When will people realize that state flagships can be better than the Ivy League?

<p>I am dismayed at the mean-spirited remarks made about those whose kids attend an Ivy or other prestigious school instead of a public school. Menloparkmom, your repeated assertion that it is all for prestige and window-dressing is insulting in the extreme. I gather that your kid is academic perfection personified and that he blows all others out of the water and that you are happy with the route he has taken. Good for you. No need to denigrate others.</p>

<p>Among the many things that are forgotten:</p>

<p>1) Many, if not most of us do not live in states with flagships of the caliber of Virginia, Michigan, or California. For the rest of us, especially those with significant need, the cost of attending one of those flagships will likely be several times the cost of attending an Ivy or other private with deep pockets. My S didn’t even bother to apply to one of them, because we couldn’t AFFORD to.
2) Not every brilliant kid is interested in a science/math/engineering career. The intellectual caliber of one’s classmates and the EARLY availability of reasonably small discussion-oriented classes makes a BIG difference in the quality of the educational experience in the humanities, for example.
3) The idea that all graduate programs are fully paid is simply false.
4) I see that according to the data posted by gourmetmom over 60% of students at Brown get FA, yet people persist in telling her that her D simply COULD NOT have floormates most of whom need to watch their money. I have to shake my head. </p>

<p>Lastly, shoot me if I ever open one of these *****y, sour grapes, Ivy-bashing threads again. Well of course the U of KY is superior to Princeton!</p>

<p>

I don’t either. But OOS merit scholarships can make many state universities a bargain compared to their private peers for full-pay students.

[Honors</a> Courses & Tutoring - University Honors Program](<a href=“http://www.honors.umn.edu/experiences/courses-and-tutoring/]Honors”>http://www.honors.umn.edu/experiences/courses-and-tutoring/)</p>

<p>This is a fairly standard array of honors seminars and courses intended to replace standard intro-level lectures.</p>

<p>I’m not personally familiar with the structure of most curricula in the humanities, so I can’t necessarily comment any further. I will grant that networking opportunities may be more important for students in non-professional majors who are not pre-professional either.

Who are these “people”, exactly? My position has been very clear from the start, and I think this issue was resolved on the last page.</p>

<p>“the notion that parents want to send their kids to privates so they can hobnob or hook up with other elites is ridiculous.”
Good luck trying to convince some of the parents at my son’s private HS , or parents at many other wealthy private HS’s, or expensive prep boarding schools of that, lol! They wouldn’t DREAM of sending their kids to just ANY college… For many wealthy or alumni parents, it’s Ivy or bust and they do what ever they can to see that it happens…</p>

<p>The thing that is really silly about threads like this, especially on CC, is that when we talk about kids going to an Ivy or choosing a flagship, we are essentially discussing academic achievers who really would do well anywhere. They bring that with them. They will find profs who fall in love with this about them at schools where the profs also have to teach other types of students, ie state schools, and will benefit from that. They will find profs who are ready to be in love with all of their students at the Ivy’s just by the selection process of the class.</p>

<p>The truth is that kids like this can’t really go wrong. They should go where they can afford to go and get the best available education they can get. If that is Harvard or MIT or Stanford, awesome. If it’s the closest directional university because they have to stay at home and “help” with the finances? That kid will find a way up and out.</p>

<p>But, with rare exceptions, nobody really believes an education at Wisconsin has as many phenomenal opportunities as one at Williams or Princeton. Nobody really believes a kid who goes to UCLA is going to get the same time and attention as the one who goes to Brown or Amherst. </p>

<p>It’s just that if this is the best financial value, they CAN leverage that education for themselves. It just takes more focus and initiative. The best students, and I mean students, not just intelligence, will find a way to do well wherever they are. </p>

<p>Even Kentucky. Though you KNOW that kid would rather be at Cornell.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, well, mostly they can’t actually do that much, anymore. The number of legacy’s students who get turned down at these places is pretty high, or the polite wait list. The endowments are big enough, now, that the legacies have managed to donate themselves right out of being preffed.</p>

<p>Consolation, your post #201 is well-written.</p>

<p>We also live in a state whose state university system is chronically underfunded, and overshadowed by big-name private universities. If we lived in Michigan, Texas, NC, VA, CA, or a few other states I’d have encouraged my kids to go to the flagship. As it is, I made them CONSIDER & tour our flagship. One applied, one did not, and both chose to go elsewhere. I know plenty of kids who do go there, some of whom are taking advantage of all their university has to offer and are getting great educations (and some of whom are sliding by, which is their own choice).</p>

<p>I also know kids at highly selective privates. They are also getting great educations.</p>

<p>Stereotyping anyone - public univ kids (Placedo’s ignorant and prejudicial East Bumblebutt comment), Ivy kids, or anyone else - shows major ignorance on the part of the person who puts that stereotype out there.</p>

<p>I think the reason for the Ivy-bashing is partially sour grapes. But it’s also an attempt to to contradict the impression that many CC’rs seem to have, which is that life is OVER if they or their kid don’t get into an Ivy. For some kids, the state flagship IS a better option - based on finances, or their major, or whatever. </p>

<p>When I was a senior in hs, Princeton actually called ME to ask if I wanted to apply. I said no. Why? I was afraid that everyone there would be super-smart and super-rich and I wouldn’t fit in. Instead I went to Lafayette and graduated magna cum laude, and met a lot of really smart kids and kids whose families had a lot of money. NOW of course I realize that NOT everyone at Princeton was super-rich, and I could have held my own academically. But stereotypes scared me off.</p>

<p>“Menloparkmom, your repeated assertion that it is all for prestige and window-dressing is insulting in the extreme”
Where did I say it is ALL for prestige or window dressing???
“No need to denigrate others”
where did I do that? all I was pointing out, to some who questioned my son’s strategy, that there are other ways to achieve academic goals if paying big $$ for a UG private college is out of the question. In fact, some were denigrating my son’s choices. " why go to any IVY for grad? Why not stay at UG? Why wasn’t UG college good enough for him", etc, etc…</p>

<p>For those who have the $$ to pay $$$$$$$ for an Ivy education, lucky you. </p>

<p>“The idea that all graduate programs are fully paid is simply false.”
Huh???</p>

<p>I don’t know who that was directed at but no one said that ALL graduate programs are fully paid! MOST students accepted into STEM Phd programs have their tuition waived and a stipend paid to them so they don’t starve while studying and doing research for 5+ years. Most students in Masters programs have to pay full tuition costs, as they weren’t accepted with the stipulation or understanding that they are committing to do years of research for Grad school professors in exchange for their tuition costs being waived. MD, MBA and Law programs are very expensive- $40K+ per year, and very few students have their costs waived to those programs.
I suggest you read a lot more carefully next time before you make sweeping statements.
And you should take your own advise and not open up a thread that obviously pushes so many of your own hot buttons… sheesh.</p>

<p>I could quote you and others, menloparkmom, but I’m not going to waste my time scrolling through the thread. Feel free to do so yourself. </p>

<p>Your resentment of those you perceive as pretentious and privileged seem to have led you to miss part of the point, again. MANY students at Ivies have SUBSTANTIAL financial aid and COULD NOT afford it otherwise. Some–including my own kid–could not have afforded to go to UVA, U Mich, Cal, or any of the other great public universities.</p>

<p>My reading is quite careful, thank you very much.</p>

<p>This is an interesting mish-mash of a thread. We have some insults and stereotyping amidst some good information (or vice versa)! I found these points from noimagination helpful, as I hadn’t fully considered the first and was unaware of the second:</p>

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>I particularly appreciate well-reasoned comments as my D is interested in science or math (although probably not engineering), has an acceptance from UNC-CH (instate), a likely from UVa. and acceptances from two small private colleges, and is waiting for results from two reach colleges. This thread may or may not become very relevant in the next few weeks!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ahhh- Most haven’t heard of Cornell. 99% of the Kentucky students did not consider any place else. They were born with Kentucky blue in their blood. They were obnoxious fans by age 3. :)</p>

<p>noimagination-</p>

<p>“There is much less emphasis on one’s research interests in undergrad. Realistically, most people won’t even have much of a clue of what those research interests are until late in their UG studies. So, there isn’t as much of a need to focus on a specific advisor who can help advance one’s research…”</p>

<p>There is a lot of emphasis on research in undergrad at elite universities. Since you mentioned MIT vs. UK, 85% of MIT undergraduate students have engaged in some kind of research before they graduate. It is precisely because the early undergraduate career is the time to explore and pinpoint interest that you need knowledgeable, experienced advisors who can help you head in the right direction. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good! Somehow I got the impression that this whole thread is the attempt of several posters to assert that public Us are “better”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There is nothing surprising about that, considering that financial status also correlates to academic achievement and low-income students or students of minority groups tend not to see elite private colleges as an option in the first place, even though those top private colleges would provide enough financial aid to make its education more affordable than that of the state publics.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Another stereotype about people choosing “Ivy education”. The majority of American families would not have to pay more for Harvard than they do for their in-state public. Families that do not qualify for financial aid make on average >$200,000 per year, so it comes down to whether they’re willing to sacrifice less than a quarter of their annual income to fund their children’s housing, board, and tuition. For some who may have extraneous circumstances or have the privileged option of a good in-state public or merit scholarship offer, they may find the other option to be a better match for their family, but that doesn’t mean choosing the elite university would mean a huge financial sacrifice for every family.</p>

<p>“MANY students at Ivies have SUBSTANTIAL financial aid and COULD NOT afford it otherwise. Some–including my own kid–could not have afforded to go to UVA, U Mich, Cal, or any of the other great public universities.”
And they are lucky indeed. What you many not know, or care about, but it is the basis of some of my posts, is that 5 years ago, when my son was accepted at 2 Ivy’s, and 10 other top colleges, the terrific FA programs of today were not in existence . This was before HYS instituted their generous programs, which had a ripple effect on other wealthy colleges, who followed suit. Those whose kids began college after 2006 have in many cases been blessed with the existence of far more generous FA programs than when my son started college. In, addition, because both me and my Hubby are self employed, the rules and policies of FA offices treated our income and legitimate deductions as suspect[ Curmudgeon’s and our families shared many of the same “problems” as many self employed still do when trying to deal with FA officers, and his DD also chose to follow the money] .
DS had to make a choice because, it turned out that we could not afford to pay what it would have cost us to send him to most of the private colleges he had been accepted at.
Instead he chose a full tuition merit award at a big U, which in another thread, I had called the “safety that 6 years ago I had never dreamed he would go to”.
My posts have been an effort to show that for SOME students who DO have a choice between going to a more costly, private, elite UG college and a less prestigious, and less costly big U’s, because of merit scholarships aimed at attracting top students, the outcome as far as grad school acceptances can be the same. That is all. For those whom the cost of an education at an elite private college IS more affordable, as it was not and still is not for too in the middle class- count your blessings- not all are so lucky.</p>

<p>Just to reiterate a point already made…for those who do NOT qualify for any type of FA at ANY school (as was our case), paying OOS tuition/room and board at one of the elite publics is still more economical than the elite privates. It can add up to 50K+ over the four years. That’s a pretty considerable chunk of change.</p>

<p>

That doesn’t contradict anything I said. Most state flagships have enough qualified faculty to provide some exposure to most research areas. That isn’t necessarily sufficient for grad school, where advisors must be able to help the student focus on very specific research interests and actually produce results.

My argument is twofold: a) it is often impossible to say that the public or private U is “better” and b) we should therefore approach the situation from a fully rational ROI perspective.

Exactly right.

Not quite. It may be true that “the majority of American families would not have to pay more for Harvard than they do for their in-state public”. However, the majority of American families do not have a child admitted to Harvard! Let’s take a closer look:</p>

<p>81% of incoming Harvard freshmen receive some sort of aid. However, this includes federal work study and loans. 66% of the incoming freshmen receive grant or scholarship aid, with an average amount of ~$34k. The COA is ~$54k this year, so that leaves about $20k. This is about the COA for many state flagships without any aid at all. Then, of course, there are the 30%+ who don’t get grant aid at all. For them, the cost is much higher as they must shoulder the whole COA.</p>

<p>Some comments:
-It would be difficult to make the claim that the public flagship is “better” than the private elite university. Certainly, the overall strength of student body is better at the private university. A student also might encounter fewer adverse educational factors at the private university than at the public university, e.g., difficulty getting into needed/desired courses, bureaucracy, larger classes, less access to faculty, fewer opportunities or more competition for research/internship slots, a greater number of less motivated and less qualified students, etc. So, when a top student attends a public university it often is a trade-off between lower cost vs. greater likelihood of those sort of adverse educational factors. It becomes necessary to mitigate those factors, and that is what programs like honors colleges are designed to do. The extent to which these factors are mitigated successfully varies a good deal across different schools and varies according to a particular student’s ability to seek out his own opportunities. Clearly, it takes less effort to get what you need at a private elite university.
-While it is difficult to make the claim that the public flagship is “better”, you cannot assume that the teaching quality for undergraduates is necessarily better at a private elite university.
-You also cannot assume that the public university is necessarily worse. In many instances, you will find there is relatively little difference in educational quality. In certain fields, e.g., classics or Slavic languages, departments at public universities will be relatively small and attract very self-selected motivated students. Across a range of disciplines, a public university often has a much stronger faculty than you will find in comparable departments at many private elite universities. Except for a handful of private elite universities that are highly rated in almost every discipline, you cannot assume that just because a particular school is an Ivy or otherwise highly ranked on USNWR that it is strong across all disciplines. Quite often, in most disciplines, there are a fair number of departments at public universities that are ranked higher, and this is not just limited to departments at the so-called “public Ivies”. Quite often, the quality of departments at many private elite universities actually is fairly uneven.<br>
-I have a hard time believing that a top student at a flagship public university who majors in psychology, for example, is necessarily any less well-trained than a student an elite private university. The same goes for most disciplines. And, yes, this includes the humanities. One poster commented that within it’s more more than a matter of just conveying content to students, implying that at a private university professors are more likely to engage their students in critical thinking about the methods, theories and controversies in their disciplines. This is a ridiculous comment, of course, as though public universities are all about lecturing and rote memorization, but private universities are all about discussion and higher-order thinking.
-For some programs/departments at public universities, e.g., engineering, it actually would be a reasonable claim that the public university is better than all but a handful of private elite universities.
-Apart from a student’s major, it also would be difficult to make the claim that a private elite university necessarily offers a better general education than a public university without being able to cite specific differences that support that claim.
-On this forum, the frame of reference of some posters seems to be the tippy-top universities, whenever the term “elite” or private university is used. So, in their minds, it becomes a comparison between the Harvards or Princetons or MITs vs. the random public flagship university. In almost all cases, however, those are not the choices under consideration. Rather, it more likely to be a matter of Vanderbilt or Emory or Rice or Boston College or USC vs. a public flagship. On the other hand, other posters seem to have the assumption that the a only valid comparisons with a private university would have to involve one of the so-called “public Ivy” flagships, e.g., North Carolina, Michigan, et al. Well, the fact of the matter is that for many major fields, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio State, and yes, Kansas State, are fully credible options, too.
-It’s a good thing for these discussions to occur on this forum. I think it’s important for prospective students and their families to realize that public universities are a viable option in many cases for academic as well as financial reasons. I see a fair number of posts on this forum from students who are about to go deeply into debt to attend private schools (including some relatively mediocre ones) based on their erroneous beliefs that their future career prospects are doomed or that their education necessarily will be second-rate if they attend a public university. Unfortunately, it seems that the negative view of public universities is more prevalent in parts of the Northeast, and, these views adversely skew the college choices of many students who may not realize the many great options available outside their region, often at lower cost.
-Making these kinds of comparisons doesn’t mean it’s a matter of “sour grapes” or “Ivy-bashing”. Apparently, such comparisons are a bit too challenging to some posters’ unquestioned assumptions about public universities, imho. (And remember, realistically, the option that most students have to consider is not a comparison of tippy-top outliers, like Harvard or Princeton, vs. a Kentucky or Tennessee.)
-One previous poster mentioned the potential de-motivating effects some serious students might experience in the face of the drinking and fraternity culture prevalent at some public universities. While that is a factor to consider, a serious student certainly can find other social niches at a large university. In my view, I’d find the greater number of social choices available in a larger, more diverse setting preferable to the limited choices in a private school setting like Hamilton, or Colgate with their pervasive drinking cultures or the strong fraternity culture of a Vanderbilt.</p>

<p>^ Excellent post. I don’t agree with everything, but overall very good points.</p>

<p>“-One previous poster mentioned the potential de-motivating effects some serious students might experience in the face of the drinking and fraternity culture prevalent at some public universities. While that is a factor to consider, a serious student certainly can find other social niches at a large university. In my view, I’d find the greater number of social choices available in a larger, more diverse setting preferable to the limited choices in a private school setting like Hamilton, or Colgate with their pervasive drinking cultures or the strong fraternity culture of a Vanderbilt.”</p>

<p>How do you define pervasive drinking cultures?</p>

<p>

That was my comment, and I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. I was responding to the much-repeated idea that the “content” and the “curriculum” and the “information to be learned” is the same at all colleges. My point was that in many disciplines it’s not about content, but about critical thinking, analysis, and writing. The better the faculty is, the better you learn how to do those things, and in my opinion, the better the students are, the better you learn as well. It could be that many classes at the flagship are just as good in this regard–especially if they are in the honors college–but I’m not persuaded that this is the case.</p>

<p>^ I agree. Like it or not, the best faculty tend to flock to the elite universities and so do the best students. And believe it or not, the faculty at these universities do like to teach undergraduates because these undergrads are really smart and driven, and in some departments, often more so than the graduate students. Net result- students at these colleges have an abundance of opportunities where they can learn from great teachers alongside great peers. Just makes for a wonderful learning experience.</p>

<p>I’m not sure if state flagships can (or should) re-create that type of environment. It seems to me that is not their principal mission.</p>

<p>Having said that, I must clarify that I do not think it is necessary to go to an elite university to get a great education, nor is it sufficient that someone from such a university has taken full advantage of these opportunities.</p>

<p>vicariousparent, my Ivy educated brother in law has taught at both a state flagship AND an elite private. Not uncommon.
You might want to google Liviu Librescu. That’s about the best as they come and pretty elite in my book.</p>