<p>RP demonstrates nothing - you gauge a schools quality by the caliber of students that attend and how that school places those students - two major factors. Columbia wins at both in this case.</p>
<p>Karthiksmart,
Do you know the expression, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." That is often the case in college admissions and certainly on the issue of prestige. And prestige, for the vast majority of Americans, is seen differently in different regions of the country. After HYPSM, prestige takes a backseat to regional preferences. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are some folks in the Northeast who would never consider attending a Southern university and consider their students and graduates near-rubes who just fell off the turnip truck. Likewise, there are plenty of folks in the South/Southwest who think that students/graduates of Northeastern, high prestige schools, are rude, pushy, untrustworthy jerks. BOTH viewpoints are way off, reflect historical, geographical stereotypes and are IMO mind-numbingly dumb. Let's try to put the stereotypes aside and look at the objective data in comparing colleges. Emory is not as strong as Columbia and the other schools for SAT scores, but it is competitive on other measures. Please take a moment to review the earlier pages as some of this was spelled out. </p>
<p>As for your comment about the poorly qualified student that you know going to Emory, there are similar examples at virtually every college in America. They are called developmental admits. That is not an accurate depiction of the average student at Emory nor would it be accurate for the schools that also practice this form of admittance. </p>
<p>aquamarine,
Issues of prestige can have importance in terms of getting a student an interview and some industries undoubtedly have a predisposition to hire students from the prestigious, mostly Northeastern colleges (read Wall Street). However, once the interview starts, whether you went to Columbia or to Emory is not very relevant. Either you have the goods or you don't and the name of your undergraduate college fades quickly into the background. Oftentimes, you will find the best candidates from less heralded schools like a Boston College or a William & Mary or a BYU. The barrier to these students is that there frequently are not alumni in place to help grease the wheels for getting a job offer (eg, on Wall Street), But please don't fall into the trap that just because someone went to Columbia that they are automatically more qualified than the student from a State U (top ranked or not) or a less prestigious private. There are great students all over the country. Most employers know this and don't get overly hung up on the (undergraduate) label.</p>
<p>look at the rankings of feeder schools and see who's sending more where.
<a href="http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/p...ege_092503.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/p...ege_092503.pdf</a>
Columbia is ranked 11th
Rice is ranked #20
NW #21
Cornell #25
U of Virgina v#33
Emory #36
Tufts #45
Wash U # 47</p>
<p>any school thant makes it into the top 50 of the feeder schools ranking has gained some prestige. if it's prestige you're hankering for.</p>
<p>^^^ that feeder ranking is garbage, don't use it as any basis for decision</p>
<p>W&M class of 1990; my income 350k-400k. Lack of Ivy pedigree didnt hurt at all. Living proof to what Hawkette said. In the South, W&M is more respected than Cornell,Columbia, Brown. I would say the same thing about Vanderbilt, Davidson, and others.</p>