Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

The general quality of the kids at your state school today nowhere compares to the kids you were there with 30 years ago either. That’s the problem with this debate.

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

It’s called copium.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

True and about 14-15 unis that are significantly different from the next 15-16. When you have one at a university ranked close to 30 and one ranked in T10 the differences in peers are evident. The pre-TO scores in these two groups typically tell the same tale: over 75% of students at the top unis are parallel to the top 20-25% of the lower unis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

yep

Flagships have had record yield and in many states are rejecting perfect or near perfect stat in state students. Interesting to see how or if this changes the environment.

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

These threads are common and I suspect none change all that many people's minds.That said, here are a couple of other arguments.

College is not just about your future job. Sure, we all want our kids to find good jobs upon graduation. However, I really don't think that one's future career should be the sole focus of your college experience. So, imo, even if Liam and Adam end up in the same job at the same corporation at the same salary, if doesn't mean that they had equal college experiences. There's more to life than work.

And college is 4 years of your life--a non insignificant time span. It also comes at an age when it's easier to make good long term friends for most people than it is later in life. A lot of years ago now, there was a study of how life at a top private college differed from state flagships. Maybe it's become too competitive to join at some colleges, but one thing that showed up in that study was that students at top privates were more engaged in extracurriculars. The most common EC at state flagships was membership in a Greek organization. A relatively low percentage of students were active on the school newspaper or other campus publications, played in a musical group, acted in plays,played a school sport, etc. At the top private colleges, almost all students were engaged in one or more of these extracurriculars. (I remember David Brooks writing a column when he was teaching at Yale by how flabbergasted at just how much the Yalies he taught were doing outside of class.)

Despite the much vaunted "at the flagship my kid will make friends with all sorts of people" in reality they don't. Oh, a few may. But when the most common activity is Greek life--as it is at many state flagships--students tend to live in a bubble with people from very similar backgrounds. At one rising in rep Southern flagship, not only are almost all "white" sororities white, they are divided into those where almost everyone is Southern and those which pledge girls from other parts of the country. Moreover, private colleges are more likely to charge the same board for all rooms, so that where you live is determined by the housing draw. State schools often charge more for better housing. The effect is exacerbated when upperclassmen move off campus. There are often apartment complexes filled mostly with students and who lives in each complex correlates closely with family income.

Have any of you read "Paying for the Party," a study of the mixing of different social economic groups at Indiana University? Basically, the authors concluded that girls from lower income families were better off attending less selective regional colleges in Indiana than the state flagship precisely because they did not participate in bonding experiences like sorority rush and even studied different subjects. The authors claimed that if they did take the "rich kids" majors like journalism, broadcast television, and fashion merchandising, they were less able to get internships and entry level jobs because they didn't have the personal networks the richer kids did.

I am NOT claiming that there aren't groups of very wealthy students at top colleges that choose to socialize with other rich kids; there are such groups. But that is an affirmative choice. Especially first year, many of these kids will be sharing a room with someone on financial aid. And at schools with residential college or house systems, there will ALWAYS be forced interactions with kids from different backgrounds. (I remember reading an article that said that all of the girls who pledged the same sorority at U Texas that Jenna Bush Hager joined had mothers who not only were college graduates but who had graduated from the U of Texas )

A study many years ago about cross-racial friendships at Berkeley found that a low percentage of students of any race had made close friends outside their race. The kids who did? Athletes and musicians because sports teams and orchestra, band and other musical groups included students from different races and the participants just naturally broadened their friendship circle

Anyway..this is a novel already. But my intent is just to raise a few issues I think are relevant to this discussion that aren't discussed as often IME..

Flagships are full of riff-raff… do they pull down the rare brilliant ones? That’s the question.

We are intentionally targeting only well-regarded public schools (both instate and OOS) because I don't want to send my kids to school with a bunch of rich kids. I did that my freshman year (on a scholarship) and I HATED it and I transferred to my state flagship and was so much happier.

It’s also funny how people make strong claims with no firsthand experience to even know.

I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.