Big state schools - lot of fun, great networks, but do you really learn there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether Emory University or Williams College offers the better education depends upon the particular student and the particular course of study. My first thought is that the intellectual firepower is greater at Emory, but that the well rounded student is more prevalent at athletically inclined Williams College.

Kids I know heading to Emory this year would NEVER get into Williams.

Williams had a 30% acceptance rate for ED. Does not seem so selective.

The ED pool is full of pre-vetted recruited athletes who are all academically qualified. Williams is very selective and its hard numbers put them right in the middle of the Ivies.

[Anonymous]

"The ED pool is full of pre-vetted recruited athletes who are all academically qualified."

Whats the source for this or you just saying this?

[Anonymous]

STEM is generally very difficult at big state U. The large calculus and chemistry classes are known to weed out students. Engineering is incredibly difficult. More students are admitted and given a chance, but end up changing majors. No gentlemen’s C in organic chemistry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:STEM is generally very difficult at big state U. The large calculus and chemistry classes are known to weed out students. Engineering is incredibly difficult. More students are admitted and given a chance, but end up changing majors. No gentlemen’s C in organic chemistry.

But but larla took "Viewing Greek Mythology Through the Eyes of a Black Revolutionary" at her SLAC. It must be wayyyy more intensive than just some state school class!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. So the consensus is, the education is just as intensive as smaller colleges, except there is more variety, more opportunity and it's more fun?

No, the consensus is that LACs are a continuation of high school with lots of hand holding, while big state schools require independence and initiative. Big state publics offer a greater variety of opportunities than do tiny schools.

Got it. Totally getting a richer educational experience at Indiana versus Williams. Lol, Hoosier daddy?

No. Williams College is an exceptional school. Indiana University offers a myriad of opportunities and has a very large honors college. Elite private national Universities are superior to both, however.

I graduated from a top-10 private national U full of brilliant faculty who did their best to limit time spent with undergrads. Lower level courses were large and taught mostly in sections by grad students, many of whom struggled with English.
My son had a far, far superior experience at Amherst. The teaching quality was much higher, and the focus was on undergraduates.

That would stand to reason since Amherst doesn't really have grad students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. So the consensus is, the education is just as intensive as smaller colleges, except there is more variety, more opportunity and it's more fun?

No, the consensus is that LACs are a continuation of high school with lots of hand holding, while big state schools require independence and initiative. Big state publics offer a greater variety of opportunities than do tiny schools.

Pretty sure you have no experience with LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether Emory University or Williams College offers the better education depends upon the particular student and the particular course of study. My first thought is that the intellectual firepower is greater at Emory, but that the well rounded student is more prevalent at athletically inclined Williams College.

Kids I know heading to Emory this year would NEVER get into Williams.

Williams had a 30% acceptance rate for ED. Does not seem so selective.

40% of the student body at Williams are recruited athletes. Back those numbers out of their ED and try again. Then do the same for Emory assuming you can estimate the percent of recruited athletes there.. That’ll give you a better comparison.

And no, I have no idea what the result will be. But I am interested.

The co-valedictorian when I graduated from Williams was a student athlete (ice hockey). Williams has the same number of teams as a U of A but with a much smaller student body so it stands to reason a higher proportion of its student body would be comprised of athletes. What point are you trying to make about student athletes?

It’s more like 30 pct but the academic standards are very high for them as other posts here indicate. Much higher than D1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. So the consensus is, the education is just as intensive as smaller colleges, except there is more variety, more opportunity and it's more fun?

No, the consensus is that LACs are a continuation of high school with lots of hand holding, while big state schools require independence and initiative. Big state publics offer a greater variety of opportunities than do tiny schools.

Got it. Totally getting a richer educational experience at Indiana versus Williams. Lol, Hoosier daddy?

No. Williams College is an exceptional school. Indiana University offers a myriad of opportunities and has a very large honors college. Elite private national Universities are superior to both, however.

I graduated from a top-10 private national U full of brilliant faculty who did their best to limit time spent with undergrads. Lower level courses were large and taught mostly in sections by grad students, many of whom struggled with English.
My son had a far, far superior experience at Amherst. The teaching quality was much higher, and the focus was on undergraduates.

That would stand to reason since Amherst doesn't really have grad students.

That is exactly the point. Also relates to Ivy League schools known for teaching excellence like Princeton and Dartmouth with limited graduate programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking genuinely. They just seem so large and impersonal. The credential may be great but is the educational experience comparable to what one might have at a top private school? I attended a midsized elite private and suspect the educational experience I had is more similar to a smaller LAC. But when you go to Michigan or Florida or Wisconsin, is anyone really cultivating your abilities? Evaluating your written work carefully? Small seminars? Or is it more like watching good Ted talks and then handing something in (and then getting an A because most of the kids are in staters producing high school level work). Interested in perspectives on this from state u grads.

Sorry, OP. When your idiotic bias is front and center, as yours clearly is, I have no interest in wasting my time with a substantive answer. Frankly, you don’t deserve one.

Ok, this is my experience. I was staying with my friend at prestigious state u and he paid me $50 in the 1990s to write a paper for him. I cranked it out in an hour and he got an A+. It was B- ish work at Ivy League. Ever since then I’ve tended to think state u was bs.

So you helped someone cheat, and YOU have the moral high ground? You are not a good person, OP.

I never claimed I was a good person. I am just curious if I send my kid to state u will he have the same kind of intellectual growth experience I did, with professors giving me direct feedback on my papers, etc. I want my kid to have a good credential but it won’t be bad either if he grew along the way.

I went to a regional state college and had small classes, relationships with professors and a lot of fantastic feedback on my work. So it’s not just expensive LAC that provide that experience. LAC typically are just what I had… plus a wealthy and connected student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. So the consensus is, the education is just as intensive as smaller colleges, except there is more variety, more opportunity and it's more fun?

No, the consensus is that LACs are a continuation of high school with lots of hand holding, while big state schools require independence and initiative. Big state publics offer a greater variety of opportunities than do tiny schools.

Pretty sure you have no experience with LACs.

I went to a great LAC. For everything past 100 level classes, professors knew my name and at least pretended to care. The school catered dinners hosted at professors' homes for students in seminar classes and majors. When I missed a week of classes after a death in the family, professors reached out. The best research opportunity that I got was the result of a professor reaching out to me and not the other way around. I consider it getting my money's worth, but it's as far away as sink or swim as you can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. So the consensus is, the education is just as intensive as smaller colleges, except there is more variety, more opportunity and it's more fun?

No, the consensus is that LACs are a continuation of high school with lots of hand holding, while big state schools require independence and initiative. Big state publics offer a greater variety of opportunities than do tiny schools.

Pretty sure you have no experience with LACs.

And I am "pretty sure" that I do.

[Anonymous]

I, on the other hand, am 'pretty sure' that the lac zealots have little to no experience with the National Universities based on their posts.

[Anonymous]

Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether Emory University or Williams College offers the better education depends upon the particular student and the particular course of study. My first thought is that the intellectual firepower is greater at Emory, but that the well rounded student is more prevalent at athletically inclined Williams College.

Kids I know heading to Emory this year would NEVER get into Williams.

Now why are you lying? I know Williams Scholarship winners that chose Emory instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether Emory University or Williams College offers the better education depends upon the particular student and the particular course of study. My first thought is that the intellectual firepower is greater at Emory, but that the well rounded student is more prevalent at athletically inclined Williams College.

Kids I know heading to Emory this year would NEVER get into Williams.

Williams had a 30% acceptance rate for ED. Does not seem so selective.

Emory University admitted its first members of the Class of 2027 on Dec. 14 with a 31% acceptance rate for the Emory College of Arts and Sciences (ECAS). In total, 722 Early Decision I (ED1) students were admitted to ECAS and 353 students to Oxford College, according to Associate Vice Provost and Dean of Admission John Latting.

Emory ED2 is 12%. And all you're proving is that both schools are equally as selective.
https://emorywheel.com/emory-admits-245-more-students-to-class-of-2027-in-ed2-garnering-a-12-acceptance-rate/