3 most prestigious US schools in the world?

<p>warblersrule86:
Just look at the peer review scores of Times Higher Education Supplement 2005 rankings for Stanford and Berkeley, unless your opinion counts more than those academicians.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you got it backwards. I am asking YOU how do YOU know what they prefer? YOU are the one who asserted in post #87 that the number of Asian students studying tech somehow demonstrates that Asian students really prefer tech. I am asking you how do YOU know that this really demonstrates their preferences. Like I said, just because I don't play pro baseball doesn't mean that I don't want to be play pro baseball. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here are the overall THES rankings:</p>

<p>1- Harvard
2- Cambridge
3- Oxford
4 - tie MIT and Yale
** 6 - Stanford **
7 - Caltech
** 8- Berkeley **</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I don't happen to think that the THES ranking is particularly meaningful. But hey, you're the one who brought it up. </p>

<p>Now it is true that Stanford has a better "peer review score among academics" in THES. But so what? Stanford has a better score in EVERY OTHER CATEGORY, including better "recruiter review", "faculty/student", and "citations/faculty" scores. So I don't see how your invoking THES proves your point that Berkeley is somehow better known internationally.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Just look at the peer review scores of Times Higher Education Supplement 2005 rankings for Stanford and Berkeley, unless your opinion counts more than those academicians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stanford wins in EVERY OTHER CATEGOROY on THES in 2006. So the fact that Berkeley won ONE category out of six proves your point? </p>

<p>If I were you, I would stop quoting THES, because it doesn't strengthen your argument. If anything, it actually weakens it. Stanford beats Berkeley in 5 of 6 categories, and that is somehow supposed to be proof that Berkeley is better regarded internationally than Stanford? </p>

<p>Don't take my word for it. Sign up for the free trial and read it yourself. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.thes.co.uk/worldrankings/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thes.co.uk/worldrankings/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, the size of the pool is not the point. You said it yourself - there aren't a lot of investment banking jobs out there either. But the few that are out there are highly coveted. Like I said, a lot of top engineers would prefer to be consultants/bankers than actually work as engineers, as evidenced not only by the Time Magazine article, but by numerous other sources. Many of the top graduates of ANY field, including engineering, head off to consulting/banking. That's just the nature of the game. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Most of them WOULD do it if they thought they could do it. Do I have sit here and explicate every single little detail? Look, if I thought I actually had a serious chance of playing pro baseball, I would be out there practicing every day. If you know that you hate math and science, you are not going to study EE because you know that you won't be good at it. Heck, you probably won't even be able to graduate. That is why you try to do something else instead that you think you have a reasonable chance of success in. A small, unathletic guy is not going to try to make it to the NFL. An ugly person is not going to try to become a runway model. </p>

<p>Every person is constantly, if subconciously, weighing alternatives and ends to determine what they should be doing with their lives, given their perceptions of their own talents and limitations. The more that a particular person thinks he can do something, and the more interesting that thing is, the more that that person will attempt to pursue that goal. A lot of young boys dream of becoming pro athletes, but very few grown men still practice every day in the hopes of making it, because by that time, most of them have realized that they don't have a shot. Similarly, by the time you're 18, you probably realize whether you are good at math/science or not, and whether you like it, and if you don't like it and are bad at it, then you're not going to seriously pursue engineering. </p>

<p>However, desires are also affected by potential gains. For example, when the Internet dotcom boom was on, lots of people wanted to learn Internet skills, because Internet companies paid a lot of money with the possibility of becoming rich through stock options. But when the Internet bubble burst, fewer people wanted to learn Internet skills. So people's desires are affected by what they think they can do, as well as what the benefits are. </p>

<p>In the case of engineering, the truth is, at the top schools (including MIT), a lot of students (including Asian students) are pursuing engineering not because they really like it, but just for a 'backup career'. The mentality is that if they don't get what they really want, at least they can get a decent job as an engineer. They try it out, find out that they can do it, and so decide to get it for insurance purposes. Again, not all of them are like that. But plenty of them are. These are precisely the people who then end up in consulting/banking, or heading off to law/medical school, or may even work as a few years as engineers before getting their MBA's.</p>

<p>Both of my parents have heard of Harvard and Yale while in Russia.
One of my parents has heard of Princeton, MIT, and Cornell on top of aforementioned two while in Russia.</p>

<p>
[quote]

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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, GET OVER the fact that you could not become a professional baseball player even if you wanted to be one. I really don't care.
And I never said that you can judge a particular career's desiarability on the sheer number of people who do it. But how can you say that most engineers want to be IBankers and they are working as engineers just because they could not get into IBanking.</p>

<p>
[quote]

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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, how could you possibly know what Chinese engineers really want to do or that they really don't want to be engineers.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If given the opportunity, lots of them would probably choose other things, i.e. going to Harvard and studying business.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So who is stopping them from going to Harvard and studying business. They could get a few years' experience and apply to HBS. Just like they could apply to be engineers at MIT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, GET OVER the fact that you could not become a professional baseball player even if you wanted to be one. I really don't care.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not asking you to care, and trust me, I AM over it. I am simply saying that this is an example of people not actually getting what they really want. Like I said, MOST people don't get what they really want. I remember all of my friends back when I was a kid, and how they said they all wanted to have cool jobs like becoming pro athletes or movie stars or whatnot. Guess what? None of us got what we wanted. </p>

<p>I don't see why this is such a controversial point. Most people don't get what they really want, so they have to do something else. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And I never said that you can judge a particular career's desiarability on the sheer number of people who do it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? And what was your post #87 all abouti? I reproduce it here. </p>

<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>So, you tell me what that means, if not that you are attempting to show that Asians are tech oriented and are therefore not attracted by the Harvard brand name. I would argue that many of these Asians would rather be going to Harvard, but just didn't get in. Not all, but many. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But how can you say that most engineers want to be IBankers and they are working as engineers just because they could not get into IBanking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, when did I say that "most" engineers want to be Ibankers? When did I use the word "most"? I said that there are some engineers who want to get into Ibanking and didn't get in. I also agreed with you that many engineers don't even know about Ibanking, and you obviously can't prefer something that you don't even know about. But if more of them knew about it, more would want it. </p>

<p>But that's neither here nor there. The point is, just because you can't get into something doesn't mean that you don't want it. There are plenty of engineers who would rather not be engineers, but are doing it because they think that's the best they can do. THAT's my point. And why is that controversial? There are plenty of people in ANY job who are doing it because they don't think they can do better. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, how could you possibly know what Chinese engineers really want to do or that they really don't want to be engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I could ask the same thing about you. I never said I completely "knew" what Chinese engineers wanted. But you don't know either. That's the point. All that either of us can do is speculate. I freely admit that I am speculating. But so are you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So who is stopping them from going to Harvard and studying business. They could get a few years' experience and apply to HBS. Just like they could apply to be engineers at MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nothing is stopping them other than their own perceptions of what they think they can do. And in fact, some do EXACTLY THAT. But the point is, plenty of other people don't even bother applying because they don't think they will get in. The application to HBS is no joke, you know. You have to write a whole slew of essays, get a bunch of business-oriented rec's, do the interview, etc. etc. Trust me, it takes a LONG TIME to complete that application. You're only going to go through it if you actually think you have a chance of getting in. </p>

<p>Furthermore, consider the work experience requirement. It's not enough to just have some years of any old work experience. You have to have STRONG work experience, preferably something that demonstrates your leadership/management potential. And the fact is, most people in the world don't get strong work experience. Most people end up in mediocre, boring jobs with little potential to develop other skills, because most jobs are not good jobs. Sad but true. So if you end up like one of these people, you know that you're not going to be seriously competitive for HBS, so you're not even going to try.</p>

<p>
[quote]

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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]

Here are the overall THES rankings:</p>

<p>1- Harvard
2- Cambridge
3- Oxford
4 - tie MIT and Yale
6 - Stanford
7 - Caltech
8- Berkeley</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I don't happen to think that the THES ranking is particularly meaningful. But hey, you're the one who brought it up.</p>

<p>Now it is true that Stanford has a better "peer review score among academics" in THES. But so what? Stanford has a better score in EVERY OTHER CATEGORY, including better "recruiter review", "faculty/student", and "citations/faculty" scores. So I don't see how your invoking THES proves your point that Berkeley is somehow better known internationally.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Read my post carefully before replying to it. I said Times Higher Education Supplement rankings give Berkeley higher PEER REVIEW score among academics than Stanford.</p>

<p>Here are the PEER REVIEW scores in THES rankings:</p>

<p>University of California, Berkeley 92
Stanford University 82</p>

<p>
[quote]
Read my post carefully before replying to it. I said Times Higher Education Supplement rankings give Berkeley higher PEER REVIEW score among academics than Stanford.</p>

<p>Here are the PEER REVIEW scores in THES rankings:</p>

<p>University of California, Berkeley 92
Stanford University 82

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I read your post very carefully. In fact, here is what I said </p>

<p>
[quote]

"Now it is true that Stanford has a better "peer review score among academics" in THES. But so what? Stanford has a better score in EVERY OTHER CATEGORY, including better "recruiter review", "faculty/student", and "citations/faculty" scores. So I don't see how your invoking THES proves your point that Berkeley is somehow better known internationally."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the future, ** please read MY posts more carefully, ** before you take on an issue that I have already addressed.</p>

<p>What I am asking you is why are you invoking THES when Berkeley beats Stanford in only ONE of SIX categories, and Stanford beats Berkeley in the other FIVE categories? And how exactly does "peer review" necessarily correspond to 'international recognition', as opposed to any of the other five categories?</p>

<p>
[quote]

Oh? And what was your post #87 all abouti? I reproduce it here.

[/quote]
</p>

<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>I don't know how I could be more clear. I said that Chinese and Indian students, most of whom have technical backgrounds, don't consider Harvard to be as prestigious as MIT or Stanford or Berkeley engineering schools. It is evidenced by the majority of Asian students in these schools compared to other arts, social sciences or even business schools.</p>

<p>Sakky:</p>

<p>
[quote]

I read your post very carefully. In fact, here is what I said

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]

"Now it is true that Stanford has a better "peer review score among academics" in THES.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say PLEASE READ MORE MORE MORE CAREFULLY.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure sakky meant to say Berkeley, Confidential. We all make typos. ;)</p>

<p>warblersrule86:</p>

<p>
[quote]

ConfidentialCLG, it's "discrimination" rather than "a discrimination."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]

I'm pretty sure sakky meant to say Berkeley, Confidential. We all make typos.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Coming from you warblersrule86; totally understandable.</p>

<p>Ouch. Guess that's what I get for correcting grammar, eh? Touché. :D</p>

<p>Sakky:
I just want to say that a collective peer review score of universities by academicians from THES is more credible indicator of relative prestige of Berkeley and Stanford than, let's say, your opinion or warblersrule86's opinion or mine.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't know how I could be more clear. I said that Chinese and Indian students, most of whom have technical backgrounds, don't consider Harvard to be as prestigious as MIT or Stanford or Berkeley engineering schools. It is evidenced by the majority of Asian students in these schools compared to other arts, social sciences or even business schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's where you are wrong. Like I said, just because a majority of Asian students do tech doesn't automatically mean that Asian students think that tech schools are more prestigious, just like how most men don't become professional athletes doesn't mean that most men wouldn't want to become professional athletes if given the chance. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I would say PLEASE READ MORE MORE MORE CAREFULLY.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How many times have you deliberately misread MY posts? Shall I go back and count all of the times? I have let it slide. I would advise you to do the same, lest we have to bring in the mods. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I just want to say that a collective peer review score of universities by academicians from THES is more credible indicator of relative prestige of Berkeley and Stanford than, let's say, your opinion or warblersrule86's opinion or mine.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? More so than the overall THES score itself? And why is it any more credible than the USNews "peer assessement" rank, which is also comprised of scores from fellow academics?</p>

<p>USNews peer assessment ranking:
Stanford 4.9
Berkeley 4.7</p>

<p>Besides, have it your way. Let's say you're right. Let's say that a review score by academicians really is the most credible score to use. Then what do I see here, according to THES</p>

<p>Harvard peer review score - 93
Berkeley peer review score - 92</p>

<p>So, according TO YOUR OWN LOGIC, Harvard has more prestige than Berkeley does, right? Hey, it's your logic, not mine.</p>

<p>Here's your own quote, in post #115:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I just want to say that a collective peer review score of universities by academicians from THES is more credible indicator of relative prestige of Berkeley and Stanford than, let's say, your opinion or warblersrule86's opinion or mine.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So perhaps you'd like to have an argument with yourself about how the THES college peer review score is or is not a more credible indicator of prestige.</p>

<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>
[quote]
I don't know how I could be more clear. I said that Chinese and Indian students, most of whom have technical backgrounds, don't consider Harvard to be as prestigious as MIT or Stanford or Berkeley engineering schools. It is evidenced by the majority of Asian students in these schools compared to other arts, social sciences or even business schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let me get this straight: the fact that there is a higher percentage of Asian students at MIT/Stanford/Cal engineering schools vs. the percentage of Asians at arts, socials sciences or business schools = Asians believe that MIT is more prestigious than Harvard?</p>

<p>Flat out wrong.</p>

<p>Granted this is a fairly blanket generalization but here is what I have observed from the Asian community (both abroad and Asian-Americans):</p>

<p>1) Education is extremely important.
2) Asians are obsessed with PRESTIGE be it in the form of famous / luxury brands names (e.g. Armani, Chanel, BMW, etc.) - i.e. Asians KNOW which schools are ranked the highest. </p>

<p>So what does that mean? That means that Asians KNOW Harvard is no. 1. Most people would take a Harvard acceptance over an MIT acceptance, and Asians aren't no exception.</p>

<p>Further, you make it seem as though Asians are not well represented at Harvard, when in fact, they punch way above their weight when compared to Asians as a percentage of the general population.</p>

<p>The fact that you see MORE Asians at places such as Caltech or MIT is simply because, let's face it, math is the great equalizer. Mathematics is a universal language. The number "3" is the number "3" in Japan, in Africa, in Europe, in Cambridge, MA and Pasadena, CA. There is no "fudging" in math - i.e. a 95 is higher than 94. Period. Many Asians take comfort in the black and white nature of mathematics and science. You either got it right or you got it wrong. If you study hard enough, long enough, you're more likely to score higher. Period. Compare that to the grading an essay or poem. This can be highly subjective. You see, a mathematical equation doesn't care if you are a 95 pound weakling with no social skills --> if you can solve it correctly, you get it right... doesn't matter if you were the homecoming queen with a thin waist and "C cups" or if you threw more touchdowns than any other QB in school history (now granted those things may matter later in life, but as for solving that math equation, it just doesn't matter).</p>

<p>There are other cultural aspects as to why Asians prefer / excel in math / science, but at the end of the day, its not relevant to the discussion of whether Asians believe that a liberal arts degree at Harvard is considered prestigious or not. It absolutely is. Whether or not they feel they have better odds at MIT vs. that liberal arts degree at Harvard is a different question entirely. But given a free option for either, they'd take the Harvard option in a heartbeat. Frankly, I'm willing to take that assertion even further and claim that BECAUSE there are so many Asians at MIT (tech schools, engineering programs) that, if they can manage to land a spot at an elite liberal arts program (HYPS) this scarcity of value / differentiating factor makes it even more attractive.</p>

<p>Prestige, it's a quiet Sunday night. Could you please describe that homecoming queen in a little more detail? Use a thesaurus if you have to.</p>

<p>TG, I figured you'd be more in a football kind of a mood the way your Eagles took care of the Terrapins - putting BC in prime real estate for the ACC championship.</p>

<p>As for the Princeton Tigers, they take home a co-Ivy championship for the first time in over a decade...</p>

<p>btw, my condolences Alex, the Wolverines came up a bit short - but it was a great game.</p>

<p>Thanks for noticing. Congrats on the Tigers being co-champs. What do you think of Princeton's Michigan-esque helmets? When did they start wearing those?</p>

<p>I'm hoping somehow BC and Notre Dame end up playing each other in a bowl game.</p>