<p>worldbandx goddang tufts troll stupid inferiority</p>
<p>Calm down whartonman. I'm not trying to start any argument. Just relax :) . I don't have an inferiority complex lol. Especially since i'm going into IR/history. And also, I'm a fan of UPenn Wharton, too; i'm seriously looking at it for grad school. Be Jamaican, mon.</p>
<p>Okay good. I just feel like you were cornerning me a few threads about small things that I forgot to mention. Yes Top CC schools might not have Tufts and it is pretty bad to be #26 and have that cut off. I definitely think Tufts should be there in lieu of UNC chapel hill.</p>
<p>No prob. Didn't mean to get you upset. Actually, I was curious, does Wharton have an "International" Business grad program? I'm looking into bus/law for grad and I didn't know if Wharton had that for students interested in global business.</p>
<p>Well there is this <a href="http://mba.wharton.upenn.edu/mba/academics/curriculum/int_study.php%5B/url%5D">http://mba.wharton.upenn.edu/mba/academics/curriculum/int_study.php</a></p>
<p>"Students who wish to pursue a full dual- or joint-degree program in international business may apply to the Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies MBA/MA joint-degree program or to the Wharton/Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (Johns Hopkins Washington campus) MBA/MA dual-degree program."</p>
<p>Wharton RULES baby</p>
<p>Huskem55</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>"theres got to be objective criteria in there somewhere: i like the idea of any school that has an average SAT over 1350, and/or acceptance rate under 1/3 of applicants."</p>
<p>The problem with that is that there are certain schools where people self-select out. Chicago has an average SAT score of around 1440, but accepts around 40% of applicants. Yet, I believe it is generally considered to be in the top 10 or 15 universities in the world. These criteria would also exclude Berkeley, which is also among the very best universities in the world by most standards.</p>
<p>^^ and thats why i said "and OR"!</p>
<p>Huskem</p>
<p>Good point, but it creates another problem. Lane University has one of the lowest acceptance rates in the country, but it is generally not considered "elite." There are a number of schools that, for one reason or another, have low acceptance rates but not particularly high numbers for their students.</p>
<p>That's why I took the "and" to be more important ;-).</p>
<p>then how can you objectively say whats elite or not? </p>
<p>-it cant be based on name recognition, because although schools like williams, pomona, etc are among the absolute best schools, the average layman has no clue what they are.
-it cant be based on the USNews because you have schools that are severely underranked (one example is reed), and then you have schools that are severely overranked (im not going there, thats a whole different thread!)</p>
<p>there needs to be some objective criteria! what do you suggest?</p>
<p>Huskem - good points. Which is why it is so difficult to use the hazy term "elite".</p>
<p>Huskem</p>
<p>Ideally, it would be a sort of matrix or sliding scale, I suspect. You have a place like Berkeley which is clearly one of the top schools in the world, and yet the average SAT is around the 1320s. That number doesn't miss the 1350 cutoff by much, and should certainly be offset by the impressive faculty credentials. I think it's the issue of absolute cutoffs that gets in the way.</p>
<p>You do have a point.</p>
<p>I think it's the issue of absolute cutoffs that gets in the way.</p>
<p>There will always be an absolute cutoff; you can only "slide" the SAT criterion but so far...</p>
<p>There should be consistancy with this. There should be three criteria, and for a school to be considered elite it must meet at least two of the following:
1. Avg. SAT >/= 1350
2. Acceptance Rate </= 30%
3. Avg. GPA (HS) >/= 3.7 and/or 90+% in top 10% of class.</p>
<p>A lot of colleges meet that criteria. I say increase the avg SAT to high 1300s like 1370 or even 1400.</p>
<p>well how many schools 'deserve' the title of 'elite?'</p>
<p>If you leave out the 3.7 and just make it 90+% in the top 10% it truly only allows for elite schools to make the list. However, which schools now meet two out of the three that shouldn't be considered elite?</p>
<p>You leave out good schools like UVA/Berkeley like others mentioned though because it does not have the high SAT NOR the low acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Public schools should have their own system, I agree.</p>
<p>Or you can leave public schools out. No offense but I am from CALIFORNIA and I get very mad that some CC transfers get almost a guaranteed to Berkeley. </p>
<p>"Oh they worked hard" you say. What about the kids that worked hard for 13 years? Heck, I can slack off all during high school too and then go to a CC to have fun for a few years and then get good CC grades and transfer to Berkeley or UCLA and WHOOPEE i'm in the same spot as the valedictorian with the perfect SATs who couldn't afford Harvard or something. THAT IS BS.</p>
<p>I don't know if UVA has that system too but that kinda system is BS. also, a 1320 avg SAT score?!?! NO offense but come on california!! We're the best state by far so get the SAT scores up. 1320 avg is not so good anymore. I remember back in middle school I was so proud of being Californian and of the school system. Since then I am still proud of being Californian and a Hispanic American but saddened by UCLA's crowded classes and graduation times as well as the entire system (including Berkeley's) impersonal social life and BAD COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRANSFER SYSTEM. I mean goddang at least fix the undergrad experience and not pour all your money into the grad school. All I can say is, this Californian will be glad to get out of CA for ugrad and MAYBE just maybe I'll return for grad.</p>