<p>I'm talking about an undergrad business program. Sorry for not being clear.</p>
<p>Romo1:</p>
<ul>
<li>Anyone with any sense would have understood you...</li>
</ul>
<p>I agree with you, however, I think that all top schools should have business programs; they could only help the schools in the long run.</p>
<p>I disagree. It's like saying that all top schools should have medical schools. Or architecture schools. Or Musical Theater programs. Or....</p>
<p>Going off on a tangential rant, there are many universities that believe--and rightly, I think--that business is a professional degree and thus should be left for graduate study only, as with law. I know a number of people with MBA's who did non-business undergrad and whom I consider to be very sharp; the next person I meet with an undergrad business degree who falls into that category will be the first. Prejudice? Yes...based on experience. The people I know whose education has been business and only business are generally thick as a brick.</p>
<p>"The people I know whose education has been business and only business are generally thick as a brick."</p>
<p>This is apply to those from Wharton as well?</p>
<p>Rtksyg, you should know by now that I do not differentiate between undergrad and grad. To me, a responsible and capable individual does not need a school to devote all of their time and resources to him/her in order to get the most out of his/her education. </p>
<p>I do not know if CalTech has a better environment or a better student body than Cal. </p>
<p>My friends who went to CalTech did not like their experience. They loved CalTech and will always say that it was a great university, but they have a lot of regrets. My friends who went to Cal loved their experience. To me, there is no doubt that Cal has a better environment than CalTech. </p>
<p>As for studen bodies, I think Cal has a more accomplished student body. They may not be as smart as CalTech's students (they aren't far behind though), but they are more intellectually inclined, versatile and embrace the spirit of learning. </p>
<p>CalTech definitely has better resources. They have 1,000 undergrads compared to Cal's 20,000. </p>
<p>Overall, I think it is difficult to say whether Cal is better than CalTech or vice versa. Both are among the nation's top 7 or 8 universities, but they are completely different. I admire both universities...but for completely different reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, how does Michigan consider less heavily on standardized tests than Northwestern? I thought it's the other way around. Northwestern considers essays along with class rank/standardized tests as the most important (the current 2009 application asks for two essays + answers to 4 short questions) while I think most other schools consider essay as "very" but not the "most" important. I always thought public ones adopt more mechanical process than private ones. </p>
<p>I do agree that they are pretty much the same in terms of potential and ability. I actually thought about going to UMich but their undergrad engineering would charge me like $1000 more than Northwestern (no aid for internationals). It was absurd to me that a public university would be more expensive than a good private one. I guess that's why they like and have many internationals..;)</p>
<p>This is what I think.. (Undergraduate)</p>
<p>Superior (A+)</p>
<p>Harvard
Stanford
Princeton
Yale
MIT</p>
<p>Outstanding (A)
Duke
Caltech
Dartmouth
Columbia, Cornell (but some departments suck)
Brown
UPenn(Wharton)
Amherst
Swarthmore
Williams</p>
<p>Excellent (A- or A depends on major)
Northwestern
Washinton St. Louis
Michigan
Virginia
Rice
Chicago
Berkeley (Although it was worse than expected...)</p>
<p>Sam Lee, Michigan officially de-emphasises SATs/ACTs. They do not even care about SAT IIs. </p>
<p>Northwestern is a great school, and picking Northwestern over Michigan is perfectly fine if you prefer it...but chosing Northwestern over Michigan because they cost the same and one is private and the other isn't is a new one! LOL Oh well, you can't go wrong with either school.</p>
<p>Ann Arbor.. was actually the coolest State school! IMO, it's much better than berkeley...</p>
<p>Hope, Chicago deserves a spot in the "A, Outstanding" group. I believe that Northwestern and Michigan do as well. I would never mix LACs and Research universities. Finally, you are missing Cal and UCLA.</p>
<p>what's Cal? I left out UCLA intentionally.</p>
<p>Cal = UC Berkeley</p>
<p>haha ok.. the only reason why i said it was worse than expected was, I actually thought it was A+ level b4. (Korean ppl, especially ppl who graduated from it, hype it sooo miuch....)</p>
<p>
[quote]
haha ok.. the only reason why i said it was worse than expected was, I actually thought it was A+ level b4. (Korean ppl, especially ppl who graduated from it, hype it sooo miuch....)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe they hype it for a real reason. Most of my friends, korean or not, all want to go back there and visit ALL THE TIME.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>How you define a 'better environment' is perhaps different from me. My friends went to Cal and hate the huge classes, the mass of hippies, and the lousy administration.</p>
<p>IMO, only Cal EECS has the student body with the quality close to Caltech students. However, for most others, the average Cal students are far away behind Caltech students in terms of academic accomplishment, I can't see how you could really dispute this. No offence to Cal students.</p>
<p>Your friends must have attended Cal in the 60s or 70s. There aren't many hippies roaming Cal's campus these days. Classes are large at Cal and anybody who goes to Cal should be prepared for that. But that has little to do with the atmosphere. Students at Cal are happier with their education than CalTech students...at least that's the case with the 7 CalTech alums and 6 Cal alums I know. </p>
<p>And I never say Cal's students were equal to CalTech's...I said they are better rounded and more versatile. </p>
<p>I firmly believe that Cal and Caltech are equally good. Very different, but equally good.</p>
<p>Maybe, but that's not how we, prospective college students, view those two schools.</p>
<p>well, now he's enlightening you on how those two schools really are</p>
<p>Hhm Alexandre,</p>
<p>The same thing can be said for let's say Caltech vs Stanford. Now what makes you think Stanford is more superior than Caltech? Do you think the difference in quality between Caltech and Berkeley should be closer than the difference in quality between Caltech and Stanford? In what aspect? I think your view may have been skewed by some Caltech grads who were not that successful in their study at Caltech.</p>
<p>My friends who went to CalTech were very successful...as are most CalTech students. One of them is the youngest tenured professor in Michigan Engineering history. I don't see why you take what I say so personally. I am only expressing my opionion, and it is not a negative opinion. Is it so insulting to you that I think Cal is as good as Caltech? All I am saying is that the college environment at CalTech isn't a good one. I never said the education wasn't amazing. I never said the students do not love their school. We were talking about the actual environment.</p>