<p>
[quote]
Don't matter 'cause I'll be working for Goldman Sachs making 70k coming out while you're doni whatever with ur little liberal arts boston college degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, I'm so impressed. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I never said you focus on Haas, that was exactly my point. You focus on all of Berkeley and dont want to focus on all of NYU</p>
<p>ucla: He's insulting my college skills so I gotta let him know what's going down. Don't think you're so high and mighty because even if you study 24/7 getting a 4.0 at BC that doesn't make you better than me so get off your high horse. </p>
<p>ckmets: Say what you want about NYU and I'll probably agree. That's never the issue as I dont' defend NYU at all in this thread. My Berkeley comments still stand.</p>
<p>Sternman, CA rivals the eastern seaboard in terms of economic prowess and Haas is definitely more well known around here.</p>
<p>Haas is not more "known" on the east coast because I'M IN NYC right now intering. I've been hre a SOLID year and here are two things that agree with me:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Stern postgrad reports vs Haas postgrad reports. Haas doesn't even place as well as top 10 b schools on the east coast</p></li>
<li><p>Go ask any Sternie who has graduated and ask him/her about Haas. It's not even close to Stern.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I am talking about CA which is the west coast.</p>
<p>um yea if you ask people who graduated from Stern, of course they will say stern is better</p>
<p>Sternman,</p>
<p>I don't see ckmets insulting you even once. He's challenging you to back up your claims, and he made the point that he could probably compete with you in terms of high school stats.</p>
<p>That's by no means insulting you. </p>
<p>Insult, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, means, speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Now, if ckmets had said, "Whatever, you can't even formulate a decent argument, your writing is atrociously bad, and you constantly change your argument to fit whatever fallacy you're on at the time," he'd be closer to insulting you. That, and I'd be speaking through ckmets as a proxy.</p>
<p>But yeah, insult? Not even close.</p>
<p>Besides, you're the most insulting, scornful, and disrepesctful person in the debate at present, so be careful about pedastals before you start shooting at high horses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Go ask any Sternie who has graduated and ask him/her about Haas. It's not even close to Stern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And apparently you don't understand the notion of a "biased sample..."</p>
<p>He insults my HS skills and then my college skills. He also made fun of me for attending a "3.5 peer assessment" school. </p>
<p>At least I don't get personal first. It is basically him starting it. When do I change my argument? Go find the posts where I state otherwise. There have only been 2 arguments here coming from me and 1 is the Stern/Haas placement and the other is Cal not bein good for ugrad.</p>
<p>ckmets: Uh, go ask the grads which kid's schools they see more. They'll say Ivies and some top B Schools but not Haas. Thanks for selective answering and ignoring the post grad placement reports though.</p>
<p>squarehead: Your post implied east coast. Please type more clearly in the future. I never even TALKED about Stern on the west coast. Unfortunately though the top companies are on Wall St. and on the EAST COAST including almost all the investment banking companies. I'd agree with you had I thought you were talking about Haas on west.</p>
<p>um, your school has a 3.8 peer assessment, so i could never insult you for that</p>
<p>Sternman, you are not going to get anywhere advancing your argument with your attitude. I've been trying to read this thread objectively, but your tone makes it very difficult to listen to your side of the argument.</p>
<p>ex:"Please type more clearly in the future."</p>
<p>EDIT:
[quote]
Besides, you're the most insulting, scornful, and disrepesctful person in the debate at present, so be careful about pedastals before you start shooting at high horses.p
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Beat me too it, though a little less diplomatic in descriptiveness.</p>
<p>ckmets: Read my #85 post. It definitely makes clear my views on NYU.
You also said:
"maybe thats because hes going to one of those 3.5 private schools "</p>
<p>"Sternman, you are not going to get anywhere advancing your argument with your attitude."</p>
<p>yeah tell Lehman brothers that who I am interning for. I type fast ONLINE so if you have problems understanding then just ask. No need for personal insults or anything. In real life I am outgoing, intelligent, and eloquent. Typing fast online is not a good measure of such.</p>
<p>I was saying that to willimingtonwave by the way (hes going to wake)</p>
<p>Okay, I thought you were talking to me. Still there is no need to bring up personal skills like HS stats or future college grades. I never insult your college while you've started stuff like insulted my major (business) and the like. All I'm saying is lay off the personal stuff because I can get just as mean about BC.</p>
<p>So, again, let me reiterate a point about top public universities.</p>
<p>Top publics, pound for pound, offer similar resources as privates. I find the notion that someone will necessarily get a better education at Cornell than at Michigan to be questionable at best. What you will be offered, however, is a more tightly grouped quality of students (none of the fairly awful 25th percentile students at the top publics), somewhat smaller classes on average, and better counseling.</p>
<p>That, for many students, is an absolute godsend. In fact, for some, it can be a necessary component to a quality experience. However, that doesn't mean that the resources are necessarily lacking at Cal, UCLA, Michigan, UVA, and other top publics. I have many friends who were educated at Ivies and comparably good privates, and we generally find each other on a similar plane academically. In fact, my buddy who went to Penn and I had the same SAT score, very similar SAT II scores, and similar experiences with getting into grad schools of our choice.</p>
<p>However, the problems at public universities should not be ignored, either. The bottom 25th percentile of student at schools like Cal and Michigan are by no means competitive with those at Cornell and Columbia. </p>
<p>But I also question whether or not that really affected MY experience. When I'm sitting in a lecture with 50 people, what do I care if 3 or 4 of them are absolute doofuses? It never affected my opportunties to see professors at office hours. Nor did it affect my opportunity to read the text. And really, who hasn't had a douche say something stupid in a discussion? </p>
<p>The problem, at least as far as I've seen the debate carry on, isn't that top publics are really of poor quality. The problem is relatively "non-prestigious" publics being well-regarded by academics.</p>
<p>This could be due to a number of factors. It could be that academics are less swayed by name brand (which I doubt). It could be that academics are most interested in research (which I believe.) It could be that the difference in quality between large groupings of schools is relatively narrow (which I believe.) It could be a lot of things.</p>
<p>However, what a lot of people on this board don't seem to grasp is that this isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. Yes, rankings are undoubtedly zero-sum. However, it's not entirely impossible to, for a moment at least, to remove yourself from the rankings and look at schools in larger groupings; then, you may see that both NYU AND Berkeley can be excellent universities... and never even at each other's expense!</p>
<p>But that would require someone to also put down their uber-jingoism shield for the moment, and few posters on the site see reason to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yeah tell Lehman brothers that who I am interning for. I type fast ONLINE so if you have problems understanding then just ask. No need for personal insults or anything. In real life I am outgoing, intelligent, and eloquent. Typing fast online is not a good measure of such.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly what I mean. It has nothing to do with understanding your argument, or how fast you're typing--it's your condescending tone and your manner. I never mentioned anything downplaying your argumentative skill, only that your attitude is preventing people from being willing to accept even valid points in your posts.</p>
<p>I just say it like it is. People are a bit too passive-aggressive and political correct here. I just say the truth. Thanks for the constructive criticism though.</p>
<p>You say it like it is?</p>
<p>What, like missing key data points, obfuscating the truth, and avoiding inconvenient downsides to your argument?</p>
<p>Funny definition you've got there.</p>
<p>You've yet to offer anything other than your own opinion too. You think 5 year graduation rates because UCLA is too crowded is not an issue since they all get the same education? FIne then why not extend it to 10 years? If UCLA is too crowded to even graduate its kids on time do you think they are getting good education (discussions and talks with professors and fellow students??) </p>
<p>There are problems with ugrad education at UCLA/Berkeley and that has been my consistent point.</p>
<p>I had the stats to get into Berkeley/UCLA too but I didn't even apply. I just wanted to get out of there because I knew how ugrad was. Graduate school? Sure I'd recommend it and whatever but ugrad is a totally different story.</p>