Best Transfer Choices from Berkeley

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
1. Reputatikon of being so workaholic like, and this is something that the students take pride in, so its not like its just a persona, its a reality the students would like to mantain
2. The reason why its not that popular or known, could be due to the fact that it has such a crazy uncommon appliccation, that turns several people off, and if it doesnt turn people off, it keeps ppl who are doing their application on the last minute from being able to come up with original essays and applying
3. it is not very well know for its natuaral scciencecs, more for its social sciences. that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely gives it a more liberal arts college feel to it, making it less popular I think. Many people know national universities way before they know LAC's because of this idea.. However,. in reality Chicago has a Cancer institute that is very famous, just got 20 million dollars of funding, it has Argonne Nat'l Lab, plus several other science institutes showing that it does not only focus on liberal arts
4. I think the first thing about it being so nerdy and not being known builds upon itself, and one person affects the next person, and soon it turns out that everyone is thinking the same</p>

<p>So yeah, thats what I think, so case in point, if these things are all true, and are the real reasons for the low yield, then it doesnt have to do with the academics but rather its persona and the actual intense levels of work that is involved. therefore, if one, such as me, is not worried about working his ass off and the layman not recognizing me for it, then it could be a good choice. thats how it seems like to me. feel free to poke more holes in my argument

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would hazard the guess that it's not really that Chicago forces its students to work hard that is the real issue. After all, as you pointed out, MIT and Caltech are also famous for their rigor. The real issue is implicit in that last sentence - that MIT and Caltech are * famous * for their rigor. Like I said, if you go to MIT and Caltech, yeah, you'll be working like a dog, but at least people will know that you're working like a dog and will accord you the proper respect. The brand names of these 2 schools strongly connote an air of rigor. MIT, especially, is arguably the most rigorous brand name in education in the entire world (which is a bit unfair to Caltech considering that I think they are just as rigorous, if not more so). A major problem that I see with Chicago is that it is rigorous, but without the powerful layman's brand name. Hence, you may be working hard, but a lot of people won't know that. Heck, back at my old high school, a lot of teachers had never heard of UChicago and just thought it was a no-name low-tier city school like CCNY. In fact, I would argue that Berkeley actually has a more powerful brand name than Chicago does. In fact, even the Fiske Guide (as I'm sure Alexandre can confirm) has stated that some Chicago students decry the school's relative lack of branding. </p>

<p>So I think that accounts for a lot of why Chicago does relatively pooly in the RP ranking and in the yield ratings. All things being equal, people tend to prefer to go to a well-branded school. I see nothing wrong with that, because, the truth is, we live in a branded society. </p>

<p>Now obviously brand is not the only thing on the table. LAC's, for example, don't have much of a brand. But they make up for it with a lot of hand-holding and personal education and caring atmosphere. It doesn't seem to me that Chicago really does that, what with its reputation of 'where fun goes to die'. That doesn't sound like a particularly caring atmosphere to me. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Revealed Preferences does not mean Revealed Quality, nor was it ever meant to. I know too many students to be interested in the general tide of opinion and preference among us

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly right - it's a preference ranking, not necessarily a quality ranking. However, in my previous post, I would argue that preferences create quality. The truth is, most of the real value of a particular school is in its desirability. Rappers like Bentleys not because they are that high of quality, but because they are symbols of selectivity and status.</p>

[odyssy5red]

<p>sorry, sakky, but uchicago is recognized for its difficulty, at least by the people who matter. and the reason the yield rate is so low is due to its very specific reputation of being where "fun comes to die." MIT and CalTech, despite having the reputation of being "nerdy" schools, dont have this. now, as a uchicago student, i can tell you that there's plenty of fun to go around, and many of the students here aren't nerdy at all, but of course that would be pointless because the perception is otherwise. what you have to understand is that because of its "work hard" reputation, the people who apply and decide to go here are very dedicated, and intelligent, students. despite our low yield rate, our SAT scores are higher than half of the ivies, and much higher than berkeley's. and some of you are displaying a huge west coast bias, i dont think berkely ugrad is more highly regarded than northwestern or uchicago.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
sorry, sakky, but uchicago is recognized for its difficulty, at least by the people who matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know. I still respect my high school teachers as 'people who matter', even though they had never heard of UChicago. </p>

<p>
[quote]
now, as a uchicago student, i can tell you that there's plenty of fun to go around, and many of the students here aren't nerdy at all, but of course that would be pointless because the perception is otherwise. what you have to understand is that because of its "work hard" reputation, the people who apply and decide to go here are very dedicated, and intelligent, students. despite our low yield rate, our SAT scores are higher than half of the ivies, and much higher than berkeley's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, preach to the choir, my friend. I am not saying that the situation is fair. I am saying that the situation is what it is. Like it or not, the Chicago brand name is not as strong as competing schools. Like it or not, Chicago is considered a less desirable place to go to school, as evidenced by its yield rate of 33% and low RP ranking. </p>

<p>Personally, what I think Chicago needs to do is engage in a major marketing campaign to boost its image. It's not fair that a lot of people don't know how good Chicago is. But what can I say? Life is not fair. Like it or not, most of the Ivies are considered to be more desirable than Chicago is. It's like how, right now, General Motors complains that people still think that their cars are unreliable when in reality, they are only a shade behind the Japanese in terms of reliability. Hey, those sorts of perceptions have to be shaped by proper marketing. It certainly doesn't help when Chicago has the reputation of 'where fun comes to die'. That is not helpful. </p>

<p>
[quote]
and some of you are displaying a huge west coast bias, i dont think berkely ugrad is more highly regarded than northwestern or uchicago.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think I hardly qualify for a 'West Coast bias'. Like I said, if this was a comparison between Berkeley and HYPM, it would be a no-brainer. I also agree with you that on an undergrad level, Chicago is probably better than Berkeley from a quality standpoint.</p>

<p>But that's not really the issue. The issue is that Berkeley does indeed have a strong brand name, clearly stronger than Chicago. Maybe it's undeserved (and for the undergrad program, I think the Berkeley brand name is undeserved), but it doesn't matter whether it's deserved or not. All that matters is that it exists. Berkeley's undergrad program is probably not as good as Chicago's, but at least that big brand name can get you places. </p>

<p>That is why I am not sure that the OP would really benefit from transferring to Chicago. Transferring is a big step. You have to leave behind your old friends, make new friends, learn a new culture, and so forth. If this was a matter of choosing Chicago over Berkeley as a freshman, that would be one thing. But this is about transfer admissions. That's a different situation with different social costs. I don't know whether the OP would really gain enough from transferring to Chicago when you factor in the hassle of transferring.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Sakky, first of all, I never agreed that students go to university to land a job when they graduate. I never did and I never will. I personally went to university to learn and develop. Jobs never even entered my mind while I was considering colleges. </p>

<p>Secondly, if the RP measured corporate sentiment in any way, shape or form, I would agree that it is meaningful. But the RP does not measure corporate sentiment, graduate school adcom sentiment or any other important sentiment other that 16-17 year old high school student sentiment. </p>

<p>Take my own alma matter. Michigan does horribly on the RP (out of the top 25, possibly out of the top 30 in the nation if I recall) and yet, McKinsey, Mercer, Bain, BCG, Booz Allen, AT Kearney, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Lazard, Citigroup, UBS, CS, DeutscheBank, Parisbas, Merrill Lynch, Blackstone, Carlyle Group, Warburg Pincus, KKR, Bain Capital, GE, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Sun, Amgen, Baxter, Medtronic, Pfizer, Merk and Johnson & Johnson combined hire roughly 300 undergraduate students on campus annually. Those companies all consider Michigan a "strategic campus" for undergraduate talent and given the exclusive nature of their recruitment processes, Michigan is typically one of only a handful of elite universities in the nation that gets that distinction. Keep in mind that I am not even mentioning the large but less exclusive recruiters who ravage Michigan's campus. Companies like Ford, GM, DM, Kellogg, Target, Wallgreen, Borders, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte & Touche to name a few. Such companies also recruit untold hundreds from Michigan annually. I'd say that in my extensive experience, only a handful of campuses are more recruited than Michigan.</p>

[Pulkit]

<p>Sakky, I don't think you quite understand. </p>

<p>Fact: chicago has a low yield rate</p>

<p>Opinion: The reason for this is because it is undesirable to the students and thus is not a good choice to transfer from a career point of view. Because, Sakky, isn't that what you argue, that college is a lot about creating more success for you. So, if Stanford is branded as better than Berkeley, then it doesn't matter which education is actually better from a career piont of view, Stanford will be looked atbetter from a corporate/graduate pov.</p>

<p>Alternative Opinion: I still believe that it is undesirable to students, and thus it has low yield. However, I believe that like people have said earlier, the reason why people think its undesirable is because of the perception that people work all the time. Okay, point taken. However, you state that because of this undesirability it will not be as good brand to apply to grad/corporate world as a degree fromm a more desired place, like Berkeley. Here's the thing though, even though the students may not recognize Chicago, I believe that the people who matter (maybe your counselor is an exception....) like the adcoms for grad school/pre-med will definitely recognize Chicago as better and tougher and overall stronger than Berkeley. After all, it is the opinion of the adcoms that matters, not of the general layman or students. And ordinarily, students and adcoms think alike, but in this particular situation I feel that adcoms would differ from the layman. </p>

<p>Here's how you will really know which one is better career wise: which one has a higher med school acceptancec rate. since I am going to med school you could argue that if what is most important is an education that will advance my career, and that for me means getting into med school, then the bottom line is which school is better for that. I believe it is Chicago, Berkeley's is ridiculous low. That's the bottom line.</p>

<p>However, given that advancement of career is the most important criteria, then perhaps even better than Chicago would be Cornell, which has a very high percentage of med school acceptance. And by that logic Sakky, it would be more beneficial for a student to go to Cornell than MIT, since it has a better med school acceptance. Thus, for a pre-med student Cornell > MIT, interesting way of looking at things isn't it.</p>

<p>Obviously there are other criteria other than this one, and I am not totally sure that I agree mwith you that advancement is of primary concern. But if it is, then college ratings are highly personal given what you want to continue to do, ex: medice, law, engineering....I guess the reason for looking at the overall rankings, like the USNews or the RP rankings is really if you DONT know what you want to do in the future. these rankings would give you the overall best school for anything you want to do. so, lets say ur undecided, then going to harvard is a really good option because it will advance you no matter what career path you choose.</p>

[Pulkit]

<p>bump bump bump</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, first of all, I never agreed that students go to university to land a job when they graduate. I never did and I never will. I personally went to university to learn and develop. Jobs never even entered my mind while I was considering colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, shall I pull out your old quote where you said EXACTLY that?</p>

<p>Note, I never said that ALL students were like this. But I think we both know that, like it or not, the vast majority of students who go to college are doing so because they want to get a good job. Nothing more, nothing less. Or put another way, if a college degree didn't help people to get jobs, most people wouldn't go to college. I think we all know this is true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, if the RP measured corporate sentiment in any way, shape or form, I would agree that it is meaningful. But the RP does not measure corporate sentiment, graduate school adcom sentiment or any other important sentiment other that 16-17 year old high school student sentiment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obviously the RP does not measure corporate sentiment. It measures STUDENT sentiment. But the point is, the employers tend to go to where the students are. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Take my own alma matter. Michigan does horribly on the RP (out of the top 25, possibly out of the top 30 in the nation if I recall) and yet, McKinsey, Mercer, Bain, BCG, Booz Allen, AT Kearney, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Lazard, Citigroup, UBS, CS, DeutscheBank, Parisbas, Merrill Lynch, Blackstone, Carlyle Group, Warburg Pincus, KKR, Bain Capital, GE, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Sun, Amgen, Baxter, Medtronic, Pfizer, Merk and Johnson & Johnson combined hire roughly 300 undergraduate students on campus annually. Those companies all consider Michigan a "strategic campus" for undergraduate talent and given the exclusive nature of their recruitment processes, Michigan is typically one of only a handful of elite universities in the nation that gets that distinction. Keep in mind that I am not even mentioning the large but less exclusive recruiters who ravage Michigan's campus. Companies like Ford, GM, DM, Kellogg, Target, Wallgreen, Borders, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte & Touche to name a few. Such companies also recruit untold hundreds from Michigan annually. I'd say that in my extensive experience, only a handful of campuses are more recruited than Michigan.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, nobody ever said that Michigan did "horribly" on the RP. The fact that Michigan even places in the RP ranking at all is already an accomplishment. After all, there are more than 2000 colleges in the US, and the RP survey only measured the top slice of them. The fact that Michigan is in the top slice is an accomplishment in and of itself. For example, nobody goes around recommending against Michigan in favor of Wayne State. </p>

<p>But to your other point, it doesn't really matter how many total recruiters Michigan has. What matters is the PER-CAPITA number of recruiters Michigan has. Sure, Michigan has lots of recruiters. But Michigan also has lots of students COMPETING for those jobs that the recruiters provide. It doesn't matter to you as an individual student if there are lots of recruiters around but you don't get the job you want because the slots are taken by other students at your school. From your perspective, it is almost as if those recruiters don't even exist to you. </p>

<p>I would also hardly characterize some of those companies you mentioned as particularly desirable employers, particularly the Big 3 auto makers. Let's be brutally honest here. Who really wants to work at Ford, GM, or DM right now - what with them slashing away at salaries and benefits and laying off tens of thousands of people? Why would you want to step into that kind of environment? The truth is, whether we like it or not, the Big 3 are declining. Toyota has already overtaken Ford as the #2 auto manufacturer in the world, and as GM continues to shut down plants and lay people off, it seems inevitable that Toyota will become #1. Both GM and Ford are talking about reducing their plant capacity by up to 1/3. Ford has already announced that salaried workers will receive no raises in 2007. Honestly, why would you want to work at a company like that? </p>

<p><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE1DE103FF930A35752C1A9609C8B63%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE1DE103FF930A35752C1A9609C8B63&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, isn't that what you argue, that college is a lot about creating more success for you. So, if Stanford is branded as better than Berkeley, then it doesn't matter which education is actually better from a career piont of view, Stanford will be looked atbetter from a corporate/graduate pov.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would argue that it's more than that. Education is a strong * function * of the students themselves, for sociological reasons. You learn more when you are surrounded by highly talented and dynamic people. Keep in mind that most of your interaction in a particular school will not be with faculty. It will be with other students. If those other students are doing amazing things, then you will be spurred to do amazing things yourself. But if they're not so amazing, then you will tend to not be motivated to do amazing things. A typical student spends maybe at most 20 hours a week in actual class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Alternative Opinion: I still believe that it is undesirable to students, and thus it has low yield. However, I believe that like people have said earlier, the reason why people think its undesirable is because of the perception that people work all the time. Okay, point taken. However, you state that because of this undesirability it will not be as good brand to apply to grad/corporate world as a degree fromm a more desired place, like Berkeley. Here's the thing though, even though the students may not recognize Chicago, I believe that the people who matter (maybe your counselor is an exception....) like the adcoms for grad school/pre-med will definitely recognize Chicago as better and tougher and overall stronger than Berkeley. After all, it is the opinion of the adcoms that matters, not of the general layman or students. And ordinarily, students and adcoms think alike, but

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your assumption here is that you really will go to grad school, as opposed to just getting a job. Plenty of people * think * they will go to graduate school, and then turn out not to. This seems to be particularly true of med-school. As I'm sure you know, plenty of incoming students think they will do premed, but only a minority of them will actually stick it out all the way through to actually apply to med-school.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
However, given that advancement of career is the most important criteria, then perhaps even better than Chicago would be Cornell, which has a very high percentage of med school acceptance. And by that logic Sakky, it would be more beneficial for a student to go to Cornell than MIT, since it has a better med school acceptance. Thus, for a pre-med student Cornell > MIT, interesting way of looking at things isn't it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, you're factually incorrect. The rates are essentially the same. For undergraduate applicants (not all applicants, but UNDERGRADUATE applicants), the placement rates at MIT and Cornell are the same, at 76%. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.career.cornell.edu/downloads/Health/NewAaChart2005.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.career.cornell.edu/downloads/Health/NewAaChart2005.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/preprof.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/preprof.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Cornell doesn't publish an overall placement rating (which would contain not just Cornell undergrads, but Cornell alumni), so you don't have anything to compare to the overall MIT placement rating. But basically, the overall placement of almost every school is lower than its undergrad placement, because that overall placement includes people who tried to get in as undergrads and got rejected, and are now applying again. If you got rejected the first time, you are likely to get rejected in subsequent attempts. </p>

<p>But more importantly, I have always said that MIT is not a particularly great place to go for premed, relative to the other places you could go if you are good enough to get into MIT. In fact, if you want to follow that logic, you shouldn't go to MIT. Nor should you go to Chicago or Cornell, or even Harvard. Instead, if you are sure about premed, then you should have gone to one of those combined BS/MD programs. By definition, those programs have 100% placements (provided you stay eligible in the program). You obviously can't beat 100%. </p>

<p>But you have also seemingly missed my central point. The question is not which is better - Berkeley or Chicago (or Cornell). That question would be relevant if you were still a high school senior still deciding upon schools. But that's not the case anymore, because you are already at Berkeley and are deciding to transfer. The relevant question now is will a new school provide you with enough benefits to justify the switching costs associated with transferring to a new school. In essence, the new school can't just be better on an absolute scale. It has to be better by a certain margin to justify the switch.</p>

<p>Do not underestimate these switching costs. As a freshman, it's relatively easy to make social contacts because lots of other freshman are around and nobody knows anybody, so social groups have yet to be formed. It's far harder to break into existing groups, and that's what you will have to do as a transfer. All of the tacit knowledge that you have picked up about the way that Berkeley really works will have to be relearned at another school. You won't know any profs at your new school, so you will have to spend time building new prof relationships if you want to continue to do research. These are all amortized costs at Berkeley that you will have to 'repay' if you transfer away. </p>

<p>That's why I am rather skeptical about your proposed switch from Berkeley to Chicago. I am not sure that whatever benefits you will get will really justify the switching costs.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Sakky, I said that I left out the numbers who joined the Big 3 automakers presicesly because they aren't that exclusive. My exact quote was "Keep in mind that I am not even mentioning the large but less exclusive recruiters who ravage Michigan's campus. Companies like Ford, GM, DM, Kellogg, Target, Wallgreen, Borders, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte & Touche to name a few..."</p>

<p>I listed the exclusive companies that hire 300 or so Michigan undergrads annually. They are:</p>

<p>McKinsey, Mercer, Bain, BCG, Booz Allen, AT Kearney, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Lazard, Citigroup, UBS, CS, DeutscheBank, Parisbas, Merrill Lynch, Blackstone, Carlyle Group, Warburg Pincus, KKR, Bain Capital, GE, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Sun, Amgen, Baxter, Medtronic, Pfizer, Merk and Johnson & Johnson </p>

<p>I think we can agree that those are all highly exclusive and desired companies. And the per student offers are astounding. Of the 5,000 undergrads who graduate annually, 2,000 go straight to graduate school (mostly professional schools, Law, Medicine and Engineering in particular)which means only 3,000 or so hit the workforce. So 1 in 10 Michigan students hitting the work force join those exlusive companies. Why don't you look at Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke or Northwestern and let me know what percentage of their undergrads join those 40 or so exclusive companies? I doubt it runs in the hundreds or that it is much higher than 10% of the undergraduate population hitting the workforce at any of those schools.</p>

<p>In fact, if you look at placement rates (not sheer nunbers but as a ratio of the student population) into top graduate programs, Michigan makes the top 20 (among research institutions). And if you look at placement rates into top companies, Michigan most likely makes the top 10 (among research universities). And yet, the RP does not rank Michigan among the top 40. And Michigan is just one example. Chicago is also horrible ranked according to the RP. I am sorry Sakky, but the RP measures nothing of significance. You may think impressing 17 year olds is an accomplishment. I call it preying on the incredulity and naivete of the youth.</p>

[BIGTWIX]

<p>im curious as to why u say Northwestern is lower thank Berkeley, Pulkit???
not to go all ranking on u, but northwestern is ranked higher than berkeley on USnews.</p>

<p>Anyway
yeah
go for u of Chicago...
I heard its pretty much the best school ever if u want to learn alot</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
think we can agree that those are all highly exclusive and desired companies. And the per student offers are astounding. Of the 5,000 undergrads who graduate annually, 2,000 go straight to graduate school (mostly professional schools, Law, Medicine and Engineering in particular)which means only 3,000 or so hit the workforce.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting that only 5000 undergrads are graduating from Michigan yearly. Compare that to the fact that 6600 undergrads ENTER Michigan yearly (5400 freshmen, 1200 transfers). Hence, for Michigan to remain at steady-state, 6600 undergrads ought to be graduating every year (because the number of entering students must equal the number of exiting students for the numbers to balance). </p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.umich.edu/prospective/transfers/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.umich.edu/prospective/transfers/index.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What that must mean is that a full 1600 students of the 6600 entering students, or about 20%, never graduate at all . I'm not talking about not graduating in 4 or even 6 years. I am talking about NEVER graduating. That is the only way for the numbers to balance out.</p>

<p>So you talk about 10% of Michigan's students getting primo jobs. But the numbers indicate that about twice that figure never graduate at all. </p>

<p>I think that is one main reason that people seem not to prefer Michigan as highly as they could, relative to schools like Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, and so forth. It seems that if you go to Michigan, you stand a higher chance of not even graduating at all.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you say that 40% of Michigan's undergrads go right to graduate school? Really? Is that number right? If so, then I have to really wonder - what is wrong with Berkeley, as Berkeley only sends 18-23% of its undergrads to graduate school. What's up with that? That means that Michigan is absolutely destroying Berkeley when it comes to sending students straight to graduate school. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Campus.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Campus.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Campus.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Campus.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2003Campus.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2003Campus.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2002Campus.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2002Campus.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2001Campus.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2001Campus.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Not only that, but Michigan is also absolutely destroying Princeton.</p>

<p>"The percentage of seniors pursuing further education remained high, with 23.5% enrolled in full-time degree programs, fellowships that support continuing studies, and post-baccalaureate programs. "</p>

<p><a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Alexandre, you've always had a high opinion about Berkeley and Princeton. But here, are you saying that Michigan absolutely destroys both Berkeley and Princeton when it comes to sending students straight to graduate school?</p>

<p>Or could it be that your numbers are off? </p>

<p>
[quote]
So 1 in 10 Michigan students hitting the work force join those exlusive companies. Why don't you look at Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke or Northwestern and let me know what percentage of their undergrads join those 40 or so exclusive companies? I doubt it runs in the hundreds or that it is much higher than 10% of the undergraduate population hitting the workforce at any of those schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, considering that I still have great doubts about your 40% figure of graduating students going straight to graduate school, I don't know if I should believe this 10% figure either. </p>

<p>But even if you are right, I suspct that you would be able to find similar figures at those other schools. By all means, present the data and convince me. I shouldn't have to be the only one going around looking for data, you know. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, if you look at placement rates (not sheer nunbers but as a ratio of the student population) into top graduate programs, Michigan makes the top 20 (among research institutions). And if you look at placement rates into top companies, Michigan most likely makes the top 10 (among research universities). And yet, the RP does not rank Michigan among the top 40. And Michigan is just one example. Chicago is also horrible ranked according to the RP. I am sorry Sakky, but the RP measures nothing of significance. You may think impressing 17 year olds is an accomplishment. I call it preying on the incredulity and naivete of the youth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, take your data and tell Michigan they should use it in their marketing. You can complain all you want about how perhaps people SHOULD prefer certain things. The RP study exhibits what the sampled people ACTUALLY prefer. I have seen many companies flounder in trying to sell things that they believed people ought to want, as opposed to what they actually want.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Sakky, graduate school enrollment varies from year to year. Last year, roughly 35% of Michigan undergrads went straight to graduate school. But it was 40% a couple of years ago, and that's the number I remembered. One thing is certain, Michigan does place a relatively high percentage of its students into graduate school, primarily Law (920 in 2005) and Medical schools (340 in 2005). </p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And roughly 5,000-5,500 undergrads graduate annually (depending on the year). In terms of graduating undergrads searching for jobs, I'd say anywhere from 3,000 and 3,500 search for jobs annually, with close to 2,000 going straight to graduate school. The remaining students, typically less than 10%, take time off to pursue non-academic and non-professional interests.</p>

<p>As you can see, my numbers are not really off, and Michigan does not need me to do their marketing for them...it turns out the truth is pretty marketable as it is. </p>

<p>By now Sakky, you should know that I tend to stick to facts. I find your insinuations (that I am somehow making things up) unflattering...almost disturbing really.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>I got this from Michigan's website:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The number of University of Michigan applicants to law school for 2004-2005 decreased by 4% (1183 over 1,233 the previous year). Alumni/ae continued to outnumber the graduating seniors applying to law school (64% vs. 36%).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1183*0.36 = 426. This is the number of graduating senior applying to law school for 2004/2005. I think you incorrectly included alums as graduating seniors. When I saw your 920, it just seemed way too high and my intuition turns out to be correct. :)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cpp.umich.edu/students/healthmedlaw/med/medappstats.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cpp.umich.edu/students/healthmedlaw/med/medappstats.htm&lt;/a>
As for med school number, they didn't give the breakdown of alums vs graduating seniors out of that 352.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>That's a good point Sam Lee. I had not thought of that distinction. And I must confess that I am now not sure whether the 35% of undergrads going to grad school includes alums or not. But that doesn't alter the fact that Michigan's placement stats (as well as those of Chicago and other top universities) are more impressive that the RP would lead one to believe.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, graduate school enrollment varies from year to year. Last year, roughly 35% of Michigan undergrads went straight to graduate school. But it was 40% a couple of years ago, and that's the number I remembered. One thing is certain, Michigan does place a relatively high percentage of its students into graduate school, primarily Law (920 in 2005) and Medical schools (340 in 2005). </p>

<p>By now Sakky, you should know that I tend to stick to facts. I find your insinuations (that I am somehow making things up) unflattering...almost disturbing really.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, actually, that's not what the numbers say. I think Sam Lee pointed out the problem with the numbers - and, no, it is not an insinutation of anything. Let's both stick to what the facts actually say. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But that doesn't alter the fact that Michigan's placement stats (as well as those of Chicago and other top universities) are more impressive that the RP would lead one to believe.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, nobody is saying that the Michigan/Chicago RP stats are not impressive. Again, Michigan is the #31 ranked research university according to RP (when you wash away all of the LAC's). What's so bad about that? I think that's pretty good. And truthfully, many of the remaining research universities that rank above Michigan are really LAC's themselves. Schools like Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, even Princeton and Caltech - come on, these are really LAC's, or at least LAC hybrids. </p>

<p>I think what the RP ranking shows is that a lot of top students really like a LAC-like environment. And I think we agreed in past threads that there is nothing wrong with somebody preferring a LAC environment.</p>