Top private vs public universities: quality of college experience and future job prospects

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t speak for every field. But as a tenured professor at a top private university who has taught at 2 top publics and 2 privates over my career I can 100% without a shadow of a doubt that the environment at an elite private is much more conducive to undergraduate teaching than at a top public. It is that simple.

So, Northwestern > Michigan?

DP: 1000%

Huge alumni network (ok not as big as Michigan) and profs who will know who you are and help you years later.

Of course that NEVER happens at large publics. Enjoy your fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Privates>Publics

This has and will always be the case. Yes, you will always have DCUMers that fight you on that because their kid is at a Public….Who cares.
Elite Privates will ALWAYS > then Publics….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USC vs UCLA is a prime example in LA job market.

Would yo like to add some context? I live in the greater LA area and there is no difference in job market success between these schools. Both are excellent across the board. There are many other schools considered their equals in the area as well. Any typical C5, Oxy, UCSB, UCSD, LMU, Chapman, etc. grad will have lots of alumni in the area and do just fine.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Opinions on Michigan vs Northwestern? Something like poli sci/IR. Choose based on student preference, or is the larger Michigan alumni network a plus, as in, they're loyal and potentially useful to new grads?

As an (originally OOS) Michigan MBA grad, the Northwestern students and grads I have met are very similar types of people. Friendly, chill, smart, not elitist and yes, often Midwestern. I have read people saying that Northwestern kids are pointier and quirkier now due to admissions patterns. But you can decide if you think that matters. I gather the OOS students at Michigan are pretty similar from the bits of info I pick up.

My kid is an in-state freshman with a poli sci focus at Michigan and has had good conversations and encouragement from profs in his small and specialized classes. He is a serious and friendly student who regularly participates in class discussion. Profs like that. I don't think it would be going so well for a quiet kid who has to be drawn out.

I think Michigan has more of a tradition of public service careers and DC focus. Also tighter connections with some parts of Asia. I feel that it has been a globally connected school a lot longer than Northwestern.

Poli Sci and IR are not fully interchangeable. I'm curious about what area of IR is of interest. If your student has language and culture areas of interest, schools vary in strength related to that. I would also say that Michigan's best connections are to DC. I wouldn't necessarily pick Michigan to get a job at the UN in NYC, for example. But to go to the Peace Corps or eventually to the Foreign Service (I hear they like work experience first), Michigan would be a good choice.

Another observation...Michigan has a lot of really cool classes for people interested in the intersection of culture/history/politics, but they are not in the poli sci department. The IR classes to me look actually less mind-expanding than the ones that would be more history and area studies oriented. But that's a personal reaction. There certainly are enough courses to fill out a Poli Sci IR track as a sophomore-senior. I guess I'm more interested in why cultures and countries are the way they are than the exact structure of their governments, political parties, founding docs, etc.

I think students should carefully figure out what's different about the schools related to their specific interests. I think both schools are equal in many ways that make it too difficult to make a judgment here.

About size of alumni network...that is a very tertiary consideration right now. You should look at the prominence of alums in the desired fields, if anything. Sometimes small schools have stronger, tighter networks because there are fewer people and they know each other better. It's actually impossible to predict how that might play out for your kid unless you are looking at the level of "Is there an alumni club in City X" or my kid wants to work at X organization. Poke around on LinkedIn...that's the best most people can do.

It's my impression that foreign language classes beyond Spanish, French, and German are really losing ground in the US broadly across academe. So if your kid has a heritage language to perfect or an area studies interest, they need to factor that in to plans.

Be aware that IR may be a field, like Public Policy, where you get low-paid jobs out of college then need a Master's. Do look into the risks there. Obviously the whole institutional environment is in turmoil right now.

[Anonymous]

PP. Realized this thread came alive again and I already answered some of this previously on page 1. But have added some nuances.

[Anonymous]

Top privates are always better than top publics. Classes are smaller and networks are tighter. Sure, Michigan has a bunch of alumni, but most of them are doing ho-hum jobs in the Midwest. It’s not the quantity, but the quality of alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top privates are always better than top publics. Classes are smaller and networks are tighter. Sure, Michigan has a bunch of alumni, but most of them are doing ho-hum jobs in the Midwest. It’s not the quantity, but the quality of alumni.

Maybe for some majors but not for others. The top eight engineering schools in the Big Ten clean up on the top eight Ivies for engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top privates are always better than top publics. Classes are smaller and networks are tighter. Sure, Michigan has a bunch of alumni, but most of them are doing ho-hum jobs in the Midwest. It’s not the quantity, but the quality of alumni.

Most Northwestern, WashU and UChicago grads I know are also doing ho-hum jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top privates are always better than top publics. Classes are smaller and networks are tighter. Sure, Michigan has a bunch of alumni, but most of them are doing ho-hum jobs in the Midwest. It’s not the quantity, but the quality of alumni.

Most Northwestern, WashU and UChicago grads I know are also doing ho-hum jobs.

But they got them faster and are paid more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top privates are always better than top publics. Classes are smaller and networks are tighter. Sure, Michigan has a bunch of alumni, but most of them are doing ho-hum jobs in the Midwest. It’s not the quantity, but the quality of alumni.

This made me laugh. Clearly, this PP doesn't get out much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top privates are always better than top publics. Classes are smaller and networks are tighter. Sure, Michigan has a bunch of alumni, but most of them are doing ho-hum jobs in the Midwest. It’s not the quantity, but the quality of alumni.

Comments like this are so clueless.

Most top publics have very good business schools and place kids well into competitive jobs. Top academic students also do very well with grad school admits.

Same is true for top private schools too, of course. Which is why this forum’s obsession with private vs public is so stupid.

[Anonymous]

I don’t actually understand what parents see as the benefit of paying ooo for a school like Michigan. I get it’s a fun atmosphere but do you really think the academics and teaching are as good as a T20 private?
I understand going to a public if you are in state and / or getting merit. But I know people paying full price for these schools (UCs also) and that surprises me. Michigan is a lot more expensive than UMD or Pitt and I don’t understand what it offers in terms of quality of education for that price. I would prefer many lower ranked mid-sized private schools and LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t actually understand what parents see as the benefit of paying ooo for a school like Michigan. I get it’s a fun atmosphere but do you really think the academics and teaching are as good as a T20 private?
I understand going to a public if you are in state and / or getting merit. But I know people paying full price for these schools (UCs also) and that surprises me. Michigan is a lot more expensive than UMD or Pitt and I don’t understand what it offers in terms of quality of education for that price. I would prefer many lower ranked mid-sized private schools and LACs.

That’s nice. You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t actually understand what parents see as the benefit of paying ooo for a school like Michigan. I get it’s a fun atmosphere but do you really think the academics and teaching are as good as a T20 private?
I understand going to a public if you are in state and / or getting merit. But I know people paying full price for these schools (UCs also) and that surprises me. Michigan is a lot more expensive than UMD or Pitt and I don’t understand what it offers in terms of quality of education for that price. I would prefer many lower ranked mid-sized private schools and LACs.

Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t actually understand what parents see as the benefit of paying ooo for a school like Michigan. I get it’s a fun atmosphere but do you really think the academics and teaching are as good as a T20 private?
I understand going to a public if you are in state and / or getting merit. But I know people paying full price for these schools (UCs also) and that surprises me. Michigan is a lot more expensive than UMD or Pitt and I don’t understand what it offers in terms of quality of education for that price. I would prefer many lower ranked mid-sized private schools and LACs.

Great - send your kid to Syracuse and I’ll send mine OOS to Michigan.