<p>so if your brother chose to attend Duke or Georgetown instead of Cornell, wouldn't it be plausible to think that you would have supported Duke more than Cornell or Columbia? </p>
<p>just a thought...hahaha....</p>
<p>so Stanford's law school is named Trinity? </p>
<p>thats a pretty name....kkkk</p>
<p>oh, Trinity meant Harvard, Yale, Stanford...</p>
<p>sorry.</p>
<p>Dude, the edit button. Learn to love it. :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
Medicine – Harvard, Hopkins
Law – Yale, Harvard, Stanford (aka Trinity) + 11 regionally acclaimed law schools
Business – Harvard, Stanford, UPenn, Columbia, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern
Engineering – MIT, Stanford, Berkeley
Humanities /Social Sciences – Harvard, Berkeley</p>
<p>...Therefore, it is not much to say that Harvard & Berkeley are two top dogs for Ph D programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty decent list of top grad schools - except:</p>
<p>Medicine - add UCSF
Law - add Columbia
Business - spot on
Engineering - Caltech
Humanities / Social Sciences - here's where i have a problem</p>
<p>i agree that H and Cal rank very highly in many PhD lists, but to claim that these are the top two schools (a.k.a. "top two dogs") and ONLY those two - for such a broad blanket area? depending on what discipline, a half dozen schools could be on this list... let's take for example, economics - you're not going to convince many people that Cal is > MIT or Chicago... </p>
<p>also... what happened to the "hard" Sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, comp sci, math, etc.)? are you claiming that Harvard and Cal are the across the board two top "dogs" in all of those areas as well? What about: MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Stanford? At least according to USNews, MIT is ranked no. 1 (PhD) in Physics, Comp Sci, Chemistry, Math...</p>
<p>at the end of the day, i certainly agree that Harvard can definitely claim broad and deep representation across the grad school spectrum - particularly in the BIG THREE (Business, Law and Medicine). Cal also has a great grad school platform, no question - so let's not take my criticisms the wrong way - i'm not saying that Cal isn't great. Furthermore, when it comes to the "Big Three" professional grad schools (Bus, Med, Law) Cal's representation pales in comparison to Harvard... so, let's ease up on the hyperbole's about Cal and Harvard being "the only games in town". Depending on any given discipline, I think a few institutions (MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Princeton, UChicago, etc.) may have something to say about that...</p>
<p>banana//</p>
<p>a mistake like that has an effect of making a place more humane. hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>especially when everyone who's posting here seems to have attended or are attending top schools in the nation.</p>
<p>I'm not saying Duke is better than any school, </p>
<p>I'm just saying that Duke is as good as Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn</p>
<p>For anyone who says Duke doesn't have as strong a presence on Wall Street, I'd love to see some data to back that up...unless thats inferred from something which I dont know - after all, the WALL STREET Journal is the one that put Duke 6th overall.</p>
<p>So yeah, I'm just waiting for Porsche to reply with something.</p>
<p>just a question, but how good is Georgetown business program? (McDounough School)</p>
<p>i heard it's not bad, but it's not of stellar quality either.</p>
<p>McDounough is a good school, but IMO several publics have as good or better undergrad b-schools for a lower price.</p>
<p>I don't know to what degree rankings and perceptions have changed, but when I was applying for an MBA, Dartmouth (Tuck) was in the mix with those schools, if not above, UChicago, Columbia, MIT.</p>
<p>Gellino, those three have risen in the last few years. I'd say Tuck is right after those three.</p>
<p>Another reason rankings shouldn't be taken too importantly since they change to some degree every year anyway. Not to mention there's no real discernable difference between a #6 and #8 ranked school anyway. It probably didn't help Tuck's selectivity to increase its class size by 20%, either.</p>
<p>over the last ten years, two programs in particular have gone in the opposite directions (Yale and Cornell):</p>
<p>the MBA program that has seen the fastest climb and continues to rise is definitely Yale's SOM - its gone from practically nothing to Top 15 in a short span of time</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Cornell's b-school has been going in the opposite direction. 10-15 years ago Cornell was arguably a Top 5 school. Over the last 5-10 years, Cornell has struggled to maintain a Top 15/20 position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was of course referring to average people, not wallstreet people. That's why I specifically said I was referring to average people in response to someone who was also talking about average people. Reading comprehension.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was expounding that, in academics sense, close connection to Wall St. will broadcast fame throughout the country. I would argue that Duke lacks this connection when compared with Columbia and Penn. On the other hand, being famous in basketball games will not elevate its academic status; USC vs Cal was my previous example. </p>
<p>Logical Inference.</p>
<p>I don't see how producing future thieves for Wall St adds much academic luster.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For anyone who says Duke doesn't have as strong a presence on Wall Street, I'd love to see some data to back that up...unless thats inferred from something which I dont know - after all, the WALL STREET Journal is the one that put Duke 6th overall.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe WSJ only ranks the feeders to top MBA institutions. But it doesn't necessarily mean that those graduated with MBA's will definitely go to Wall Street. Due to their (Columbia and Penn) longer/older standing relative to Duke, I would assume that they have more influence and network. Wall Street seems to be much more conservative compared to Silicon Valley in terms of value, perception, recruitment etc. Unfortunately I could hardly give you any hard data since I only hear it from a couple of my friends who work there and from books like Liar's Poker and Monkey Business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see how producing future thieves for Wall St adds much academic luster.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps it doesn't enlarge the academic circle, but it adds to the list of reasons for going to those schools that produce filthy rich thieves.</p>
<p>Cutthroat Wall Street wannabes may not have intellectual aspirations, but many are quite intelligent and it would be wrong to assume that they cannot add to a classroom. </p>
<p>Plus they tend to help the old endowment out a bit...</p>
<p>rtkysg:</p>
<p>I agree that the Ivies have better established networks. That isn't what I'm talking about at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that the Ivies have better established networks. That isn't what I'm talking about at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So I guess you was probably referring to 'popularity' and not 'stature'.</p>