<p>
</p>
<p>warblersrule: Proves my point. The dominance of these institutions as a percentage of the winners over the last 10 years is for Marshall (and Truman) far less than the Rhodes. It’s natural that HYP would win more, but the unmeritocratic/cliquish nature of the Rhodes process skews these numbers to extreme levels.</p>
<p>As I suspected, Northwestern’s Truman figures were also a little off, and completely ignored public universities (many of which did very well) and LACs. </p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard University: 62</li>
<li>Stanford University: 57</li>
<li>Yale University: 53</li>
<li>Duke University: 36</li>
<li>Brown University: 33</li>
<li>Princeton University: 31</li>
<li>United States Military Academy: 31</li>
<li>Kansas State University: 30</li>
<li>University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: 29</li>
<li>University of Virginia: 28</li>
<li>University of Chicago: 26</li>
<li>Georgetown University: 25</li>
<li>Cornell University: 22</li>
<li>University of Texas-Austin: 22</li>
<li>Columbia University: 21</li>
<li>Dartmouth College: 21</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 21</li>
<li>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 21</li>
<li>United States Naval Academy: 20</li>
<li>West Virginia University: 20</li>
<li>University of Utah: 19</li>
<li>University of Kentucky: 18</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania: 18</li>
<li>Swarthmore College: 17</li>
<li>United States Air Force Academy: 17</li>
<li>University of Georgia: 17</li>
<li>Wellesley College: 17</li>
<li>Arizona State University: 16</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna College: 16</li>
<li>Oberlin College: 16</li>
<li>University of Kansas: 16</li>
<li>University of Minnesota-Twin Cities: 16</li>
<li>University of Southern California: 16</li>
<li>University of Wisconsin-Madison 16</li>
<li>American University: 15</li>
<li>Michigan State University: 15</li>
<li>University of Nebraska: 15</li>
<li>Wake Forest University: 15</li>
<li>Brigham Young University: 14</li>
<li>Indiana University-Bloomington: 14</li>
<li>Mississippi State University: 14</li>
<li>University of Missouri: 14</li>
<li>Vanderbilt University: 14</li>
<li>Amherst College: 13</li>
<li>Boston College: 13</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins University: 13</li>
<li>Miami University (Ohio): 13</li>
<li>Occidental College: 13</li>
<li>Pomona College: 13</li>
<li>University of Alabama: 13</li>
<li>University of Arkansas: 13</li>
<li>University of California-Berkeley: 13</li>
<li>University of Washington: 13</li>
<li>University of Wyoming: 13</li>
<li>Washington University-St Louis: 13</li>
<li>Williams College: 13</li>
<li>Emory University: 12</li>
<li>Northwestern University: 12</li>
<li>University of Iowa: 12</li>
<li>University of Mississippi: 12</li>
<li>Bowdoin College: 11</li>
<li>George Washington University: 11</li>
<li>Macalester College: 11</li>
<li>New York University: 11</li>
<li>Tulane University: 11</li>
<li>University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign: 11</li>
<li>University of Montana: 11</li>
<li>University of Pittsburgh: 11</li>
<li>University of Vermont: 11</li>
<li>College of William and Mary: 10</li>
<li>Grinnell College: 10</li>
<li>Rice University: 10</li>
<li>Tufts University: 10</li>
<li>University of Notre Dame: 10</li>
<li>University of Oklahoma: 10</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>You didn’t really address the very point that I questioned. You said the very top students at Berkeley aren’t as talented as the top students at the top 10 schools. I questioned that given that the top grad schools’ adcoms continue to see it entirely differently. In fact, Berkeley has always been consistently in the top 10 at those top grad programs I previously mentioned, in terms of representation. That means, several Berkeley grads appear to be more talented than several thousand grads of your so-called top 10. Therefore, it seems to me that your claim doesn’t agree with the reality.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>There’s a bit of equivocation here. Being a California resident for undergraduate purposes is different than being a California resident for graduate purposes. For the former, many restrictions are put in place; for the latter, the minimum requirement is one year residency within the state. Given that most of those programs are several years, it isn’t surprising that the majority of graduate students are California residents since they’ve probably been living within the state multiple years. </p>
<p>Certainly they’re both ‘California residents,’ but i think it’s important to note that those in the latter category might not belong (or have been able to belong) in the former.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never really dug into this. But there seems to have a few obvious reasons why that’s so. </p>
<p>Berkeley undergrad isn’t as prestigious as HYPSM undergrad. Let’s face it. HYPSM are in a league of their own – for undergrad education. That coupled with the fact that advising – for Rhodes (and a few other scholarships) – at Berkeley isn’t as efficient as at HYPSM’s. Cultural could also be the reason why. If there is a culture at Berkeley for winning Rhodes, I’m sure the results would have been quite different. </p>
<p>Berkeley is a host of a wide range of academic programs almost all of which is a top 10 program. But Berkeley’s strengths lie heavily in engineering, physical sciences, computer science and IT. In those areas, Berkeley isn’t short of achievements, and is rivaling MIT, Stanford and Caltech in either prestige or achievements.</p>
<p>Getting an undergraduate degree from Berkeley isn’t the same as getting a graduate degree there prestige wise. That’s what we are arguing RML.</p>
<p>“Getting an undergraduate degree from Berkeley isn’t the same as getting a graduate degree there prestige wise.”</p>
<p>Well I suppose if Duke were a top five-ten school worldwide, you could make the same comment.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Those numbers from Northwestern are meant for INTERNAL use only; Northwestern used them as part of the on-going process of measuring themselves against the peers. That’s why a lot of publics are not on the list. It got nothing to do with promoting themselves. In fact, if they really want to promote themselves, they should have put the numbers for Gates Cambridge. Northwestern is ahead of schools like Duke, Brown, Michigan, or Cornell in that scholarship. Though much younger, the awards are probably even more generous than Rhodes.
[Gates</a> Scholarship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Scholarship]Gates”>Gates Cambridge Scholarship - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>UCB,</p>
<p>Compared to the Berkeley guy that just won the Rhodes, this Northwestern girl that just won the Marshall seems to be more impressive. 
[Triple</a> Science Major Named Marshall Scholar: Northwestern University News](<a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2012/11/triple-science-major-named-marshall-scholar.html]Triple”>Triple Science Major Named Marshall Scholar - Northwestern Now)</p>
<p>Meh…earth, planetary and “integrated” science?! Weak sauce!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably true for those particularly finicky guys like yourself, Golden, and I agree to it to some extent. But then again, that’s also true at most top schools and a reverse at some. For example, Yale MBA does not carry similar prestige as Yale Law or Yale undergrad. Harvard undergrad is more prestigious than Harvard Graduate School of Education. Berkeley engineering is more prestigious than Berkeley L&S, and so on. BUT… </p>
<p>That wasn’t the issue you originally raised. You said that the top students at Berkeley are not as talented as the top students at (your) the top 10 schools. Prove that.</p>
<p>Last year, 4 Berkeley grads won the Gates Scholarship. Just this year, one Berkeley grad won the Rhodes Scholarship. Every year, hundreds of Berkeley grads land a spot at the top grad programs across the US and the world. For example, Berkeley grads represented the 2nd largest at both JHU and UCLAMed Schools, and are accounted as the largest block at UCSF Med School. Berkeley is also amongst the top 10 - in terms of representation - at Harvard Law, Yale Law, Stanford Law, Harvard Med, Stanford Engineering, MIT Engineering, Caltech and so on. If what you asserted that Berkeley’s top students are not as talented as those at your top 10 schools was true, how come Berkeley regularly manages to represent their students at the top grad programs in the US?</p>
<p>Wowser! A reunion of all the usual suspects and the reintroduction of that elusive prestige term. </p>
<p>Perhaps you should let this discussion settle the arguments: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1421664-time-revise-prestigiosity-ratings.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1421664-time-revise-prestigiosity-ratings.html</a> </p>
<p>Let the Prestigiosity Index reign supreme! And, please give that student a parking space on Cal campus. Such a rare feat should get the same recognition as the Nobel. Really, how insensitive can you be, UCBChem!</p>
<p>Well, in fairness, school prestige is important to many students, so you can’t rule that out in choosing a school to attend. Winning the Rhodes is not as prestigious as winning the Nobel.</p>
<p>I said he deserved a parking spot! No insensitivity on my part.</p>
<p>UCB,
The rigor of Integrated Science Program (ISP) rivals CalTech. The math they take is of higher level than what’s required for the engineering students at Berkeley. ISP students frequently win awards like NSF Fellowships or Goldwater. For example, two ISP students won Goldwater in 2009 and three ISP students won it in 2010.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/index.html[/url]”>http://www.isp.northwestern.edu/index.html</a></p>
<p>Yes, or is that more of a factor of being a “highly selective” program?</p>
<p>It’s actually self-selective. It’s not hard to get in once you get into NU. ISP can take more students but not many people want to deal with the rigor.</p>
<p>Uh huh…well perhaps you should correct the author of the original article you posted. Her term is “highly selective”.</p>
<p>^NU is already highly selective; ISP is therefore highly selective. This isn’t like a honors college at some less selective public university. The mid-50% math is 700-780 at NU; they don’t reject that many because most ISP applicants probably have near-perfect math scores. The term also sends a message that it’s a very rigorous program.</p>
<p>Yep, UCB, I confused your reply with Coureur’s </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For RML, it seems that Nobels are more plentiful than Rhodes. Actually, I did not care enough to look it up, especially since I actually think that the Rhodes have more relevance that the Nobel awardees to this forum, who spend their time in ancillary activities or are rewarded for work dating back decades.</p>