The biggest difference between highly-rated vs. good college is that the good college will have a lot more students simply interested in graduating and getting a job.

Highly-rated college tend to have students that aim for the topmost of whatever career they are aspiring to, i.e. top medical/law/business/grad schools, politics, government, business, etc.

Of course the vast majority of outcomes will be the same (they will all mostly live normal lives whether top school or good one), but the aspirations/attitude of students during college itself changes the atmosphere of the school (more diligent, polished, possibly competitive, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:To the UMD professor: Do you give attendance points that will increase grades? (My friend’s son went to UMD and this was the case for him). Sounds like high school, to me.

My son’s SLAC:
-no extra credit
-most exams were essay form vs scan-tron
-no opting out of finals
-minimal grading on the curve
-no homework points

Ironically, top publics have far less extra-credit/opt-out exams/HW points than privates.

This is simply because the class sizes are so large that professors have no interest in grading extra-credit assignments, homework, keeping track of who's opted out of what exam, and keeping track of who is attending/participating in class.

Meanwhile privates tend to be much more coddling of their students due to small size and allowing plenty of extra credit/homework points/participation points/opting out of exams, etc.

Oftentimes public universities won't accept any late assignments at all for any reason, while professors at privates will be more willing (and instructed) to work with their students with flexible deadlines, often with no point deduction.

This is actually a positive of attending a top private vs. a top public. Much more leeway and less stress for students.

For STEM, overall ranking is less important than the overall program. I have a friend who's son turned down Vanderbilt and Georgetown for Georgia Tech (Aerospace Engineering)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Professor quality" will be equally great at top-notch and good schools and even the ones considered not so great. The job market for academics is terrible (especially in the humanities) so just ok schools can recruit the best and the brightest. I teach at GW and literally all my colleagues (myself included) got our PhDs at top universities and are very well regarded in our fields. So from that point of view the education your child will get is exactly the same as at Yale etc.

I think it is true that the peer group at top tier schools will be stronger.

+1 I'm a professor at UMD. I previously taught at Hopkins. No measurable different in colleagues or "professor quality." In general I agree about peer group. However, there are many smart kids at UMD that would do well at Hopkins.

This is because UMD is a top research university on par with Hopkins (UMD does not have a medical school while Hopkins has the top-most one, which helps it a lot of in rankings). You'll find a lot of top PhD's among the top publics due to research.

The difference of course is that access to these professors might be lower in a public than a private. Not necessarily by all that much (they are generally inaccessible everywhere), but enough. Also classes tend to be smaller in privates which can help in both learning and interacting with professors.

SLACs on the other hand will have much better professor interaction than both top publics and privates. However generally the best and brightest PhD grads don't want to go to SLACs because they value research first and foremost, while SLAC jobs tend to consist of a lot of teaching. SLACs will also hire a lot of PhD's from schools with name-value but weak research (i.e. Vanderbilt)

OP here. Thanks for all the great feedback! For my own benefit, I’ve tried to summarize the takeaways from the earlier posts:

Peers are the primary difference. They are academically well prepared, curious about life, and ambitious to do something. That translates to greater knowledge, better discussions, and higher expectations of each other. They may also come from affluent backgrounds, which helps facilitate everything else - education, experience, opportunities.

Professors are great, accessible, and hold high expectations for their students. Though “good” colleges may have great professors, they may be less accessible due to class size and be unable to hold students to the highest academic standards. The result is that the syllabus covers less material, less complex material, and the assignments are less complex and graded to lower expectations. All this impacts the quality of the learning, especially in a liberal arts program.

Access and exposure to outstanding opportunities is better. Essentially the most talented hang with the most talented. Thus, there is a virtuous cycle between professors, students, research opportunities, internships, and outside visitors.

All of this creates a synergy that gets amplified in a network effect. Though I excluded “network” benefits from my initial request, I understand more than ever how it is an important result of the student/professor/access synergy. Many who discuss this benefit simplify it too much - they make it about who you know, like someone’s mom or dad sits on a board, etc. But, more broadly, the “network effect” reflects being part of a system that connects and nourishes talent and ambition. Thus, when current students of talent and ambition meet prior generations of talent and ambition through access to jobs, internships, research opportunities, etc., gateways are opened that magnify the potential impact of the emerging student group.

Of course, there are students who will attend highly selective colleges, get an education, and not experience the full force of this synergistic effect. However, for those that do, it may have a profound influence on their lives. That said, one can attend a “good” university, work hard, and have a great experience too. If earnings are the sole measure of the difference between these two schooling options, some who attend highly selective colleges may be disappointed. If, on the other hand, personal growth and a network of interesting, talented, and accomplished colleagues is the measure, a highly selective college might be the appropriate option.

It's possible to get a great education at every college. But not every college is for every kid. The reason for there are so many different colleges is that students have really different expectations and goals. Your DC may want to be an academic while mine wants to be a local TV reporter. Odds are that a second tier public college like VaTech is better for my child than Princeton. While your child's chances of ever getting a tenure job are vasty improved at an Ivy that feeds into the top 1 or 2 grad programs whose PhDs get hired.

Anonymous wrote:We’re struggling with this question ourselves. Our DD has the grades and scores to probably get into a Top 50, maybe even a Top 20 but doesn’t want to be around rich d-bags, frat bros, trust fund kids and jocks. She likes her diverse friend group which doesn’t always have to include the smartest kids in the class.

Two schools that are about equally distant from us that we’re considering are Gettysburg (#53 in the US News rankings) and St. Mary’s College of MD (#92), but the impression we get about Gettysburg is that it caters more toward the rich kid/frat bro and the SMCM has more “normal people” (my DD’s words) that tend to flourish there. She seems to much prefer the latter.

YMMV, but that’s our take.

Smart move. SMCM is a gem of a school for the right student.

Anonymous wrote:It is no small point that he has mostly had TA's so far.

That would NEVER happen in a second tier SLAC, which are much more known for their relationships with faculty. There are literally no grad students, teachers have kids over for dinner with their families at the end of the course, etc.

My child has thrived at her CTCL. Small, tight knit community that is a perfect place to finish growing up (which is what college kids are really doing)

At my daughter’s second tier LAC, one of her classes had a TA who was a sophomore.

<quote>The biggest difference that I would offer is "customer service." I was successful at my undergraduate institution because I was good at self-advocacy, had excellent executive function, did not require specific supports, and sought out mentors.

A big state school does not care if you make it through, whereas a smaller or "better" school is going to take care to keep kids from falling through the cracks.</quote>

I attended two state and two private colleges for undergrad and grad schools (UMD and Georgetown among them), and I 100% agree with this assessment. Personally I would say the public versus private college dichotomy is very similar to public versus private schools at any level of education. In my experience, private colleges are swankier, cushier, have a lot of wealthy and very driven kids; publics are scrappier, much more diverse, lots of opportunities if you know how to look for them but lots of room to slide through if not. In general private kids are more highly "polished," for what that is worth. u

It is no small point that he has mostly had TA's so far.

That would NEVER happen in a second tier SLAC, which are much more known for their relationships with faculty. There are literally no grad students, teachers have kids over for dinner with their families at the end of the course, etc.

My child has thrived at her CTCL. Small, tight knit community that is a perfect place to finish growing up (which is what college kids are really doing)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peer group. If you are at a very selective college where most, if not all, students have a strong academic base and are strong students, the classroom discussion, the types of assignments and the pace of the curriculum/amount of material covered will be different from a school where students are good learners but may need more time to learn the same content.

This. The caravan moves with the speed of the slowest camel. I was a math major in a middle of the road state school. My son is now a math major at a T10 school. Our experiences, in terms of the depth and breadth of the curriculum are very different, and it’s not due to the quality of teachers (he’s mostly had TAs so far). Colleges teach to the demographics they have.

Which Top 10 uses TA to teach freshman?

Anonymous wrote:Peer group. If you are at a very selective college where most, if not all, students have a strong academic base and are strong students, the classroom discussion, the types of assignments and the pace of the curriculum/amount of material covered will be different from a school where students are good learners but may need more time to learn the same content.

This. The caravan moves with the speed of the slowest camel. I was a math major in a middle of the road state school. My son is now a math major at a T10 school. Our experiences, in terms of the depth and breadth of the curriculum are very different, and it’s not due to the quality of teachers (he’s mostly had TAs so far). Colleges teach to the demographics they have.

I do think small, “mediocre” private colleges have a place in helping avg kids a chance to find their footing and giving them better outcomes then they might’ve had graduating from regional state school. Just an observation.

It depends on the majors. In STEM the differences are not significant, as they use the same textbooks anyway. In fact many top private universities/colleges are weaker in ITEM fields than top state universities.

But the business majors are very different, as top schools have more network and intern opportunities. I think this also applies to the humanities.

DC got into a top 10 and a state university in the 50-75 range. Because of the huge difference in cost, we preferred the state university option. Then I looked into the courses offered in the majors DC is interested in. There was no comparison. There were many Mickey Mouse courses given in the state university for 100 and 200 level courses, while at the top 10 university, only rigorous courses were given. That made us favor the top school option. DC wanted the top 10 school because of the superior peer group (no comparison in terms of the percentage of students accepted).

I come from a lower middle class background, and I went to a low cost public college that is barely in the top 300-400 for undergraduate. It didn't hold me back. I know very well that it's perfectly possible to succeed if you go to a public university. In my case, I just decided to take the most rigorous courses available. I generally went straight into hard electives without wasting time on the intro courses, which I taught to myself.

But I was driven - I had to be to escape from my background - and DC is not driven in quite the same way. I could see DC being tempted into taking the easier classes at state U. This won't happen at top 10 U. So ultimately, this is the best decision for DC.