a good number of which are giving the Ivys a real run for their money.</p>
<p>I agree. However, nobody can say that all these schools are the same. I don’t think that only eight schools own the market in top talent. When I say Ivies, I usually have a number of non-Ivies in mind that I think are on par with the Ivies.</p>
<p>But, the schools do clearly cater to separate segments of higher education consumers. I don’t think there is any disagreement there. And yes you can go to UT or Rutgers or a number of schools with programs catering to gifted students but those schools are still not schools for gifted students. </p>
<p>Just like my Marriott Hotel has a rewards programs that offers a higher level of service and catering to frequent, high spending customers but its still not a Ritz Carlton which caters specifically to that clientele.</p>
<p>You’re just repeating the false assumptions and perceptions that I’ve been railing against. BTW, I’m not comparing Ivies to publics. Although there are some very good publics, I find that comparison to be extreme. If your point is valid, you shouldn’t have to pick universities with stark differences in socioeconomic populations. I’m talking about comparisons like Cornell versus RPI, not Cornell versus Suffolk Community College. If you’re going to get extreme, we may as well go all the way and pick a community college. </p>
<p>Your success claims are not limited to the Ivy League. Plenty of colleges have equal or better job placement stats and at equal or better pay. If these recognized “elite schools” (again, not limited to Ivies) really offered the advantages many people believe they do, the stats would scream their superiority. Instead, they get “lost in the sauce”, showing no clear advantage over lesser known schools.</p>
<p>This data can be found right from the university websites. Most of them make it pretty easy to see their placement rates and starting salary data. Again, I’m not talking about comparing Ivies to public schools. </p>
<p>This data needs to be part of any ranking system.</p>
<p>As for the graduation rate…
I haven’t done the research, so I can’t disagree with you claim of higher graduation rates. But I am inclined to believe there should be a coorelation between a school’s exclusivity, and possibly it’s expense, and graduation rate of freshmen. I don’t think it has anything to do with the school, rather the student body who applies. Again, it is my premise these kids apply because of a propaganda machine which constantly reinforces, without offering any substantive statistical support, the idea that particular universities will be their personal escalator to the heavens.</p>
<p>In addition of the problems associated with self-reporting (think that according to the SAT questionnaire, the percentage of students who score below a B is extremely small) the methodology would be inherently flawed. </p>
<p>How would you compare pre-professional majors who start working immediately to liberal art majors who might embark on a decade of graduate studies? Would you have data at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, or more for your “ranking.” How would you compare the UT Texas accounting major who joins KPMG to a Yale student who starts stints at the Peace Corps or TFA for a few years before going to HLS, and snagging a plum job at a tony law firm? How do you compare the engineers at a startup to their … sales team? The engineer might be a Stanford grad and the star sales “dewd” might be a year short of graduating from a Junior College in CA! </p>
<p>How do you “rank” the LAC major who goes on to graduate school at a most selective school? If the schools were Whitman and Stanford Law, which one gets the “credit” for the 200,000 associate salary? </p>
<p>All in all, those salaries comparisons are just unadulterated horse manure.</p>
<p>nolawnow – I don’t know what ivy league school you went to, but here at Harvard no one is teaching us that “money is more important than anything else”.</p>
<p>minor point here, but ucb the Ma-Mb sequence isn’t equivalent to 1a. There is overlap, though.</p>
<p>Marriott owns Ritz Carlton among others, so you can have your choice of hotel on where to acquire and spend your Marriott rewards. For a college analogy, the Marriott company is more like a broad-range college that serves the entire range like Arizona State, while any given Marriott brand is more like a narrow-range college like Harvard or CSU Fullerton.
[Hotel</a> Brands | View All Marriott Hotel Brands](<a href=“http://www.marriott.com/marriott-brands.mi]Hotel”>Our Hotel Brands | Luxury, Premium, Select & More | Marriott Bonvoy)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, post-graduation outcome surveys are not that commonly found on college web sites, and many of them do not differentiate students by major. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/15518814-post51.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/15518814-post51.html</a> lists some that do differentiate by major, though the level of detail varies, and survey and reporting methodology differences mean that one needs to exercise appropriate caution when comparing between schools. Many other well known schools have nothing of the sort at all on their web sites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is different? The course description for Mb says that it is preparation for 1b.</p>
<p>LOL. I will say that those schools (Ivy) are different than they were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The colleges themselves changed themselves when they determined their mission was to educate the best and brightest irrespective of financial need. Yes, collectively, they are great colleges and while they at one time were fairly homogenous and filled with 'rich kids" now they are homogenous in a different way and filled with high school academic superstars of all backgrounds. The thing that has stood the test of time is the brand names…which are still awe inspiring to students and parents who attend. That is a powerful thing.</p>
<p>Is it that much different? Vance Packard wrote in *The Status Seekers<a href=“1959”>/i</a> that HYP admitted students from both the SES-elite prep schools (which were not necessarily academically elite at the time; many of those students were content with “gentlemen’s C” grades in college) and top students from the public schools (who generally turned into more motivated students in college). They had concern about balancing the need to maintain academic eliteness while keeping the donations flowing from the SES-elite.</p>
<p>While the balance has tipped somewhat more toward academics over the decades, and the SES-elite prep schools have themselves increased emphasis on academics, the same concerns exist today, with respect to legacies, developmental admits, etc…</p>
<p>The M sequence is an integrated sequence for students in the middle ground of being comfortable with calculus and precalculus (that’s where the overlap occurs with 1a). 1b is also “preparation” for 21b, and some people take 21a/b out of sequence. “Solid preparation” means you can go out of sequence with a little extra effort in learning concepts you may have missed by skipping (as is the case with 21a/b).</p>
<p>He says in his alum interview [VIRES</a> - Ten Questions - Florida State University](<a href=“Error”>Error) that all three kids attended. He loves that he could both visit them and go to football games. :)</p>
<p>The discussion here has veered off from both the original Yahoo article (going to state school is much cheaper and therefore will give better ROI) and the FSU grad’s POV (very proud of having succeeded, love(d) FSU). Par for the CC course. ;)</p>
<p>Entirely agree with xiggi about the futility of any kind of rankings system.</p>
<p>The rankings system only has the power that you assign to it. 95% of college bound students make decisions without consulting rankings at all, or only minimally. They provide useful data, but anyone with the slightest amount of critical thinking skills thinks about the data holistically or in bands of quality, not the #5-vs-#10 distinction. People who are stupid enough to act as though #5 and #10 are meaningfully different deserve all the angst they get.</p>
</p>