If all costs were equal, would you rather your child attend a top public or top private school?

[Anonymous]

Didn't matter at all to me. Kid preferred public schools.

[Anonymous]

A top private. No question. The professors are more involved with undergraduates and the research opportunities are unquestionably more available to undergrads.

PS since when is UVA a “top school”? No one outside this area ever thinks or considers it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A top private. No question. The professors are more involved with undergraduates and the research opportunities are unquestionably more available to undergrads.

PS since when is UVA a “top school”? No one outside this area ever thinks or considers it.

You are terribly misinformed. The overwhelming number of UVA applicants are from OOS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WashU, Emory , Rice are better undergrad schools than every public school.

The WashU booster is at it again. Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A top private. No question. The professors are more involved with undergraduates and the research opportunities are unquestionably more available to undergrads.

PS since when is UVA a “top school”? No one outside this area ever thinks or considers it.

Many of the top privates universities have more graduate students than undergraduate. This is the opposite of all of the top publics that serve both. Do you honestly believe the professors at Harvard, for example, are spending more time with undergrads than grad students? Research opportunities are very abundant at a school like Michigan. Only JHU has a larger research budget. You are misinformed.

[Anonymous]

This question is way to broad as every student has specific wants from a school and interests. Personally, I attended UCLA and loved the big public school experience. I was in a sorority, went to as many games as I could, and actually enjoyed classes with hundreds of diverse students. Although certain smaller schools are more prestigious and "elite", I wouldn't pick Dartmouth over UCLA. I was also a history major, so I wouldn't want to attend MIT or Caltech.

More broadly though, I believe there would be more opportunities at Harvard/Yale/Stanford than Berkeley or Michigan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question is way to broad as every student has specific wants from a school and interests. Personally, I attended UCLA and loved the big public school experience. I was in a sorority, went to as many games as I could, and actually enjoyed classes with hundreds of diverse students. Although certain smaller schools are more prestigious and "elite", I wouldn't pick Dartmouth over UCLA. I was also a history major, so I wouldn't want to attend MIT or Caltech.

More broadly though, I believe there would be more opportunities at Harvard/Yale/Stanford than Berkeley or Michigan.

I went to a small private and hated it. I changed to a large public and liked it. It depends on the student. I went where my parents wanted me to go the first time.

[Anonymous]

High school - public
College - private

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question is way to broad as every student has specific wants from a school and interests. Personally, I attended UCLA and loved the big public school experience. I was in a sorority, went to as many games as I could, and actually enjoyed classes with hundreds of diverse students. Although certain smaller schools are more prestigious and "elite", I wouldn't pick Dartmouth over UCLA. I was also a history major, so I wouldn't want to attend MIT or Caltech.

More broadly though, I believe there would be more opportunities at Harvard/Yale/Stanford than Berkeley or Michigan and certainly UCLA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WashU, Emory , Rice are better undergrad schools than every public school.

The only problem w/ WashU is people who went there seem to have come out with some really shithole values. Not sure it’s worth more than a local community college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A top private. No question. The professors are more involved with undergraduates and the research opportunities are unquestionably more available to undergrads.

PS since when is UVA a “top school”? No one outside this area ever thinks or considers it.

Many of the top privates universities have more graduate students than undergraduate. This is the opposite of all of the top publics that serve both. Do you honestly believe the professors at Harvard, for example, are spending more time with undergrads than grad students? Research opportunities are very abundant at a school like Michigan. Only JHU has a larger research budget. You are misinformed.

The fact that the top publics have way more undergraduate students is NOT a good thing. It means fewer resources per capita, less facetime with professors, etc. Complete opposite of what you are arguing.

In the case of schools like Berkeley, undergrads are a complete afterthought because the undergrad body basically serves to subsidize research at the grad level.

[Anonymous]

In our case costs were equal because DC considered Michigan and UVA OOS compared to several private universities including Wash U. Wasn’t at all interested in applying to Emory. Applied to Penn but not accepted, which in retrospect was probably a good thing. Chose Michigan.

[Anonymous]

The one that makes them happiest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say, UVA vs WashU/Vandy/Emory/Rice?
Berkeley vs UChicago/Northwestern/Duke?
Michigan vs Penn/Brown/Cornell?

Rice
Berkeley
Michigan/Penn/Brown/Cornell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread would be useful if it asked if one prefers public vs. private, assuming no cost difference. But, by noting specific schools, OP really wants to start another useless rankings/prestige thread.

Yes they are and slyly wants to equate Berkeley and Michigan to U CHICAGO AND PENN?!?!

But most people assume UChicago and UPenn are state schools. These two schools almost have no lay recognition, though Wharton is very well known.