My charitable interpretation is that the OP is suggesting that large state schools might choose questions from broad, comprehensive body of material, to determine general aptitude. A liberal arts college might select more narrow or field-specific questions that would improve the resolution of the test for specific subjects.

I was speaking in general terms because I did not want to pick out specific schools that are considered "better" and more academically rigorous than others. I simply wanted to acknowledge that the average freshman at Harvard or Williams probably sees a harder test than her counterpart at Ohio State. The price and prestige of a school are not always good indicators of quality, but I am very confident that selective schools that receive the top students have curricula to challenge those students. There are certainly exceptions: I go to a private university that is leagues behind some of the top public institutions: Berkeley, UCLA, UMich (among others) provide excellent educations, and they are much more academically rigorous than my private institution and many like it.

I am not saying that students who go to a private college are "better" or more likely to succeed. My point is that more selective (and generally private) schools are accustomed to receiving students that have been groomed for academic success throughout high school, and thus the bar for academic rigor starts out at a higher level. The crux of my original comment was to propose a solution for identifying just how high the bar is set on that first batch of exams, to see if you are ready. Knowing what is coming would prevent the overwhelming feeling of depression and "not belonging" that comes with failing a test in a new, scary environment. My point was somewhat obscured and vague, so thank you for challenging me to clarify.

As a rising senior in college, this is just a personal observation derived from my choices and conversations I have had with friends.

It's not even that any person is better than another... Classes at elite public schools like Berkeley, UCLA, UMich, etc. are more demanding than at any but a few private colleges.

And it isn't really fair to paint with even this broad a brush. The fact is that large public universities generally have a broader charter than small, elite private schools. This is a factor of how they're governed on the one hand (things like mandating x% of students are admitted from in-state, or enforcing affirmative action), and the fact that they [usually] have to provide a reasonably comprehensive set of study options on the other. I went to an "elite" state school and studied history & comparative religion. My wife went to a small private women's college (~750 students) and studied biology. The resources available at my uni, which has a $2b/yr operating budget, were orders of magnitude better than hers, but the education I received was far less personal and -- again speaking in generalities -- not as good as what she received with the small class sizes and personal tutelage from her professors.

> not as good as what she received

Sounds more like a reflection of the difference in studied topics.