<p>Yale SOM > Haas, and if I were choosing b-schools today and had to choose between those two, it would be a slam dunk no-brainer in favor of Yale.</p>
<p>I think that there should be something said about the general consensus in this Business forum. Although Yale hasn’t always been “high” on the business rankings, it still manages to catch the eye of many people, which further confirms that undergraduate pedigree > graduate pedigree in terms of marketability. This should make perfect sense.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the amount of misinformation about PhD programs <em><a href=“RML%20included”>i</a>*</em> leads me to believe that there’s still a huge disconnect between advanced academics and the rest of the world. In this case, “perception is not reality” for PhD.</p>
<p>The perception and reality angle is particularly relevant when it comes to b-schools. After all, its much more about “reputation” and networking rather than what you actually learn in the classroom (which is still fairly important, but let’s face it, after a certain level, they are all pretty good).</p>
<p>You see there used to be a time when you went to Yale SOM and basically had to “apologize” for going there (or at least have a default explanation for it, “yeah, I went to SOM because…” – or people would give you that “Yale has a business school?” blank stare…) – whereas when you graduate from Wharton, people don’t ask you “why” you went there – i.e. people generally give it its proper due.</p>
<p>Now, its a different story. Now, if you come out of Yale SOM the rankings and quality of student body are legit enough so that you don’t have to “apologize” to anyone (or nearly anyone – save perhaps a HBS / Wharton / Stanford mixer)… </p>
<p>You can almost say you went to SOM, because, well, its Yale after all – and you can pretty much get away with that. You couldn’t 10, 15, 20 years ago – people would look at you as if you had “M7 reject” tattooed to your forehead.</p>
<p>Now as for Haas… what’s the special compelling reason people go there? West coast? Technology? I see, I guess you didn’t get into Stanford. That is something that hasn’t changed – and probably never will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is precisely why undergraduate pedigree is far more relevant. It simply adds more to the “reputation” than any advanced degree, and networking is far more important than what you do in the classroom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I agree - like I mentioned above, I would argue that private school selectivity for undergraduate programs is important.</p>
<p>lol on the_prestige. What you’re saying here is just your personal opinion. I don’t agree with your opinion and I am very sure that there are a lot of people out there that don’t agree with you as well. </p>
<p>
People would also assume that those who went to Yale SOM were Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT, Kellogg, Columbia rejects. What would be the special compelling reason people would choose Yale SOM over Columbia, for instance? So, how’s that any different from the “I guess you didn’t get into Stanford” perception? … See? </p>
<p>Okay, let’s review what you’re fighting here for. </p>
<p>Your argument: Yale is in a better position to develop a top 3 business school than Berkeley because it is more prestigious. The prestige of Yale comes from having strong undergrad and law programs. It also has many prominent alumni. </p>
<p>So, then I asked you: if Yale can really develop a top 3 program simply because of its prestige, how come it has failed to develop its science and engineering programs despite the huge investment of over $500 million infused on their science and eng’g department? If indeed Yale can just bank on its prestige, how come it has not successfully done it on the past despite the HUGE investment? Therefore, the claim that Yale can develop a top program because it of its name is flawed. </p>
<p>Read:
*This $500 million-plus investment – the largest such effort in Yale’s history – comes on top of the University’s already sizable annual allocations for its science and engineering programs, which help to keep them in the top rung of university programs across the globe. * [Yale</a> Bulletin and Calendar - News](<a href=“http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v28.n18/story1.html]Yale”>http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v28.n18/story1.html)
[At</a> Yale, a $500 Million Plan Reflects a New Age of Science - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/19/nyregion/at-yale-a-500-million-plan-reflects-a-new-age-of-science.html]At”>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/19/nyregion/at-yale-a-500-million-plan-reflects-a-new-age-of-science.html)</p>
<p>I will answer this question.</p>
<p>There is a large disconnect between the academic world and the rest of the world</p>
<p>Academics dont care as much about undergraduate/law prestige. They live in their own world because its a small world. Yales undergraduate/law prestige will likely have a more difficult time penetrating a field that doesnt care about undergraduate/law prestige. Go look around on top academic websites graduate students and faculty can come from a variety of undergraduate backgrounds. Academia simply doesnt care as much about undergraduate prestige. Its a small world where everyone knows everyone else in the same field theres little need to make generalizations about the school through its undergrad program.</p>
<p>The same principles for building a business school cannot be applied to build a science and engineering school. They are vastly different cultures. Like I said earlier, as far as I can tell, business school is more about marketable reputation and networking. In academia, its more about doing a very specific research project and academic reputation. I hope you can start to see the differences between the cultures.</p>
<p>I’m not saying Yale’s name can’t help it’s PhD rankings, but it won’t help as much as for business school, in my opinion.</p>
<p>^ Really? undergrad education and MBA have stronger “correlation” than engineering/science and MBA? I didn’t know that.</p>
<p>So, when Williams, Amherst, Shwarthmore or Claremont McKenna would offer MBA in the future, it would be a sure shot for success because they’re all very prestigious schools due to their very strong undergrad education???</p>
<p>And, please. One would not have to be from the academe to know that Yale’s science/engineering aren’t on par with Berkeley’s. And, the simple fact that Yale has failed to develop those programs only goes to show that the Yale’s name isn’t a SURE for success.</p>
<p>Admit it. It takes more than just school name to develop a top-ranked business school. Business school does not solely dependent on school name. Both Oxford and Cambridge have been offering MBA for more than 15 years now yet they have not outranked LBS, yet LBS isn’t a university like Oxbridge are. And, INSEAD isn’t a university. Yest it is a very prestigious school.</p>
<p>Yale may have an advantage over a top 25-50 school, but it does not enjoy the same advantage over a top 15 school. Yale has to work hard and innovate in order to stay on the race. At the moment, it is not yet a top 8 business school and its overtaking Ross is quite debatable.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>rock that math, science and engineering angle one more time - i don’t think people have gotten the hint yet. </p>
<p>talk about beating a dead horse. its time to bring in the CSI team for dental records.</p>
<p>Top RML pick up lines:</p>
<p>“Haas it going?”
“Top 8, wanna mate?”
“You know, money, prestige and a good personality aren’t everything, check out this computer program!”
“Why, yes, those are the latest math, science and engineering rankings laser etched into my glasses.”</p>
<p>At this point, RMLs nonsense is not even amusing. It’s just sad. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, RML, TP has expressed his personal opinion, just like you have. Your opinion, however, and quite frankly, is rubbish. People have pointed out why time and time again and you simply ignore it and smile, as if that validates your nonsense or amuses anyone. TP has grounded his argument on his personal and professional experience quite well. You have not proven why your opinion is even relevant on a business forum such as this one–I am sorry to break it to you, but “development work in Asia” is not at the core of business schools or business culture. TP’s analysis is spot on. Yours is not, clearly because you lack relevant work experience (and, apparently, common sense and maturity). You have failed time and time again to 1) (apparently) even understand what’s being argued and 2) respond appropriately, addressing other people’s arguments. Phrases such as “the feeling is mutual”, “that’s your opinion”, “other people would agree with me” don’t go very far and don’t carry much weight. Smileys out of context are also a sign of immaturity. 
(See?)</p>
<p>It’s clear you have not worked in a major market in the US, such as New York; or in a top industry such as Investment Banking. :)</p>
<p>Get this: no one cares (that) much about the ranking of a science PhD, good scientist will pull research funding regardless. In business, however, (and may I remind you this is the business school forum) rankings, ie “branding”, ie “perception”, and even “name dropping” go a very long way. This is not the world of nerdy scientists per se. If you care about Yale vs Berkeley PhD rankings take your nonsense to the Graduate School Forum, not the Business School forum. You may find friends there, and people “who would agree” with you. Not here. This is not your game. Sorry, pal. </p>
<p>And stop using smileys in the wrong context. It’s just idiotic. 
;)</p>
<p>RML, Yale SOM is not more prestigious than Michigan Ross. I agree with you. Heck, Yale cannot compete with Kellogg.</p>
<p>
While these schools are fantastic undergraduate institutions, they are not marketable institutions. I am not saying that strong undergraduate = marketable undergraduate. They are two different things. The reason why Yale is a marketable undergraduate is because they have historically produced high-profile people and many high profile people come from Yale it works both ways. There are a number of reasons for this (size and selectivity being two of them).</p>
<p>
I am not saying that Yale is sure for success. I am not saying Berkeley is doomed for failure. They both are absolutely great schools. I am saying that Yale, given my limited information, may have a better shot at increasing its ranking.
I never said it only took school name. I just said that undergraduate school name is more important than PhD school name for business schools, in my opinion. Thats all I said.</p>
<p>I know academia fairly well, and no one is disputing Berkeleys prominence in science and math, but its merely my opinion that advanced science and advanced math are not as marketable because the disconnect between the public and the academic world is huge. Also, I am simply saying that undergraduate is more marketable. I am not saying that science and math are not marketable at all.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example: I was watching the news one day where there was an interview with a tenured professor in medical bioengineering at Johns Hopkins University. However, the media didnt say that he was a tenured professor at Johns Hopkins University they merely stated that he was a bioengineer-PhD. As you may or may not know, JHU is a powerhouse institution for medical bioengineering (ranked #1 since you like rankings so much).</p>
<p>In another instance, I saw the news about an <em>Assistant professor</em> (unproven academic) in medical bioengineering from MIT on the news. The news outlet made sure to portray the man as a brilliant MIT engineer when the truth was that the JHU professor was probably much more well-respected in academic circles. Furthermore, it is arguable that MIT medical bioengineering isnt even as strong as JHU, given JHUs strong medical school.</p>
<p>The media has a difficult time connecting with high level academics. Instead, they opt to parlay the undergraduate reputation of MIT to portray the assistant professor as the next best thing since sliced bread.</p>
<p>Since the media reports skewed information, the perception is that MIT engineering is #1 across the board, which simply isnt true. There is no question that they are an elite engineering institution. This type of media information trickles down to people like Wildflower and the_prestige, who dont have the time or interest to research academia. So with limited information, they would understandably just assume that MIT produces #1 engineers across the board. The truth is that academia is much more complicated than that. Undergraduate reputation matters more in media marketing.</p>
<p>There is no true academic in the world that will dispute Berkeleys name in academia. The sheer volume of professors in top 10 schools it produces is nearly unmatched by any school in the world given Berkeleys combination of breadth and depth. Most (Im guessing almost all) elite science/eng departments have multiple Berkeley PhDs in their faculty.</p>
<p>Although there are people in the world like you that care more about PhDs, I believe that there are more people that care about undergraduate pedigree because its easier to relate to.</p>
<p>Folks, you see how this thread about b-schools – a thread which is aptly located under the MBA discussion sub-section as it should be – has devolved into discussions about PhDs and math, science and engineering rankings?</p>
<p>RML, please stop hijacking this thread.</p>
<p>So did we all agree that #4 is Kellogg?</p>
<p>Seriously, VectorWega, these posters only care about Ivys when there are other great schools (Kellogg Northwestern, Michigan Ross, etc.) that deserve more respect. This thread is stupid to begin with.</p>
<p>Well, I said Chicago but that’s because of the link I posted on pg. 10 post #137.</p>
<p>MIT Sloan and Columbia, #4 and #5, respectively.</p>
<p>HWS…and then columbia, sloan, chicago, etc. are all pretty much the same</p>
<p>This thread is funny in a sense that some people don’t want to get their MBA education in the Northeast. This is especially true if one is planning to live in other parts of the country such as the Midwest and South.</p>