Skip to main content

What are the pros and cons of private vs. public universities?

We can look at this question from two different perspectives: That of an individual student, and that of society as a whole.

Private universities tend to be more expensive, but with a few exceptions (the top public schools such as UC Berkeley, Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Michigan) they are generally more prestigious than public universities. The quality of education is widely considered to be superior at private schools, and the opportunities a degree will bring are generally much better as well.

So from an individual student's perspective, it's really a question of quality versus cost: Assuming you can afford the private school at all, it is most likely better; but is it enough better to justify the higher price? The specific results will also depend on what kind of scholarships and financial aid the student is able to get, as well as what field they want to go into (some universities are very good in some fields but not very good in others). As a general rule, go to the most prestigious school that accepted you and offered you good funding. (The tricky part of course is if you have to choose between less prestige and more funding, or more prestige and less funding; statistically people seem to end up better off if they value funding over prestige---simply getting into a top school says a lot about what you're capable of, even if you never go there.)

But from society's perspective, there is a much bigger question: What is the purpose of higher education?

If our goal is to take the very smartest people---the top 10% or even 1%---and give them the resources they need to become a maximally efficient technocratic elite of scientists, doctors, engineers, and lawyers, then expensive private schools are accomplishing that goal well, because they provide top-quality education and price isn't all that important.

But if our goal is to provide equal access and opportunity to the entire population to provide upward mobility, public schools are far more effective at that goal, because their lower prices and more financial aid provide more opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to college.

Different people may disagree on which of those goals is most important, and how to trade off between them.

In practice, almost all schools, regardless of their official type, are some hybrid of private and public. The University of Michigan retains a large endowment of private donations, and Harvard receives a good deal of public funding; it's just that Michigan has a lot more public funding and Harvard has a much bigger private endowment, so we consider Michigan a public university and Harvard a private university. This hybrid model may reflect our disagreement and ambivalence about the two purposes of education; we're trying to do both at once.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.