<p>"Having said that, there is something of a pecking order on Wall Street about how certain schools are viewed.
This order is MOSTLY determined by the perceived intellectual quality of the student bodies at various schools."</p>
<p>I see that bipolarbear beat me to the punch.</p>
<p>Without revealing more personal info than you want, how do you know this?</p>
<p>I'm loving Penn in the second tier. That makes a LOT of sense</p>
<p>Hey, at least your school is in the second tier. My old school is in the 4th tier. </p>
<p>I'm sure my old school is not represented that highly on Wall Street. I wonder if one of the reasons is, once people live in the SF bay area, they don't want to leave. ;)</p>
<p>As stated in the OP, these are my opinions on how Wall Street would generally view the intellectual caliber of students from these schools. I'm surprised that my comments are creating this mini-controversy and am sorry for this because the main point is getting lost. </p>
<p>The main point is that there are many, many talented students from many schools across the country (I listed 60, but there are obviously more that have some great students) whose graduates would, to varying degrees, be well received on Wall Street. Likely entering the interview process from outside of the traditional on campus path, the reception of these students would be influenced by how that school is intellectually perceived on the Street. </p>
<p>For example, a student coming from a Vassar, a Lehigh, a Davidson (none are feeder schools) would get a respectful reception from Wall Street. If the student showed well in the interview process, the student is in the game and has a good chance to find a place somewhere on the Street. I agree with Bipolarbear's comments about the narrowness of on-campus recruiting practices by a few of the PE firms and IBD's of a few brokerage firms. However, I would also say that the managements of these firms also want the best people, including if that student comes from Vassar or Lehigh or Davidson or from on-campus or off-campus recruiting activities. </p>
<p>From a positioning standpoint and especially as this relates to "feeder" schools, Columbia and Penn are clearly in a "top tier" position to get their students onto the Street. That does not mean, however, that positions with the likes of Blackstone or Lazard or others are limited only to students from these schools. Some schools have a homefield and/or affinity advantage, but my opinion is that Wall Street is not monolithic in its thinking about where top students must come from.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with your main message. I and others have a problem with your presentation.</p>
<p>Penn is very well represented on Wall Street. It's a tier 1 school. According to you, it's a tier one school for recruitment and looked at academically as a tier 2 school. </p>
<p>Doesn't make much sense. </p>
<p>Wash U is not well represented on wall street. A few years back they had trouble getting firms to recruit on campus. Wash U students had to travel to the firms. I don't know, maybe things have changed now.</p>
<p>I have a problem with your list of how schools are looked at academically. You have never explained how you know this. Your methodology.</p>
<p>I think the hangup is that my presentation is NOT about representation on Wall Street (this is about the fourth or fifth time I've said this). </p>
<p>As for the different tiers, there, of course, will be different opinions on the intellectual strength of the students of a certain school versus those from another school. As I stated at the outset, I expect others to have different views. I am far from omnipotent on this list and if you have a different view, well, great. State it and explain why as davida1 did (although he was focused on how much of a feeder the school is). If you want to attack my listing of Penn in my second group, that is fine and I am sure that a good argument can be made for Penn (although I still consider my first group to have slightly stronger overall intellectual strength). And WashU is actually a good example. It is not considered a feeder school, but IMO Wall Street knows that there are a lot of smart kids there and they would be happy to interview them and consider them. They aren't locked out of the process because they didn't go to Columbia or Penn or some other well represented school. </p>
<p>For purposes of this thread, it might be useful to others to comment on schools in the fourth or fifth group or even a school not listed. Help students understand that they have a chance from all of the schools on this list (or argue not if you believe so). For example, must a student who got into both Cornell and Hamilton go to Cornell in order to get a job on Wall Street? Must a student who got into both Penn State and U Michigan go to U Michigan in order to get a job on Wall Street? How about W&L vs Duke? Or Emory vs Dartmouth? My point is that the students have more leeway in their choices than they often recognize and is consistently presented on CC and other college forums. I say choose the school you want to go to and don't go to the school that you feel you have to or for prestige purposes. </p>
<p>Choosing a college should be most about fit (academic and otherwise). That fit might be an Ivy or a highly prestigious college. My suggestion is that it need not automatically be, including if the student wants to get a job on the Street. There are quality students all over the country and in some of the most unlikely places. I think Wall Street understands this and is a lot more open to them (if they are good and prepare properly) than people realize.</p>
<p>If anyone remembers a bit of history back in the 70's nobody wanted to go to NYC--it was a pit. This was especially true in the midwest and west. Recruiters stopped coming because nobody would accept jobs in NY. That was before most people had even heard much about Ibankers. The recruiter from McKinsey stopped coming to Wisconsin because people rather work at a Chicago basd firm than join them in NY. Now times have changed but recruiting patterns are slower to change. If you are getting enough good people from 20 schools mostly in the northeast why go beyond that?</p>
<p>You go beyond because it is good business to do so. The investment bankers and PE guys and others on the Street do business involving companies all over the country and over the world. Having too many people with the same worldview is unhealthy. It is good business to have a student from Utah (eg, BYU) with an insight into companies in SLC. Same with Texas (UT, Rice, Baylor, SMU, etc) and companies in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, etc. Same with students from non-US locales in order to crack the local networks. Wall Street is a people business and their knowledge and connections are everything. Not everyone can or should come from Penn or Columbia or Harvard.</p>
<p>Hawkette, your presentation got in the way of your message. You have a good message.</p>
<p>It's insulting to see my school listed so low on your list.
It's insulting to see my kid's school low on the list and categoized as "some excellent students".</p>
<p>You use SAT scores differently than the schools use them, different then Collegeboard uses them. They are an indicator of a student's first semester. They are a great indicator of a parent's wealth and education.</p>
<p>Schools like Berkeley are using other tools besides SAT scores to get excellent students, which is a great thing for society in my opinion. This is from Marinmom talking about getting kids from poorer backgrouonds into elite schools...</p>
<p>"Xiggi - I totally agree with you about the need to reach out to deserving kids who think that an ivy-league education is out of their reach, but these marketing pieces are a poor way to accomplish that. First, the mass mailings are based on PSAT/SAT scores, which correlate more closely to demographics than to anything else. UC uses ELC (eligibility in the local context), which identifies the top-performing kids in each hs. Probably not perfect by any means, but a better place to start. Second, if the elite colleges were really trying to reach those kids they wouldn't be sending brochures to our zip code - trust me."</p>
<p>People like you penalize Berkeley and schools like Berkeley, and say it has "some excellent students" when people like you are using the wrong measures to figure out what "excellent students" are. </p>
<p>These are the issues I have with many of your posts. You don't know how to measure excellent students, your measures are not accurate, and you don't know which schools are ranked where, so you just insult some students and schools and elevate others that don't deserve to be elevated. </p>
<p>You've never gone to the schools you are ranking.</p>
<p>Here are a few courses my daughter is taking or will take...</p>
<p>Math 472 - Numerical Methods with Financial Applications
Prerequisites: Math 216, 256, 286, or 316; Math 217, 417, or 419; and a working knowledge of one high-level computer language. Math 425 is recommended.
Frequency:<br>
Student Body: concentrators in the Actuarial Mathematics and Financial Mathematics programs
Credit: 3 Credits. No credit after Math 371 or 471
Recent Texts: A Friendly Introduction to Numerical Analysis (Bradie)
Area: Actuarial & Financial
Background and Goals: This is a survey of the basic numerical methods which are used to solve scientific problems. The goals of the course are similar to those of Math 471 but the applications are chosen to be of interest to students in the Actuarial Mathematics and Financial Mathematics programs.
Content: Topics may include: Newton's method for non-linear equations, systems of linear equations, numerical integration, interpolation and polynomial approximation, ordinary differential equations, partial differential equations - in particular the Black-Scholes equation, Monte Carlo simulation, and numerical modeling.
Alternatives: Math 371/Engin. 303 (Numerical Methods) is a less sophisticated version intended principally for Sophomore and Junior engineering students.
Subsequent Courses: none</p>
<p>525 Introduction to Stochastic Processes Egami TTh 1-2:30
Prerequisites: Math 425
Text Book: Introduction to Probability Models (9th Edition) by Sheldon Ross
Description:
This is a non-measure theoretic introductory course for probability theory and stochastic
processes. This course is more theoretical than Math 425, contains various stochastic
processes, and provides the students with enough background for Math 526.
After a brief review of probability space, discrete and continuous random variables, joint
distributions and conditional expectations, moment generating functions, and limit theorems, the
main topics include discrete time and continuous time Markov chains, random walks, branching
process, Poisson process, and compound Poisson process. Applications will be emphasized to
finance, engineering and physical/biological sciences.</p>
<p>Department of Mathematics
Course Description/Time Schedule
Fall Term 2007
F' 2007 Course Descriptions.doc ? Last printed 4/4/2007
- 4 -
526 Discrete State Stochastic Processes Ludkovski TTh 1-2:30
Prerequisites: Math 525 or EECS 501. A solid background in probability, including discrete and continuous
random variables, conditional expectations and basic Markov chains is assumed.
Required textbook: Probability and Random Processes (Grimmett and Stirzaker, 3rd edition).
Supplementary texts: Introduction to Probability Models (S. Ross, 8th edition) and instructor
lecture notes.
Syllabus: the purpose of the course is to continue Math 525 and provide introduction to
continuous-time stochastic processes with applications to finance, engineering and
physical/biological sciences.
Specific topics include continuous-time Markov chains, birth-and-death processes, recurrent
events and the renewal theorem, random walks, martingales, Brownian motion and diffusion
processes. Significant applications will be an important feature of the course.</p>
<p>Yet somehow, my daughter can get a better education at ....
My daughter can get a better education at .... even though Michigan has more of what she wanted in a school than any other school.</p>
<p>Give me a break.</p>
<p>Sorry for the long post, but many of your posts bug the crap out of me.</p>
<p>"You go beyond because it is good business to do so. The investment bankers and PE guys and others on the Street do business involving companies all over the country and over the world. Having too many people with the same worldview is unhealthy."</p>
<p>I fully agree with that, and I'm all for broadening college diversity at firms. Unfortunately some banks have a somewhat WASPY culture that only wish to hire from a select few schools. Often times that is due to the alumni network... if partners in some firm are strictly from HYP, they might hesitate to higher a non-HYP. A lot of times recruiting comes from whether or not there's a person inside the bank itself of that school. If a WUSTL alum is at the firm, he will more likely than not vouch for you during the hiring process. The problem is that WUSTL alum are not represented well enough in the big banks, so firms may not hire a qualified WUSTL grad over a less-qualified UMich grad simply because there are more Mich supporters at the firm.</p>
<p>Yes, it sucks that this happens, but it's the truth.</p>
<p>Also, the fact of the matter is that the larger the number of alumni in wall street, the easier it is to get the job. It is extremely difficult to get into banking without on campus recruitment, however alumni-networks help a lot. If someone is 100% sure that he wants to go into finance, I'd actually suggest he go to a school with a large finance/alumni representation. It just so happens that these schools are usually target schools.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that's it's impossible to break into wall street from a non-recruited school- at the end it comes down to how badly you want the job, and how well you do both academically and outside of class.</p>
<p>Actually, what I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to separate Wall Street Representation and Wall Street Recruiting because one leads to the other.</p>
<p>dstark,
Sorry to "bug the crap out of you." What was your school? I take it your daughter is at Michigan, right? </p>
<p>I believe that individual circumstances should not be used to make broad statements. I have never accepted anecdotes of a single individual as meaning much of anything about a particular institution. </p>
<p>As for my belief about SATs, I posted the following in another thread:</p>
<p>"My conclusion is that standardized test scores are indicative of a lot in judging the strength of an applicant/student. It is not the whole story and it needs to be considered in context with other parts of the application, but it is an important data point. </p>
<p>I think many people on this board arguing against standardized test scores underrate the ability of adcomms, employers, etc. to put the scores in context. If their admit/hire decisions were based solely on this, then the argument would have far greater merit, but this is just not the case. SAT and standardized tests are a data point and different schools/companies value it differently. For colleges, they will tell in the CDS or public statements how they use the SAT.</p>
<p>I also believe that the use of standardized tests help identify where an individual may have some weakness in an application. The difference between a 600 and an 800 on a Math or Critical Reading (and soon Writing) section is meaningful and suggests that the evaluator look further to understand the connection or lack thereof to other parts of the application (transcript, essays, recommendations). Adcomms and other evaluators understand this and this is what they get paid to consider as part of their complete application analysis. Adcomms understand perhaps better than any of us the limitations of standardized testing and the environments where students come from and how this relates to the scoring. They also understand that, in most cases, there is usually a relationship between student preparedness and aptitude and these scores."</p>
<p>Hawkette, my daughter isn't the only one taking those courses or similar courses in difficulty. ;) At Michigan, it is very easy to take graduate courses as undergrads. The same courses the IVY Leaguers take when they go to Michigan for grad school. ;)</p>
<p>You use SAT scores all the time in discussing which schools are better than others. Those scores dwarf the rest of your story.</p>
<p>Have you read Berkeley's studies on the SAT, or Bates, or others?</p>
<p>Maybe you can point me in the way of some studies I missed. Where are the studies that show you can get a better education if every student has a SAT score over
a certain amount? Let's say 1400?</p>
<p>I'd like to read these because I don't believe these exist and it would be quite a trick to read something that doesn't exist.</p>
<p>I went to Berkeley and do you know why Berkeley has lower average SAT scores than other top schools? Because the school knows that SAT scores are a better indicator of wealth than intelligence. Berkeley wants to educate the middle and lower classes and not just the upper and upper
middle class. SAT scores are not as important at Berkeley.
By the way, Amherst says similar things.</p>
<p>Yet, if you were to rank Berkeley, you would mention SAT scores. </p>
<p>Guess what? There is very little difference in educational outcome between the top SAT scorers at Berkeley and the lower scorers.</p>
<p>What percentage of students come from families that make under $40,000 a year at Berkeley? At the IVY League schools with all that wealth?</p>
<p>I don't really care about your "belief" of SAT scores, because you use them to rank and your rankings have an uncanny resemblance to SAT scores.</p>
<p>Without SAT scores, you would have no rankings.</p>
<p>Now why do I care about your rankings? I don't know. I was kind of hoping for more educational information from you. And mental illness. I don't want to rule out the fact that I am mentally ill. :)</p>
<p>Don't be sorry that some of your posts bug the crap out of me. :)</p>
<p>bipolarbear,
I appreciate your comments and I think we are probably 90%+ in sync on this. </p>
<p>To try to put my comments and my tiers a little bit more in practice, let's assume that a Caltech student shows up to interview with the Principal Investment area of a major investment firm or a major hedge fund. Caltech is not traditionally a feeder school to the Street, but I think you will agree that folks on the Street have a very high appreciation for the abilities of Caltech students. Given that view of the intellectual caliber of these students (and even without in-place Caltech students to shepherd them through the process), I believe that these students would get a very full look in the interview process.</p>
<p>Contrast this with a student from my third group, eg, Haverford College. Haverford is a terrific school but IMO is not seen by Wall Street as the intellectual power that Caltech is. The student would probably still get a decent hearing, but perhaps not with the same level of expectation as the Caltech student. (An exception for Haverford might be Goldman Sachs and their long, close relationship with the school). </p>
<p>Now contrast this further with a student from my fifth group, eg, U Richmond. The school has gotten a lot of money over the past decade and hired a lot of excellent faculty and the business school is vastly improved, but there is no great history with the Street nor is there much of an alumni base on the Street. This student would certainly have a tougher time getting an interview, but it’s not impossible and if the student is good, perseveres and gets into the process, then coming from such a school can actually be an asset in the hiring process. </p>
<p>None of these schools (Caltech, Haverford, U Richmond) are considered feeders by Wall Street. However, all have students that would be received by Wall Street (with different levels of enthusiasm) and, if the student has the talent and has prepared properly, they can get in. Perhaps not everywhere (although IMO the WASPY culture is nearly dead on the Street), but there will be a spot somewhere for a talented, persistent individual. </p>
<p>Probably most important in all of this is my personal view that the excellent student from a school like U Richmond can perform on the job at the same level as the student from a school in the upper tiers. After six months on the job (I’m probably being kind-it’s more like six weeks or even six days), it matters very little where you went to college. Wall Street may be a little more patient with the student with the blue chip pedigree, but the honeymoon doesn’t last forever. </p>
<p>dstark,
I’m not even sure what we’re debating here and how this relates to NYC recruiting, but I’ll try to respond to some of the comments in your latest post.</p>
<p>I think I have more than a passing understanding of Berkeley and have read some of the SAT articles that you reference. You make it sound like UCB and Amherst do not even consider SATs. Not true. First, it is one of UCB’s “Important” factors (ahead of class rank, behind GPA and rigor of curriculum, same as ECs) and is definitely a required part of every application. For Amherst, their CDS rates standardized tests as one of their “Very Important” factors which is their highest level. Second, as a state university (and this would apply to nearly every state university), UCB has a different and broader mandate than a private school. As a taxpayer funded institution, their objective is (mostly) to serve the needs of the people of the state. Hence, their explicit public statements about serving the lower income groups of California. A private school (Stanford, USC) has no such obligation although it may seek to do so in the name of diversity. College admissions, especially for a private school, is not charity.</p>
<p>Third, there is a reason that college admissions counselors all across the country and across all different types of schools consider SATs. They see them as an indication of student preparedness and a data point to judge the quality of an applicant. It’s true that income levels affect scoring, but it’s not as if adcomms haven’t figured this out and adjusted their evaluations accordingly. And it is far from automatic that a rich kid scores well or a poor kid scores poorly. Fourth, let’s not forget how size affects the averages. Unquestionably there are many, outstanding students at UC Berkeley (you yourself pointed out elsewhere the impressive number of 1500 scorers at UCB) and all of the top publics. But they are part of a larger student body (over 23,000 in UCB’s case and over 25,000 in Michigan’s case) and you can’t just consider the top 10% or 25% of a school when you are measuring student body quality. </p>
<p>Fifth, and perhaps most telling, consider the following 25/75 SAT ranges:
UC Berkeley 1220-1450
UCLA 1170-1410
UCSD 1150-1370
UC Irvine 1110-1310
UC S. Barbara 1090-1320
UC Davis 1060-1300
UC S. Cruz 1050-1270
UC Riverside 950-1200</p>
<p>Most Californians, if asked to rank the quality of their state colleges, would come up with a listing from top to bottom like the above. At most, you might have one or two schools swap places, but I think there would be a consensus that this listing is a pretty accurate reflection of the student body quality at these schools. Notice the decline in SAT ranges as you go down the list. I didn’t create these student bodies-college administrators in California did. It would appear to me that they are using SATs as a critical factor in deciding who gets in which of the UCs.</p>
<p>Hawkette, If Berkeley wanted to, it could fill its class whole class with students with 1400 scorers and up. The same at UCLA. They don't. Why not? They must be looking for something else too. According to you, that something else isn't as smart as the high scorers. </p>
<p>What matters more, the average scorer in a school, or the possibilites of the education at a school?</p>
<p>If I can go to a school and be challenged at any level I want, what difference does a few SAT score points make?</p>
<p>The other thing is I have worked in the security markets for a very, very long time and the ranking of the schools has never come up. It has always been, what are your abilities? However, I haven't worked in the east coast where I guess these rankings are a very big deal, and private school trumps public school. Then again, I'm only one data point. :)</p>
<p>I actually don't know why I am arguing against test scores when my two older kids score very high. Maybe, I should stop doing that. :)</p>
<p>"Hence, their explicit public statements about serving the lower income groups of California. A private school (Stanford, USC) has no such obligation although it may seek to do so in the name of diversity. College admissions, especially for a private school, is not charity."</p>
<p>"is not charity"</p>
<p>I see.</p>
<p>dstark,
SATs are but one data point, but the listing of the UCs and the declining levels of SAT achievement are telling. The data pretty clearly tells me that the UC admissions folks use a process that produces a high correlation between what are considered the top schools and higher average standardized test scores. </p>
<p>I’ll answer, with a question, your question about what matters more. What matters more-your peers or the faculty? My experience on CC is that people affiliated with schools that have high PAs (like UCB or U Michigan) would say faculty. My personal answer is peers. I can’t even remember the names of 90% of my teachers from college, but the lessons learned from and the friendships with peers have lasted a lifetime. I recognize it is really not an either/or situation as both peers and faculty are important. I just happen to value having strong peers more than anything else, including in business. </p>
<p>Another example of this would be to swap the students at UCB with the students at UC Riverside. Would you have the same outcomes with the group from either school? My personal suspicion is that the “new” students at UCB with the highly acclaimed faculty would not do much better than they otherwise would have. And that the “new” students at UCR would have done equally or nearly as well despite the lower rated faculty. I think it is about the quality of the student and not the quality of the teacher that determines the success of the graduate. Of course, the ideal is to have both great students and great teachers, especially in a smaller classroom size that can make a real impact on the students being taught.</p>
<p>Peers. Strong peers are good. At Michigan 75% of the kids had unweighted gpas of 3.7 or higher.</p>
<p>That's a lot of students. In my daughter's incoming class, I believe, 40% of the kids had performed at Carnegie Hall or a similar venue. That's a lot of students. I think you will find strong peers at Michigan. I know you can. The same with Berkeley. UCB has strong peers and faculty. What I don't get is you want to measure a school by its lowest scoring kids. Why is that an accurate measure? </p>
<p>What you will find at Berkeley that you won't find as much at the top other schools is lower class and lower middle class students.</p>
<p>If you look at your list, you will find that the schools you rate highly all have schools made up of upper and upper middle kids. </p>
<p>You see, that is what we are really talking about. Social Class.
Your remark about "its not charity" was telling.</p>
<p>Most people in California would rank Berkeley and UCLA number 1 or 2 and would hardly know the other schools much less be able to rank them. </p>
<p>In California, hardly anybody has ever heard of Haverford, Swat, Williams, Amherst, Emory or Wash U (which they think is U Wash). My daughter applied to Wash U and U Wash. :)</p>
<p>If you like small class sizes then Berkeley and Michigan aren't for you. But there are plenty of smart people that don't care. I personally think both are good. But remember, a student is not sitting around a table in a small class listening to 50 year olds with intelligence and plenty of wisdom. They are sitting in a class with 19 years old who are thinking about the opposite sex.</p>
<p>My most memorable classes were because of the professors. </p>
<p>I do think that sitting in a small class is good because you have ample opportunities to express yourself through public speaking and the professor is more apt to give your writing personal attention. But to have to listen to the same people over and over again....expressing their opinions...what a snorer.</p>
<p>dstark,
I will try to address the following:
1) Measures of student body quality and why that leads me to place U Michigan in my fourth group.<br>
2) Class and economic status comments and familiarity with schools like UCs and eastern schools
3) Class sizes</p>
<p>1) I’m not sure how this discussion has evolved into a discussion of U Michigan (again!) and their students. I think you’re just angry that I put U Michigan down in the 4th group. Let me try to give you a little more insight into why I reach that conclusion. </p>
<p>In looking at the U Michigan CDS for the latest year, the average GPA is 3.72. Can you name a state university that has an average GPA of 3.98? There are probably several, but one of them is UC San Diego. </p>
<p>U Michigan has over 22,000 of its students that had high school GPAs that place them in the top 10%. Pretty impressive, huh? Well, U Florida has over 29,000 students that achieved at that level. </p>
<p>U Michigan has about 7% of its students who scored over 1500 (according to the numbers you supplied). Nice number. Did you know that W&M had 13% of its students score at that level? </p>
<p>U Michigan got 75 of the 2005 NMS Finalists as part of their 2005 enrolled class. Sounds good when you consider that this is the same number as Brown (although Brown has 1/4 the number of students as U Michigan). U Texas got 264 and U Florida got 252. U Oklahoma (149) had twice as many as U Michgan while U Alabama had nearly the same number with 73. </p>
<p>Based on these facts, I conclude that the student body at U Michigan has many less recognized and lower-ranked, but very legitimate, peers among state universities. I don’t think that these numbers support a decision to rank U Michigan among the top three groups. </p>
<p>I don’t know what other measures you recommend to measure the student body quality, but I am open to suggestions. </p>
<p>With regard to considering the lowest achieving kids, I am not dwelling on them, but I am recognizing them as part of the landscape of a college and believe that they should be considered in any analysis of a school’s student body. They are part of the school, they go to many of the same classes, they will get the same degree, they will attend the same alumni functions, etc. I don’t understand why you find it acceptable to ignore them.</p>
<p>2) Re your comments on economic and social class, you probably know more about this than me. You’re probably right that the upper tier schools have a higher (and perhaps much higher) percentage of well-off students. That’s the world we live in and it’s not always fair and it’s not always right. I don’t remember, however, ever seeing any data on this. Does it exist? </p>
<p>As for the UCs, there have been several threads on CC about the relative standing of the UCs. The people who are posting on those threads certainly have some strong ideas about the relative strength of these schools. I stand by the list that I posted and would be happy to hear your (or others’) thoughts on this “ranking” and especially on how you interpret the relationship between the ranking and the SAT scores. </p>
<p>As for familiarity with those eastern schools, I completely understand. There are probably an equal or greater number who have never heard of Caltech or Pomona or Harvey Mudd, or Reed. </p>
<p>3) Re class sizes and large state universities, you may be right that many people could give a darn, but I suspect that the large majority are with me in preferring smaller to medium-size classes. In fact, defenders of large schools consistently try to defuse the class size concerns with promises of smaller class sizes as your undergraduate experience unfolds. My feeling is if small class sizes are good for a junior or a senior, why aren’t they also good for a freshman or a sophomore?</p>
<p>Finally, re your closing comment:
“to have to listen to the same people over and over again....expressing their opinions...what a snorer”
I have a strong suspicion that you were referring to me. Very funny. :)</p>
<p>Hawkette, I was under the impression that this was a thread about how Wall Street views universities and about Wall Street recruiting, not about mean SAT scores and statistics. </p>
<p>I think the it is pretty clear that Michigan is one of the top 20 universities in the nation where Wall Street is concerned. You can point to all those cold statistics that are very hard to measure or interpret, the fact remains, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, Wall Street recruits hundreds of Michigan undergrads each year. </p>
<p>Wall Street recruiters could easily chose to recruit talent that's within driving distance, but instead, Wall Street Corporate recruiters chose to get on a plane, fly 800 Miles West to Michigan to recruit hundreds of undergraduate students annually from just one campus. </p>
<p>Even as a ratio of the total student population, Michigan is still one of the most effective at placing its students in Wall Street firms. The only schools that are more effective than Michigan are Harvard, Penn and Princeton. That's it! No other university has a better reputation or greater representation on Wall Street. There are plenty (15 or so) of unversities such as are the rest of the Ivies, Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, MIT, NYU, Northwestern, Stanford, UVa and a handful of LACs, like Amherst, Davidson, Haverford, Middlebury, Pomona, Swartmore, Wesleyan and Williams that have roughly equal reputations on Wall Street, but those aren't any more respected or highly regarded.</p>
<p>hawkette, what I don't understand is how the lower gpa kids at a school like Michigan will impact a kid's education as long as the higher gpa kids exist?</p>
<p>When I look for a school for my kid's education, I look and see if there are strong kids, great professors, great academic opportunities that can satisfy my kid, and great social activities because I think that is also important. </p>
<p>I have no idea why a 3.7 gpa kid will lessen my kid's experience compared to a 3.98 gpa kid. (I happen to think UCSD is a great school, but it is not for me). Explain that to me. Explain why the kids at the bottom will effect my kid more than the kids at the top? I guess it will affect me if the professor has to dumb down his teaching. So at Michigan do they dumb down the teaching. Don't you have to know this before you rank a school?</p>
<p>The percentages matter if the school doesn't have enough strong students in the first place. If the school has strong enough students, who cares?
My kid is taking grad school courses. So are many other kids. Why do they care if students with gpas below 3.7 are in the school. </p>
<p>I have not seen a study that says if you only go to school with only excellent students in your school and that is it, you get a superior education. Since that is your belief, where is your proof? There is no study. </p>
<p>I know this is a small data point, but I have a friend that had a kid at Penn and a kid at Michigan. He said the education was the same. Bright kids, great professors, same books, the classes moved at the same pace. The big difference was Michigan had a better social atmosphere and he liked it much more.</p>
<p>I have other friends that went to Penn and they would never say their education was superior to X. They would say they got a great education. One went to Mt. Holyoke and then transferred to Penn because she said Mt. Holyoke was too much work. </p>
<p>I'm not trashing Florida or Oklahoma. A friend of mine went to Oklahoma and was nominated for the Rhodes Scholarship. He has had an incredible career. Plus he is multi-talented. Oklahoma didn't hurt him.</p>
<p>Ok. Enough little data points. ;)</p>
<p>You can use any fact you want to substantiate your opinion. That's fine. It doesn't make your opinion correct. It is very hard to rank schools. Education, is not as simple as 1+1 = 2. I have asked this before but I never get an answer. If I study math at Washington and somebody else studies psychology at Harvard, aren't I more educated in math and he is more educated in psychology?</p>
<p>There is data on the income levels of students and the schools. They correlate very well with your list. I don't have the Pell Grant info which has a lot of info because my old computer crashed and I lost the info (which still ****es me off). Mini (another poster) used to have it , but the last time I asked him, he couldn't find it. It is out there. Floating.
I believe in the 2007 of USNWR there is a section that talks about this.</p>
<p>I also studied a little bit about social class and education. ;) </p>
<p>I know there are rankings of the UCs floating around, but the people that know about this are high schoolers and their parents. The rest of the public doesn't know. And if USNWR didn't exist, most of the students and their parents wouldn't know either. In the real world, the UC rankings are not mentioned. Just like SAT scores stop being mentioned when your kid is in college. Nobody cares anymore what your SAT scores and your grades in high school were. (I guess except for a few anal NE employers. :) )</p>
<p>The class size issue. It depends on how a person learns best. It also depends on what the person is studying. It depends on the lecturer. I would rather study politics with Bill Clinton or Bob Dole or xyz in a class of 1,000 people than study politics in a class of ten people if that smaller class isn't as interesting. Some people prefer small classes. Like I said, if you prefer small classes than Michigan and Berkeley aren't on your list. In fact, they are even lower rated because there are plenty of lacs with small classes all over the country. Community colleges too. </p>
<p>I do think you should take small classes for the reasons I said earlier. Learning to present your ideas verbally and in writing are very important skills. Since this thread is partially about Wall Street, most times on Wall Street, how you present your ideas are way more important than your ideas themselves (which are usually just bs). </p>
<p>My concluding remark in the other post wasn't about you. I really did not like sitting in small classes listening to my fellow 19 year old students when I could listen to an expert on the field I was studying. </p>
<p>When it comes to schools, anybody with a SAT the same as mine or higher is intelligent.</p>
<p>I want to go to school with high average SAT scores because I will be perceived as being smarter for graduating there. </p>
<p>I only want to go to school where a majority of students are in my social class or higher. </p>
<p>The lack of intelligence of the other students will rub off on me.
Being poor is contagious.</p>
<p>Here is a thread on social class and college (so I don't have to repeat myself).</p>
<p>Now you must be getting tired of hearing my opinions. :)</p>