<p>Well, I still think it's silly. I mean, let's say that I'm a policy wonk trying to get hired by the policy community, does it make more sense to get a degree at a school that the policy community looks upon favorably, or just go Ivy no matter what because Joe Plebe thinks that Princeton is better than LSE?</p>
<p>I'm comfortable with my own answer.</p>
<p>Yeah, but what if the policy community is ignorant? To be honest, maybe Sakky has somewhat of a point, except I'm going to extend it: even the supposed elite might assume that Harvard is automatically better than everything else in anything. </p>
<p>Damn, you had to mention LSE. It's a great institution, but I have to admit I hadn't heard of it prior to being an extreme Anglophile. UCL is also a top-notch one, and actually beats LSE in, well, economics, oddly enough.</p>
<p>Perhaps everything deals with ego and a sense of self-worth...
I bet many people do attend Ivies just to look appealing to the common man.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way: Someone who is looking for a policy career (professional degree) should consider JHU SAIS before most of the Ivies. The degree in international relations from Johns Hopkins (non Ivy) SAIS will beat out the one from Princeton in most cases. SAIS is just that strong.</p>
<p>And I've never heard of UCL beating out LSE in econ, but it's possible.</p>
<p>I actually looked at some rankings of econ departments in the UK, and it seems like LSE edges out UCL in one ranking:</p>
<p>The</a> Guardian</p>
<p>But not another:</p>
<p>Times</a> Online</p>
<p>Oh well.</p>
<p>Thank you UCLAri. :) You should sleep rather than look up info like this eh...</p>
<p>I heard that UCL out-ranked LSE in economics from a UCL student, so of course he was biased and mentioned the Times Online ranking, while ignoring the other.</p>
<p>Delicatess,</p>
<p>I live in Japan, where it's actually only 7:30 PM right now. I'd love to sleep, however. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh c'mon. An average GPA of accepted applicants to Haas on prereqs was 3.6. That's really not that tough to get.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's really not that tough to get, eh? I believe that the cutoff for graduating with honors (hence top 20%) in Letters and Science was about a 3.6 in the last few years. I don't know, maybe you think graduating in the top 20% from Berkeley isn't that tough, but I know that 80% of the students would disagree.</p>
<p>And besides, once again, it's all relative. I don't know what exactly it takes to get into Econ, but I know it ain't a 3.6. Hence, once again, you have the situation where Econ is seen (and rightfully so) as easier to get into than Busad, which then leads to the notion that Econ is the backup major for Busad. And the reality is, that's not an entirely illogical notion. There really are some people who have declared Econ only because they couldn't get into BusAd (but almost never the reverse). </p>
<p>
[quote]
How does that put anything in perspective? We are comparing different majors at the SAME university. Frankly, most people have not heard of "Haas"--that name alone--but have heard of Berkeley. Heck, ask the common man what Haas is, and I bet that person would have no idea.</p>
<p>Prior to coming to Berkeley, I had not even heard of Haas, just Wharton.</p>
<p>Also, isn't Georgia Tech good?</p>
<p>Compare Harvard to another university, one that isn't good.</p>
<p>To put it in "perspective": I think I would be able to obtain an engineering degree at a worthless university, but I probably wouldn't ace humanities at Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are not reading my analogies right. Prestige and perspective aren't necessarily fair. My point is that, fair or not fair, people see Berkeley Econ as a 'safety' major to BusAd, even though Econ may actually be harder. It may not be fair, but fairness has nothing to do with it. Just like people see Harvard is being more prestigious than most other degrees, even though some of those other degrees may actually be harder to get. Like it or not, that's how it works. </p>
<p>I didn't say it was fair, and I didn't say that it was a quality check. I just said that's how it is. To give you another example, I would argue that a Toyota Camry is better built and more reliable than a Jaguar or even a Mercedes. But which one confers you more status to drive?</p>
<p>Hence, taking it back to the issue at hand, Berkeley Econ may well be a more rigorous and higher quality major than Haas BusAd is. But as long as people who don't get into BusAd end up in Economics as their second choice, then people are not going to view Econ as the equal to BusAd. It's not fair, but hey, life sometimes isn't fair. If the Berkeley Econ department doesn't like it, then it needs to either heighten its admissions requirements, or make itself a more desirable major, or preferably both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn't Econ one of the most "capped majors" on campus?</p>
<p>
<p>Quote: Oh c'mon. An average GPA of accepted applicants to Haas on prereqs was 3.6. That's really not that tough to get.</p>
<p>That's really not that tough to get, eh? I believe that the cutoff for graduating with honors (hence top 20%) in Letters and Science was about a 3.6 in the last few years. I don't know, maybe you think graduating in the top 20% from Berkeley isn't that tough, but I know that 80% of the students would disagree.
</p>
<p>I didn't say getting a 3.6 average graduating GPA at Berkeley (in totality) was easy, but getting a 3.6 on the prereqs for Haas is not that hard. Getting a 3.6 average overall is tough and requires hard work. (I'm not simply spouting out my either: I was actually pre-business--but then decided on law school--and took all of the pre-reqs except for one.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I still think it's silly. I mean, let's say that I'm a policy wonk trying to get hired by the policy community, does it make more sense to get a degree at a school that the policy community looks upon favorably, or just go Ivy no matter what because Joe Plebe thinks that Princeton is better than LSE?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But again, this is just another aspect of the same thing. You say that you would choose a program that the policy community looks upon favorably. But don't you see - you are STILL choosing a program based on what other people think about it, not necessarily on what you yourself think about it. The only difference is what group of people you are talking about, the policy people or the common people at large. But the same idea is still at work - you are choosing a program to impress other people.</p>
<p>In fact this all gets down to the concept of brand-names and their role in economics, something that I have investigated in depth. To make things brief, brand-names are a substitute for a lack of knowledge. The truth is, some people are more productive workers than others, yet it's difficult to tell who is a productive worker and who isn't. That's why the world relies on brand-names as a guide. If knowledge was perfectly ubiquitous, then we would have no need to rely on a brand name.</p>
<p>As a case in point, Armani has an strong brand name in fashion - so strong that people will buy Armani suits just because of the name Armani. But why? How many people really know exactly why an Armani suit is better than just some regular suit? Armani suits are of higher quality and are better designed than a regular suit, but to really know why that is true, you basically have to be an expert in the fashion industry, an expert in textiles, an expert in tailoring, etc. Most people who buy and wear Armani are not experts. They are relying on the brand name precisely because they are not experts. Most people don't want to spend the time to become experts. Hence, they would rather rely on the brand name. That's a perfectly economically rational choice. Acquiring information is expensive. Sometimes it's more economically efficient just to rely on a brand name.</p>
<p>For example, UCLAri has talked about how JHU SAIS is good for policy. I have no doubt that it is good. But think about it - why does that matter? If I knew that a particular individual was a good policy worker, then I wouldn't care whether he went to JHU or some no-name college, or even whether he graduated from college at all. I would just hire him because I know that he's good. But if I don't know, then I have to rely on brand-names of some kind. Hence, JHU SAIS fulfills that need for a brand-name for policy people just like Harvard fulfills the need for a brand-name for non-policy people. But it's the same idea. We're all relying on brand names as a substitute of real knowledge about how productive a person really is. </p>
<p>I would also raise 3 points here.</p>
<h1>1 - The vast majority of people go onto fields that are significantly different from whatever they got their undergrad degree in.</h1>
<p>This is particularly true of the standard liberal arts. Most people get degrees in things like English, PoliSci, History, Foreign Languages, Math, Physics, Psychology, and those kinds of things. But how many of those people actually get jobs in those particular fields. Think about it - of all the people who get History undergrad degrees, how many of them actually get a job in the history field, or go on to get history PhD's? I think we can all agree that the vast majority do not. Most of them will get onto the 'regular' corporate job track. For those people, it doesn't really matter how good their specific History program was. Few if any corporate HR people, when they're hiring for a corporate position, are going to know what the History rankings are, nor will they care. They are going to have to go by the general prestige of the school itself. </p>
<p>Hence the history program of otherwise unknown School X might be very well regarded, but how does that really help me if I am trying to get a non-History job? </p>
<p>Furthermore, hiring is often done because the company itself know that it needs to impress clients who don't know what is going on. This is why Mckinsey and Goldman Sachs hires lots of Ivy League liberal arts graduates over bus-ad graduates from no-name schools. The fact is, these companies are basically selling the brains of their people to clients and the clients themselves are often times clueless. It's easier to get a client when you can boast that you will have a bunch of Harvard graduates who will be dedicated to working on the client's account than a bunch of people who graduated from a no-name school, even if those people are highly skilled. </p>
<h1>2 - Sometimes, the opinions of the 'plebes' really does matter.</h1>
<p>I already gave you an example above, of companies hiring people with prestige degrees in order to attract clients. Similarly, you yourself may sometimes need to rely on the brand-name of your school to give you credibility amongst people who don't know your field.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. My brother graduated from Caltech. One time he was in a dinner party talking to a bunch of people about the impact of computer science and engineering on the world, the development of the computer engineering, and all that. These people at the party were not stupid people - many of them were lawyers, businessmen, etc. But the key is that they weren't technical. They didn't have technical backgrounds. And they certainly didn't memorize the rankings for all the engineering programs or CS programs were. Heck, my brother doesn't even have a degree in engineering or CS (his degree is in geophysics). However, the fact that he graduated from Caltech gave him instant credibility to talk about technology in general. Those people, who are highly educated people, figured that since he graduated from Caltech, he must know a lot about technology. They used the Caltech brand name as a substitute for specific knowledge.</p>
<p>Now you might say that these people should not have done that, but I would reiterate that these are not stupid people. Furthermore, this sort of thing happens a lot. I would submit that we have all done this in the past, and we will all do it again in the future. Sometime in our lives we are going to have to make a quick judgement about somebody's credibility based on where they went to school because we won't know what the rankings are for the specific field that he graduated from. Nobody goes around memorizing specific field rankings.</p>
<h1>3 - The truth is, most people end up switching majors.</h1>
<p>I believe CNN once reported that the average college student switches majors (at least in his own mind) about 4 times before finally settling on one. So take a school that is extremely strong in one major, but not so strong in others. What if you choose to go to that school for that one strong major, and then once you're there, you find out that you don't really want to do that major anymore? This is why it's extremely risky to choose a particular school just because it happens to be strong in one particular major. This is also why examination of the strength of the undergrad program is not decisive when it comes to ascertaining the quality of an individual. For example, Harvard isn't that strong in French However, a person who majored in French at Harvard in undergrad still managed to get into Harvard, which is no minor feat, and is almost certainly stronger than somebody who majored in French at CUNY, even though the CUNY French department is stronger than the Harvard French department.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I'm not arguing there, but you missed my point a bit. </p>
<p>First off, JHU-SAIS is highly regarded within a small, not-so-very-plebian community. Hell, most people I talk to don't know SAIS from a hole in Azerbaijan. But, you go to Washington and show your SAIS name to policy tanks, and you're golden. Fly to Idaho and tell people that you have your degree from SAIS, and they'll just shake their heads. </p>
<p>When I talk SAIS, I'm talking graduate school. You don't change majors in graduate school. </p>
<p>And again, if the field I want to go into (policy) is a field where SAIS trumps Princeton, should I go to Princeton just to impress some people at a dinner party?</p>
<p>I think we're talking about the same thing, but you're focusing more on undergraduate value than graduate value.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't Econ one of the most "capped majors" on campus?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But again, not AS "capped" as Busad. That's the point - it's all relative.</p>
<p>I agree that Econ, compared to most other majors in L&S, is extremely selective. But that's not the point. The point is, it's less selective than Haas Busad. Just like, UCDavis is actually a highly selective school, but is not as selective as Berkeley. Hence, Davis is, fairly or not, seen as a dumping ground for people who weren't good enough to get into Berkeley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't say getting a 3.6 average graduating GPA at Berkeley (in totality) was easy, but getting a 3.6 on the prereqs for Haas is not that hard. Getting a 3.6 average overall is tough and requires hard work. (I'm not simply spouting out my either: I was actually pre-business--but then decided on law school--and took all of the pre-reqs except for one.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I disagree. I think what you are saying is that it is easier to get a 3.6 in your prereqs than a 3.6 overall. I don't think so - if anything, it's HARDER. That's because once you've made it past the prereqs, you're not being weeded anymore. That's why many Berkeley students report how their grades actually get BETTER in their final years. Basically, once you're made it past the weeders then as long as you do the work, you know you're going to pass your classes. You might end up with a C, but at least you'll pass. However, when you're down in the weeders, you really can fail, even if you do the work. </p>
<p>Hey, you're obviously an exceptional student at Berkeley if you were able to amass the prereq grades necessary to get into Haas. Believe me, there are plenty of people at Berkeley who wish they had your grades. You said it yourself - about half of all people who apply to Haas get in. But that's only talking about those people who apply. Plenty of people don't even apply because they know their grades aren't good enough. If you have less than a 3.0, you're not going to waste your time applying to Haas. And I think you must agree that there are plenty of students at Berkeley with less than a 3.0.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And again, if the field I want to go into (policy) is a field where SAIS trumps Princeton, should I go to Princeton just to impress some people at a dinner party?</p>
<p>I think we're talking about the same thing, but you're focusing more on undergraduate value than graduate value.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm obviously not saying to go to a school just to impress people at a dinner party. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that sometimes it is beneficial to impress people at a dinner party. The truth is, in your career, you're eventually going to have to interact with people who are not part of your field. These people might be otherwise brilliant and highly educated, but they just don't know your field. How are they supposed to know what the top schools in your field? </p>
<p>Look, guys, "plebian prestige" has value. Does that mean that you should automatically choose a school for that reason? Of course not. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it has no value at all.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that it has no value at all, but it seems to me that this board (which is by no means indicative of reality, anyway) is far too concerned with what "the rest of society" thinks about school X. </p>
<p>Let's put it this way: My buddy always complains that his Penn degree gets him no props at the dinner table when it's put up against my UCLA degree. Is UCLA a better degree in the long run? I'd say no.</p>
<p>I don't know if this input means anything but I go to UT Austin and we have an economics program within the college of liberal arts and we have an undergraduate school of business. The economics kids there are generally regarded as those who could not get into McCombs since that's the only real alternative. And for the most part, it's somewhat true. </p>
<p>The job opportunities in terms of recruitment are better for kids in the business school than the college of liberal arts, mainly because the business school has extra admission requirements, so it's looked at as more prestigious. Whenever freshmen say they're economics majors here they usually say -- economics for now but hopefully i'll internally transfer into mccombs at the end of the year.</p>
<p>
<p>Hey, you're obviously an exceptional student at Berkeley if you were able to amass the prereq grades necessary to get into Haas. Believe me, there are plenty of people at Berkeley who wish they had your grades. You said it yourself - about half of all people who apply to Haas get in. But that's only talking about those people who apply. Plenty of people don't even apply because they know their grades aren't good enough. If you have less than a 3.0, you're not going to waste your time applying to Haas. And I think you must agree that there are plenty of students at Berkeley with less than a 3.0.
</p>
<p>I actually think the beginning classes are easier than the upper divs, because yes, the material gets more difficult and more complicated, which is why it is more difficult to get a 3.6 overall rather than just on the prereqs.</p>
<p>As for business, with all due respect, my father says that people who do business don't actually get business degrees. I understand if business prepares you for specialized jobs such as accounting, managerial work, etc., but I don't understand the purpose of getting a business degree for other, less specialized jobs, which is probably the majority.</p>
<p>In response to Sakky's post about the value of a degree at a dinner party, I have to disagree. Do you really want to perpetuate the stereotypes about schools? That is what you are doing by acknowledging that they are valuable. Essentially you respect uninformed people just because of the positions they are in. You ask how they are supposed to know the top schools in your field. If you explain to a capable person that the specific program you were in is one of the top, is he not going to believe you? Say he doesn't, tell him to look it up on the internet if he wants to stand by his beliefs. Again you are willing to spend years at a program that you know is not as good because a "powerful" person refuses to do 5 minutes of research?</p>
<p>I know you say that you shouldn't go to a program for this reason. But what are you really saying? Should it be a factor or not? If it is a factor, then in some cases you should go to a school for it and in some cases not. This happens because schools can be really similar otherwise, and any factor can tip the scale. If it cannot, it is not a factor.</p>
<p>Besides this, if you rely on the superficial ideas of value, what is the purpose of real education? It's an entirely corrupt system if people refuse to recognize good programs because they have not heard of them.</p>
<p>It is also dangerous because if intelligent people such as you knowingly choose a shallowly prestigious school over one with a better specific program, you are helping the prestigious school out by having your presence. Not only can the good programs be recognized by those in the field, they can't even be recognized by prospective students! That is just sad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I actually think the beginning classes are easier than the upper divs, because yes, the material gets more difficult and more complicated, which is why it is more difficult to get a 3.6 overall rather than just on the prereqs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aha, but it's not really about the difficulty of the material, is it? You have confounded two entirely different things. There is the difficulty of the material of the course. And then there is the course grading. These are 2 entirely separate things. </p>
<p>Come on, you've been to Berkeley, so you know the nature of the grade curve. The actual grade you get often times has little to do with how difficult the material is or how much you understand it. It's how much you understand relative to how much the other people in the class understand, combined with how harsh the curve is. You can have an excellent grasp on the material and still get a very bad grade. On the other hand, you can understand very little of the material and still get a very good grade. It all depends on what the curve is set at, and where you stand on the curve. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example. I know a guy who once scored in the mid 80's out of 100 on an exam. Hence, he basically demonstrated that he understood the vast majority of the material on the exam. Pretty good, right? One problem. The mean score on the test was something like a 95. And the curve on the test was harsh such that those who scored the mean were standing at a 'B'. Hence, his score translated into a 'C-' or a 'D'. It didn't matter that he understood most of the material. What counted was the curve.</p>
<p>Conversely, I know another guy who got a 30/100 on an exam. So basically ,he understood almost nothing on the exam. His saving grace? The average score was a 25. The material was so difficult that basically nobody understood it. Hence, his 30 was equivalent to an A. Again, it's not what you know that counts, it's what you know relative to what everybody else knows. </p>
<p>As a corollary, I often times actually PREFERRED that the course material be difficult. In fact, I would want it to be as difficult as possible? Why? Because it would mean that it would be difficult for everybody. Contrast that with easy classes. In these classes, everybody would understand the material and so the difference between getting an A and a C would often times hinge on small mistakes. </p>
<p>As another corollary, one 'trick' that Berkeley students (and students from all over) would discover that would improve their grades was to load up on graduate level courses. Yes, that's right, graduate level courses. Now obviously the material in those courses is at a very high level and extremely difficult. But the grading tends to be much easier. Many Berkeley undergrad courses are graded to a B-/C+. However, graduate-level courses are generally curved to a A-/B+. Even if you do terrible in a graduate-level course, you're still unlikely to get anything less than a B. After all, think of it this way. Berkeley graduate students need a 3.0 to maintain good academic standing, whereas undergrads only need a 2.0. Berkeley graduate students almost never flunk out. Yet, if Berkeley graduate courses were curved to the same B-/C+ that undergrad courses are often set to, you'd have graduate students flunking out left and right. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really want to perpetuate the stereotypes about schools? That is what you are doing by acknowledging that they are valuable. Essentially you respect uninformed people just because of the positions they are in. You ask how they are supposed to know the top schools in your field. If you explain to a capable person that the specific program you were in is one of the top, is he not going to believe you? Say he doesn't, tell him to look it up on the internet if he wants to stand by his beliefs. Again you are willing to spend years at a program that you know is not as good because a "powerful" person refuses to do 5 minutes of research?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on, now. You know and I know that it has value. Even if I don't say it, it would still have value. So I should deliberately not say something that we all know is true, because I'm afraid of perpetuating a stereotype? That sounds like political correctness gone rampant, if you ask me. Political correctness, to paraphrase D'Souza, is basically to deny publicly that which you privately know to be true. </p>
<p>It's also not a matter of doing simply 5 minutes of research. There are a bewildering number of rankings out there, and it takes quite a while to sift through them all. Most of the rankings deal with departmental research, but that has little to do with the quality of the undergraduate program. Pop quiz - what's a better undergraduate engineering program, Berkeley or Harvey Mudd? Difficult to say, isn't it? </p>
<p>You also say that you can simply explain how your school is one of the top ones in your field. But come on, how practical do you really think that is? Again, put yourself in that dinner setting. Would you feel comfortable going around telling people that your school is a top one in your field? That's basically tantamount to bragging. You're basically patting yourself on the back and telling people how great you are. It's a whole lot better if other people acknowledge your ability, rather than you having to do it yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know you say that you shouldn't go to a program for this reason. But what are you really saying? Should it be a factor or not? If it is a factor, then in some cases you should go to a school for it and in some cases not. This happens because schools can be really similar otherwise, and any factor can tip the scale. If it cannot, it is not a factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I am saying that it is factor, and if it tips the scale for you, then you should take that into consideration.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides this, if you rely on the superficial ideas of value, what is the purpose of real education? It's an entirely corrupt system if people refuse to recognize good programs because they have not heard of them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, this is no different than people relying on brand names of ** anything **. Is it entirely corrupt because I choose not to eat at some local sandwich shop that I have never heard of, and instead choose to go to Quizno's? Is it corrupt that I choose to shop at Crate & Barrel and not at some other housewares store that I have never heard of? Is it corrupt that I choose to buy contact lenses from Bausch & Lomb and not from some manufacturer that I have never heard of? Is it corrupt when my girlfriend prefers to shop at Bloomingdale's and not at some clothing store she's never heard of before? It's all the same thing. It's all about branding and marketing.</p>
<p>Look, this is America. America, if nothing else, is the world's economic leader when it comes to advertising and marketing. Companies spend billions of dollars every year building and maintaining their brand name. The entire multi-billion dollar advertising industry is devoted towards promoting brand names. That industry employs hundreds of thousands of people just in standalone advertising firms alone, and many hundreds of thousands more are employed in internal corporate marketing departments. </p>
<p>But ask yourself - why are all these companies spending all this money, if branding and marketing aren't important? Why hire all these marketers? Why hire all these advertising firms? Are these companies being stupid? You can say that people ought to spend time researching what the good university programs are and ignore the brand name of the school, well, I could similarly argue that people could do some research on ANY product and ignore brand names. Yet the fact that companies continue to spend billions on building their brand name must mean that brand names are important.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is also dangerous because if intelligent people such as you knowingly choose a shallowly prestigious school over one with a better specific program, you are helping the prestigious school out by having your presence. Not only can the good programs be recognized by those in the field, they can't even be recognized by prospective students! That is just sad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see what's so sad about it. It's not different than, say, Starbucks leveraging its brand name in premier coffee to now also sell tea and sandwiches (which they are doing now). People assume that because Starbucks has such good coffee, it's also going to sell good tea and good sandwiches. So a guy chooses not to eat at some sandwich shop he's never heard of, and instead chooses to buy sandwiches at Starbucks. Maybe that no-name sandwich shop actually sells better sandwiches. But so what? Starbucks has leveraged its brand name in coffee to sell sandwiches. Is that wrong? It's no different than Tiffany's, which started off as a high-end jewelry merchant, using its brand name to now sell high-end housewares. It's no different than Cisco Systems, the leading manufacturing of routers and switches, using its respected brand name to get into what are at best tangentially related industries like IP telephony or storage networking. It's the same thing. In fact, Cisco has demonstrated a propensity of increasing sales just via its brand name. An unknown company will try to sell some networking gear, and will sell X units. Then Cisco will acquire that company and slap its brand name on it, and now that gear will sell 5X or 10X the number of units, just because of the trusted Cisco brand name. It's the same darn gear! The only difference is that now it has the Cisco brand name on it. But it works. </p>
<p>Look, that's how marketing strategy works. Whether you like it or not, marketing is a powerful tool. That's why companies spend so much money doing it. And guess what. Universities do it too. Universities are also in the business of marketing their brand names. And yes, that includes Berkeley too. When Berkeley wins a major award, like a Nobel, the Berkeley PR department touts it. When Berkeley achieves a major accomplishment, the Berkeley PR department touts it. That's marketing. </p>
<p>So it's all the same thing. Choosing a school for its overall brand name is no more 'sad' or 'dangerous' than buying a product for its brand name. It's no more sad that choosing to work for an employer just for its brand name. For example, I know lots of people who want to work for big famous companies like Microsoft or Exxon or General Electric, even though they say they don't really like it and only want to do it for a couple of years. They do it because they know that having a big company name on their resume looks good. That's the same thing. </p>
<p>Hence, it's the job of a university to market itself properly. If a university has a strong program in something, then it should market it. If it doesn't do that, then it has nobody to blame but itself. That's like a company that produces a great product but doesn't market its product well, and then blames customers for being stupid in not buying the product. No no no. You can't blame the customers. You have to blame yourself for not doing the proper marketing. </p>
<p>Consider this. It wasn't that long ago when Stanford was basically a regional backwater school of little consequence. Berkeley was widely considered to be a far better school than Stanford. Nowadays, Stanford is unquestionably one of the elites. How did that happen? Not only did Stanford vastly improves its programs, but it also successfully marketed itself as the "Harvard of the West" and the 'gateway to Silicon Valley' and all this stuff. Now, it doesn't even want to be known as the "Harvard of the West", it actually wants to be known as better than Harvard. But the point is, Stanford raised itself through a combination of good programs and good marketing. So it can happen. Good programs will be recognized if you market them properly. 50 years ago, very few students outside California wanted to go to Stanford. Now, Stanford gets top students from around the world. </p>
<p>The final point I would make is that the quality of your program is intertwined with your marketing. In business, you really can produce the best product (from a technical standpoint), and have nobody buy it because of bad marketing. However, when you're talking about education, this is almost impossible. Ultimately, your 'product' are the people you graduate. You can have the best facilities, the best profs, the best libraries, but if you don't market yourself, you won't get the best students. And without the best students, you won't have the best graduates. Hence, your program then, is by definition, not really the 'best'. Who cares how good your facilities are if the best students go elsewhere? Ultimately, the world will judge your program by how strong your graduates are. If your graduates are mediocre, then your program is, by definition, mediocre. Yes, you may be able to use marketing to convince the world that your graduates are better than they really are, but if you were able to do that, then you should have also been able to use your marketing to get the best students to matriculate in the first place. The point is, you can't really claim to have a strong program without strong students, and you won't get strong students without proper marketing. </p>
<p>Look, Harvard is, if nothing else, by far the best marketed school in the world. Yale, MIT, Stanford, Princeton, and schools like this are also extremely well marketed. Heck, Berkeley and Johns Hopkins are also well marketed schools. The point is, all schools do marketing. You can't really blame Harvard and the others for being better at marketing. That's like blaming Coca Cola for having such a strong brand name.</p>