Public vs. Private Education

Sitting at a symposium at MIT this week, I had a notion that might better define the difference between post-secondary public and private education. (For those of you who don’t know what that means, I think this post might help you figure out where to send your children – or yourself – to college.)

The difference in public college education and private college education is that private colleges make their students think. Public colleges make their students work.

Neither is right or wrong. Both have benefits. But as I listened to insanely smart people discuss my world — the media, marketing and such — I realized my education under-serves me. My ability to tackle topics from an academic, philosophical stand point is much weaker than my privately educated brethren.

This is a weakness in one regard — I want to be impressive and thought provoking to the intellectuals in my circles. But it is a strength in others — I’m known for distilling complexities down to the simple and offering a pragmatic view of the world, not one from the pipe and ascot perspective.

My undergraduate education at Morehead State University was one largely guided by me. While the occasional professor challenged new discovery, I could have easily coasted through and gotten my B.A. without regard to the A-B-C-D parts, and been none the less advantaged.

But when I have deep conversations with my friends who learned at Centre, MIT, Tufts and similar institutions, I realize they’ve been stimulated to think more deeply about things, to understand the broad range of factors behind one subject or another and to synthesize philosophy and activity into one, complete understanding.

The day-to-day activity of a communications profession was taught to me in my college classes. But that day-to-day activity could be taught to anyone of any educational background in a manner of hours or days. It is the teaching of the thought and consideration behind an industry or profession that public institutions fail to deliver.

Certainly, there are exceptions. But if you should find yourself choosing between public and private education for yourself or others, know that public will teach you how to work. Private will teach you how to think.

And I find that to be a premium worth the investment.

November 9, 2012

Posted in Uncategorized.

  • http://www.SPURspectives.com David Svet

    Jason, I think you are partially correct. The private schools that you mentioned are some of the finest schools in the world. Morehead State is a good public school, but would never be considered an elite institution. There are elite public programs and private programs that survive by fleecing people for tuition. Publicly or privately funding the institution isn’t really a good indicator of the quality of service it provides.

  • http://www.fastcompany.com/user/sam-ford-0 Sam Ford

    Really enjoyed your broaching this subject, Jason. I spent my undergraduate years down the road at Western Kentucky University; my grad school years at MIT. So I’ve experienced both. One thing you stated here really struck a chord with me: I’d argue that I received the same quality education from WKU as I did from MIT, but with a caveat: I joined the Honors Program at WKU and worked hard on my end to select top-notch professors who really challenged and pushed me. I could have chosen easier paths at WKU and perhaps ended up with the same sheet of paper at the end of it. In a way, that challenged me to take ownership of my own education in a way that I’d argue helped motivate me…I’d also say that I was at an advantage because many private schools more often have academics more interested in research than in teaching, and–because they have low course loads for teaching–many undergrad classes are primarily led by TAs, with professors that you never end up with 1-on-1 time with. WKU’s honors program led to my having classes with professors who spent a lot of 1-on-1 time with students and whose passion was for the classroom. So, as you said, I think the teaching of critical thinking is present at public schools, and it’s about finding students motivated in seeking out the highest-quality experience they can put together.

    So, while defending public schools for their “deep thinking” on the one hand, I’ll also defend MIT in particular for the “doing” on the other (not that you were claiming that state schools don’t teach critical thinking nor private schools practical knowledge…but I take your point). I feel that some humanities programs are so focused on the deep thinking they completely disconnect from reality. But MIT has always taken an “applied research” approach…focusing on thinking that will impact the world and not just stay in the ivory tower. Our program, CMS, focused on how to strike dialogue between people who study entertainment, audience engagement, etc., and practitioners in the field in order to create deeper learnings…which is how this FoE conference is borne. What’s interested me is the number of my MIT bretheren who went on not just to study something but to bring that knowledge to action in various fields (advertising, communications, digital entertainment, games, higher ed, tech companies, etc.).

    Where I think your argument is acutely on point is in terms of programs that have traditionally taught a trade more than a way of thinking. Advertising/marketing programs, J-schools, teaching…these are majors that have often focused on “how to” in ways that more resemble vocational schools than higher education. And  this is an aspect of public school curriculum that really has to change. After all, journalism schools can train journalists how to write in an inverted pyramid style, and how to conduct an interview, and AP style, and so on…but if anyone else learns that, they end up equally qualified…Some of our best journalists didn’t come from J school at all. (I’ve been working with WKU, which has spent many years now working to continually push its renowned program in ways that keeps it relevant and that doesn’t just resemble a trade school…) 

    One final point…I would argue that the best skill of all, especially in a speaking setting, is being able to distill complex thoughts down into pithy metaphors or statements. Rather than being simplistic, I think that’s one of the highest levels of synthesis. And it was something you were masterful at, at FoE. Thanks again for taking part!

    • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

      Thanks for the feedback and pushback, Sam. Love these conversations, which is exactly why I enjoyed FoE so much. Certainly the quality of practical-theoretical mix of the MIT set is noticeable. Keep in mind, I spent 12 years working at colleges and universities (though as an athletic staff member) and have seen my fair share of Ivory Tower types. I didn’t get that vibe at all from our FoE colleagues. And that was refreshing.
      Certainly, exceptions to the rule exist and some universities like WKU, which I’ve long had a lot of respect for — particularly in our fields — are evolving to become hybrids of the two approaches.

      I think my point was more to say in that pithy metaphor way, “Here’s what X State University will give you or your child. Here’s what Y private school will.” After all, you said it yourself — I’m good at distillation. ;-)

      • http://www.fastcompany.com/user/sam-ford-0 Sam Ford

        Indeed you are, and I think we are both netting out at the same point…that private universities should find ways to be more applied and that public universities have to put more focus at building out critical thinking skills and not just knowing how to do things.

  • http://twitter.com/rogerdooley Roger Dooley

    Jason, you are getting to one of the core questions people have wrestled with for the last century – what is college for? The traditional reason is to encourage intellectual exploration and growth. Others would say it’s about acquiring the knowledge and skills to earn a living. Some cynics say it’s just a way to get a credential necessary for employment.  Still others emphasize the aspects of socialization, personal growth, and building friendships that will last a lifetime. Then, there’s the whole “best four years of your life” crowd.

    Having founded the College Confidential community and stayed engaged in it for a dozen years, I see this debate played out constantly. It has a big impact on building a college list and making a final choice. In reality, all of these factors are important, but depending on your primary motivation one or two will drive your decisions.

    The debate is even sharper these days because of the high cost of college. The top privates (and even many less elite schools) cost $200K+ for four years, and previously economical state schools now cost as much as some private schools. Student loans may be the next crisis – they total a trillion dollars, and most were granted without regard to ability to pay.

    The poor job environment since the recession began has put the “intellectual exploration” group on the defensive – a liberal arts degree from a solid school might have meant a good job after graduation in the past, but today many recent grads are working as baristas, living with their parents, etc. because they don’t have skills valued by employers. Even colleges that pride themselves on being intellectual havens are trying to get more practical.

    But, back to the public/private divide. I’ll try to restate your base point, Jason – “College is about more than getting a degree and gaining new skills – some schools actually make their students think.” I couldn’t agree more. People who reduce the idea of college as nothing more than a credentialing process, like getting Microsoft or Cisco certified, are missing the point. As an engineering undergrad at CMU, there was plenty of rote work but also a big emphasis on learning how to solve new problems. That rigor served me well long after I left engineering.

    But, at U of Tennessee’s business school, I had many profs that challenged my thinking too. Schools like Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, Virginia, etc. are all publics that rank with the best private schools.

    So, I’d say the divide is a bit more complex than public/private. Many, many private schools are going to be no more intellectual than most public schools.  In choosing a college, the student should focus on things like class sizes, who teaches the classes, the nature of student interactions, the courses available, etc. Most important, perhaps, is the student’s peer group – attending a highly selective school like MIT or Columbia is fundamentally different than going to a school that admits most applicants. (Unfortunately, the downside of this highly selective peer group is that the schools reject 9 out of 10 applicants, and most of those rejected are super-qualified.)

    But, some state schools are highly selective, and many offer honors schools and even honors dorms where really smart people can interact both during and outside of classes. The promise of these programs is to offer an educational experience equivalent to top private schools at public school prices. Often, too, students who qualify for state honors programs qualify for merit aid.

    Wow, that’s a long comment… I get carried away on this topic! You raise a great point, Jason – even in today’s economy, students and families need to look for schools that will encourage real thinking!

    • http://socialmediaexplorer.com JasonFalls

      Awesome thoughts here, Roger!