<p>UCLAri and aim78,</p>
<p>I dont know if you guys have noticed this yet but no one pays attention to what ubermenesh says. Just ignore him like everyone else does.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, he used to say he graduated from UCLA but it was discovered that he was saying in other posts that he goes to a community college. I dont know what he claims nowadays.</p>
<p>Gutrade said, amongst other things, Anyway, to say that Berkeley is unequivocally better than Palo Alto is just plain dumb. Some people may prefer Palo Alto more, some people may prefer Berkeley more. Some people like rich areas and some people like ghettos. It's all a matter of choice and preference.</p>
<p>Berkeley is not a ghetto, as Shasser pointed out. Dont imply such things. Even relatively speaking (keeping Palo Alto in mind), its an eclectic city. Its not dirty, yet it isnt as nice as Portland, at least where I have been. However, its close to it.</p>
<p>In addition, Stanford fosters a much better college community than Berkeley ever could. Since Stanford guarantees housing for all your undergraduate years, EVERYONE lives on campus. 99 percent of students live on campus. Contrast this to Berkeley, where only the freshmen are given housing. You might have fun at Berkeley in your first year, but after that, forget about it. You'll be isolated and Berkeley will be nothing more than a commuter school to you.</p>
<p>Berkeley now guarantees housing for all undergrads admitted as freshman for two years. At Stanford, there is no priority given to seniority for housing, so you might be passed over because of a bad lottery number, unless you apply for a theme house . . . I do not know all of the intricacies, but I know that its easy to be disregarded. At Cal, this usually only happens freshman year. I think your number of students on campus is also manipulative; it simply costs far too much for many students to live off campus, and, realizing this, Stanford supplies on-campus housing.</p>
<p>According to US News, the difference between Stanford and Berkeley is equivalent to the difference between Berkeley and University of Rochester. Just a little food for thought.</p>
<p>I think that people, in general, know much less about U of Rochester than Stanford and Berkeley. And all that this statistic means is that, according to the factors used by the dubious (what, Im not biased) U.S. News and World Report team, the difference exists to whatever degree. </p>
<p>ubermensch said, I am not surprised that the difference between Stanford and Berkeley is equivalent to the difference between Berkeley and U of Rochester. I mean c'mon, the difference between Stanford and Berkeley is simply HUGE.
Yes, simply huge . . . Id say that one of the most significant differences is size. </p>
<p>Gutrade
ghetto, mass production-like education at Berkeley. I want a name, not a number. I want to be pampered for four years rather than constantly struggle for the necessities.</p>
<p>Not a number. Just as at Stanford, some professors will really care about you, others will not. It is harder for the ones in large classes to learn your name and what not in the lower level classes at either school, and yes, it does go away more quickly at Stanford. However, you are just another unit produced by your school, regardless of where you go. Stanford, Berkeley, even such intimate places as Deep Springs . . . the impression of the place will be on you for the rest of your life, but after you are gone, not many ties exist between any student and any university. Try struggling with that one.
I like that article, G&S, and I do respect Stanford, and soon will be at Berkeley. Ill see how I weigh in about the situation in the future. It is interesting that 1/3 of the respondents didn't get into Berkeley . . . makes one think about the stereotype of Berkeley as where the Stanford rejects end up.</p>
<p>I think I have to back up Drab here and say that I don't see how one can seriously advance the notion that professional schools are the only graduate programs that matter. I think all graduate programs matter. Academic graduate programs are just as important as professional graduate programs.</p>
<p>However even if for the sake of argument, let's say I agree that professional graduate programs matter more than academic graduate programs. I don't agree, but let's just say that it was true. Where would that leave us? Berkeley would still be quite well off. Not as well off as it would be if we were looking at academic graduate programs, which are Berkeley's true crown jewels. But not bad, and certainly better than just looking at Berkeley's undergraduate program, (which while still good, has great difficulty in matching up to the elite undergraduate programs). </p>
<p>Look at it this way. If it's really true that professional graduate programs are the only ones that matter, then obviously Harvard and Stanford have better professional programs than Berkeley does. But Berkeley's are not shabby. Yale has a much better law school in the country, and Yale has a med-school while Berkeley doesn't, but on the other hand, Berkeley has a much better business school than Yale does. Take Yale's average professional school ranking. Yale Law is #1, Yale Medical is #11, and the Yale School of Management is #15, for an average ranking of #9. Berkeley Haas is ranked #6, and Berkeley Law is #11, for an average ranking of 8.5 Hence, the average Berkeley professional school ranking is better than that of Yale's. Or, put another way, in head-to-head matchups, Yale Law beats Berkeley Law, but Berkeley Haas beats the Yale School of Management. </p>
<p>Or perhaps you could say that Berkeley should be 'punished' because it doesn't have a medical school. I would argue that UCSF is basically Berkeley's de-facto med-school, but in any case, if you want to argue that Berkeley should be punished for not having a med-school, then fine, fair enough, then you have to apply that line of reasoning to ALL schools. You need to punish Princeton and Caltech for not having ANY professional schools. You need to punish MIT for only having 1 professional school (the Sloan School of Management). </p>
<p>The point is that no matter how you cut it, if you look at graduate schools of any sort (professional or academic), Berkeley looks quite good. Obviously not as good as Harvard or Stanford, but comparable to Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, and other such illustrious institutions. </p>
<p>The problem specifically is with the Berkeley undergraduate program, and here is where I feel the need to disagree (slightly) with jab93. Berkeley graduate school is definitely top-notch and can reasonably be said to belong in the top tier with anybody. However, I don't think you can really say that about the Berkeley undergrad program. The Berkeley undergrad program is still good, but I don't believe it is top-notch. </p>
<p>And again, before anybody accuses me of being a 'Berkeley hater', ask yourself, why would I go around defending and touting the Berkeley graduate programs if I really hated Berkeley? If I really hated Berkeley, I should be dissing Berkeley in its entirety. I am not doing that.</p>
<p>I disagree with you Sakky. Professional schools are definitely the sexist graduate schools out there. They are the trifecta of excellence. I know that academic graduate schools are important, but the fact of the matter is that there are so many academic graduate degrees out there that you can get lost in the vast ocean of obscurity. With Medical, Business, and Law Schools, however, you have a better standard metric of graduate school excellence. Nobody can deny that they are the most popularized and desired graduate schools. Why else are people labeled pre-med, pre-law, and pre-biz? I never heard anyone being labeled pre-post-doc-in-macrobiology, or pre-PhD-in-microwave-and-radioastronomical-and-hydrogen-spectrum-fourier-spectral-analysis-candidate. First of all, there are too many graduate degrees out there, and it would be hard to assign everyone a specific name of what they plan to do. Second of all, nobody cares as much about PhD programs as they do about professional schools. I know that academic programs are very important for society, but they aren't as highly recognized or prestigious. If I got into the top PhD program in Microbiology in the country, would I impress as many people in a dinner conversation as would a person who goes to Yale, Stanford, or Harvard Law school? Of course it's very superficial to base everything on a dinner conversation, and I know that. But I was just using that as an example about public perception of graduate schools as a whole.</p>
<p>Let me address another of your arguments. You claimed that Berkeley does better than Yale in terms of professional schools, and you quite cleverly manipulated the statistics to prove that. Of course, with an average of an "8.5," Berkeley barely edges out Yale. But that's analogous to a person with 2 A's and a W on his transcript saying that he has a better GPA than his friend with 2 A's and B+. Of course, the person's GPA is higher than his friends'. After all, he has a 4.0 and his friend has a mere 3.83. However, I can argue (and rightly so), that the guy with a W has a way worse academic transcript than the guy with a B+. Likewise, Berkeley is way worse than Yale for not having a med school at all. It has the equivalent of a W because, given the benefit of the doubt, I have no idea how good a Berkeley med school would be if they ever started one. I also don't know how good of a grade that guy would have had if he chose to take the class instead of getting a W. But I do know that the W isn't a good thing, just as how Berkeley not having a med school isn't exactly a good thing either. </p>
<p>Also, UCSF is not Berkeley's med school. If you can use that argument, I might as well say that Caltech can just claim that UCLA's med school is their med school. After all, they are in close proximity to each other. I know that UC Berk and UCSF are both intimately connected because they share the same "UC" title, but the fact of the matter is that they are two separate, autonomous schools. Berkeley does not own UCSF. You might as well say that Berkeley owns UCLA, UCSD, and all the other UC's. Even though one school might have spun off from the other (just as how UCLA used to be Berkeley extension school), the fact of the matter is that UC Berk and UCLA are separate. To say that UCSF belongs to Berkeley is simply ludicrous.</p>
<p>Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread is comparing Berkeley to Stanford. We never really talked about comparing Berkeley'd grad schools to Princeton's (which isn't exactly the best), or Caltech's, or Yale's, or MIT's, or even Harvard's. We were putting the greatest emphasis on comparing Berkeley and Stanford, and you yourself admitted in your post that Berkeley cannot compete with Stanford (and Harvard) on the professional school level.</p>
<p>Whoa. I don't believe what I'm seeing. Somebody actually beat Sakky (or is close to it). Has Sakky finally met his match?</p>
<p>Is any undergraduate program really top-notch? Berkeley is always touted as being more rigorous than the Ivies and Stanford. Does that somehow make it lesser in quality? You're always going to have big classes and you're always going to have TA's. Neither is necessarily a bad thing.</p>
<p>Haha, colleperson12. I don't think I was trying to "beat" Sakky in any shape or form. We just both happen to disagree on something, and I was just giving my point of view. Besides, it's not really fair for somebody to declare me a "winner" before Sakky has the opportunity to respond to my argument. For all I know, he could have a great argument that completely blows mine out of the water. (Given his track record, I expect nothing less.) </p>
<p>However, thanks for your vote of confidence all the same :)</p>
<p>Yes, all you Berkeley haters need to stick together and argue over what degree will make your dinner guests gush more. God, is this what its all about? Very, very sad.</p>
<p>Just wanted to comment that this Berkeley student did NOT apply to Stanford. (She did apply to U Penn and did get in.)</p>
<p>So no, Berkeley is not just a mass of Stanford rejects. </p>
<p>Besides, at least internationally we are "better" eh.</p>
<p>Oh and at least we don't have "inflated" grades. We actually have to work for them.</p>
<p>Berkeley may be a good school, but it is not ivy-league good. I just want people to acknowledge the truth. Berkeley should go chill with UCLA, UVA, U Mich, USC, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, and the other UCs. The table where the ivies, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech sit down at is just out of Berkeley's league.</p>
<p>Did you not read the article GentlemanandScholar posted? </p>
<p>By the way, while HYP may be better than Berkeley, the other Ivys certainly aren't. </p>
<p>Have you read my thread? </p>
<p>The world is against you and for Berkeley</p>
<p>"I just want people to acknowledge the truth."</p>
<p>"At Cal, this usually only happens freshman year. I think your number of students on campus is also manipulative; it simply costs far too much for many students to live off campus, and, realizing this, Stanford supplies on-campus housing."</p>
<p>Thats simply not true Stanford and other top Privates have guaranteed housing all four years because they can, they have the money.</p>
<p>"Is any undergraduate program really top-notch? Berkeley is always touted as being more rigorous than the Ivies and Stanford. Does that somehow make it lesser in quality? "</p>
<p>Thats an argument you cant win, on one side you have the ivies and if your to claim that your more rigorous then youll get beaten by Caltech and MIT in terms of rigor hands down.</p>
<p>Collegeperson, as soon as you acknowledge that you are a troll with no business on these boards we'll acknowledge that we're (big shock!) not a member of the IVY league. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have personally never claimed that Cal is "better than ____" because guess what? Like the vast majority of you I have not attended Stanfurd, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, and Duke. Alas, I've only gone to Cal, so I feel qualified to judge my experiences there. You, however, have not only not gone to any of the aforementioned schools, but you've never gone to Cal either, so you have absolutely ZERO to say on the subject. I don't know what the obsession with debasing Cal is all about. Why don't you wander over to the Duke board and tell them they're not as good as Harvard, or go to the Brown board and say they're not as good as Princeton, or go to the stanfurd board and say they're not as good as Yale?</p>
<p>Whoa. I don't believe what I'm seeing. Somebody actually beat Sakky (or is close to it). Has Sakky finally met his match?</p>
<p>How can you say someone has beaten Sakky when he has not even responded? Instead of waiting for some sort of savior, why dont you face sakky yourself and see if you can beat him.</p>
<p>Gutrade,</p>
<p>I agree with you totally in that a school should be penalized for not having a particular program in the way that you compared it to the fictitious person that has a W on his transcript. So Caltech, for example, should be penalized for not having a business program. However, I dont know where you get the idea that graduate programs are less important than their professional counterparts. Perhaps in your opinion they are but your opinion means almost nothing in an argument.</p>
<p>"Collegeperson, as soon as you acknowledge that you are a troll with no business on these boards we'll acknowledge that we're (big shock!) not a member of the IVY league. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have personally never claimed that Cal is "better than ____" because guess what? Like the vast majority of you I have not attended Stanfurd, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, and Duke. Alas, I've only gone to Cal, so I feel qualified to judge my experiences there. You, however, have not only not gone to any of the aforementioned schools, but you've never gone to Cal either, so you have absolutely ZERO to say on the subject. I don't know what the obsession with debasing Cal is all about. Why don't you wander over to the Duke board and tell them they're not as good as Harvard, or go to the Brown board and say they're not as good as Princeton, or go to the stanfurd board and say they're not as good as Yale?"</p>
<p>That was a very nice post! It seems like many people are quick to try and voice their opinion on why Cal is not as good as school X. Cal must be great in these people's minds if they feel compelled to always compare it to something. No other school receives this treatment.</p>
<p>Yes, one has to almost feel flattered at their indignation. For example, I consider it pretty exciting when I can get people so riled up all over something I've demonstrated, said, or published. Despite their intents, whatever they may originally have been, these board cats place Berkeley in an odd position of power through their obvious obsession/defensive demonstrations.</p>
<p>Berkeley is awesome!</p>
<p>Gutrade, let's analyze your response point-by-point. My response is long enough to demand 2 parts, so here is part 1.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nobody can deny that they are the most popularized and desired graduate schools. Why else are people labeled pre-med, pre-law, and pre-biz? I never heard anyone being labeled pre-post-doc-in-macrobiology, or pre-PhD-in-microwave-and-radioastronomical-and-hydrogen-spectrum-fourier-spectral-analysis-candidate. First of all, there are too many graduate degrees out there, and it would be hard to assign everyone a specific name of what they plan to do. Second of all, nobody cares as much about PhD programs as they do about professional schools. I know that academic programs are very important for society, but they aren't as highly recognized or prestigious. If I got into the top PhD program in Microbiology in the country, would I impress as many people in a dinner conversation as would a person who goes to Yale, Stanford, or Harvard Law school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, I have never heard of "pre-biz". </p>
<p>Second of all, I would challenge your assertion of people not being labeled as "pre-PhD's". The fact is, you don't have to be labeled as such. For example, any math undergrad can basically be labeled as a "pre-math PhD". Any physics undergrad can basically be labeled as a "pre-physics PhD". The reason why the designation of premed and prelaw exist is because you have great freedom to major in basically whatever you want, and still get into med/law-school (provided you meet the minimum requirements of med/law-school). This is clearly not true for PhD programs. If you major in English, your chances of getting in a PhD engineering program are slim, you must admit. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I see that you are only picking out the most obscure academic programs and comparing them to the most popular professional programs. Let's keep in mind that business, law, and medicine are not the only professional programs out there. There are many others, of various levels of prestige. Take nursing. That's a professional program. There is such a thing as pre-nursing. There is such a thing as a graduate school of nursing. In fact, Yale has one. But you gotta admit that nursing school is certainly not the most prestigious professional program. Or how about Graduate Schools of Education - where they train K-12 school teachers. How prestigious is that, relative to law, medicine, or business? Or how about forestry? That's a professional program -you learn how to be a forester, and there are professional Schools of Forestry, where you go and learn to be a forester. In fact, Yale has one of those too (and in fact, so does Berkeley, but not Stanford or Harvard). The point is, if you're going to compare highly obscure academic programs, you should compare them to highly obscure professional programs. You have to do an apples to apples comparison. Otherwise, just like you did, I could go around comparing a guy who got into the Berkeley PHD physics program vs. the guy who got into the Yale Nursing School. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know that academic programs are very important for society, but they aren't as highly recognized or prestigious. If I got into the top PhD program in Microbiology in the country, would I impress as many people in a dinner conversation as would a person who goes to Yale, Stanford, or Harvard Law school
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're mixing several different things together, in a technique known as 'statistical confounding'.</p>
<p>First off, it is clearly true that Yale, Stanford, and Harvard have are well-known in pop culture. But that's specific to the general brand-names of Yale, Stanford, and Harvard, and not merely specific to the professional schools. What you should be comparing is somebody who got into Harvard Law vs. somebody who got into a Harvard PhD program. I think when you do that, now you're being fair, and now you would see that the comparison would be equitable. The man off the street would just hear the word 'Harvard' and be impressed, whether it's Harvard Law or a Harvard PhD program. </p>
<p>Now, you might say that people who are more knowledgeable than the man off the street would be more impressed by a professional program rather than an academic program. But that has to do with the statistical confounding of mixing law, business, and medicine with salary information. For example, you might say that a dinner party might be more impressed with Yale Law than a Yale PhD program because they know that Yale Law grads make more money than do Yale PhD grads. True, but that has to do with the fact that lawyers make more money than academics. It has nothing to do with professional schools in general. What if, in that same dinner party, you had a guy who got into a Yale PhD program and another guy who got into the Yale School of Forestry? Who's more impressive at that dinner party? Probably the former, you must agree. Or how about a guy who got into a Harvard PhD program vs. the Harvard Graduate School of Education? I think it's clearly the former that is the more impressive, even though the latter is a professional program. A Harvard PhD graduate has a shot at becoming a tenured professor. A graduate of the Harvard School of Education is going to be teaching K-12 somewhere. </p>
<p>Let me give you another example to illustrate my point. I think an argument could be made that the best business school out there is Northwestern-Kellogg. Businessweek seems to think so, ranking Kellogg #1 in 5 out of the 9 rankings that BW has ever created since 1988 (the BW rankings come out once every 2 years, so there have been 9 total BW rankings since 1988). The problem is, a lot of people don't know Northwestern Kellogg, and certainly the man on the street has never heard of it. So at that theoretical dinner party, you have a guy who got into the MBA program at Kellogg and another guy who got into some super-obscure PhD program at Harvard. Ask yourself, who's more impressive? Those people who actually know the business world might think the Kellogg guy is more impressive. On the other hand, those who don't know will just hear the word "Harvard" and be impressed. </p>
<p>What that shows is that the professional schools by themselves are not impressive to the common man. What makes certain professional programs impressive is a combination of the brand-name of the institution proper as well as the earning power of that professional program. However, some indisputably strong professional programs do not have a pop-culture brand name (i.e. Northwestern Kellogg), and some professional programs do not put people in high-paying careers (i.e. Schools of Education, Nursing, Forestry). Hence, you cannot generalize by saying that all professional programs are impressive and prestigious. Some are, some aren't. By the same token, you can't generalize to say that all academic programs are obscure and non-impressive. Some are, some aren't. Again, any Harvard PhD program is going to be prestigious simply because it's Harvard. And some academic programs mint grads that are quite well paid. I would argue that guys getting PhD's in computer science from MIT are probably getting a decent paycheck. Heck, I believe that the latest salary survey indicated that MIT PhD's in computer science who went into industry actually made slightly higher salaries on average than MIT-Sloan MBA's did. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me address another of your arguments. You claimed that Berkeley does better than Yale in terms of professional schools, and you quite cleverly manipulated the statistics to prove that. Of course, with an average of an "8.5," Berkeley barely edges out Yale. But that's analogous to a person with 2 A's and a W on his transcript .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the point is entirely relevant, because I want to see how far you're going to go with this while being consistent. If you want to go down this road, then you have to do it for EVERY SCHOOL. For example, if you go down this road, then you have to concede that Princeton, MIT, and Caltech are irrelevant schools because among that troika, there is only 1 business school and no med-schools and law-schools. So according to you, that troika earns 8 W's out of 9. Are you then willing to stand up and say that PMC are terrible and irrelevant schools? If you believe what you're saying, then you should have no problem in denouncing Princeton as a completely irrelevant school. It doesn't have professional schools, and you specifically said that professional schools are what matters the most, hence the conclusion must be that Princeton is a worthless school, because, like you said, Princeton gets 3 W's in the categories of law, business, and medicine, and according to you, that means that Princeton is no good, right? So why not come right out and say it? </p>
<p>Furthermore, let's explore your logic a little more. You say that professional schools are what matters the most. Fine. Let's look at another example. Michigan's business school is ranked 10, it's law school is 8, its med school is 9, for an average of 9. And like I said, Yale's average ranking is also 9. 9=9. So does that mean that Michigan is equivalent to Yale? Well, according to what you have posited, that's exactly what it would mean. So does that mean that, at that dinner party, a guy who got into a Michigan professional school is equal to a guy who got into a Yale professional school? According to the numbers, that's exactly what it should mean. 9=9. </p>
<p>I'll give you 2 more examples. Penn's B-school (Wharton) is ranked 3, Penn's law school is 7, Penn's med-school is 4, for an average of 4.7. That is far better than Yale's average of 9. So does it now follow that Penn is a better school than Yale? Columbia's rankings are 4,9, and 10, for an average of 7.7, also better than Yale's. So does that mean that Columbia is better than Yale?</p>
<p>Part 2 of my reply</p>
<p>
[quote]
... I know that UC Berk and UCSF are both intimately connected because they share the same "UC" title, but the fact of the matter is that they are two separate, autonomous schools. Berkeley does not own UCSF. You might as well say that Berkeley owns UCLA, UCSD, and all the other UC's. Even though one school might have spun off from the other (just as how UCLA used to be Berkeley extension school), the fact of the matter is that UC Berk and UCLA are separate. To say that UCSF belongs to Berkeley is simply ludicrous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point is, what does it really mean to 'own' a particular institution, and what value does it really bring? Let me give you an example. MIT obviously does not own any of Harvard's schools. But the fact is, MIT and Harvard have an extensive cross-reg program such that MIT and Harvard students are largely free to take classes at the other school, and MIT and Harvard profs have many mutually collaborative projects, both formally and informally. In fact, MIT and Harvard run an entire school together (the Whitaker College of Health Sciences and Technology). The alliance between MIT and Harvard has gotten so tight and so incestuous that a lot of people at MIT simply say that MIT's law school is located at Langdell (which is the main library of Harvard Law), and conversely a lot of people at Harvard say that MIT is Harvard's engineering school.</p>
<p>The same thing is true of Berkeley and UCSF. Yes, I am well aware that they are, administratively speaking, 2 different bodies, just like MIT and Harvard are 2 different bodies. But that's not the point. The point is there are so many ties between Berkeley and UCSF, they run programs together (like the MD/PhD), that in many ways, Berkeley and UCSF act like Siamese twins in the way that MIT and Harvard act like Siamese twins. </p>
<p>The central point is, where the lines are in the administrative flowchart are not as important as the ties between the communities are. MIT and Harvard have 2 entirely different administrations, but nobody can deny the fact that they are extensive ties between the 2 schools and a lot of resource-sharing going on. The same is true of Berkeley and UCSF. That is why you can see Berkeley and UCSF as one semi-unified school. Yes, they have 2 different administrations, and so in theory, they can do entirely different things. But when they often times choose to work together and do the same thing, they are, de-facto, a semi-unified school. Yes, they are working together and sharing resources because the 2 administrations want to do that, but from the perspective of the faculty and the students at the 2 schools, it doesn't really matter why they choose to share resources and working together, the only thing that matters is that they are sharing resources and working together </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread is comparing Berkeley to Stanford. We never really talked about comparing Berkeley'd grad schools to Princeton's (which isn't exactly the best), or Caltech's, or Yale's, or MIT's, or even Harvard's. We were putting the greatest emphasis on comparing Berkeley and Stanford, and you yourself admitted in your post that Berkeley cannot compete with Stanford (and Harvard) on the professional school level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just want to see how far you're going to go down this road, and whether you'll be consistent. I have never disputed that Berkeley's professional schools are not as good as H's or S's. What I question is the how important that fact is. You say that professional schools are the greatest determinant of how strong a school is. I disagree. Look at Princeton. Look at MIT. Look at Caltech. I would argue that PMC are indeed highly prestigious and important schools, despite having no law schools, no med-schools, and only 1 business school among them. That shows you can have a very strong and prestigious school without having law, medicine, or business. </p>
<p>Personally, I think you should worry about the ranking of the program that you are in at the moment. If you're an undergrad, you should worry about undergrad quality. When you become a law/business/medical student, then you should worry about law/business/medical rankings. You shouldn't choose a particular school because it has strong rankings that have nothing to do with what you want to do. For example, just because Yale has a great law school doesn't mean that you should go to Yale to get your MBA, because the two don't have anything to do with each other. Conversely, Northwestern has a great MBA program, but that fact alone shouldn't compel you to go to Northwestern for undergrad. If you go to Northwestern for undergrad, it should be because you like the Northwestern undergrad program, not just because Northwestern has the Kellogg School. </p>
<p>But in any case, gertrude, I'll tell you what. Let's say that I'll play by your rules. If Berkeley is not as good as Stanford because Berkeley has worse law/medicine/business schools, then, for the same reason, Yale is not as good as Columbia and Penn, and is equal to Michigan. So I want you to go to the Yale part of CC and tell all the Yalies there that their school is equal to Michigan, and is worse than Columbia or Penn. Sound fair? If you really believe in what you're saying, then you should have no problem in defending that position to all those Yalies, right?</p>
<p>I love you Sakky. Even though you were far too verbose (and I dozed off midway), I applaud you on your compelling statements.</p>
<p>Gutrade--Stop trying to justify your life simply because you attend Yale. There are MANY intelligent people out there, at Yale and outside of it. </p>
<p>Deal with your mediocrity.</p>