<p>eudean: The reason I said that was the "best" quote was because if a school can't even keep up with little things like routine maintenance, what can it do? The fact is, the school is diverting what little resources it has to stay alive, essentially. Cal can't improve itself at all at the moment.</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>I think the same can be said for most "schools within schools." The UCLA campus is generally well-maintained, but Anderson's little corner is just a little notch above say...Royce Hall in terms of interior management. </p>
<p>The same can be said of my school at UCSD. </p>
<p>It's VERY important to keep campuses well-manicured in my opinion. It gives both a sense of pride and a feeling of "hey, I matter."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the same can be said for most "schools within schools." The UCLA campus is generally well-maintained, but Anderson's little corner is just a little notch above say...Royce Hall in terms of interior management.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly, and it all gets down to whether the administration for the particular 'school within a school' actually cares about cleanliness or not. You can have all the money in the world but still not care.</p>
<p>At Northwestern which is generally well-maintained, the Allen Center is definitely above the rest: <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/execed/allen_center/%5B/url%5D">http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/execed/allen_center/</a> I walked into it one day without knowing what it was and for a second, I wondered if I was inside a campus building.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth is, simply knowing a lot of learning a lot means little. In the real world, there's little point in knowing the right answer if you can't convince others that your answer is right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't speak for all engineers, but as far as I know, the reason why Harvard Law and Business graduates are so confident is because they are law and business students, not engineers. I've taken quite a bit of engineering and I can tell you they almost never teach confidence or presentation, just correctness. I get the feeling that a law or business school probably emphasizes presentation much more than engineering does.</p>
<p>Look at MIT business school grads or Berkeley business school grads. I'm sure you'll see they have a lot of confidence. I won't comment on their law programs since their law programs are generally less prestigious, so it would be more difficult to judge the origin of any lack of confidence.</p>
<p>Further, for many graduates in the sciences and engineering, I would say your statement simply is irrelevant. In science and engineering, knowing the right answer is all that matters. Any company that accepts the wrong answer from a more persuasive speaker than the right answer from a recluse will go into the ground (unless their marketing team is amazing). In areas where persuasion is your job, you can get by with the wrong answer. In science and engineering, you'll get fired. I'll admit communication skills are important, as you must be able to put your answer into meaningful words to whoever needs to know it, but persuasive skills are not the focus of many fields.</p>
<p>The veracity of your claims are practically impossible to test, anyway. There are so many factors that result in a clean school--money being the most obvious one--that to say anything is the result of a clean school would be extremely difficult. I would bet it is more likely the funding was causing the confidence AND the cleanliness, not that the cleanliness was causing the confidence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
eudean: The reason I said that was the "best" quote was because if a school can't even keep up with little things like routine maintenance, what can it do? The fact is, the school is diverting what little resources it has to stay alive, essentially. Cal can't improve itself at all at the moment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're making some unstated assumptions. In particular, you are assuming that Berkeley would spend money on maintenance before spending money on improving itself. If we set aside a certain amount for improving the university each year and commit to spending that before spending on maintenance, your statement is false. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but likewise you cannot either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I won't comment on their law programs since their law programs are generally less prestigious
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd put Cal law up there with the top 14 or even top 10 any day. Oh, and MIT law isn't very prestigious at all since it has yet to exist. :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
In areas where persuasion is your job, you can get by with the wrong answer. In science and engineering, you'll get fired.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I'd argue that the best scientists are those who are the most persuasive. Even though science may not like to admit it, it likes poster boys/girls and people with pizazz as much as the next field. </p>
<p>Besides, it's not like these products sell themselves. It does take some "marketing."</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're making some unstated assumptions. In particular, you are assuming that Berkeley would spend money on maintenance before spending money on improving itself. If we set aside a certain amount for improving the university each year and commit to spending that before spending on maintenance, your statement is false. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but likewise you cannot either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This presupposes that maintenance is not considered self-improvement. I disagree with this presupposition.</p>
<p>Economically speaking:</p>
<p>California is the second highest ranking economy in the world. Just behind the whole US in fact. If it weren't included in the US economy, CA would have the best economy. It is supporting much of the world right now.</p>
<p>California is 6th, 7th, or 10th. Not 2nd.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, I'd argue that the best scientists are those who are the most persuasive. Even though science may not like to admit it, it likes poster boys/girls and people with pizazz as much as the next field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, but the key thing is that it's the ones that are right and persuasive--right coming first. Einstein could've been as persuasive as he wanted, but if experiments showed general relativity didn't predict results correctly, we wouldn't know who he was.</p>
<p>Further, consider the recent publicity of Grigori Perelman. He's perhaps the least persuasive human being alive--he published his paper and wouldn't come out to receive an award for it even. If he's right, though, his name will be in the history books. He doesn't have to persuade people of his opinion when he's right. He may become more famous if he went around lecturing how great his proof is, but the prerequisite would be the correctness of his proof.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, I'd argue that the best scientists are those who are the most persuasive. Even though science may not like to admit it, it likes poster boys/girls and people with pizazz as much as the next field.</p>
<p>Besides, it's not like these products sell themselves. It does take some "marketing."
[/quote]
Wait...so you are saying Stephen Hawking has 'pizazz'? Please tell me you are joking.</p>
<p>eudean,</p>
<p>Sure, there are exceptions, but I think that even within the sciences you need to have persuasive skills in general to succeed. YMMV.</p>
<p>Even so, I think that it's very much understated how you actually need to be RIGHT to get your point across in business and law as well. You can't just dazzle boardrooms with snake oil if there isn't some economic soundness to your arguments. At least usually.</p>
<p>Same with science, too. Look at the S. Koreans and the whole stem cell issue. Snake oil got sold.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait...so you are saying Stephen Hawking has 'pizazz'? Please tell me you are joking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely! You think that Hawking would be as popular if not for his disability, his sense of humor, and his public persona?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even so, I think that it's very much understated how you actually need to be RIGHT to get your point across in business and law as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps business (I couldn't say specifically), but I'd say it's almost definitely true with law. Consider in any lawsuit, one side is right and one side is wrong. There's a lawyer on either side. Pick any high-profile case and bam, you've got two extremely successful sets of lawyers, one arguing the truth, one arguing half-truths or lies. That's not a problem if all you have to do is convince a judge or 12 people that you're right and they're wrong.</p>
<p>Again, I agree that persuasive skills are important generally (even in the sciences). However, correctness will almost always win out in science/engineering. True, the persuasive individual may get the job first because s/he had enough charisma to wow the interviewers, but s/he'll get fired first, too. No amount of persuasiveness can make up for the fact that you've manufactured 100,000 units of a product that is defective and it's that person's fault.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at the S. Koreans and the whole stem cell issue. Snake oil got sold.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you remember that guy's name? Will he become a famous, world-renowned scientist? No, he'll be an entry in Wikipedia, and it won't be a positive entry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Absolutely! You think that Hawking would be as popular if not for his disability, his sense of humor, and his public persona?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, but how popular would Hawking be if his theories were proven bogus again and again? How popular would he be if he'd accomplished all he had so far without his disability? I'd bet he'd be more popular in the latter case than the former (though with crazy hypotheticals like these it's pretty arbitrary to say one way or another).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've taken quite a bit of engineering and I can tell you they almost never teach confidence or presentation, just correctness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they should. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at MIT business school grads or Berkeley business school grads. I'm sure you'll see they have a lot of confidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As much as HBS grads? Trust me, NOBODY produces grads that can touch the confidence (many would say arrogance) of HBS grads. I think even Haas MBA students, and certainly Sloan students, would concede this point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, for many graduates in the sciences and engineering, I would say your statement simply is irrelevant. In science and engineering, knowing the right answer is all that matters. Any company that accepts the wrong answer from a more persuasive speaker than the right answer from a recluse will go into the ground (unless their marketing team is amazing).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! Your answer is completely belied by the evidence. After all, look at most successful tech companies out there. Does Microsoft really produce the best PC software out there? That is a highly dubious notion. Does Intel really produce the best microprocessors? Most observers would agree that in the last few years, it has actually been AMD that has been producing the best microprocessors from a technical standpoint. Many tech guys, including myself, believe that Cisco, which is the dominant network router vendor in the world, does not really produce the truly best routers in the world from a technical standpoint, and if you really wanted to buy a truly technically marvelous router, you would go to Juniper. </p>
<p>If you just look at the business news, look to see who has market share in various industries, you will see that the technically best product does not always win. You can have the best technology in the world, and still lose. Look at what happened to DEC. </p>
<p>In fact, you may actually want to read the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clay Christensen, the vaunted prof at HBS in which he documents how, time and time again, technically superior products are usurped by inferior products that live off of underserved markets until the point that they become good enough to serve the mass market. IBM mainframe computers were, and still probably are, the best computers in the world from a technical standpoint, and were completely dominant as a technology paradigm in the 1970's. They lost out to minicomputers (which were basically small, less powerful versions of computers) which were developed by companies like DEC, Data General, Prime, and Control Data. These minicomputers were themselves usurped by workstations which were an EVEN LESS technically strong system. These workstations were then supplanted by the PC. So one could say that, if anything, the computer hardware industry has actually moved DOWNSCALE, from simpler and simpler (in other words, technically "inferior") products. You can still buy mainframes today. Most computer engineers would concede that they are still the best-made computers in the market, and clearly far far technically superior to the PC. But the market share of mainframes is tiny now. Even when you need a huge million-dollar server, mainframes still tend to lose out to either pumped up PC's (i.e. running Linux), or UNIX servers (which are basically modern-day minicomputers). But buying an actual mainframe? That's a rare choice, even tough they are the technically best product.</p>
<p>The reason for this is brutally simple. Computers have basically reached the 'good enough' stage. In fact, most technology markets that are out there are 'good enough' in the sense that the constraining factor is not the technology, but rather the marketing, the strategy, the lock-ins, etc. For example when minicomputers were first invented, they were clearly much worse than the mainframes such that no mainframe buyers would think of getting one. So minicomputer vendors sold to impoverished university academic departments and ancillary corporate departments that had no mainframe computer at all. For them it was either buy a minicomputer, or buy nothing at all, because a mini was all they could afford. So they sold to "undeserved" markets that were not being served by mainframe vendors. By establishing themselves in these markets, the mini vendors were able to develop minis to the point that they became 'good enough' for the regular mainframe customers. At that point, the market tipped, as not only did minis become 'good enough' technically, but offered advantages that the mainframe vendors could not match, such as smaller space, lower electricity requirements, etc., eventually resulting in the marginalization of the mainframes. </p>
<p>Note, the mainframes were still always a better technical product. But that didn't matter, because customers don't really need the best technical product. They just needed something that was 'good enough'. And in fact, that's what you find in many technology fields - that most customers don't really need the best cutting-edge stuff. They just need something that is 'good enough'. Juniper routers are technically better than Cisco routers (in that they are faster and more reliable). But the truth is, other than telecoms, most customers don't really need the best network gear. Cisco routers are good enough. </p>
<p>Anyway, if you want to learn more about this, then read Christensen. It's an absolutely fascinating read about the way the tech industry really works. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Any company that accepts the wrong answer from a more persuasive speaker than the right answer from a recluse will go into the ground (unless their marketing team is amazing). In areas where persuasion is your job, you can get by with the wrong answer. In science and engineering, you'll get fired.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My friend, you have a very idealistic view of the world. In reality, the truth does not always 'out', and politics plays a huge role in determining who gets fired and who doesn't, who gets promoted and who doesn't. Believe me, there are PLENTY of corporate scientists/engineers who were right, but got fired anyway because they were poor office politicians, and others who were wrong, but got promoted anyway because they were good office politicians. You can even look at it from an academic standpoint. Trust me, the Berkeley EECS department, just like any academic department, is riven with academic politics. </p>
<p>Look, eudean, nobody is saying that being right isn't important in science/engineering. But I think you deeply discount the notion of just how important it is to be smooth and persuasive, in addition to being right. If you're right, and nobody knows it, then you'll get marginalized. Furthermore, even if you're wrong, you can last for quite a long time if you're persuasive and a good office politician. </p>
<p>Obviously the ideal combination is to be both right AND persuasive. I have a feeling that that is what places like Harvard and Stanford inculcate. The Stanford engineers that I know are not only sharp, but are also quite smooth operators. The same could be said for many Harvard scientists. That is the ideal combo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The veracity of your claims are practically impossible to test, anyway. There are so many factors that result in a clean school--money being the most obvious one--that to say anything is the result of a clean school would be extremely difficult. I would bet it is more likely the funding was causing the confidence AND the cleanliness, not that the cleanliness was causing the confidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody can prove the reverse either. But just consider this thought exercise. What if HBS was just as filthy as, say, Cory Hall? While I can't PROVE it, I would surmise that the confidence level of HBS grads would plummet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Economically speaking:</p>
<p>California is the second highest ranking economy in the world. Just behind the whole US in fact. If it weren't included in the US economy, CA would have the best economy. It is supporting much of the world right now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, that is demonstrably false. According to Wikipedia, it is actually 8th, behind Italy. Other rankings have it anywhere from 6th to 10th. I am not aware of a single respectable ranking that has California ranked 2nd in the world. </p>
<p>eudean,</p>
<p>Most people won't remember the names of the South Korean stem-cell snake oil peddlers, but they also won't remember the names of most Nobelists, either.</p>
<p>They will, however, remember the Hawkings, the Feynmans, the Einsteins, the Goulds, and the Friedmans.</p>
<p>Why? </p>
<p>Pizazz. Flair. That special pedagogical touch.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They will, however, remember the Hawkings, the Feynmans, the Einsteins, the Goulds, and the Friedmans.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Pizazz. Flair. That special pedagogical touch.
[/quote]
You think people remember Einstein because of his flair? I didn't even know he had flair! These giants of science will be remembered for their discoveries - nothing else. That 3/5 are Nobel winners just seems to prove the point. Being right - in a big way - has more to do with anything than pizazz.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait...so you are saying Stephen Hawking has 'pizazz'? Please tell me you are joking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. The truth is, he probably isn't the best physicist in the world. He's obviously a very good one, but is he really the best? He hasn't won a Nobel. Within the physics community, he isn't considered to be the best.</p>
<p>"Spot the odd one out: Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk
Maxwell, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Stephen Hawking. Did you get it? Of
course, the answer is Professor Hawking. Why? Well, the others are all dead;
and are also the top five physicists of all time, as voted by their peers in
a 1999 survey by Physics World, the house magazine for physicists.</p>
<p>But Professor Hawking didn't come sixth. In fact, he wasn't even the
highest-ranked living physicist when his peers came to vote; that honour
went to Hans Bethe (a Nobel prizewinner who, in the 1930s, deduced the
nuclear reactions that power stars). He wasn't even the second-ranked living
physicist. About 10 other people were named as having been just as important
in their contributions to the science that attempts to explain how the
universe works. Professor Hawking was way down the rankings, well outside
the top 10."</p>
<p>He's famous with the public because he wrote a best-selling popular book (A Brief History of Time), and because of a compelling personal biography. But his actual contributions to physics, while obviously important, aren't generally considered to be 'the best' among those who are qualified to make such judgments. Writing a popular book about physics doesn't give you better standing within the physics community (only highly respected and cited peer-reviewed articles do that). But it obviously makes you known by the public.</p>