<p>Why is it hard for you to accept the fact that Vandy might have a slight edge over UCB for undergrad but Berkeley has better graduate programs? They are both great universities at the end of the day.</p>
<p>RML"s not really familiar with much of the US outside of California. He has that classic naive mentality that what’s hot in his backyard must indeed be hot everywhere. Of course, people in every part of the country share that tendency; he’s just a prime example of the California-centric one. </p>
<p>And IvyPBear - if you choose as your metric “grad schools that are primarily on the east and west coast,” then you’re going to have a pool of entrants who are primarily on the east and west coast. Every school everywhere draws from its own backyard. So what is the point, other than to prove that tired adage once more?</p>
<p>“How do you people ever get dressed in the morning?”</p>
<p>pizzagirl - I’m not even going to argue with you. Obviously you don’t understand the fact that top students at top colleges know which professional schools are the best. You also don’t understand that people who are into fashion do analyze what other people dress. I’m tired of people criticizing what’s going on at top colleges when they have never experienced what’s going on at top colleges.</p>
<p>IvyPBear, Pizzagirl knows a great deal. Surely you gest when you say that the only “prestigious” law schools are HYSCCN and MBA programs are Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, Kellogg, Sloan and Booth. </p>
<p>With regards to Law schools, reputationally (according to Legal scholars, judges and “Big Law”), YHS are the top 3, Columbia is #4, while Cal, Chicago, Michigan, NYU and UVa are tied for 5th. I am not sure how you managed to separate Chicago and NYU from Cal, Michigan and UVa. Other law schools such as Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern, Penn are all considered very prestigious. </p>
<p>With regards to MBA programs, Columbia, Fuqua, Haas, Ross and Stern are all considered prestigious too. </p>
<p>There are obviously varriances in prestige between HLS or Yale and Georgetown or Northwestern Law or between Stanford MBA or Wharton and Fuqua or Ross, but all those programs are considered prestigious.</p>
<p>As al alumna of a top university, I am fairly certain that Pizzagirl knows what students at top universities think.</p>
<p>Lol, IvyPBear, I went to NU undergrad and Kellogg, and have guest lectured at Kellogg several times and plan to do so in the future. I do consulting work with a Kellogg prof who brings me in when she consults with certain clients. </p>
<p>So now what were you saying again about “not knowing what it’s like at top schools”? Nice try.</p>
As someone who went to high school in the Chicago area, I would have to say this is pretty far off the mark. Those 5 universities are certainly well known everywhere nationally but so are Columbia and Duke. Vandy is probably considered slightly less prestigious than these 7 schools but is definitely a well known school by most students/parents in the Windy City. Michigan is obviously thought of as a good school but saying you went to Berkeley or Wisconsin would merely get a blank nod from most people. Most Chicagoans consider Wisco to be a party school and it is nowhere near as prestigious as Northwestern and Notre Dame.</p>
<p>The Midwest is a land where state schools reign supreme and people are pretty provincial but UChicago, Northwestern, Wash U and Notre Dame are the top schools in the region. Its pretty much guesswork and personal opinion after that.</p>
<p>Vengasso, I was not referring to high schoolers, but to the general population. Wisconsin alums flood the professional Chicago market, as do UIUC and Michigan alums. </p>
<p>I am sure there will be much debate on the subject of what are the best universities in the midwest, but the three public universities I mentioned are generally considered top universities nationally.</p>
<p>Using the first post of Yale Law School as an example:</p>
<p>"Yale Law School: </p>
<p>Yale University (87)
Harvard University (76)
Stanford University (35)
Princeton University (27)
Columbia University (22)
Brown University (21)</p>
<p>Dartmouth College (15)
University of Pennsylvania (14)
Duke University (14)
**University of California at Berkeley (12)
University of Chicago (12)</p>
<p>Cornell University (10)
University of California at Los Angeles (9)
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (9)
Northwestern University (8)
Washington University <a href=“8”>Missouri</a>
Swarthmore College (7)
New York University (7)
Georgetown University (7)
Wesleyan University (7)"</p>
<p>It’s even laughable to suggest that “therefore, Yale considers Columbia more prestigious than U of Chicago” (just to pull two examples). They didn’t consciously set out to get more kids from Columbia than U of Chicago. It may be that far fewer U of C kids applied, or the ones from Columbia who applied were amazingly qualified, or whatever. I think RML lives in this world in which the grad school adcoms go “Well, let’s see how prestigious the undergrad school is - and then let’s look at the student!” versus the real world, in which they evaluate the student first and foremost, and the undergrad just gives context for his accomplishments - much as in undergrad admissions, where they understand the context of the Exeter kid vs the Average Public High kid.</p>
<p>That has nothing to do with the Berkeley NAME. It has to do with the talent of the student body, which obviously has a lot of talent in it. But that’s not because going to Berkeley puts a gloss on someone who wasn’t already a good contender. You’re confusing selection and treatment effects. </p>
<p>The other thing that you repeatedly fail to take into consideration is that there are plenty of elite schools in which there are significant chunks of the undergraduate population who simply have no desire for the top b, med and law schools. That doesn’t make those schools “less prestigious” - it just means that they have a more interesting and less narrowly-focused-on-three-fields student body. For example, how many of the theater or music or journalism majors at Northwestern are aspiring to b, med or law school? Very few. Their dreams are Broadway and Hollywood. So what? If, then, the % of NU undergrads going to b/med/law is lower because the denominator includes the theater, music or journalism, so what? It’s not the relevant denominator. Indeed, the only relevant denominator is those who desired to go / applied to b, med or law school. Not the school as a whole. MIT doesn’t “place well” by these standards – so what? Doesn’t make it any less prestigious. To measure a school by its placement in b/med/law is just as silly as measuring a school by its placement in i-banking/Wall Street. What makes a school good is whether it provides its students the education, resources and tools for them to achieve THEIR dreams and goals - whatever those goals might be - instead of being stuck in some 1980’s Greed-Is-Good replay that the only worthwhile things in life are b, med and law school. And I say this as someone who went to b school and married someone who went to med school.</p>
<p>And quit making the excuse of NU having an extensive arts program for it placing “poorly” into m, l, b schools. One, I don’t think it places poorly; two, there are plenty of u’s that have extensive arts programs.</p>
<p>It’s not an “excuse.” You didn’t understand my post at all. The whole concept of rounding up the top b, med and law schools and figuring out which undergrad schools are feeder schools is silly, because what matters for a given individual is whether the college helps him do what he wants to do - which may or may not be b, med or law. It might be any one of a number of different things. Whether or not tons of his classmates are doing the exact same thing really isn’t the point. There’s this weird point of view that it’s best to be surrounded by people who are all pointed towards the exact same handful of goals. How boring.</p>
<p>I already got that. But that’s the nature of a “university,” with its student body interested in a wide array of things and not so narrow in scope. I agree, if all were interested only in medicine, it would be boring.</p>
<p>One, “causes” do not belong on CC. The purpose of this board is to help high school students select the appropriate colleges for themselves, and that goal must come before any school affiliations. There are many posters who balance discussing their own colleges (something very useful to prospective students) with being knowledgeable about other schools and knowing when and where to suggest them; unfortunately, other posters have yet to strike that balance. Going from thread to thread like an online Jehovah’s Witness attempting to convert others is unnecessary and something found much less often on, say, the parents’ forum. In short, posters should be more personable versions of the Fiske Guide rather than a glossy and repetitive school brochure capable of typing. </p>
<p>Two, RML’s cause is, well, without cause. It is true that publics are often maligned on CC, but the simple fact remains that Berkeley is by far one of the most respected universities on CC. Before the moderators mercifully created separate subforums for the UCs and UC transfers, there were more Berkeley threads in the main forums than roaches in a dirty kitchen. The same goes for UCLA, which is immensely proud of receiving more applications than virtually any other school in the country. </p>
<p>Last year Berkeley received nearly 12,000 non-California applications – virtually the same as the entire applicant pool of Rice, slightly fewer than Emory’s total applicant pool, and 2/3 of the entire applicant pools of Dartmouth, Chicago, and Hopkins. Clearly it’s doing all right in recognition and draw, despite having terrible financial aid for OOS students. </p>
<p>Exactly. Berkeley is already seen as one of the 2 top public universities in this country, the other being Michigan, and is generally highly well-regarded. Just because some people get very, very upset that their pet schools aren’t uttered in the same breath with HYPSM doesn’t make those pet schools “underrated.” (BTW, the isolation of HYPSM as being on some higher plane than other elite schools is laughable.) They’re all great places, with different nuances, strengths and appeal to different tastes. Why isn’t that enough for some people’s egos?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I cannot speak for others, but I personally do not get upset when Cal or Michigan are not uttered in the same breath as HYPSM. I do, however, get upset when Cal and Michigan are not given the due respect. Some posters on CC are so ignorant that they don’t even utter the top public universities in the same breath as othe top 20 universities. </p>
<p>On a side note, I find it strange that Cal only recieves 12,000 OOS applicants annually. Michigan receives over 15,000.</p>
<p>“Not given due respect” by whom? If you’re happy with the education you received and you know it’s of high quality, what does it matter what other people personally think? </p>
<p>I think highly of both Berkeley and Michigan as schools - but having said that, I do think a large public university is simply a different animal than a smaller, private university. And with the resources that Berkeley and Michigan have, they also have downsides - being overly concentrated in their home state (by design and intent of course), often times larger classes, and more people in there who drag the average down. That’s not appealing to some prospective students. I think you have to be honest about the “warts” of these kinds of schools, and not get your pants in a wad that they don’t appeal to everyone.</p>