<p>This thread isnt about comparing elite privates like UChicago to solid privates like BC and Lehigh though. It is to compare publics to privates, so I dont see the relevance of your post.</p>
<p>is it just me or vicissitudes loves to use the word "evidence." it appears in every single one of his/her posts at least once. i've been reading his/her posts and it seems evidence stands out the most. you must be a science major of some sort.</p>
<p>It is a solid and secure word that makes up for his insecure personality from attending Cal.</p>
<p>Sternman, youre fighting the wrong battle. Berkeley is better than NYU, live with that fact.</p>
<p>Look at the placement reports for JP Morgan, Merill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc vs. Haas.</p>
<p>I don't care about NYU I care about stern.</p>
<p>What is it about solid privates (BC, Lehigh, Tulane, etc) that make them better academically than solid publics (Purdue, Ohio State, PSU, Maryland)?</p>
<p>Haas and Stern are the same.</p>
<p>Not for wall st. Go look at the placement reports buddy. I have over a hundred friends in NYC after a year and I see lots of Ivy league and Top 5 B-School kids at Wall St except Haas/Sloan.</p>
<p>"What is it about solid privates (BC, Lehigh, Tulane, etc) that make them better academically than solid publics (Purdue, Ohio State, PSU, Maryland)?"</p>
<p>i don't know. why dont you go to a public high school and private high school and see?</p>
<p>Professors that actually teach undergrads, more qualified students with higher high school grades and SAT scores, smaller class sizes, a better learning atmosphere (more students actually care about their grades). Its a fact that if you have better students, you will have a better school. The fact that PSU is a research powerhouse has nothing to do with its undergrad education.</p>
<p>Newsflash: the only b-school rankings that matter are for MBAs. The biggest advantage Stern students have is their proximity to Wall Street -- not their quality (which isn't too different from other solid schools).</p>
<p>Geez, not even Wharton undergrads have this bad of a complex.</p>
<p>That's an advantage. Location is an advantage and that helps us. Haas doesn't have it and don't get seen on Wall St. much.</p>
<p>I don't even care about rankings. Go look at the placement reports.</p>
<p>Business schools are overrated anyway. Go to school to get a real intellectual education.</p>
<p>speaking of MBAs, I was reading my cousin's ranking book from 1997. guess what b-school was ranked highest. uva's darden b-school. now 9 years later, darden is almost forgotten.</p>
<p>"Professors that actually teach undergrads, more qualified students with higher high school grades and SAT scores, smaller class sizes, a better learning atmosphere (more students actually care about their grades). Its a fact that if you have better students, you will have a better school. The fact that PSU is a research powerhouse has nothing to do with its undergrad education."</p>
<p>Smaller class sizes are a function faculty to student ratios -- an aspect that's associated with small schools and not limited to solid privates.
Hold on -- I thought selectivity (more qualified students, blah blah blah) didn't contribute directly to a school's academics? They signal a higher quality of the overall student body but don't necessarily indicate anything about the academic quality of the institution.
Better learning atmosphere where more students actually care about their grades? Sounds very anecdotal to me.</p>
<p>I wasnt the one who said selectivity didnt matter, read the thread that was A2Wolves- and also small class size/student teacher ratios arent limited to solid privates, but we are COMPARING THEM TO PUBLICS, and they are smaller than the publics we are comparing them to.</p>
<p>Which ranking publication was that? Couldn't have been BW or USNWR which are generally considered the "most accurate". I believe only HBS, Stanford, Wharton, and Kellogg have placed tops in either publication. And no, I don't believe Kellogg is #1.</p>
<p>i'm not really sure. it may have been the princeton review.</p>
<p>mets: not everyone has to be a scientist/engineer. people can get just as much enjoyment studying economic models through business or literary nuances through english/history.</p>
<p>isn't the same ranking system used to rank the business schools in US news? It counts for 100% of that ranking. Stern is a great school. IT ranked 5th among business schools using the same ranking. I don't have the book in front of me(probably a good thing because i spent a lot of time looking at it) and i am pretty sure it ranks somewhere from a 4.0-4.5 on the peer assessment score. In 2005 it had a 4.3. NYU is made up of more than just stern. Is it possible other programs aren't as prestigious as the business program? </p>
<p>Public schools are underrated in the overall rankings. The peer assessment scores are opinions on the school's prestige and its quality. It can't be overrated because it is an opinion. Placing weight on on other factors can make a school overrated. Prestige and quality, to me, should count as more than 25% of "america's best colleges" rankings. Admission to some publics are getting harder. So you don't waste your time, i am going to be a freshman at UMD next year. Its middle 50% this year was a 1240-1380 which is comparable to BC's 1240-1410 listed in US news(i am pretty sure that is what it is. if someone could check that would be great. Like i said i don't have the book infront of me). It is also comparable to NYU which was 1220-1410(again i think, someone can check). UMD took a big jump in the mid 50% SAT ranking and i am sure that the range went up at these schools also but all i am saying is that the quality of the students aren't horrible at some of these publics. OOS students are going to have higher stats. Its just that schools like UMD have and must have 70% of their students from in state. </p>
<p>Minnesota is a disgustingly underrated school BTW.</p>