3 most prestigious US schools in the world?

College Search & Selection
81

<p>Shouldn't CC conduct a poll of the students and academics who hang around this forum to find about this PRESTIGE thing? It seems to the dominant discussion in almost every part of this forum. No matter what the original discussion was, it ultimately comes to ...</p>

<p>In my opinion:
USA considers Harvard
UK considers Harvard Oxford Cambridge
Asian countries (particularly China and India) consider MIT Stanford Berkeley and maybe Harvard</p>

<p>My reason for the last assertion being that China and India are tech centered countries, where most competitive students tend to have engineering and tech background, so they prefer tech centered universities.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

82

<p>"You're as full of it as a Christmas turkey. The NRC rankings place MIT above Berkeley in the average of nonzero scores, and Stanford places above Berkeley in the average of all 41 scores."</p>

<p>Warblers86, If you want to compare graduate education, check us news graduate rankings. I believe Berkeley has more top 10 programs than any other school in the country. If you want to quote a ten year old ranking (NRC) that is fine. Cal's graduate education is without question second to none, other than possibly Harvard. Berkeley has more top ten programs across the board than does stanford. Although this post was not about how many top programs a school has, attacking me and stating that Stanfords graduate programs are siginificangtly better than Berkeley's is an outrageous comment, especially when you consider programs across the board. Check out up to date rankings on individual programs. And in terms of prestige, check out what i post before ripping it. I stated that at the undergraduate level Stanford is worlds ahead of Berkeley. In terms of international prestige, not national, however, the Berkeley name is stronger than that of Stanford. If you disagree, good for you. But you are simply wrong. I am not biased. Hell i attended UCSD and soon to be attending UCLA, but not Berkeley. If anything i should hate berkeley, since i got denied there. I have traveled to Europe, Latin America, etc, and the Berkeley name is incredibly strong. I would say second to Harvard. Im not sure why poeple are having trouble accepting that on this thread. Maybe they are not reading the post correctly or viewing prestige through an undergraduates eyes within the United States. That was not the question however. When speaking of international prestige, not national, and as an overall University, the Berkeley name holds more weight than the Stanford name, period. Why are people posting schools yields to try to claim broad international prestige. The international general public does not configure prestige with yield rate, even if we do here of cc. Simply in terms of prestige and name recongnition i believe Berkeley trumps Stanford internationally.</p>

83

<p>ucchris,</p>

<p>In terms of international reputation, stanford and berkeley are about equal. If you look at the Shanghi ranking, Stanford is ahead of Berkeley. </p>

<p>In terms of individual programs, according to US NEWS, Stanford has most top 10 programs, and most top 5 programs. But if 1995 NCR ranking is used, Berkeley has most distinguished ph.d programs. My impression: Stanford is a little better in bussiness school, law school, medical school, and engineering school. Berkeley is a little better in humanities and sciences. They are even in social sciences. </p>

<p>I think claiming berkeley triumphs stanford internationally is baseless.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]

The yield for internationals was only 40s% last year. That means the majority of admits turned down Berkeley for some place else despite it's actually CHEAPER than privates! If Berkeley is so "well-regarded" by internationals like you claimed, it's yield wouldn't be this low. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sam Lee, </p>

<p>Yield rate does have a very small bearing in school's PRESTIGE especially if we talk about INTERNATIONAL level. </p>

<p>I'll tell you what my dad told me when I asked him what he thinks of UC Berkeley and why he chose to go to Stanford when he also got acceptance offers from Berkeley and MIT. </p>

<p>He applied during the early 70's. At that time, UC Berkeley was his first choice. He claimed that during his time (I was not born then), UC Berkeley has a really clear lead over Stanford, but he was quick to follow up that statement by saying, *"things MIGHT be different now. When I entered, Stanford was already head-to-head with Berkeley." * </p>

<p>Why he chose Stanford over Berkeley? My dad cannot afford to pay his education by his own back then. (He was not born to a very rich family – that's the truth.) He needed a scholarship grant and Stanford offered him that. Although he got into Berkeley, there was no scholarship nor were there a stipend attached to the offer. Stanford, on the other hand, was generous to him. So, he grabbed the offer with all his heart and he never regretted that decision. Now, he's very proud to have gone to Stanford cause it provided him the path that lead him to where he is today. </p>

<p>Contrary to your belief, UC Berkeley is a very expensive school to go to if you are an international student. Berkeley rarely offers scholarship grants to international students. But this is not to say that Berkeley is less prestigious. It's just more expensive for international students. And that probably explains the low yield compared to private schools.</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
Asian countries (particularly China and India) consider MIT Stanford Berkeley and maybe Harvard

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? "Maybe" Harvard? Let's face it. Harvard has, far and away, the best brand-name in the world.</p>

<p>It is true that China and India are tech-focused. But, come on, not to the point that Chinese students won't jump at the chance to go to Harvard. The reason why China and India are tech focused is that they are trying to develop their economies and their business infrastructure. When it comes to business, let's be honest, the Harvard name is king. Fair or not fair, that's how it works. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In terms of international prestige, not national, however, the Berkeley name is stronger than that of Stanford. If you disagree, good for you. But you are simply wrong. I am not biased.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree, and I am quite certain that I am not wrong. I have never seen any convincing evidence that the Berkeley name is stronger than Stanford internationally. If anything, the opposite is true. I too have had extensive international experience, and from what I have found, Berkeley is seen as the school for people who weren't good enough to get into Stanford. Sad but true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But if 1995 NCR ranking is used, Berkeley has most distinguished ph.d programs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Personally, I think the notion that Berkeley (or any other school) has "more" distinguished PhD programs according to the NCR ranking is a red herring. After all, look at how the NCR counts these programs. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I have never understood why, for example, Biological Sciences is broken into 7 different "programs". Why is that? I could just as easily break up chemistry or physics into multiple different programs too, for example, organic chemistry, atomic physics, particle physics, physical chemistry, etc. So that means that schools that participate in all 7 biological 'programs' get counted 7 times, but a school that doesn't do biology gets a zero in 7 categories? Why? Furthermore, plenty of doctoral programs aren't even counted by the NRC. For example, what about business doctoral programs? Some people get doctorates in business. Why not count them as a program? Heck, you could break up business doctorates into multiple programs too - strategy, operations, marketing, finance, etc. But the NRC doesn't measure any of them. What about petroleum engineering programs? Some schools like Stanford have prominent PEtE PhD programs. Why aren't they counted? Plenty of other doctoral programs are not enumerated by the NRC.</p>

<p>The NRC is useful because it gives you a general sense of what schools are good and what aren't. But I wouldn't use the NRC to say that a school has a larger number of good 'programs', because that gets down to the controversy of what exactly constitutes a 'program'. Again, why exactly does biology count as 7 different programs, but physics only counts as 1 program?</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
Huh? "Maybe" Harvard? Let's face it. Harvard has, far and away, the best brand-name in the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>Harvard is probabaly the most famous school on earth but it does not have an engineering/IT programs. And I think the guyt was saying -- for engineering/IT.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]

Huh? "Maybe" Harvard? Let's face it. Harvard has, far and away, the best brand-name in the world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, "Maybe" Harvard. Harvard might have the best brand name in the world, but brand name isn't everything, you know. China and India's tech savvy students don't even consider applying to Haahvawd (well, maybe some do.) For evidence, look at the Asian population at tech centered MIT and engineering schools of Berkeley and Stanford, then compare them to other social science and arts programs at those schools, and you will get the idea. Heck, even business programs are not that much populated by Asians.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]

I disagree, and I am quite certain that I am not wrong. I have never seen any convincing evidence that the Berkeley name is stronger than Stanford internationally. If anything, the opposite is true. I too have had extensive international experience, and from what I have found, Berkeley is seen as the school for people who weren't good enough to get into Stanford. Sad but true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, you really need to check your facts or may be you need to travel more internationally. Berkeley name is stronger than Stanford. For example, Times Higher Education Supplement 2005 rankings give Berkeley higher peer review score among academics than Stanford. Or may be you are never wrong.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
Harvard is probabaly the most famous school on earth but it does not have an engineering/IT programs. And I think the guyt was saying -- for engineering/IT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It doesn't have an engineering/IT program? So what's up with the following link?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.deas.harvard.edu/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.deas.harvard.edu/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I agree that Harvard's engineering/IT programs are not at the level of MIT's or Stanford's. But I don't think that's the issue at hand. This is what he said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
most competitive students tend to have engineering and tech background, so they prefer tech centered universities

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This I disagree with. Engineering/tech students do NOT really prefer tech-centered universities. Not exactly. Instead, they prefer whatever will help them get ahead in life. It may be tech. It may be non-tech. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. It has become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the top engineering students will never spend a day in their lives actually working as engineers. Instead, what do they do? Get jobs in management consulting or investment banking. For example, a full 25% of all MIT EECS grads head off not to engineering jobs, but to jobs in consulting and banking. Plenty of the other MIT EECS grads wanted to go to consulting/banking, but didn't get an offer. Plenty of other engineering grads run off to do other things.</p>

<p>In fact I was talking to three MIT engineering grads, who graduated near the top of their class. I asked them what they planned to do with their lives. One is going to consulting, and ultimately plans to get his MBA. When I asked where would want to do this, he said, without a moment's hestiation, "Harvard Business School". Another said he was heading off to Harvard Law School. The third said that he was going to become a Wall Street investment banker, and may also eventually pursue his MBA at HBS. Not one of them expressed any enthusiasm about staying in engineering. </p>

<p>Consider this quote from Time Magazine:</p>

<p>*As the size of individual grants shrinks, university researchers have to win more of them to keep research going, which requires enormous amounts of extra paperwork. "It's decreased their quality of life," says Paul Jennings, provost of Caltech and a civil engineer. When students see how much time a professor spends on bureaucratic busywork, says Jennings, they say, "I don't want to do that." It's not just red tape either, says Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University and a 2001 Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine. "If we compare what our best undergraduates get paid as a graduate student vs. what they get paid in investment banking, there's no doubt that there's tremendous economic pressure to suck you away from what is perhaps your first academic love." As for teaching science at the precollege level, salaries and working conditions are even more dismal.</p>

<p>Students at élite universities are getting that message loud and clear. Melisa Gao, 20, is a senior majoring in chemistry at Princeton, but when recruiters from consulting firms and investment banks showed up on campus last fall, she went on several interviews, and she will take a job as a consultant after graduation. She says, "They love the fact that science majors can think analytically, that we're comfortable with numbers." Increasingly, science majors love those companies back. Gao says, "There are no guarantees if you go into science, especially as a woman. You have to worry about getting tenure. Or if you go into industry, it takes you a long time to work your way up the ladder." If you go into finance or consulting instead, "by the time your roommate is out of grad school, you've been promoted, plus you're making a lot more money, while they're stuck in lab."</p>

<p>Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: "It's marketed as--I don't want to say dead end but sort of 'O.K., here's your role, here's your lab, here's what you're going to be working on.' Even if it's a really cool product, you're locked into it." Like Gao, Pearce is leaning toward consulting. "If you're an M.I.T. grad and you're going to get paid $50,000 to work in a cubicle all day--as opposed to $60,000 in a team setting, plus a bonus, plus this, plus that--it seems like a no-brainer." </p>

<p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...156575,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...156575,00.html&lt;/a> *</p>

<p>The point is, I disagree with the premise that students with engineering/tech backgrounds prefer tech-centered schools. Not from what I have seen. From what I have seen, they prefer whatever school will help them have a good career. And, whether we like it or not, the truth is, engineering/tech skills just don't pay as well as skills in business. I wish it weren't true. But it is true. </p>

<p>I think this is PARTICULARLY true in China and India. Both of these countries have plenty of engineers. So if you're an engineer in China or India, you are going to be competing against all of the millions of other engineers that those countries have. What those countries lack are people with modern business skills. In fact, right now, both countries are importing business/management talent from the West to help them manage all of their new companies. Few Western engineers are going to China or India for jobs (because both countries have plenty of engineers), but plenty of Western managers are going to China or India for jobs. Many of my colleagues, for example, have taken jobs in China or India as managers. </p>

<p>If you're a Chinese or Indian native with a Harvard MBA, you clearly have something that few people in your country can match. It's a major differentiating factor. Many engineers would rather become managers, but few managers would rather become engineers.</p>

<p>So I can agree with the notion that China and India will send a lot of students who end up in tech-centered universities. That is true. But not because they really PREFER it. Given the opportunity, I am fairly sure that most of them would prefer to do something else, like go to Harvard and study business. It's just that most of them can't do it. For example, a superstar engineer who has no business experience will find that getting into MIT for his PhD to be easier than getting into Harvard Business School. But that is not a true representation of what he actually prefers.</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
Yes, "Maybe" Harvard. Harvard might have the best brand name in the world, but brand name isn't everything, you know. China and India's tech savvy students don't even consider applying to Haahvawd (well, maybe some do.) For evidence, look at the Asian population at tech centered MIT and engineering schools of Berkeley and Stanford, then compare them to other social science and arts programs at those schools, and you will get the idea. Heck, even business programs are not that much populated by Asians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you're not answering the question. The question is not what they ACTUALLY do. The question is what they PREFER to do. </p>

<p>I agree that business programs are not that highly populated by Asians. But is it because Asians don't want to do business, or just because they can't get in? I would argue that it is the latter. Let's face it. A lot of Asians simply don't have the social skills and business experience to get into business school (and I say that as an Asian guy myself). </p>

<p>But again, I'll put it to you this way. Why is it that so many MIT engineering students never take engineering jobs, instead taking business-type jobs like consulting or banking? Why is that? It's so prevalent that it's become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the best engineering students will not actually work as engineers. Ask yourself - why is that? These are the best engineering students in the world, and yet even plenty of them would prefer to be businessmen, not engineers. What's up with that?</p>

<p>I think that demonstrates the true revealed preferences that people have. A lot of Asians do engineering not because they really want to do it, but just because it's 'available'. They do it because they can do it, not because they really want to do it. Give them more options, and they would prefer something else. For example, if you're a native-born Chinese, you probably don't have the English skills to be confident in doing well as a Western manager. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to be, if given the chance.</p>

<p>Look, it's a general truism in life that most people don't get to do what they really want to do, and so just end up doing whatever is available. For example, I freely admit that if truly given my choice, I would be a professional baseball player. The problem is that I'm not a good baseball player, so I know I don't have a chance. But I wish I was good enough to have that chance. Similarly, just because a lot of Asians study engineering doesn't mean that they really WANT to study engineering. I would argue that that's just a matter of availability. They do it not because they really want to do it, but just because it is available to them.</p>

<p>There's a big difference between what you * actually * do and what you * prefer * to do. For example, most people in the world would probably prefer to be professional athletes, or movie stars, or famous singers, or runway models, or fighter pilots, or so forth. It's just that most people don't get to do what they really prefer to do, so they have to do something else.</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
He applied during the early 70's. At that time, UC Berkeley was his first choice. He claimed that during his time (I was not born then), UC Berkeley has a really clear lead over Stanford, but he was quick to follow up that statement by saying, "things MIGHT be different now. When I entered, Stanford was already head-to-head with Berkeley."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This I find believable, given the history of the time. We have to keep in mind that it wasnt that long ago that Stanford was considered a regional backwater school of little prestige. For example, Stanford only won its first Nobel Prize in the 1950's, and by that time Berkeley had already won 6, and was about to win a whole slew more of them. In fact, at one point, Stanford had something like 2 Nobel winners, and Berkeley had at least 10. Now, Stanford has 18 and Berkeley has 7. </p>

<p>Obviously Nobel Prizes don't tell the whole story. But if you read the stories of Stanford, you will see that Stanford's status as an elite school has been the case only recently, i.e. in the last 30-40 years. Stanford's rise is linked with the rise of Silicon Valley, but Silicon Valley has been a tech/business dynamo only in relatively recent history. It wasn't that long ago when Silicon Valley was all just farm and orchard country. Old histories of Stanford relate the story of how early Stanford administrators shuddered at the thought of having to compete against the well-established behemoth public school in the East Bay, back at the time when Stanford had very little money and Berkeley had full financial backing from the state. Heck, in the early days, Stanford almost went backrupt several times.</p>

92

<p>Sakky, I really can't quote that big a paragraph, but let's start with parts of it.</p>

<p>
[quote]

In fact I was talking to three MIT engineering grads, who graduated near the top of their class. I asked them what they planned to do with their lives. One is going to consulting, and ultimately plans to get his MBA. When I asked where would want to do this, he said, without a moment's hestiation, "Harvard Business School". Another said he was heading off to Harvard Law School. The third said that he was going to become a Wall Street investment banker, and may also eventually pursue his MBA at HBS. Not one of them expressed any enthusiasm about staying in engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I bet none of them was an Asian. Anyway ...</p>

<p>
[quote]

This I disagree with. Engineering/tech students do NOT really prefer tech-centered universities. Not exactly. Instead, they prefer whatever will help them get ahead in life. It may be tech. It may be non-tech.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]

Consider this quote from Time Magazine:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, everyone prefers whatever will help them get ahead in life; but leaving your particular area of expertise to succeed professionally isn't a commonplace strategy, MIT notwithstanding. Times article doesn't prove anything. Investment banking is so exclusive and small field that it can't affect engineering profession. Actually more than 90% of Chinese and Indian engineering students haven't even heard of IB.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]

I think that demonstrates the true revealed preferences that people have. A lot of Asians do engineering not because they really want to do it, but just because it's 'available'. They do it because they can do it, not because they really want to do it. Give them more options, and they would prefer something else. For example, if you're a native-born Chinese, you probably don't have the English skills to be confident in doing well as a Western manager. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to be, if given the chance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>English skills are not an excuse for not studying business or studying only engineering. Don't you get your verbal skills tested in GREs and TOEFLs? And saying that Asians lack social skills for doing business IS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]

There's a big difference between what you actually do and what you prefer to do. For example, most people in the world would probably prefer to be professional athletes, or movie stars, or famous singers, or runway models, or fighter pilots, or so forth. It's just that most people don't get to do what they really prefer to do, so they have to do something else.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What kind of an argument is that for choosing to become IBankers and not engineers?</p>

<p>
[quote]

It's so prevalent that it's become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the best engineering students will not actually work as engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>MIT produces thousands of engineers per year. If most of them DO get into Investment Banking, then almost all of IBakers must be MIT alumni; considering that IB community is really exclusive and small. Pity for Ivy League and famous athletes.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
Yield rate does have a very small bearing in school's PRESTIGE especially if we talk about INTERNATIONAL level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh?
You mean it's human nature to turn down schools with more prestige? The number I used was indeed for international students. What yield number do you want me to use? OOS students? That's even worst. I guess you want me to use in-state one.</p>

<p>ucchris,
You mean you went around to ask foreigners what they thought about American colleges when you were travelling with your family as a teenager? That's kinda tacky. I am from Hong Kong and in general, two groupls of people know about American colleges: 1. high schoolers / college seniors planning to go to American colleges/grad schools and 2. those who have been educated in America would know much about American schools. High schoolers have resources like US News/American college guides which all indicate Stanford is well-above Berkeley in terms of selectivity (one of my former classmates got into Berkeley with 6As out of 9 subjects on O-level while people that got into Stanford generally got straight As to even have a slim chance. Berkeley also requires only 550 on TOFEL while most privates requires 600 as the min). US News college ranking also places Stanford a lot higher. College students interested in grad schools would be the ones that recognize Berkeley's grad programs. I don't see why those who have been educated in America would see Berkeley in much different light than other educated Americans. Oh as for sheer numbers of grad programs, well, you should realize Berkeley, like many public schools, has larger number of departments than privates. In any case, Your claim about prestige appears to be pretty baseless. The poor (relatively) yield number (40s%) among international students says it all.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
I bet none of them was an Asian. Anyway ...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, 2 of the 3 were Asian. But anyway...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, everyone prefers whatever will help them get ahead in life; but leaving your particular area of expertise to succeed professionally isn't a commonplace strategy, MIT notwithstanding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You also say that it is not commonplace for somebody to leave their area of expertise. How is it not commonplace? I would argue that this happens with the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people. Let's face it - the vast majority of college grads in ALL disciplines "leave" their area of expertise, in the sense that they pursue careers in something else. For example, most history majors don't become professional historians. Most sociology majors don't become professional sociologists. Most math majors don't become professional mathematicians. So why is it really so surprising to discover that many engineering majors don't become engineers? </p>

<p>It gets back to what I was saying - that people are going to pursue whatever career will give them a good life. If engineering offers good jobs, more people will work as engineers. If management offers better jobs, then people will prefer to be managers. </p>

<p>

[/quote]
Times article doesn't prove anything. Investment banking is so exclusive and small field that it can't affect engineering profession. Actually more than 90% of Chinese and Indian engineering students haven't even heard of IB.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I had never really heard of IB either until I become a junior in undergrad. But once I found out about it, I can see why it is so desirable for certain people. There's a lot of money there. </p>

<p>But that's irrelevant. Most people in the world have never heard of private equity, hedge funds, or strategic consulting either. But those who know about it tend to want in. It's just that most people in the world never have a chance to get into these fields, or even have a chance to know about it. But those that do tend to take it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
? And saying that Asians lack social skills for doing business IS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How so? It's a true statement, and like I said, I say it as an Asian person myself. The truth is that plenty of them do lack social skills. </p>

<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. Go to any of the top computer science labs at MIT, Berkeley, or elsewhere at about 2 in the morning on a Friday, and you will see certain guys there who, let's face it, don't exactly have the greatest social skills. Some of them haven't even showered for several months. Do you think these guys have great social skills?</p>

<p>Look, I'm not saying that it's really their fault. They just grew up in an environment that never really emphasized the importance of social skills. A lot of these Asians grew up in an environmenet where studying was emphasized and socialization was not. So I'm not blaming anybody for anything. I'm not interested in a blame game. But it is also true that guys like that will probably not become good managers or have good business skills. Business is something that requires smoothness and the ability to leverage 'social capital', and it requires an outgoing and social personality. </p>

<p>
[quote]
English skills are not an excuse for not studying business or studying only engineering. Don't you get your verbal skills tested in GREs and TOEFLs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does that have to do with anything? Most tech programs just want a minimum GRE or TOEFL score to make sure that you have some level of conversability in English, but beyond that minimum, don't really care what you get. After all, these are TECHNICAL programs. But this minimum level doesn't mean that your verbal skills are all that good. Haven't you had TA's from Asia who are almost incomprehensible to understand? In fact, the news show 60 Minutes once discussed this very phenomenom of incomprehensible foreign TA's.</p>

<p>And what about your point of not studying business or only studying engineering just because you don't have good English skills? Why not? Again, people are going to study the skills that they think will reasonable get them a career that they want. If you are a very small, unathletic guy, are you really going to spend time learning football skills? I don't think so - because you are too small or unathletic to succeed at football anyway, so why bother spending time learning blocking and tackling? You are going to instead spend your time doing things that will reasonably lead you ro a career that you will succeed in. Just like I don't go around practicing baseball every day, because I know that my pro-baseball dreams are dead. Instead, I am going to work on the things that will help me in the careers that I can reasonable get. </p>

<p>To give you another example, one of my friends was a star basketball player - even won college basketball national Division II player of the year award, and played professionally in Europe for several years. He hasn't touched a basketball in years now. Why? Because he knows that, after several years of trying, he isn't good enough to make it to the NBA. He tried, he didn't make it, so he's moved on. So now he's an investment banker, and he spends all of his time building his skills in that. It's a general principle in life that you work on the skills to will help you get the career that you actually reasonably think you can get. Back when he was trying to get to the NBA, he would practice every day. Now, he never practices. </p>

<p>So if a Chinese guy doesn't think that he has a reasonable chance of succeeding in Western business, then of course he is not going to spend time learning English. Why would he? People don't just learn skills spontaneously. You have to give them REASONS for learning skills.</p>

97

<p>
[quote]

So I can agree with the notion that China and India will send a lot of students who end up in tech-centered universities. That is true. But not because they really PREFER it. Given the opportunity, I am fairly sure that most of them would prefer to do something else, like go to Harvard and study business. It's just that most of them can't do it. For example, a superstar engineer who has no business experience will find that getting into MIT for his PhD to be easier than getting into Harvard Business School. But that is not a true representation of what he actually prefers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How do you know what they prefer? Of course, for an engineering superstar, it is easier to get into MIT for PhD rather than Harvard MBA because of work experience. But no one is stopping them from getting some work experience and then go to Harvard MBA or any MBA for that matter. But they are not doing that either. So how can you assert that engineers prefer Consulting or IBanking? It seems that it is what YOU would like to do, and since you are an Asian you are trying to generalize it for Asian comunity as a whole.</p>

98

<p>ConfidentialCLG, it's "discrimination" rather than "a discrimination." </p>

<p>
[quote]
Warblers86, If you want to compare graduate education, check us news graduate rankings...Cal's graduate education is without question second to none, other than possibly Harvard.

[/quote]

All right, I'll look at US News.</p>

<p>Stanford</p>

<h1>2 Business</h1>

<h1>2 Law</h1>

<h1>2 Engineering</h1>

<h1>1 Biological Sciences</h1>

<h1>3 Chemistry</h1>

<h1>1 Computer Science</h1>

<h1>2 Earth Sciences</h1>

<h1>2 Mathematics</h1>

<h1>1 Physics</h1>

<h1>3 Economics</h1>

<h1>4 English</h1>

<h1>4 History</h1>

<h1>2 Political Science</h1>

<h1>1 Psychology</h1>

<h1>6 Sociology</h1>

<p>Berkeley</p>

<h1>7 Business</h1>

<h1>8 Law</h1>

<h1>3 Engineering</h1>

<h1>2 Biological Sciences</h1>

<h1>1 Chemistry</h1>

<h1>1 Computer Science</h1>

<h1>4 Earth Sciences</h1>

<h1>2 Mathematics</h1>

<h1>4 Physics</h1>

<h1>3 Economics</h1>

<h1>1 English</h1>

<h1>2 History</h1>

<h1>5 Political Science</h1>

<h1>2 Psychology</h1>

<h1>2 Sociology</h1>

<p>UCB Average Rank: 3.1333
Stanford Average Rank: 2.4</p>

<p>UCB Excluding Business and Law: 2.4615
Stanford Excluding Business and Law: 2.4615</p>

<p>UCB Excluding Business, Law, and Engineering: 2.417
Stanford Excluding Business, Law, and Engineering: 2.5</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
What kind of an argument is that for choosing to become IBankers and not engineers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? I didn't say it was an 'argument' to choose Ibanking and not engineering. I said that most people don't end up doing what they really want to do. A lot of people who want to get into Ibanking don't make it. But that doesn't mean that they don't want to get in. Just because you are working as an engineer doesn't mean that you really WANT to be an engineer. </p>

<p>Look, the truth is, the vast majority of people in the world don't get the job that they really really want. For example, do you really think most janitors really want to be janitors? Do you really think most waiters really want to be waiters? Heck, even most investment bankers would probably prefer to be movie stars instead. All that you have is a * gradation * of preference. I think it's quite clear that few engineers want to be janitors, just like few investment bankers want to be engineers, and few movie stars want to be investment bankers. </p>

<p>
[quote]
MIT produces thousands of engineers per year. If most of them DO get into Investment Banking, then almost all of IBakers must be MIT alumni; considering that IB community is really exclusive and small. Pity for Ivy League and famous athletes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please do your research. MIT does not produce 'thousands' of engineers. First off, MIT has 4000 total undergrads. Hence, about 1000 new bachelor's degrees are conferred every year. Of them, about 55-60% of them are engineering degrees, as plenty of MIT students study science, business (Sloan School), or other subjects. Hence, you have about 600 engineering bachelor's degrees produced every year. I concentrate of undergrads because those people are the ones who are the most eligible for the IB analyst positions. However, even if you want to talk about all of MIT (including the graduate programs), then MIT still produces only a total of about 1700 graduates a year from the School of Engineering. (SB, SM, MEng, and PhD). I would hardly call that "thousands" of engineers.</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/commencement.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/commencement.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Furthermore, when did I ever say that "most" of them go to investment banking? Please point to the quote where I said that. You can't do it, because I never said it. In fact, what I said is that plenty of them don't get into investment banking, even though they want to, because they don't get an offer, and so they got stuck doing a regular engineering job. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they still want a banking job. They just didn't get one. </p>

<p>Again, just because I never became a professional baseball player doesn't mean that I didn't want to be one. I wanted it, I just didn't get it. Hence, you can't judge a particular career's desirability on the sheer number of people who do it. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that working as a shelf-stocker at Walmart is the most desirable job in the country, as Walmart is, far and away, the largest employer in the US, with over 1.3 million US employees as evidenced with the following quote. I am quite sure that very few people really "dream" of working for Walmart. Rather, it's the best that is available to them. </p>

<p>"Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees [in 2005]..."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?ei=5088&en=e9a0f5d466bb026e&ex=1287979200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163965823-9gKvZ76hsEHX9P8tdjq7eg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?ei=5088&en=e9a0f5d466bb026e&ex=1287979200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163965823-9gKvZ76hsEHX9P8tdjq7eg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I agree that the IB community is small and exclusive, just like the Major League Baseball community is small and exclusive. But that's not the point. We are talking about what people WANT to do, not what people ACTUALLY END UP DOING. Just because a lot of Chinese do engineering doesn't really mean that all of them really want to do engineering. If given the opportunity, lots of them would probably choose other things, i.e. going to Harvard and studying business. The problem is that most of them don't get that choice, just like I didn't get the choice to become a pro baseball player. But that doesn't mean that you don't want it.</p>

100

<p>
[quote]

Actually, 2 of the 3 were Asian. But anyway...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are the one who talked to them, so I'll take your word for that. Anyway ...</p>

<p>
[quote]

You also say that it is not commonplace for somebody to leave their area of expertise. How is it not commonplace? I would argue that this happens with the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people. Let's face it - the vast majority of college grads in ALL disciplines "leave" their area of expertise, in the sense that they pursue careers in something else. For example, most history majors don't become professional historians. Most sociology majors don't become professional sociologists. Most math majors don't become professional mathematicians. So why is it really so surprising to discover that many engineering majors don't become engineers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Most math majors don't become professional mathematicians, well, how many professional mathematicians have you met in your life? How many professional mathematics positions are there? If you were a PhD in math would you choose to become a code breaker with NSA (THE largest employer of mathematicians in the US) or work with Banks? The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY you are talking about isn't a majority at all; they chose to leave their area of expertise because they had to. How many professional historian positions are there for history majors? </p>

<p>
[quote]

It gets back to what I was saying - that people are going to pursue whatever career will give them a good life. If engineering offers good jobs, more people will work as engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have no objection to the first sentance. But the second one .. Come on, how many history or arts majors can work as Civil Engineers or Electricians if it offers better jobs. You contradict yourself; read your previous quote.</p>