I recently got worried after several friends told me, “Tony, you know you’re going to end up in Berkeley.” In each case, the emphasis was on “end up,” as if Cal, the top public university in the nation, were a safety school.

Besides being top ranked, Cal also boasts a wide range of activities and strong athletics. Many people call it the “public Ivy,” a tribute to its long traditions bundled in a great value. So it should be illogical for the school to be seen as anything less than desirable. Yet, this illogical sentiment has become quite common. Somehow, for many students, the golden bear has lost its glimmer. I got worried because I, too, felt swept away by this sentiment.

I blame this skewed perception on society, particularly Palo Alto. Growing up, I looked up to UC Berkeley as an unreachable pinnacle that was the destination for a superior education. Of course, my judgment was based solely on my understanding of Berkeley as a top academic institution. I had little idea of its costs, demographics and image. When you’re a kid, you don’t think about stuff like prestige. And then came Gunn.

During my meetings with my counselor, I was given the impression that private universities are superior in that they demand a certain extra something. In fact, I was explicitly told that I had a better shot at Berkeley than private schools. The private schools, I was told, look for something intangible, so there was no guarantee of admission. The UCs, however, have a relatively rigid formula for admission that provides accountability. Understandably, the uncertain, and possibly unattainable, are always more desirable. For private schools, the uncertainty is especially appealing. Getting accepted proves that you possess that intangible perk that makes you a better “fit” for the school.

Although I do not believe racial makeup alone deters students from going to Cal, stereotypes about them certainly do. In U.S. News and World Report’s annual college ranking, among national universities, Cal’s undergraduate business and engineering programs placed in the top three, and 16 of its graduate programs in the top 10.

However, Cal ranked 20 overall. In spite of its superior academics, factors such as alumni giving rate and student-faculty ratio drag it down. If non-academic factors matter so much for rankings, imagine how much they matter for students choosing where to spend the next four years of their lives.

And then it hit me. This nation’s private universities have waged an extremely successful image campaign. Each year, their process of “shaping a class” is much like Abercrombie and Fitch’s campaign to establish a brand lifestyle. Private colleges choose students who embody their ideals to create a distinct student body, which in turn defi nes the university. It is with this process that the universities can maintain their image and continue to draw not only the brightest students, but also the richest, most generous and most obsessed with prestige.

Now, private schools certainly have their strengths. The amount of investment per student, in terms of professors, resources and funding, is hard to beat. Recruitment of students with a diversity of talents also makes for more lively campus scene. By taking initiative, however, public school students can just also benefit from the wealth of resources available to them.

John F. Kennedy stated, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” It’s time for students to ask what they can do to defi ne their college experience, and not what their colleges can do to define them. With this approach, we might see the golden bear shine bright again.