<p>Prestige is overrated. I go to Haas/Berkeley (ranked #2 by USNews for undergrad), but I live in soCal. No one cares about Haas down here. USC>Berkeley in soCal.</p>
<p>If you can get into Michigan-Ross then go for it. It’s probably the best one in your list.
Berkeley-Haas does not guarantee an automatic entry so it’s a bit risky route.</p>
<p>@ Inmotion12; Are you saying that someone who doesn’t go to a top school has less ambition and drive then one who does go to a top school? You might want to rethink that comment.</p>
<p>Of course there are people from lower ranked schools who have tons of drive and ambition and go on to change the world, but they sure didn’t have it at the time in their life when they had to prepare for college. The status of the school reflects how hard it was to get into and the GPA/EC’s required. We can deduce that, generally speaking, somebody who gets into a top school had the drive to get amazing grades in high school/CC, while somebody who did not get into the top school didn’t have the same drive to get those grades- cause if they did they wouldn’t be going to a lower-ranked school.</p>
<p>A college degree is mainly a signaling device to employers. If you went to a top school it signals that in high school you worked your *** off day and night to do what you had to do to go to that school. If you go to a lower ranked school it signals that in high school you slacked off a little bit and didn’t care as much, hence the lower drive and ambition. </p>
<p>That situation may reverse itself when the applicants are in their 20s or 30s or whenever, but we’re talking about employers having to make a judgement about the juvenile and young adult lives of their young applicants. School status is a sensible way to make that judgement.</p>
<p>
You’re half right. You can reach a positive conclusion about top school grads, but it is not possible to determine the reason someone attends a lower ranked school.</p>
<p>Of course, that doesn’t change the eventual outcome you’re talking about.</p>
<p>Exactly, employers aren’t like admission committees. They’re not gonna sit there and read an essay you wrote about your “circumstances”. They’re gonna make snap judgments based on the limited information they have.</p>
<p>Your not taking into effect the what ifs. You don’t know somebody’s personal situation. What if a kid has to stay close to home to take care of the family. What if the student is a borderline kid who parents make just enough to not be qualified for grants but not enough to pay for $40k tuition a year? What if a family doens’t want to take out loans and be in debt 6 figures. If an employer can’t think out of the box and ASK about these situations then why would you want to be a sheep in that company.</p>
<p>Hmm, yea thats true. Socioeconomic factors do play a role. Plus an employer’s main priority should be what skills and personality you will bring to the table. I was trying to think of it from the point of view of a typical employer though. I mean, honestly, if you were doing the hiring and everything else seemed relatively equal, wouldn’t you take the Columbia grad over the Arizona State grad? It’d be hard not to, right? If the dude went to Columbia you’re gonna be thinking there must be something that set him apart.</p>
<p>Depends… This is where a proper interview will set apart the bums from the producers. If an employer does a proper interview then that will tell you the truth about the person’s character, generally speaking. You can graduate from Columbia or A State all you want but if you can’t interview your screwed. Also screw coach Ericson, that SOB looked me in my eyes told me a lie.</p>