<p>
[quote]
Oh yeah, there's no way NYU and Wash U are equal in academics at the undergraduate level. Wash U is the better school hands down.
[/quote]
What evidence do you have. If you start cherry picking programs, you can say that WashU is better in biological sciences and NYU is better in business and fine arts. However, academically, I don't think you can really say one institution is hands down without a doubt stronger than the other like you could say Harvard is better than both of these schools academically. WashU might have more resources for undergrads, but I don't know if you can make a blanket statement that it is stronger for undergraduate education. I'll admit that it attracts stronger students and has a stronger student body based on SAT, admit rate, and high school rank of admits. That doesn't mean it's any better or worse at teaching students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The bigger question is why anyone cares what the non-doctor in Europe or Asia thinks. There is so much emphasis on "what will other people think of my choice"? It's asinine.
[/quote]
What if you're looking to get employed in Europe or Asia? You'll have a huge uphill battle coming from a school no one has heard of compared to someone who went to say Michigan or UIUC where many people recognize that it is a strong school in the US.</p>
<p>Also, I said "non-doctor" because WashU is a top 5 med school in the US and probably very well recognized by the international medical community. That, however, doesn't help in every other sector.</p>
<p>Venkat, I am not particularly considered with the strength of the fields of study by themselves at the undergrad level. WUSTL beats NYU in all of the objective criteria and I think is recognized for its "Teaching Excellence" according to a survey, while NYU isn't. Even if that weren't true, smaller classes, more full-time faculty, stronger students and a higher student-to-faculty ratio usually translates to a better undergrad learning environment.</p>
<p><em>shrug</em> i was going for more of a "grand scheme of things" approach where top schools aren't a whole hell of a lot different when you consider everything (as in top 50 schools vs 3rd tier schools). o well. </p>
<p>Also, EAD, I find it tough to see you of all people saying that WashU is better hands down. NYU will have much better business recruiting in NYC and the east coast in general compared to WashU. This is usually something you cite when championing Duke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The desire for validation is a basic human need. People need confirmations about their choices, achievements and traits from other people. What's the point in graduating from Harvard with high honors if no one recognizes that achievment?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, you can't be serious. For the enjoyment of the intellectual challenge? For the satisfaction? For the life experience?</p>
<p>It's like saying, "What's the point at staying at the Ritz if no one recognizes and congratulates you for choosing such a fine hotel?" What do other people have to do with it, at all?</p>
<p>YOU may need a lot of validating (heck, you're very concerned that no one think Michigan is like Duke in any way shape or form -- that would just devastate you if someone did!) but don't pin that on everyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, EAD, I find it tough to see you of all people saying that WashU is better hands down. NYU will have much better business recruiting in NYC and the east coast in general compared to WashU. This is usually something you cite when championing Duke.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true! *I'd go to WUSTL over NYU, personally, and I think WUSTL is an academically superior school, but in terms of Wall Street placement (remember? that's how we *rank colleges these days! LOL), you can't argue that NYU has the advantage simply in terms of proximity. Proximity may trump prestige. </p>
<p>I also wouldn't underestimate the impact of going into business in the St. Louis area, though. You can make a fortune -- as someone who has lived there, there are plenty of rich local businessmen -- and several million a year or even several hundred thousand a year goes a LOT farther in creating a beautiful, comfortable lifestyle in suburban St. Louis than in Westchester/CT/Long Island/NJ.</p>
<p>It's like saying, "What's the point at staying at the Ritz if no one recognizes and congratulates you for choosing such a fine hotel?" What do other people have to do with it, at all?</p>
<p>YOU may need a lot of validating (heck, you're very concerned that no one think Michigan is like Duke in any way shape or form -- that would just devastate you if someone did!) but don't pin that on everyone else.
Those reasons might be accurate to an extent but the vast majority of people go to Harvard because of the brand name and the respect it commands. People who stay at The Ritz and drive Lambroghinis do so to flaunt their incredible wealth and impress other people. It has nothing to do with enjoying the amenities of a nicer hotel or the extra features of a superior car. Don't be so naive and give humans that much credit.</p>
<p>Has this turned into WashU vs NYU now? Always A vs B... How bout A AND B. As 'not intellectual' as this may sound, we can just give both of them credit and leave it at that. </p>
<p>However, i do agree with EAD that SOME(not me)people need validation. However, validation from someone who does not care about colleges is useless. </p>
<p>"Wow, you can't be serious. For the enjoyment of the intellectual challenge? For the satisfaction? For the life experience?"</p>
<p>I agree with PizzaGirl that these should be the main reasons for attending your desired college. When it comes down to it years from now, your success is not going to be determined by how many people said 'Wow, you went to Harvard!' but rather by what you learned there and how you used it in your life.</p>
<p>"People who stay at The Ritz and drive Lambroghinis do so to flaunt their incredible wealth and impress other people. It has nothing to do with enjoying the amenities of a nicer hotel or the extra features of a superior car. Don't be so naive and give humans that much credit."</p>
<p>EAD, that isn't necessarily true. I always stay at the Four Seasons because I enjoy the quality of the service, the incredible rooms, breathtaking interior design and architecture, awesome food and all the freebies you get to pack in your bags. I don't go bragging to my friends where I stay. I do it for my own comford. It's like eating at a great restaurant. You do it for the taste of the food, the service and the overall culinary experience. </p>
<p>Driving a fancy car can be for show, but I also know people who drive cars for the handling and performance. My best friend bought an Audi S8 because he loves the way it handles and feels. </p>
<p>Most people in a position to afford the better things in life do not really care what others think.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Has this turned into WashU vs NYU now? Always A vs B... How bout A AND B. As 'not intellectual' as this may sound, we can just give both of them credit and leave it at that.
[/quote]
People were saying how schools like WashU need to be recognized for how strong they are. I was just supplying an example of a school that is better known internationally than WashU for no better reason than the fact that it shares a name with America's most famous city. It was my way of showing that some schools lose out in international prestige for no good reason and there's nothing you can do about it.</p>
<p>"Which universities have contributed most to the information technology? The answer will be Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, and CMU. No southern school is on the list.</p>
<p>Which universities have contributed most to the bio-technology? The answer will be Harvard, Stanford, MIT, UCSF, Berkeley, Caltech, and JHU. Again, no Southern school is on the list.</p>
<p>GoBlue81, I am NOT kidding at all. The future of science and technology is more or less determined by Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, and Princeton."</p>
<p>^Doesn't Duke have top med, bio, and bme programs? Isn't research triangle (Duke, UNC, NC State) a booming place with tons of research? If North Carolina isn't considered the south then I don't know what is...</p>
But don't you agree that usually the best food isn't found in the most expensive restaurants? Correlating price and the quality of the overall culinary experience is a common fallacy. Usually the pricing of a restaurant has more to do with the kind of cultural offered by the surrounding area, the financial affluence of the surrounding environment and the pedigree of the restaurant ownership. That's why New York has better restaurants than Detroit etc. For instance, although PF Chang's China Bistro is a nationwide chain that offers quality Chinese food, there are usually better places to get Chinese food in any given location and all you have to do is ask the locals. PF Chang has an incredible pedigree and essentialy screams fine dining so it tends to be expensive.</p>
<p>EAD, from my experience (I consider myself an authority in this subject), the best restaurants are EXTREMELY expensive. Like $400-$700/person, wine and tip not included. There are roughly 30 such restaurants, mainly in France, Germany and Italy. The quality of the food, service and overall experience is unmatched. The best restaurants in the US (there are a couple in Chicago, a couple in NYC, a couple in Vegas and a couple of country Inns) are not quite as good as the top restaurants in Europe but are also pretty expensive ($200-$400/person). The prices are justified. The quality and freshness of the ingrdients, the attention to detail (a 1:1 staff : patron ratio in Europe's top restaurants and a 1:3 staff : patron ratio in the US' top restaurants) etc... cost a great deal of money. </p>
<p>Of course, I am referring to the very best restaurants. In some cases, restaurants charge a great deal of money because they attract a pretentious crowd. The restaurants I am referring to do not attract pretentious people, they attract food lovers. There is no glitz or glamour about those restaurants, only the food.</p>