<p>basically, if nyu wasnt in nyc, it wouldnt even be considered a top school (except for programs like stern and tisch). most people who apply there do so for the location, not the academics, college life, etc.</p>
<p>Ummm...isn't Google in California?</p>
<p>yea forgot.. that proves my point though that silicon = TECH oriented and not business oriented. u can go to google from engineering and stuff and not technically business so therefore stern > haas.</p>
<p>Berkeley>NYU</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>fine but stern >>> haas... the whole point of business is to work for top companies and guess what they are almost all in NYC. if u wanna do tech stuff fine go study computer science or something and work in silicon valley.</p>
<p>also berkeley sucks at the ugrad level</p>
<p>if NYU gets on the list, BC better be on it also :)</p>
<p>All of the CC's top universities have peer assessments 4.0 or higher (except for Notre Dame 3.9), and all are ranked in the top 25 in US News (except for UNC-Chapel Hill 27). Until you hit both of those marks, you aren't a top university.</p>
<p>The common claim is that Tufts and Wake belong in there, but they don't. Both have peer assessments lower than Minnesota (which has a 3.7 and is ranked 74th), and neither are higher than Arizona (which has a 3.6 and is ranked 97th).</p>
<p>u go to indiana. case closed.</p>
<p>lmao wow harsh</p>
<p>I'm sorry, relevence to the discussion?</p>
<p>Yeah that was completely irrelevant... A2Wolves6 knows this stuff pretty well since he/she has over 2K posts. Questions about college rankings are very common.</p>
<p>wow, sternman just seems like an immature kid that is ****ed because his school is not as well recognized as he thought it was...grow up buddy and stop trying to personally attack others who are trying to be objective. "case closed"</p>
<p>wolves is a known public university troll. i may be biased towards certain schools but at least i'll admit it. having 2k posts is nothing, it just means he is a pretty sad man..</p>
<p>Sternman needs to grow up. Prestige is crap. The very fact that someone like Sternman goes to stern proves that.</p>
<p>Back on to topic, if I had to say that there is one school that is closest to a "top university" rating it would be Wisconsin. In fact, their peer assessment (4.2) is higher than some top universities right now. However they need to break the top 25 first.</p>
<p>what are they ranked now? and peer assessment favors public u's as u know from the other thread. Look at Tufts 3.6 and Ohio State 3.6.
Ridiculous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
fine but stern >>> haas... the whole point of business is to work for top companies and guess what they are almost all in NYC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, just scanning U.S. News I see that Haas outranks Stern both in the undergraduate business program rankings and the graduate business school rankings. A large part of business IS to work for top companies but first you have to get in them. I don't see how the fact that there are more large firms in NYC makes Stern a better school. You may get more opportunities once out of Stern, maybe, but that doesn't mean make the quality of the school better.</p>
<p>Anyway, my personal take is that both schools are comparable in quality and it really depends on personal preference.</p>
<p>and with your original grievance...</p>
<p>"I come on here trying to give advice but it is really hard to get to the NYU board." -Sternman87</p>
<p>Add the page to your favorites list/bookmarks man...</p>
<p>When did the real world start basing entire school's reputations on bias Peer surveys? Hmmm... sounds like WUSTL to me...</p>
<p>And Tufts at a 3.6...Doesn't make sense. Simply doesn't. Ah, how USNews is so screwed up.</p>
<p>"I think NYU Should be a top cc college just based on Stern alone. I mean come on at least have a subforum just for the bschool."</p>
<p>You arrogant and pompous SOB. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Based on that logic, we might as well make UT-Austin a "CC top school" considering McCombs is ranked just as highly as your beloved Stern.</p>