Why a Large Flagship/Public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:State schools aren't for everyone. If you came from a sheltered, small private school, the rough & tumble of the wider world is going to be a little jarring.

Ah yes, we all know the true point of college is to go get treated like crap by Ivory Tower bureaucrats, "taught" by foreign GAs who can't speak coherent English, binge drink and do drugs and wake up without panties on and forget how it happened, and stop attending classes for weeks or months and literally nobody notices. The rough and tumble #RealWorld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended a LAC while the majority of my HS classmates (who enrolled in college; the majority did not) attended the two large unis in our state or one of the five regionals. Many returned to our hometown, landed jobs, married, had kids, were active in the local schools, took care of their parents as they aged, and are now grandparents themselves. While my life pretty much doesn't resemble theirs in many ways, I just don't get the vitriol here. It is certainly great for our hometown that folks return, pay taxes, and plow money back into the community. It's not necessarily what I sought in life, but I don't begrudge them for it.

Ditto. Why do people think it's so awful to be attached to your family, friends and community? I did move across the country in my 20s but regret that a bit now that I'm in my 50s and spend as much time as I can going back to my home state to see family and see how some old college friends have been able to have long, close relationships in the friend group I'm no longer a part of.

They don't. Well, I certainly do not think this way. But the argument of public univ. vs. private is not about that, at all. It is wonderful to be connected to your community of origin. I know I am. But I also went away for college from said community where I was exposed to different types of people, backgrounds, regional cultures, traditions etc. etc. College should be about growth both inside the classroom but also inside the dorms and student centers and, well, you get the idea. It is wonderful to have a strong connection to one's family and hometown community but to have that in a vacumn without being also at one point exposed to different types of people, customs and places just does not seem ideal to me.

Everyone screams that they want diversity. Diversity can be racial but it is alot of things. Won't you get more diversity by going to school farther from home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State schools aren't for everyone. If you came from a sheltered, small private school, the rough & tumble of the wider world is going to be a little jarring.

Better to have that in college than go to a sheltering college and then face reality after.

Why? You will likely have matured by 21 and have the armour of strong self esteem (due to the community leadership positions and nurturing enjoyed at the LAC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended a LAC while the majority of my HS classmates (who enrolled in college; the majority did not) attended the two large unis in our state or one of the five regionals. Many returned to our hometown, landed jobs, married, had kids, were active in the local schools, took care of their parents as they aged, and are now grandparents themselves. While my life pretty much doesn't resemble theirs in many ways, I just don't get the vitriol here. It is certainly great for our hometown that folks return, pay taxes, and plow money back into the community. It's not necessarily what I sought in life, but I don't begrudge them for it.

Ditto. Why do people think it's so awful to be attached to your family, friends and community? I did move across the country in my 20s but regret that a bit now that I'm in my 50s and spend as much time as I can going back to my home state to see family and see how some old college friends have been able to have long, close relationships in the friend group I'm no longer a part of.

They don't. Well, I certainly do not think this way. But the argument of public univ. vs. private is not about that, at all. It is wonderful to be connected to your community of origin. I know I am. But I also went away for college from said community where I was exposed to different types of people, backgrounds, regional cultures, traditions etc. etc. College should be about growth both inside the classroom but also inside the dorms and student centers and, well, you get the idea. It is wonderful to have a strong connection to one's family and hometown community but to have that in a vacuum without being also at one point exposed to different types of people, customs and places just does not seem ideal to me.

I am the OP of the LAC comment. While I agree with much of the merit of your argument, financing of higher ed in our country does not take it into account. I bet a number of my classmates would have been thrilled to attend schools in other states, but their families' budgets did not permit it. They attended schools where their parents could pay in-state tuition and, if necessary, drive them in one day (one of the regional universities was in our hometown and the bulk of classmates attended that, either living at home or on campus). They attended public universities, so there were a range of people and customs, including full pay and those largely on financial aid. There were children of professionals as well as kids whose parents or grandparents had moved north in the Great Migration. There were also two large area studies centers at our local university, so there were 100s of students from the Middle East and Southeast Asia - that's not including international students from other parts of the world in smaller programs.

Growth doesn't necessarily require distance, but it does need a mind open to change. There is no guarantee a private college or attending school out of state produces that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is attending UVA and not doing well. The only appeal is the in-state tuition.

Sorry to hear this. Do you mean to imply DC is not doing well because of the large, impersonal nature of a state university?

Yes, that environment turned out to be a bad fit for her child. It happens. Why are the public fans so adamant that “their” setting is nirvana for all kids?

I only sense defensiveness coming from that corner, why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is attending UVA and not doing well. The only appeal is the in-state tuition.

Sorry to hear this. Do you mean to imply DC is not doing well because of the large, impersonal nature of a state university?

That's part of it. DC is not mature and socially adept compared to peers. The drinking and frat culture does not suit DC. A lot of students and professors are not cultivating a collegial environment. DC will graduate in 4 years in a marketable major but it's through sheer hard work and mostly working alone. No friends. No internships.

Obviously DC is mostly responsible for his/her own fortune. But the school didn't provide any lift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is attending UVA and not doing well. The only appeal is the in-state tuition.

Sorry to hear this. Do you mean to imply DC is not doing well because of the large, impersonal nature of a state university?

That's part of it. DC is not mature and socially adept compared to peers. The drinking and frat culture does not suit DC. A lot of students and professors are not cultivating a collegial environment. DC will graduate in 4 years in a marketable major but it's through sheer hard work and mostly working alone. No friends. No internships.

Obviously DC is mostly responsible for his/her own fortune. But the school didn't provide any lift.

I am sorry that your DC has not had a good experience in college. The silver lining, though, might be that your child has gained some confidence in knowing they can get through hard things. That in itself is a significant life skill.

[Anonymous]

Maybe (DP here)...but is that really what you seek when you choose your kid's undergrad experience?

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind that public schools vary in size. UVA is 17,000 undergraduates, William and Mary is 6,000, but UMichigan is 30,000. Of course, not all state schools are flagships, but OP might be using it as a proxy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Sure they’re cheaper but the idea of a school where 75% of students come from a single state seems entirely unappealing.”

Especially if that state is one of the tiny ones in the northeastern part of this country.

Not sure that matters

Of course it matters. Texas and California are both huge states with large populations. There is a much larger diversity of students at their state flagships than someone attending the University of Rhode Island.

I attended URI and never ran into high school friends. 15,000 students at URI, 800 at my high school, maybe 5% got into the school and attended.

PP here: and 800 was entire HS, 200 in my class in which 10 were admitted and accepted

That’s because you can drive 25 miles or less and be in a different state. That’s the point.

This is nonsense. I am so happy I live in Mass now, as I don’t miss the “pointedness” of DC, or lack thereof

My comment was in response to the poster who stated that a school which had 75% of its students from one state was unappealing. The URI is 56% instate, which is unusually high for an average public university. California is huge. 85% of UCLA is instate. There is much, much more diversity at UCLA than there is at URI or any state school in the northeast.

Diversity of what, high school friends? Fact is - and back on topic - that state schools aren’t necessarily extensions of high schools. For some it’s a blue proposition (just because it’s further away and costs more doesn’t make it the best choice), for others it’s about flexibility, for others it’s about options after undergrad, etc.

So you agree with the statement, “Sure they’re cheaper but the idea of a school where 75% of students come from a single state seems entirely unappealing..”

No.

Thanks got confirming that you never read why I commented in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Sure they’re cheaper but the idea of a school where 75% of students come from a single state seems entirely unappealing.”

Especially if that state is one of the tiny ones in the northeastern part of this country.

Not sure that matters

Of course it matters. Texas and California are both huge states with large populations. There is a much larger diversity of students at their state flagships than someone attending the University of Rhode Island.

I attended URI and never ran into high school friends. 15,000 students at URI, 800 at my high school, maybe 5% got into the school and attended.

PP here: and 800 was entire HS, 200 in my class in which 10 were admitted and accepted

Feel better, or were your feelings spared?
That’s because you can drive 25 miles or less and be in a different state. That’s the point.

This is nonsense. I am so happy I live in Mass now, as I don’t miss the “pointedness” of DC, or lack thereof

My comment was in response to the poster who stated that a school which had 75% of its students from one state was unappealing. The URI is 56% instate, which is unusually high for an average public university. California is huge. 85% of UCLA is instate. There is much, much more diversity at UCLA than there is at URI or any state school in the northeast.

Diversity of what, high school friends? Fact is - and back on topic - that state schools aren’t necessarily extensions of high schools. For some it’s a blue proposition (just because it’s further away and costs more doesn’t make it the best choice), for others it’s about flexibility, for others it’s about options after undergrad, etc.

So you agree with the statement, “Sure they’re cheaper but the idea of a school where 75% of students come from a single state seems entirely unappealing..”

No.

Thanks got confirming that you never read why I commented in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is attending UVA and not doing well. The only appeal is the in-state tuition.

Sorry to hear this. Do you mean to imply DC is not doing well because of the large, impersonal nature of a state university?

That's part of it. DC is not mature and socially adept compared to peers. The drinking and frat culture does not suit DC. A lot of students and professors are not cultivating a collegial environment. DC will graduate in 4 years in a marketable major but it's through sheer hard work and mostly working alone. No friends. No internships.

Obviously DC is mostly responsible for his/her own fortune. But the school didn't provide any lift.

So why not transfer? There are literally thousands of schools out there, there’s bound to be a better fit. If it needs to be in state, W&M might be a better fit?

There is a serious work hard, party harder culture at UVA. It is not for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is at Michigan. To her, it represents the whole package. Many opportunities, academic and social. Great research to be involved in even as an undergrad. Well respected. Huge alumni network for job opportunities.

She doesn’t like the fierce competition for some classes but she actually said to me, “I took some classes I didn’t think I would like all that much but they turned out to be good. And now I am more interested in X.”

It is true that as a Freshman she could disappear and no one would know. As the kids progress, many of their classes get smaller and it would be much harder to skip classes and such. Even as a sophomore some of her classes like Mandarin had maybe 20 people. She said her Freshman year was the outlier in this respect, and overall academically it was probably the least fun year but most fun socially.

She is very happy with her choice but it’s not for all kids. Other DD is at Colby. Go figure.

Go figure what?

Go figure—even kids from same family and background want totally different things. It happens and some kids want the big state schools even though parents can afford private school, which was one PP’s argument

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State schools aren't for everyone. If you came from a sheltered, small private school, the rough & tumble of the wider world is going to be a little jarring.

Ah yes, we all know the true point of college is to go get treated like crap by Ivory Tower bureaucrats, "taught" by foreign GAs who can't speak coherent English, binge drink and do drugs and wake up without panties on and forget how it happened, and stop attending classes for weeks or months and literally nobody notices. The rough and tumble #RealWorld.

Your comment about TAs is pure jerky thing to say.

[Anonymous]

I posted on the thread about UT Austin. The value of a big school for me was that there was the chance to study ANYTHING I could possible want, get involved with groups I'd never even thought of, tons of internship/study abroad/fellowship opportunities, etc. I felt like I could really customize the experience in a way that I might not have been able to at a smaller school with a more set curriculum. I really enjoyed the big lecture classes. You really got out of them what you put in. Also there were always TA sections and office hours, which I always attended. I took a few smaller seminar classes and sometimes the discussion was good but a lot of it was 20-year-olds trying to sound like they knew what they were talking about, and frankly I heard enough of that all the time I wasn't in class. I would not have enjoyed being in mostly small seminars. But one of my friends went to a tiny liberal arts school and loved it! Different strokes.