as a graduate of cranbrook [[i was there from 6th to 12th grade, having gone to public school for elementary), i can safely say [[at least as far as the early 1990s) that cranbrook is [[or at least was) superior in education to pretty much every public school in the area, perhaps leaving out groves. we were reading literature in 7th grade that kids at lahser weren't reading until their senior year. the college counsellors were immensely helpful in getting you to the colleges that would be right for you, and while i can't speak to the athletics, i can say that the theater department was nothing short of fantastic.

a couple people mentioned the snob factor, it really doesn't exist as much as you'd think. certainly from an outsider perspective, maybe we were snobs, but within the school itself... i mean, you certainly knew who the ridiculously wealthy kids were, but at least to the best of my knowledge it was never a Thing - the student body, due to the HUB program and its extensive financial aid program, is highly diverse, with kids from all different financial and social backgrounds, and where in the public schools all you heard about were the different cliques and separateness, the kids at cranbrook intermixed fluidly, with kids from all social groups interacting with everyone else.

if there is any downside to attending cranbrook, short of the pricetag [[which, admittedly, is ridiculous - i was lucky enough to come from a wealthy family, so my parents were able to afford the full tuition, but it cost more to send me to cranbrook for four years than it did to send me to a small liberal arts college afterward), i haven't seen it. i will say that, outside of the midwest, employers are not as moved by the name on a resume as the school would lead prospective students to believe, but that is absolutely where the downsides end.