<p>^^ let alone cornell and colgate, brown has identical information listed to that of Howard, Davidson, Morehouse, North Carolina State, Spelman... are you going to say that those are all "core" schools? Spellman even has on-campus interviews for Round 1, whereas Brown's are in New Jersey.</p>
<p>Not that brown is a bad school (obviously), or grads aren't wanted from there, or there isn't recruiting done there, but it simply is not considered a "core" school by mckinsey</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course not all of them like that, but the hardest working ppl I've met are the ones who attended relatively obscure colleges. They have the strongest work ethic b/c they know that they don't have the "brand name" of their degree to ride on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, the top schools have plenty of EXTREMELY HARD WORKING people. Don't believe me? Perhaps you'd like to check out some of the students at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT has a powerful 'brand name'. There are certainly many adjectives used to describe MIT students, but 'lazy' would certainly not be one of them. I remember one guy who basically stayed every single waking minute of an entire semester when not in class in one of the MIT Athena labs (the computer labs) in completing a series of long software projects. A lot of times, he didn't even go home, he would just sleep in the lab, or on one of the benches outside of the lab. Are you saying that he's lazy? Or that he's somehow riding off the reputation of MIT? </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that consulting firms and i-banks are often elitist and the expense of hiring quality employees with characters. </p>
<p>Some firms (sadly) would rather take the bottom 10% of Harvard's class then the cream of the crop from an obscure university. The cream of the crop from an obscure university likely is much better qualified for the job, but the cream of the crap from Harvard will still get the job just b/c they went to Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, perhaps, but then you have to ask why that is the case. I don't think that consulting firms are hiring bad Harvard students just 'for fun'. Why would they stupidly throw money away like that. I believe that, if anything, they are doing it BECAUSE CLIENTS DEMAND IT. </p>
<p>Look, consulting is not a game. Consulting firms have to make money just like any other business, and that means attracting clients. And what consulting firms are selling is people. It's far easier to sell your people to clients when you can say that your people came from Harvard than from a no-name school, even if we're talking about mediocre Harvard students vs. the best students from the no-name school. The truth is, a lot of clients won't understand the difference and will just want to see the school brand name.</p>
<p>So if you want to find somebody to blame, blame the clients. They're the ones who are influencing consulting hiring decisions. As long as clients continue to prefer school brand names, then consulting firms are perfectly economically justified in picking candidates because of their school's brand name.</p>
<p>also, to be honest, the bottom 10% of harvard is probably equivalent or better to the top 10% of most state schools, just think of their incoming class statistics, etc. AND they have the harvard name for clients, as stated above</p>
<p>I feel like it's s subtle argument to promote Michigan (which is on that "core" list whereas Brown is not), but nonethless, Alexandre has supported his argument with data.</p>
<p>"most retarded statement ever. Congratulations!"</p>
<p>No it's not, Harvard's bottom 25th percentile SAT score is 170 points better than Indiana's top 75th, that's not a retarded statement at all, and indiana is considered a GOOD state school</p>
<p>lol tekno i just looked over your old posts and all you do is go around saying elite schools aren't any better than regular schools and the people who go there are lazy.</p>
<p>Don't be bitter just because you went to a mediocre school.</p>
<p>i would say the top 5% of a cc are better than the bottom 25% of harvard, and the top 10% at a decent state college are as good or better than bottom 50% or harvard in terms of raw ability, not in stats, but intelligence.</p>
<p>At the Ivies and Stanford MIT Duke Chicago etc. the middle 50% of students is as competetive as the most competetive students at almost every school. The bottom 25% is probably stronger at these 10-15 schools than the best students at almost every state school. I mean, going to a state school is fine...but the students at top schools on average are MUCH smarter and more accomplished than those at mid level state schools. On average - keep that in mind.</p>
<p>The top 25% of Cal, UVa and Michigan's freshmen classes last year had SAT scores over 1480. Tha't comparable to the 50th percentile of Harvard's class.</p>
<p>Being accomplished is different than being intelligent. On the whole, ivy league students are the most accomplished, but that doesnt mean anything about their intelligence. Dont get them confused</p>
<p>
[quote]
i would say the top 5% of a cc are better than the bottom 25% of harvard, and the top 10% at a decent state college are as good or better than bottom 50% or harvard in terms of raw ability, not in stats, but intelligence.
[/quote]
I can say with considerable confidence that the top students at a top public university rival the top students at a top university, and my professors have said the same. I felt far more challenged among my HS IB peers (vast majority of which ended up at UNC) than I have here.</p>
<p>According to PR, Cal Berkeley's top 25% SAT is 1450, UVA's is 1430 and UMichigan is 1420, so it's much closer to the bottom 25% of Harvard. I would say the top 10% of a solid state school may be smarter than the bottom 20% of Harvard because of cost, location, other reasons to not want to pursue a school like Harvard (not to mention that many Harvard rejects have the same stats as Harvard enrollees). I think it's too extreme to say the top 10% of any state school has SATs above 1500 (the 50% range at Harvard) with the possible exception of Cal/Berkeley.</p>
<p>Berk UVA and Mich have 75% SAT's around 1430. Penn Columbia Brown Duke have there 25% around 1350 and 75 around 1530. HYPSM has 25% around 1400 and 75 around 1560. </p>
<p>So, Berk UVA and Mich top 25% students, statistically, are closer to the lower quartile of students at the Ivy-plus schools. SAT scores, of course, shouldnt be equated with IQ. Still. Even the top students at the best state schools would be average-ish at Ivy plus schools.</p>
<p>The post said MOST state schools. Berk, UVA, and Mich consists of less than 1% of total state schools.</p>
<p>TheThoughtProcess, the 75th %ile at Michigan was 1480 for this class of 2010.</p>
<p>How does the 75% SAT for UMichigan go up 60 points in one year when most top schools reported their SAT avg went down by ~ 5-6 points?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even the top students at the best state schools would be average-ish at Ivy plus schools.
[/quote]
It's worth noting that the only colleges to produce more Rhodes Scholars than UVa and UNC Chapel Hill are HYPS and USMA.</p>
<p>The only colleges to produce more Goldwater Scholars (science/math) than Kansas State, Penn State, and UIUC are Princeton, Harvard, and Duke.</p>
<p>Michigan has been hot for a while now. Not that it's anything new. Michigan has been considered an elite university ever since the mid 19th century. In terms of academics, Michigan has always been considered among the top 10 nationally, especially in the academic and corporate world, but in the US and abroad. But given its size, Michigan has generally suffered a little in terms of selectivity. However, for the last 3 years, Michigan has experienced small but clear improvements in selectivity.</p>
<p>This trend should continue for some time.</p>
<p>"Even the top students at the best state schools would be average-ish at Ivy plus schools. "</p>
<p>From what I've experienced, I can't concur.</p>
<p>In the part of the midwest I just moved from, it is not at all looked down on to attend the state Universities. In fact, it's thought to be an advantage if you plan to stay in the area after graduation, and gain admission to a state U professional school thereafter. They have honors programs, and free tuition for top students and top scorers; when the economics are all tallied they actually pay you to go there. Nobody looks down on the people who take them up on it.</p>
<p>While my D was attending the best academic private school in the area, 2 valedictorians in successive years went to the state U. They turned down various multiple Ivies to do so. The financial aspects, and desire to stay close to home were possibly key considerations.</p>
<p>During my own work career, outside of one Wall Street job almost all the people I reported to attended state universities. Actually some of them did in my Wall Street job as well. They didn't get to where they were because they were stupid.</p>
<p>Now as far as what % from what state u is equivalent to what % of some other school, that I have no idea.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even the top students at the best state schools would be average-ish at Ivy plus schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No...just, no. I'm in the top 2% of my class at Duke and I know people smarter than me that ended up at UVA for financial reasons. UVA won cross-admits with HYPSM from my HS. </p>
<p>I know you'll post SAT ranges to 'refute' that, but realize that averages and even IQR's don't tell you all that much about what's going on at the very top. Indeed, an inter-quartile range in particular is supposed to be somewhat immune to the effects of outliers, i.e. the very top students.</p>