<p>
[quote]
Nobody's forgetting SCU. It may be among the best in the west in the sense that it's possibly 5th behind Stanford GSB, Haas, Anderson, and Marshall but it's an extremely distant 5th
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What about Claremont?</p>
<p>I didn't even know Claremont had an MBA program until I saw someone wearing a Drucker t-shirt at the gym.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was editing some small typing errors here and there. The main points I wrote above remain the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, you've changed the body of the response and added several paragraphs...</p>
<p>
[quote]
So it's no surprise that Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. are held in such high esteem in Asia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley's brand name in Asia is not inferior to any school other than Harvard. The Jia Tong ratings confirm that. Sakky questions the methodology of that ranking, but the reality is that international prestige rests above all on things like Nobel Prizes and research, and that is no less subjective than the parameters used by USNWR to rank undergraduate institutions (such as alumni giving rate). As a matter of fact, it's more objective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The question is, where do Asian students want to go? I strongly suspect that MIT defeats Berkeley on the Chinese cross-admit battle, especially so in the undergrad side, and most likely on the B-school side as well. After all, Sloan has something like a 75% overall yield rate. Haas has only 50%. Why is that? Can this all be explained by white applicants?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Undergrad is irrelevant here. As far as the difference in yield, Sloan's is more like 65-70%, it's not a huge difference. There is a strong regional/geographic factor, with about 70% of students from the US. Most of these applicants are from the eastern part of the US. I turned down Wharton because I didn't want to go East (at the time as well the internet boom made Haas overwhelmingly more appealing to me.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
you really have only 1 ranking to back you up - the Jiao Tong one - and you have 3 rankings against you, the new THES, USNews (both undergrad and grad), and Businessweek.
[/quote]
If you hadn't noticed, the argument here centers of the perception of the programs with regards to Asia, so the fact that Berkeley is ranked ahead of MIT in the Asian survey supports my assertion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why didn't they graduate from, or pretend to graduate from Berkeley, if Berkeley really has the most ties to Asia?
[/quote]
It's only a minor detail really, but in order to graduate from Berkeley, you have to ACTUALLY GET INTO Berkeley first. Unlike all other top schools, Berkeley doesn't do financial legacies. If one of the Li sons couldn't even graduate from Stanford (a school that's hard to get in for non-legacies but where it's ridiculously easy to graduate from given that 95% of grades are Bs or better), his academic dedication can't be all that great... Maybe Mr Li wanted his sons to go to Berkeley. After all, he does think highly of Berkeley, having donated $40,000,000 to Berkeley and nothing of that scale to other US universities as far as I know.</p>
<p>A difference in yield between 50% and 65% doens't automatically translate into other schools having "better Asians", especially since the 6 to 8 schools that are often ranked higher than Haas do get better eastern/midwestern white applicants. Most of them would have chosen Wharton over Haas. This issue, like most sakky has presented is a bit of a red herring though, as it's not about which school has "the better Asians", it's about which school offers the better gateway to Asia and helps its graduates position themselves to do business in Asia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And certainly very few Americans (either Chinese-Americans or otherwise) are going to want to get their MBA's in China, even if they intend to work in China afterwards. </p>
<p>Hence, this throws the value of 'Asian ties' into question.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You will still be reducing the "Asian ties" to the current attendance patterns of Chinese MBA students. That is a gross distortion of the topic, if not another outright red herring. It brushes off the deep cultural, historical and geographical exposure of Berkeley to the Far East. How does MIT's Asian Studies dept compare to Berkeley's? Do they offer a similarly strong Asian business emphasis as Haas? What is the extent, in quantity and quality of their Asian network vs Berkeley/Haas'? Could MIT have had a Chinese chancellor decades ago, as Berkeley did?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's brand name in Asia is not inferior to any school other than Harvard. The Jia Tong ratings confirm that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, cut back on the Cal Kool-Aid. You're kidding me right?</p>
<p>Let's be very clear here. You are claiming that Berkeley has a BETTER BRAND NAME than:</p>
<p>Yale
Stanford
MIT
Princeton
Columbia
Penn</p>
<p>All schools which have better better brand names (some with FAR BETTER BRAND NAMES - namely, Yale, MIT and Stanford) in Asia in my experience working and living abroad in Asia. </p>
<p>Secondly, that joke of a ranking from a random Asian university that noone has ever heard of clearly ranks STANFORD (3) ahead of CAL (4) - so you can't even get your own citations correct. At least admit that one mistake please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you hadn't noticed, the argument here centers of the perception of the programs with regards to Asia, so the fact that Berkeley is ranked ahead of MIT in the Asian survey supports my assertion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you hadn't noticed, that survey - THAT ONE SINGLE SURVEY - which is the only source of your claims isn't even a proper ranking of business schools! (remember we ARE discussing MBA programs in case you forgot - and this is the dedicated section for MBA discussions). If it was a b-school ranking, what in the world are schools without MBA programs doing on that list? Secondly MIT (5) ranks RIGHT BEHIND Cal (4) in that survey - so you should stop trying to play it off like Cal is leaps and bounds superior to MIT in that survey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe Mr Li wanted his sons to go to Berkeley. After all, he does think highly of Berkeley, having donated $40,000,000 to Berkeley and nothing of that scale to other US universities as far as I know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please see post #57 for my comments on this issue:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2699537#post2699537%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2699537#post2699537</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
it's about which school offers the better gateway to Asia and helps its graduates position themselves to do business in Asia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, and the best way to position yourself is to attend the BEST MBA PROGRAM POSSIBLE (i.e. HBS, GSB, Wharton, Sloan, etc.) rather than attending THE MBA PROGRAM WITH THE MOST ASIANS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, and the best way to position yourself is to attend the BEST MBA PROGRAM POSSIBLE (i.e. HBS, GSB, Wharton, Sloan, etc.) rather than attending THE MBA PROGRAM WITH THE MOST ASIANS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please, what do those MBA programs have which Haas doesn't? How is the MBA program <em>better</em>? I've always thought the sharp end of the MBA programs provided networking and prestige, but little in the way of "better knowledge". Especially when concerning HBS/GSB/Wharton/Sloan vs. Haas (considering those schools are so similar in quality). </p>
<p>If Haas did have the most asians and the best connections to Asia, it seems like Cal <em>would</em> be the best for doing business in that part of the world.</p>
<p>looking at brand names in your list:</p>
<p>Yale
Stanford
MIT
Princeton
Columbia
Penn</p>
<p>Berkeley definitely is a bigger name than Penn, as well as Columbia, from an Asian perspective. It's a little higher than the rest as shown by the leading Asian ranking, although MIT is stronger in Japan where Deming is revered. Clearly, you personally don't agree with this, understandably so since your perspective is that of an Ivy grad, and your "Asian perspective" is that of an Ivy grad who has worked in an American bank in Asia for a few years (months?)</p>
<p>That "ONE SINGLE SURVEY" is actually the best indicator of Asian brand perceptions.</p>
<p>Read your post again, first you tell me that Stanford is superior to Cal because it is one rung higher, then you say that MIT isn't inferior to Cal because it's only one rung lower. I'd say you should pick an argument line and stick with it...</p>
<p>I did read your argument about Li not having donated money to Stanford the first time around. It's a bit of a silly argument because schools like Stanford will admit a legacy like his son, but they wouldn't change his grades for money, so there are no political or PR barriers to his donating to a school, and furthermore one of his sons already graduated from there. </p>
<p>It's kind of funny that sakky brought Li to bolster his argument about Berkeley's presumed inferiority when in fact it turned out that Berkeley dwarfs all other US schools in terms of the esteem Li places on it...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, and the best way to position yourself is to attend the BEST MBA PROGRAM POSSIBLE (i.e. HBS, GSB, Wharton, Sloan, etc.) rather than attending THE MBA PROGRAM WITH THE MOST ASIANS.
[/quote]
The issue is not about which MBA program has the most Asians, it's about which MBA program is most tuned into Asia. </p>
<p>My argument was: Berkeley is only ranked top 10 overall, but it distinguishes itself from most other top 10 schools in its outlook on Asia, technology and entrepreneurship. So for prospecive MBA students for whom this is an important feature, Haas is a fantastic choice. Just as Kellogg is a fantastic choice for those interested in marketing, or Wharton and Columbia are great for Wall Street careers and so forth. </p>
<p>The "BEST MBA POSSIBLE" varies according to prospects' criteria and outlooks. That's the third time in this thread that I have to repeat this point. I think that the reason it hasn't sunk in with you is that you are interested in a "classic" MBA career (banking, consulting.) I was just offering a different perspective, both from a cultural standpoint and from the standpoint of a different career outlook, one that is shaped by the greatest business opportunity in the lifetime of a prospective MBA applicant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Read your post again, first you tell me that Stanford is superior to Cal because it is one rung higher, then you say that MIT isn't inferior to Cal because it's only one rung lower. I'd say you should pick an argument line and stick with it...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait just a second. I never said that Stanford was higher than Cal DUE TO THE FACT THAT its one rung higher in that survey. Let's be very clear here: I was merely pointing out YOUR ERROR. As I said many times before, I think the value of that survey is absolute crap. BUT - and here is the point - let's just for kicks take a quick look at that survey for a second:</p>
<p>This is what YOU WROTE EARLIER (post no. 63):</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's brand name in Asia is not inferior to any school other than Harvard. The Jia Tong ratings confirm that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) You claimed that Berkeley's brand name in Asia is second to none except for Harvard.
2) You further back that claim up by pointing to the Jia Tong survey</p>
<p>FACT: That Jia Tong survey ranks Stanford ahead of Cal. Period.</p>
<p>I wasn't USING that survey to back up ANY of my statements. I was merely using it to highlight your own error.</p>
<p>So please have the decency to own up to and admit you made a mistake. At least in this instance where its 100% black and white for everyone to see.</p>
<p>On that survey (<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm)%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm)</a>, Harvard was first with a score of 100 points, Stanford was second (among US universities) with a score of 73.4 points, with Berkeley in third place 0.6 point behind at 72.8. Given the extremely narrow size of the margin between 2nd and 3rd, it is fair to say that the reputations of Berkeley and Stanford are quite similar as viewed from Shanghai. </p>
<p>This bears out my statement above.</p>
<p>Why does any school's connections or gateway to Asia matter in determining the better business school. </p>
<p>If you want to have strong connections in Asia, then go get a MBA in Asia.</p>
<p>Anyways, what does any school's proximity to Asia have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of people who want to get a MBA in America.</p>
<p>It makes absolutely no sense to try to say that because one MBA has better Asian ties than another that it is actually better than the other.</p>
<p>Following your reasoning, it would mean that any MBA in California is automatically better than any other on the Northeast, including Harvard.</p>
<p>You are right but China is going to be the new economic powerhouse along side with US, so its important for schools to have a strong connections with asia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to have strong connections in Asia, then go get a MBA in Asia.
[/quote]
Right. That's what Sakky was saying a few posts back but CalX never addressed it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On that survey (<a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm)%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm)</a>, Harvard was first with a score of 100 points, Stanford was second (among US universities) with a score of 73.4 points, with Berkeley in third place 0.6 point behind at 72.8. Given the extremely narrow size of the margin between 2nd and 3rd, it is fair to say that the reputations of Berkeley and Stanford are quite similar as viewed from Shanghai.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is 3 the same as 2? Is 2 the same as 1? If numbers are random and arbitrary what's the point of rankings? No they are NOT the same. 1 is > 2, 2 is > 3. I think you can figure out the rest...</p>
<p>LET'S WRITE IT SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS:</p>
<p>Stanford ranked AHEAD of Cal. Period. </p>
<p>So, according to CalX's world (a.k.a. "the be all and end all" Jia Tong survey) we have shown that Stanford AND Harvard are SUPERIOR to Cal - i.e. which means your statement:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley's brand name in Asia is not inferior to any school other than Harvard. The Jia Tong ratings confirm that.
[/quote]
^^^ FLATOUT WRONG. INCORRECT. AN ERROR. FALSE.</p>
<p>Thank you for your roundabout admission to your error. Wow, that's like getting blood from a stone.</p>
<p>Finally, for the sake of CONSISTENCY (which is ironic indeed since you accuse everyone else for not having it) - let's analyze your own arguments about Stanford being merely "one fractional rung" higher above Cal in that survey (i.e. that they are basically the same) which is fine, but then, YOU turn around and play it off as if Cal is leaps and bounds superior to MIT - when, in fact, MIT is only - TA DA!!! - ONE RUNG lower than Cal in that very survey!!!</p>
<p>So, please, for the sake of consistency, will it be:</p>
<p>A) ONE RUNG apart is a "wash" - i.e. nearly as good - (as you stated above with Stanford being one away from Cal)</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>B) ONE RUNG apart is definitive proof of superiority - (in your own words, Cal is "superior" to MIT... in which case, we can, by logical deduction, conclude that Stanford and Harvard are "superior" to Cal).</p>
<p>Can't have it both ways buddy. So, which one will it be pal?</p>
<p>Hold on...I need to get more popcorn:D</p>
<p>Aurelius, most of sakky's arguments tend to be excruciatingly long red herrings (approach which tends to impress the CC peanut gallery), and that's one of them. Don't expect me to address many of his rhetorical meanderings... Of all the degrees conferred by American universities, none is more American in nature than the MBA. Only a handful of European universities like INSEAD have managed to replicate the format and excellence of the top US programs.</p>
<p>The best path towards an Asian career would be to work there a few years then get an MBA at an American university with a strong Asian focus and outlook. And Haas is clearly superbly equipped for that mission, much more so than most other top 10 MBA programs. I think my argument is quite clear and solid.</p>
<p>IvyGrad: settle down, I think you're losing it. ;) I wonder what the orginal version of your post above looked like, if that post is the toned down/edited version...</p>
<p>If you look at the scores and margins in that ranking, you will clearly understand why the ordinal ranking you advocate is misleading here. Stanford is 26.4 points behind Harvard, while Berkeley is 27.2 points behind. The gap between Berkeley and Stanford is statistically insignificant (46 times smaller than the gap with #1). It's basically Harvard, followed by the next highest elite cluster. In this sense, saying that Berkeley is second only to Harvard is a most reasonable assertion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The best path towards an Asian career would be to work there a few years then get an MBA at an American university with a strong Asian focus and outlook.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then what about UPenn? Wharton has an official alliance with the best non-US (i.e. international) MBA program in the world, a.k.a. INSEAD (in your own words "a school which has replicated the format and excellence of the top US programs"):</p>
<p>So, if one is particularly inclined / partial to Asian business, what's better than getting a Wharton MBA (which noone can dispute is one of the best b-schools - if not the best - in the world) PLUS the added benefit of having the opportunity of taking courses at / meeting with / establishing networks with fellow INSEAD MBA students at INSEAD's Asia campus in Singapore?</p>
<p>In addition, one has the opportunity of taking classes in <em>gasp</em> San Francisco (apparently the holy grail location of would-be Asian business folk) via Wharton's San Francisco campus - or if one is more inclined towards Europe - there is always the INSEAD Fontainebleau campus outside Paris, France.</p>
<p>Best of both world's as I see it:</p>
<p>1) Get an MBA from a Top program (Wharton)
2) Get to live and study abroad in either Asia / Europe from the Top international program (INSEAD)</p>
<p>I'd say that's a pretty compelling program which is "WIRED INTO ASIA"..., better yet, "WIRED INTO THE WORLD"...</p>
<p>I should stop there, less I start sounding like a blind fanatic towards my alumni institution ... people will start calling me PennX (though I am partial to the name WhartonX if it came down to that)... </p>
<p>(btw, did we get a rebuttal from CalX regarding the fact that the Jia Tong survey has absolutely NOTHING to do with business schools? hmmm, still waiting on that one apparently...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hold on...I need to get more popcorn
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'm partial to kettle corn... yum.</p>
<p>The discussion on the Jia Tong survey centered on the prestige of the Berkeley name, prestige which is leveraged at Haas.</p>
<p>If Wharton's main Asian tie is through a French university's branch in Singapore, I wouldn't trumpet that... Haas exchange program options in Asia include a Hong Kong-based business school. </p>
<p>Haas' exchange partners in Europe are the London Business School, the HEC (Paris), Bocconi (Milan), Erasmus (Holland) and IESE (Barcelona). All of these programs are among the very best in Europe.</p>
<p>About your handle: maybe if you went to Harvard or Yale you would have more readily identified with your specific school as opposed to the Ivy League as a whole... ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
through a French university's branch in Singapore
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Man, you certainly are a case study in hypocrisy. A minute ago, you are raving about INSEAD, and I quote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Only a handful of European universities like INSEAD have managed to replicate the format and excellence of the top US programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now when it comes back to bite you in the arse, you brush it off as a "French university" (which is completely wrong btw, INSEAD is NOT a university - it's solely a business school - a.k.a. no undergrad - i.e. not an institution which grants bachelors, masters and doctorates, the definition of a "university" - but I think most people on this board have come to realize that we shouldn't expect much from you in the way of accuracy).</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe if you went to Harvard or Yale you would have more readily identified with your specific school as opposed to the Ivy League as a whole...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wrong again pal. i never really thought much about my handle when I created it, so I decided on a "generic" one - not very original i'll admit.</p>
<p>I am extremely proud of BOTH my Ivy alum institutions (hence "Ivy Grad"): Princeton undergrad - my no. 1 choice (which btw "trumps" Cal 7 days out of the week and twice on Sunday) and Wharton MBA also my no. 1 choice (which btw "trumps" Haas 7 days out of the week and twice on Sunday).</p>
<p>Maybe if YOU went to Stanford or an Ivy, you wouldn't have such an inferiority complex to all things Green (Ivy, Stanford Tree or otherwise). ;)</p>
<p>Reading this forum is akin to being in a room with a bunch of people yelling at the top of their voices covering their ears.</p>
<p>Listen, as somebody who goes to Berkeley as an undergraduate, and knows the culture there, as well as a person who is seriously considering an MBA and has substantial exposure to the business world - I think I can make a few asserstions that everyone can agree with.</p>
<p>1.) Haas is an excellent business school. It has excellent ties to Asia, and is one of the top choices should one want to pursue a career in business in Asia.
That being said, Haas is not the be-all and end-all for business in Asia - or business at all for that matter. Business requires certain acumen that no MBA will give you - an MBA is a qualifier, as economists would say, a signal.</p>
<p>2.) Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. - are all excellent business schools. If one were to pursue business in Asia, it is clear that any of these schools will open doors - no one is going to say "HBS only" or "No Non-Ivy Grads" etc. Anything in the top rung of B-schools is excellent and will provide ample opportunities. </p>
<p>That being said, on a side note that is complete venting and totally unrelated to this forum, I hate the subculture of UC Berkeley undergrads that the Haas BS program is THE best thing to do in undergrad and Econ majors are people who were rejected from the Haas program. There are too many reasons to explain here, just needed to vent - and I suspect a lot of you will agree.</p>
<p>The net of what I am saying is that Haas and Stanford and MIT may be slightly better or worse, depending on whose flawed ranking system you are using. In the end, it doesnt even matter.</p>
<p>justsomeguy, I agree completely with you about the choice of the business major at the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>Ivygrad, most Wharton MBAs stick with "Wharton", as opposed to "Penn". "Wharton" is the bigger name brand, for sure. I thought you went to Penn undergrad because you mentioned that acronym. And BTW I did have the opportunity to attend Ivy schools, including your graduate school.</p>
<p>I do know INSEAD, I've visited the campus and have friends who went there. The technical distinction between "university" and "business school" is irrelevant to my argument. Part of my criticism of Wharton's Asian partner is that it appears to have been set up by a foreign entity (regardless of the caliber of that uhm, business school) so it might have a bit of a European perspective on Asia.</p>
<p>The other part is that if you want to take advantage of the main engine of growth in Asia, you should be closer to the mainland. Singapore is definitely more removed from China than Hong Kong.</p>