Overcrowding/Overenrollment Issues at top tier schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a public school problem.

Boston University and Northeastern University both had to use hotels a couple of years ago because they were overbooked. Not sure if they resolved the problem.

DD is a current student at BU. I don't see any housing issues currently, unless I'm unaware of them. There are some old buildings, but there are plans to remodel them soon.

For me, I'm really happy about the 4-year housing guarantee, so I don't have the pressure of having to find an off-campus apartment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a public school problem.

Boston University and Northeastern University both had to use hotels a couple of years ago because they were overbooked. Not sure if they resolved the problem.

Northeastern had a big increase in yield rate 3-4 years ago.
My kid was in a forced triple for the first year, but then had a nice air-conditioned single room for the past two years.
They leased dorms from WIT which is literally right next to each other and also adding new new buildings.
https://huntnewsnu.com/76391/campus/administration/northeastern-receives-go-ahead-to-build-1370-bed-residence-hall-on-columbus-avenue/

[Anonymous]

Tulane is now requiring incoming students to live on campus for 3 years. They have built a ton of new dorms in the last few year and are currently building more. They are tearing down the old ones and replacing them with modern dorms. It is pretty impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UCs have gotten the most flak but it is pretty easy to find issue with any mega large state school. Take UFlorida. They don’t even guarantee on campus housing to freshman and offer a number of classes, including core business major classes, as online classes. The school actually offers a program to kids not offered regular admission where the entire first year of classes.

The big public classes do a decent job of educating at ton of in state at a relatively low price, Florida schools are often free to students with strong grades. But there are trade offs that often make the oos price unpalatable to some families.

I personally am not aware of similar complaints about Michigan other than it is difficult to be admitted to certain popular majors. Unlike the others, Michigan has a very large percentage oos students so perhaps they have the money and local cost of living that prevents some of these issues.

It's hard to believe OOS parents would opt to pay for this type of 'education' if you can even call it that. We all lived through online schooling during Covid. We all KNOW it is not comparable to being in class with peers. My DC goes to a private and while recorded sessions are an option to view later, Every. Single. Class. has been in person, and taught by a professor, never once in three years has it been a TA.

What is the size of the school where your kid goes? Where do they attend that they don’t have TAs? Name the school.

Some kids need a lot of hand holding and personal attention. Everyone learns differently. Some folks prefer in person, some prefer online, independent book based learning. Some prefer independent research with little instruction to learn. To each his/her own. However, just because you prefer in person, doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.

That said, it is NOT just an OOS issue. IMO. - It is a large university issue. Large private schools use TAs and large lecture formats too. Johns Hopkins has lecture classes of 400+ students and that typically meet 1x week with TAs for discussion.

I've attended very large schools (including UCLA) and TAs don't teach classes. TAs only lead recitations and lab sections, as well as help with grading.

Many schools do use lecturers or adjuncts to teach classes. These folks generally have lower credentials than tenure track professors, though they are often better teachers with more interest in undergrad education. For example, my PhD advisor was a Nobel Laureate and god help any undergrads who had to take his course. He was both uninterested in teaching and incapable of explaining things to non-experts in the field. He's a fabulous scientist, but you'd be much better off with anyone else. Seriously.

TAs do teach classes. USNWR reported on schools with the highest percentage of classes with TAs as the primary instructor.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2017-02-21/10-universities-where-tas-teach-the-most-classes

That report is from 2015.
DP

2017. But good point, Purdue has almost certainly replaced all 26% of classes taught by TAs as the primary instructor with tenure track faculty as the primary instructor since 2017. Same with every single one of the other schools listed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UCs have gotten the most flak but it is pretty easy to find issue with any mega large state school. Take UFlorida. They don’t even guarantee on campus housing to freshman and offer a number of classes, including core business major classes, as online classes. The school actually offers a program to kids not offered regular admission where the entire first year of classes.

The big public classes do a decent job of educating at ton of in state at a relatively low price, Florida schools are often free to students with strong grades. But there are trade offs that often make the oos price unpalatable to some families.

I personally am not aware of similar complaints about Michigan other than it is difficult to be admitted to certain popular majors. Unlike the others, Michigan has a very large percentage oos students so perhaps they have the money and local cost of living that prevents some of these issues.

It's hard to believe OOS parents would opt to pay for this type of 'education' if you can even call it that. We all lived through online schooling during Covid. We all KNOW it is not comparable to being in class with peers. My DC goes to a private and while recorded sessions are an option to view later, Every. Single. Class. has been in person, and taught by a professor, never once in three years has it been a TA.

What is the size of the school where your kid goes? Where do they attend that they don’t have TAs? Name the school.

Some kids need a lot of hand holding and personal attention. Everyone learns differently. Some folks prefer in person, some prefer online, independent book based learning. Some prefer independent research with little instruction to learn. To each his/her own. However, just because you prefer in person, doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.

That said, it is NOT just an OOS issue. IMO. - It is a large university issue. Large private schools use TAs and large lecture formats too. Johns Hopkins has lecture classes of 400+ students and that typically meet 1x week with TAs for discussion.

I've attended very large schools (including UCLA) and TAs don't teach classes. TAs only lead recitations and lab sections, as well as help with grading.

Many schools do use lecturers or adjuncts to teach classes. These folks generally have lower credentials than tenure track professors, though they are often better teachers with more interest in undergrad education. For example, my PhD advisor was a Nobel Laureate and god help any undergrads who had to take his course. He was both uninterested in teaching and incapable of explaining things to non-experts in the field. He's a fabulous scientist, but you'd be much better off with anyone else. Seriously.

TAs do teach classes. USNWR reported on schools with the highest percentage of classes with TAs as the primary instructor.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2017-02-21/10-universities-where-tas-teach-the-most-classes

That report is from 2015.
DP

2017. But good point, Purdue has almost certainly replaced all 26% of classes taught by TAs as the primary instructor with tenure track faculty as the primary instructor since 2017. Same with every single one of the other schools listed.

The article was written in 2017 but the data is all from 2015.
“Below are the 10 National Universities with the highest percentage of graduate TAs listed as primary instructors for undergraduate courses in fall 2015.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UCs have gotten the most flak but it is pretty easy to find issue with any mega large state school. Take UFlorida. They don’t even guarantee on campus housing to freshman and offer a number of classes, including core business major classes, as online classes. The school actually offers a program to kids not offered regular admission where the entire first year of classes.

The big public classes do a decent job of educating at ton of in state at a relatively low price, Florida schools are often free to students with strong grades. But there are trade offs that often make the oos price unpalatable to some families.

I personally am not aware of similar complaints about Michigan other than it is difficult to be admitted to certain popular majors. Unlike the others, Michigan has a very large percentage oos students so perhaps they have the money and local cost of living that prevents some of these issues.

It's hard to believe OOS parents would opt to pay for this type of 'education' if you can even call it that. We all lived through online schooling during Covid. We all KNOW it is not comparable to being in class with peers. My DC goes to a private and while recorded sessions are an option to view later, Every. Single. Class. has been in person, and taught by a professor, never once in three years has it been a TA.

What is the size of the school where your kid goes? Where do they attend that they don’t have TAs? Name the school.

Some kids need a lot of hand holding and personal attention. Everyone learns differently. Some folks prefer in person, some prefer online, independent book based learning. Some prefer independent research with little instruction to learn. To each his/her own. However, just because you prefer in person, doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.

That said, it is NOT just an OOS issue. IMO. - It is a large university issue. Large private schools use TAs and large lecture formats too. Johns Hopkins has lecture classes of 400+ students and that typically meet 1x week with TAs for discussion.

I've attended very large schools (including UCLA) and TAs don't teach classes. TAs only lead recitations and lab sections, as well as help with grading.

Many schools do use lecturers or adjuncts to teach classes. These folks generally have lower credentials than tenure track professors, though they are often better teachers with more interest in undergrad education. For example, my PhD advisor was a Nobel Laureate and god help any undergrads who had to take his course. He was both uninterested in teaching and incapable of explaining things to non-experts in the field. He's a fabulous scientist, but you'd be much better off with anyone else. Seriously.

TAs do teach classes. USNWR reported on schools with the highest percentage of classes with TAs as the primary instructor.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2017-02-21/10-universities-where-tas-teach-the-most-classes

That report is from 2015.
DP

2017. But good point, Purdue has almost certainly replaced all 26% of classes taught by TAs as the primary instructor with tenure track faculty as the primary instructor since 2017. Same with every single one of the other schools listed.

Or perhaps the percentage of classes taught by TAs has grown to more than 26%. Considering the Purdue student to faculty ratio has grown from 12:1 (2014-15 CDS) to 14:1 (2021-22), I think it’s more likely to have grown than shrank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg this sounds awful.

I now understand why no kids from our private go to UCLA or Berkeley

They are great if you are In-state. But definately not worth OOS prices. If I'm paying $60K+, my kid will have smaller class and the ability to get the courses they need when they need them.

Let's be honest. They are not great in-state. The price is right for in-state. And the name is great on the diploma. But the student experience sux.

Except UCLA is an absolute monster when it comes to outlasting literally every other university in the country when it comes to the core student rankings, including quality of life and overall experience.

But yeah, other than that …

It’s still a public school so there’s that issue that’s not going away.

You say “still a public school” like you expect others to understand your apparent insinuation that it’s a place for the unwashed masses.

Yes - UCs are still public schools. The issues you cite as issues with public schools are the same issues at private schools. Loads of cited examples were provided.

You have a biased against public schools, fine. You pay your $400K. My kids have the option picking from publics or privates. 2 out of 2 so far have picked OOS publics. We’ve had great experiences so far and none of the issues. My kids are not at UCs so can’t speak to them, but at other states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UCs have gotten the most flak but it is pretty easy to find issue with any mega large state school. Take UFlorida. They don’t even guarantee on campus housing to freshman and offer a number of classes, including core business major classes, as online classes. The school actually offers a program to kids not offered regular admission where the entire first year of classes.

The big public classes do a decent job of educating at ton of in state at a relatively low price, Florida schools are often free to students with strong grades. But there are trade offs that often make the oos price unpalatable to some families.

I personally am not aware of similar complaints about Michigan other than it is difficult to be admitted to certain popular majors. Unlike the others, Michigan has a very large percentage oos students so perhaps they have the money and local cost of living that prevents some of these issues.

It's hard to believe OOS parents would opt to pay for this type of 'education' if you can even call it that. We all lived through online schooling during Covid. We all KNOW it is not comparable to being in class with peers. My DC goes to a private and while recorded sessions are an option to view later, Every. Single. Class. has been in person, and taught by a professor, never once in three years has it been a TA.

What is the size of the school where your kid goes? Where do they attend that they don’t have TAs? Name the school.

Some kids need a lot of hand holding and personal attention. Everyone learns differently. Some folks prefer in person, some prefer online, independent book based learning. Some prefer independent research with little instruction to learn. To each his/her own. However, just because you prefer in person, doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.

That said, it is NOT just an OOS issue. IMO. - It is a large university issue. Large private schools use TAs and large lecture formats too. Johns Hopkins has lecture classes of 400+ students and that typically meet 1x week with TAs for discussion.

I've attended very large schools (including UCLA) and TAs don't teach classes. TAs only lead recitations and lab sections, as well as help with grading.

Many schools do use lecturers or adjuncts to teach classes. These folks generally have lower credentials than tenure track professors, though they are often better teachers with more interest in undergrad education. For example, my PhD advisor was a Nobel Laureate and god help any undergrads who had to take his course. He was both uninterested in teaching and incapable of explaining things to non-experts in the field. He's a fabulous scientist, but you'd be much better off with anyone else. Seriously.

TAs do teach classes. USNWR reported on schools with the highest percentage of classes with TAs as the primary instructor.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2017-02-21/10-universities-where-tas-teach-the-most-classes

That report is from 2015.
DP

2017. But good point, Purdue has almost certainly replaced all 26% of classes taught by TAs as the primary instructor with tenure track faculty as the primary instructor since 2017. Same with every single one of the other schools listed.

The article was written in 2017 but the data is all from 2015.
“Below are the 10 National Universities with the highest percentage of graduate TAs listed as primary instructors for undergraduate courses in fall 2015.”

The PP said TAs don't teach classes. They article shows TAs at least did at a point in time, and in considerable numbers.

[Anonymous]

I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC. We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with. We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC. We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with. We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others.

Yea so private R1 university is the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC. We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with. We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others.

I just don’t think anyone will get more mileage from a Pomona or Wellesley degree than they would have from a UCLA or Berkeley or University of Michigan degree (or one from USC or Notre Dame, etc.). The in-class education, sad to say, is an afterthought to the real purpose of 21st century higher education at the undergraduate level - extended social development and networking. For most kids, the most fertile environments are large public and private universities.

For those interested in graduate school and careers in academia beyond, those large schools with research budgets north of $1B provide a dizzying array of opportunities to get one’s foot in the door and start climbing the publication ladder. They will not find that at Macalester or Amherst College or Scripps College or whatever. And even if they do, the opportunities will be far fewer.

Careers are built AFTER college, not during it. For the vast majority of us, our livelihood is based on what we learned AFTER college. College is the big set-up to that critical phase in our lives. How we position ourselves exiting our undergraduate program is the key … at least in my experience, and the collective experience of most successful people in my orbit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC. We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with. We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others.

I just don’t think anyone will get more mileage from a Pomona or Wellesley degree than they would have from a UCLA or Berkeley or University of Michigan degree (or one from USC or Notre Dame, etc.). The in-class education, sad to say, is an afterthought to the real purpose of 21st century higher education at the undergraduate level - extended social development and networking. For most kids, the most fertile environments are large public and private universities.

For those interested in graduate school and careers in academia beyond, those large schools with research budgets north of $1B provide a dizzying array of opportunities to get one’s foot in the door and start climbing the publication ladder. They will not find that at Macalester or Amherst College or Scripps College or whatever. And even if they do, the opportunities will be far fewer.

Careers are built AFTER college, not during it. For the vast majority of us, our livelihood is based on what we learned AFTER college. College is the big set-up to that critical phase in our lives. How we position ourselves exiting our undergraduate program is the key … at least in my experience, and the collective experience of most successful people in my orbit.

You’re one of the barbarians destroying higher education for the students who want it gone more than DeVry with a quad.

For some students, a chance to learn and be around bright people has a high value in and of itself. But because people like you and the CS-or-bust parents here have pumped selective colleges full of soulless zombies who’ve pretended to be good students, the serious students have a hard time finding schools suitable for serious students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC. We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with. We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others.

I just don’t think anyone will get more mileage from a Pomona or Wellesley degree than they would have from a UCLA or Berkeley or University of Michigan degree (or one from USC or Notre Dame, etc.). The in-class education, sad to say, is an afterthought to the real purpose of 21st century higher education at the undergraduate level - extended social development and networking. For most kids, the most fertile environments are large public and private universities.

For those interested in graduate school and careers in academia beyond, those large schools with research budgets north of $1B provide a dizzying array of opportunities to get one’s foot in the door and start climbing the publication ladder. They will not find that at Macalester or Amherst College or Scripps College or whatever. And even if they do, the opportunities will be far fewer.

Careers are built AFTER college, not during it. For the vast majority of us, our livelihood is based on what we learned AFTER college. College is the big set-up to that critical phase in our lives. How we position ourselves exiting our undergraduate program is the key … at least in my experience, and the collective experience of most successful people in my orbit.

You’re one of the barbarians destroying higher education for the students who want it gone more than DeVry with a quad.

For some students, a chance to learn and be around bright people has a high value in and of itself. But because people like you and the CS-or-bust parents here have pumped selective colleges full of soulless zombies who’ve pretended to be good students, the serious students have a hard time finding schools suitable for serious students.

What makes you think those large schools are not brimming over with applicants and enrolled students who are at least as intellectually curious as their peers at the smaller schools? That’s bizarre thinking, frankly. The application process gauntlet enables kids to self-select the caliber of intellectual curiosity surrounding them during this critically important phase of life, as it should.

Not CS. Not pretending - DS24’s one-and-done 1600 wasn’t even considered by his eventual college choice, but I think his unbroken string of 5’s on 8 AP tests through junior year speak to his seriousness as a learner.

Combined, we have five degrees (two terminal) in my home, across two adults. We’re hardly ideal targets for your Devry with a quad sniping …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
For those interested in graduate school and careers in academia beyond, those large schools with research budgets north of $1B provide a dizzying array of opportunities to get one’s foot in the door and start climbing the publication ladder. They will not find that at Macalester or Amherst College or Scripps College or whatever. And even if they do, the opportunities will be far fewer.

I take it you are unaware that, after adjusting for size, 2/3 of the top 25 undergrad origins of PhD earners are LACs, despite there being 5 times as many universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC. We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with. We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others.

I just don’t think anyone will get more mileage from a Pomona or Wellesley degree than they would have from a UCLA or Berkeley or University of Michigan degree (or one from USC or Notre Dame, etc.). The in-class education, sad to say, is an afterthought to the real purpose of 21st century higher education at the undergraduate level - extended social development and networking. For most kids, the most fertile environments are large public and private universities.

For those interested in graduate school and careers in academia beyond, those large schools with research budgets north of $1B provide a dizzying array of opportunities to get one’s foot in the door and start climbing the publication ladder. They will not find that at Macalester or Amherst College or Scripps College or whatever. And even if they do, the opportunities will be far fewer.

Careers are built AFTER college, not during it. For the vast majority of us, our livelihood is based on what we learned AFTER college. College is the big set-up to that critical phase in our lives. How we position ourselves exiting our undergraduate program is the key … at least in my experience, and the collective experience of most successful people in my orbit.

DP. Completely disagree on Wellesley. The women's colleges, Wellesley and Smith especially, are known for their excellent alumni networks.

Also, I agree with another PP about your view on higher ed. You want trade school/further ed. That's fine, but others want higher ed. It's about cognitive growth and critical thinking, not just career prep.