<p>RML-- that changes year to year. Last year, I had three friends go off to McKinsey through their active recruiting at Brown, two of whom were science concentrators. Of course, your post only considers it flawed that Berkeley was not considered, but correct that many other “fancy private schools” aren’t.</p>
<p>As for UCB’s comment:
</p>
<p>Graduate education is different than undergraduate education. It’s absolutely ridiculous to just make the blanket statement that because the buildings are the same and the faculty are the same (often far less true than people on this site make it out to be, especially at larger schools. Teaching one senior-concentrator level course to 10 students a year is not exactly focusing on undergraduate education for a particular faculty member. Using one or two undergraduates in a lab group of 20 over the course of four years is not focusing on undergraduates) does not mean that the undergraduate and graduate education experiences are the same quality. Absolute bollocks, to be honest, and there’s just about no one who agrees that graduate directly translates to undergraduate (and vice versa).</p>
<p>RML,
You put your finger on an important point. I don’t contest that there are talented students at U Michigan. Like nearly all state universities, there is a subset of superlative students at U Michigan. Same would be true at Michigan State or Indiana U or U Wisconsin or….you get the idea. </p>
<p>The problem is when you go beyond looking at just a small subset of students and consider an entire school. I would argue that any school should be compared as a whole and not just on the merits of a prosperous few. Great that a few hundred might find plum jobs with McKinsey or other highly competitive employers, but is that the right measuring stick? I don’t think so, particularly not for a school like U Michigan which graduates 6000+ students per year and for most of whom (eg, LSA grads) placement data is not publicly reported.</p>
<p>I am aware the list was longer last year and much more so last, last year. But then again, the core schools this year (HYPSM+Penn,UMich) were also there last year as well as in the previous years. So, that part did not change. It only goes to show then that the top schools for McKinsey are the schools listed for this year, because McKinsey would definitely have to choose the best according to them. </p>
<p>
What??? I was only saying that McKinsey is quite snobbish because I’m sure that the company is aware that there are loads of talents to recruit at Cal, more so than to a 3rd-tier school (amongst the very elite schools, however) such as Brown yet they did not consider Cal in the same light as they did UMich or UPenn.</p>
<p>Then why is it that McKinsey did not include them in their “select” core schools (of 7, namely HYPSM+UPenn,UMich)??? Why UMich instead of those schools? Did they just pick UMich out of the blues? </p>
<p>There is a more compelling reason for McKinsey to include UMich in their “select” list of core schools. And, take note, it’s not only McKinsey that did consider UMich as a core school. All the big ones did. Yet, some of them didn’t even include Duke and the like as core schools. Why is that? What’s wrong with these bulge bracket firms?? Why do they have to prefer UMich when there are better, superior schools than it? What’s wrong with these firms? </p>
<p>The answer to that is, there is a valid reason why they’re giving preferential treatment to UMich grads over grads of Duke, Brown and the like and not just because these bulge bracket firms see UMich as a school with random top students. Because, again, if that’s what they’re thinking, why didn’t they include UNC instead, or Wisconsin? Or, better yet, Berkeley as there are loads of highly achieving kids at Berkeley? </p>
<p>I believe the reason why these bulge bracket firms are recruiting talents at UMich and are including them in their elite list of schools is because they are aware that UMich offers top-notched quality education. I believe that’s the more compelling reason why these bulge bracket firms are going to UMich to recruit talents instead of Duke, Brown and the like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, not everyone from Harvard would be able to crack McKinsey’s notorious recruitment processes. If you can prove it to me that the vast majority of Harvard graduates can get into a top bulge bracket firm, then I will give merits on your reasoning. But I doubt it that you would be able to. So, then, that will also tell us that their are “rotten apples” at Harvard. </p>
<p>
I agree that it’s not. BUT it’s telling. Let’s face it. If McKinsey considers UMich an inferior school to Duke or Brown, then why didn’t they just include Duke or Brown instead of UMich? I don’t get the logic of including UMich as a core school when all the while, they knew that there are “superior” schools to UMich. I just don’t get where the logic there is, if at all there is. And, take note that we’re talking about McKinsey, the most snobbish, condescending, discriminating MC firm in the world. I can probably understand if what you’re saying is the logic applied by some “fly by night” consulting firms. But, we’re talking about McKinsey. Again, McKinsey. I would assume they know very well what they are doing. </p>
<p>
Are you saying that everyone, or almost everyone who graduates from HYPSM gets the best jobs? I don’t think so. In fact, I know several HYPSM graduates who are just as disappointed and (financially and/or socially) unsuccessful as those from under-achieving UMich grads. Like I said, they exist at all schools.</p>
<p>Besides the fact that I think this is a silly measuring stick, RML, everything I was saying is proven in this statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precisely. You think it’s flawed because you feel that Cal should be as respected as UMich but in this case isn’t. It’s hilarious because you still think comments like “their are loads of talent at Cal, more so than at third tier schools” (then proceed to list what you consider to be third tier) are objective.</p>
<p>In fact, in many threads, you’ve admitted the student body is far stronger at many of Cal’s peers than at Cal, and always argue that it’s the professors research, not student learning, not student outcomes, not student incomes, not anything but professor’s output and other graduate measures, that makes Cal the international powerhouse that it is. That’s all true-- but McKinsey is looking at undergraduates. Maybe McKinsey isn’t biased against the “loads of talent” at Cal, they just don’t think there are “loads of talent” they want to mine the same way the pull from UMIch?</p>
<p>Maybe the real answer is that someone who is big at recruiting over at McKinsey is a UMich grad and has preferences for those reasons? Maybe the real answer is that McKinsey was Chicago based and chose Michigan as the powerhouse public nearby to recruit from and otherwise just follows standard “logic” that for business, you take HYPSM like in other fields + Wharton? There are so many examples.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, UMich is a top school, and in my mind, probably one of the top three publics. But that being said, your metrics and your biased nonsense is hilarious.</p>
<p>I can’t think of a school I “disrespect”, they all really have their place and purpose. I can think of qualities I don’t like, but that doesn’t mean that this doesn’t make it well-suited for someone else.</p>
<p>I have a hard time thinking of a school that does something unique or special (in the same way I feel Brown does for me) that makes me really feel the same way about how Brown has shaped me. That’s why I haven’t listed any school, I guess I’m just trying to think of somewhere that I maybe discovered later where they were doing something that made me say, “Wow, this place is somewhere I think I’d be really well-served if I had come here instead of Brown.”</p>
<p>^ I didn’t think it was flawed. I even said it should count a lot, because McKinsey says so. So, please stop gloating and whining. This isn’t about Cal and I don’t understand why you’re trying to divert the topic to Cal. </p>
<p>The issue raised by Hawkette was about UMich vs Duke. She doesn’t believe UMich is a peer school of Duke. She believes that UMich is an inferior school and she cited statistics to prove her claim. I said, whatever statistics she’ll throw on here don’t matter much for the simple reason that peer schools are NOT solely defined by the general quality of entering students, but also by academicians and employers. </p>
<p>Here’s my point to Hawkette:
**Students normally look for desirability and fit. Academicians measure academic quality, school prestige and curriculum. Employers look at the quality of the products and hire talents based on their assessment. **</p>
<p>UMichigan is still not a peer to Penn. You have not convinced me, CC. Lets see the cross admit data. Which school does the world prefer. I would say Penn wins hands down and if you can find data that proves otherwise I will concede my argument. Penn=more prestigious.</p>
<p>Here’s a question:
If Penn didn’t have the ivy league label, but was still established at the same time, etc. would it be where it is today? What about for any other ivy?</p>
<p>Penn was founded in 1740. The Ivy League as a concept and term did not come into being until 1950. The term “Ivy” was not used to describe universities until the mid 1930s. So for the first two centuries of Penn’s existance, it was not known as a member of the Ivy League and managed to develop itself into one of the world’s great universities on its own. By 1850, Penn was already regarded as one of the World’s greatest universities. The same applies to Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Cornell was founded in 1865 and by 1900, it too was generally considered one of the very top universities. I am not sure about Brown and Dartmouth, but they were both founded in the mid 18th century, so again, I am sure that in the first two centuries of their existance, they managed just fine without the Ivy League association. </p>
<p>The term Ivy League is a recent phenomena, starting roughly in the mid 20th century.</p>
<p>So, to answer your question nooob, whether the Ivy League existed or not, the 8 member universities would still be among the very best universities in the country. They were before the concept of the Ivy League came along and they will be when the term “Ivy League” no longer carries the same mystical weight as it has the last 5-6 decades. People in high places (leading researchers, intellectuals, academics and industrialists) are not mystified by the term and do no distinguish the Ivy League from other top universities such as Cal, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, MIT and Stanford to mention a few.</p>
So, please stop gloating and whining. This isn’t about Cal and I don’t understand why you’re trying to divert the topic to Cal. </p>