The most prestigious schools to the sight of top professionals schools:

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

That’s correct. Best examples of which are Caltech and the top LACs such as Harvey Mudd, Williams and Amherst. </p>

<p>Those four schools aren’t really quite popular in mainstream America. But the top academics, students and employers recognize them as excellent, high-caliber schools. Therefore, to answer your question, the academic people, employers and students views and opinions are important in establishing school prestige.

</p>

<p>Right. Which is EXACTLY MY POINT. It matters not one whit whether mainstream America / laymen are familiar with a school, consider it on their radar screens for their own kids, or consider a school prestigious. So why does it bother you, RML, when we comment that in some parts of the country, Berkeley isn’t all that well known and isn’t on the radar screen for undergrads? It doesn’t make Berkeley not prestigious among the people who count. </p>

<p>I fully agree that Berkeley is prestigious among the people who count. Your beef seems to be that you want to assert that Berkeley is just sooooooo prestigious among the masses, too, because that’s really important to you.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Now, is Wellesley more prestigious than Berkeley? I seriously doubt it. The data would show that Berkeley has a huge lead over Wellesley in terms of school prestige. Berkeley has a commanding lead over Wellesley on Peer Assessment and Counselor Ranks. Although Wellesley has a slightly higher average SAT scores, Berkeley is still more selective than Wellesley, in general. Berkeley also has higher salary scale of graduates. Berkeley grads are targets for IBs and MCs or top finance jobs.

</p>

<p>My daughter is interested in chemistry. She’s not interested in i-banking or management consulting at this point in time. So why should her school’s “delivery” to IB or MC be of ANY consequence, whatsoever, in her decision making?</p>

<p>Anyway, this is tiresome. You win, Berkeley is so very much more prestigious than Wellesley in every way, shape and form, among everyone in the US and in the all-important Asia too. Sheesh.</p>

<p>Is there no room in your world for “lots of places are great”? Your continued need to rank everything doesn’t reflect well on you.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Phantasm, I find it surprising that you consider the matriculatiin lists of actual students to be anecdotal. </p>

<p>However, I understand your reluctance to look at data that does not support you idle speculation.</p>

<p>By the way, you should not be so quick to impose what is the issue at hand and what is irrelevant. I addressed the issue of what people DO acording to their preferences and perceptions. Feel to continue to address moronic issues of prestige and silly surveys.</p>

[sefago]

<p><a href=“http://www.career.emory.edu/parents/pdf/2010%20Complete%20Pre-Law%20Synopsis.pdf[/url]”>http://www.career.emory.edu/parents/pdf/2010%20Complete%20Pre-Law%20Synopsis.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>RML look at Emory’s law school acceptance rate</p>

<p>Harvard Law: Applied (50) Accepted (4), Percent acceptance rate: 8%
Yale Law: Applied (27) Accepted (2), Percent acceptance rate: 7%
Stanford Law: Applied (23) Accepted (3), Percent acceptance rate: 13%
Columbia Law: Applied (65) Accepted (4), Percent acceptance rate: 6.1%
Northwestern Law: Applied (44) Accepted (7), Percent acceptance rate: 15.9%
University of Chicago: Applied (45) Accepted (7), Percent acceptance rate: 15.5%
University of Michigan: Applied (51) Accepted (11), Percent acceptance rate: 21.5%
Duke Law: Applied (66) Accepted (9), Percent acceptance rate: 13.63 %
Georgetown law: Applied (108) Accepted (28), Percent acceptance rate: 25.9%
Cornell Law: Applied (39) Accepted (6), Percent acceptance rate: 15.3%
Berkeley law: Applied (54) Accepted (3), Percent acceptance rate: 5.5%
UPenn: Applied (54) Accepted (10), Percent acceptance rate: 18.5%</p>

<p>Compare it to that of Berkeley and I doubt you would see any significant difference.</p>

<p>Oh and I am sure you have seen this:</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[TheDad]

<p>This proxy argument of research universities versus LAC’s, as embodied in Berkeley vs. Wellesley, is really dumb…on the Berkeley side. </p>

<p>Both schools are fine institutions. And for undergrad education, among those that matter, Wellesley (being almost as good as Smith, PG ) among the cognoscenti is just as highly regarded for admissions to grad schools, top employers, etc.</p>

<p>The biases of TheMom and myself were all in the direction of large research universities. All of our college experience was with large research U’s: U/Missouri, UC Santa Barbara, UCLA. Moreover, TheMom is a relatively senior administrator at UCLA and has worked there for 30+ years. </p>

<p>Our D’s college search & selection process opened our eyes. Our D got a <em>much</em> better education at Smith than she would have at either Berkeley or UCLA, taking advantage of opportunities that either don’t exist or exist in significantly diminished forms at both schools.</p>

<p>No diminished “prestige”…and I find prestige-chasing to be Fool’s Gold in any event…of Smith kept her from being asked to apply for a job at a think tank prior to graduation. One job applied for (to a prestigious employer), one job accepted. Not a bad batting average.</p>

<p>Nor did her Smith degree apparently compromise her chances for graduate school. She is heading off to a Top 3 program this Fall. At Berkeley, of all things.</p>

<p>=====</p>

<p>It’s funny/sad but those who diss LAC’s generally have no experience of them and are speaking from a perspective of arrogant parochialism. In terms of motivation, drive, performance, etc., I’ll happily stack up students of Smith, Wellesley, Swarthmore, Middlebury, Carleton, etc., against their peers from the UC’s any day.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

I personally never cared about what high school kids and the uneducated masses think. That is why rankings such as Revealed Preferences or the general Gallup poll provided by Phantasmagoric above aren’t very telling.

</p>

<p>I don’t care much either - but the point of posting it was to refute a previous poster’s claim that Vanderbilt edges Berkeley out in prestige. It doesn’t with the masses and it doesn’t with academia or employers, according to various surveys.</p>

<p>

I find it surprising that you consider the matriculatiin lists of actual students to be anecdotal.</p>

<p>However, I understand your reluctance to look at data that does not support you idle speculation.

</p>

<p>Sorry xiggi, didn’t even entertain what you were asking for when you were going off on an irrelevant tangent. Perhaps you missed my point - or the entire topic that we were discussing.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>TD:</p>

<p>IMO, what your D found at Smith can be found at many private colleges, not just LACs. Thus, I truly believe that the issue is not LACs vs. (public) Unis but publics vs. privates. In essence, privates are offer “opportunities that either don’t exist or exist in significantly diminished forms at both [UC] schools.” Counseling/advising just sucks at UC; take a number and we may get back to you. In contrast, Yale has a whole department that does nothing but assist students in applying for prestigious scholarships, such as Rhodes, Marshall, Goldwater…</p>

<p>Of course, at instate rates, the UCs are half the cost of most privates, at sticker. But, the well endowed colleges have so much money for need-based aid, that for many students (<$120k income?), attending an Ivy is less expensive than a UC instate.</p>

<p>fwiw: For $55k (and growing), the "opportunities is one of the big reasons that I counsel OOS’ers on cc to strongly consider other, private options rather than paying OOS fees for UC. But, I’m in the minority of that position.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>No, no, PHantasm, it is you who is missing the point. And continue to do so.</p>

[RML]

<p>

I fully agree that Berkeley is prestigious among the people who count. Your beef seems to be that you want to assert that Berkeley is just sooooooo prestigious among the masses, too, because that’s really important to you.

I’m sorry, Pizzagirl, if that’s the impression you got from me. It was not what I was trying to say. Of course, Berkeley is not like McDonalds or Tide or Sony or Microsoft or Harvard. It is not a household name like Harvard is. And, I don’t take offense on such assertion or claim. What I was arguing about was the claim that Vanderbilt is more prestigious than Berkeley. And, I was just trying to correct such wrong claim. That does not mean I was also arguing that Berkeley is more attractive than Wellesley/Vanderbilt. </p>

<p>

My daughter is interested in chemistry. She’s not interested in i-banking or management consulting at this point in time. So why should her school’s “delivery” to IB or MC be of ANY consequence, whatsoever, in her decision making?

I did not say it should be a factor she needs to consider. I only said that when a school will reach a certain high level of prestige, it becomes a target of top employers even for banking and finance where the pay is substantially high. Of course, those companies would not pay so-so grads from so-so schools and pay them above national wage scale. But I hope your D has finally decided on Wellesley because it was a good fit for her, not because she believes it’s more prestigious than Berkeley.</p>

[monydad]

<p>FWIW at my Ibank department we had analysts from Wellesley, it was definitely recruited.</p>

[RML]

<p>I would expect one or two or three or even a couple more from that school to break in to BB. But the more relevant question here is: Is Wellesley a target school for banking and finance just like Cornell, for instance, is?</p>

<p>I am using Cornell as a comparison because Cornell is similar to Berkeley, only that Cornell is smaller.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

But I hope your D has finally decided on Wellesley because it was a good fit for her, not because she believes it’s more prestigious than Berkeley.

</p>

<p>Berkeley was never on her radar screen in the first place, and there isn’t anything compelling enough about Berkeley that would make me as a parent insist that she give it a second thought.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

But the more relevant question here is: Is Wellesley a target school for banking and finance just like Cornell, for instance, is?

</p>

<p>Why is it relevant to a student not interested in IB or finance?</p>

<p>If I said to you that Northwestern was a better choice than Berkeley because NU is far superior in terms of placing students onto the Broadway stage or onto Hollywood sound sets – which it is – would you care? No, because you’re not interested in theater. So why should someone not interested in IB care whether a school is an IB target or not?</p>

[RML]

<p>Yeah, right, Pizzagirl. You just ignored (and perhaps even disrespected and insulted) the number 1 school for chemistry in the world. Again, the number one chemistry school on earth! </p>

<p>For someone who claimed to be majoring in chemistry and alleges that s/he hasn’t heard of Berkeley is totally unbelievable. Berkeley owns chemistry, and your daughter, if she was well-informed, must have known that or heard of that, at least. That’s not in anyway saying that she should like Berkeley or she has to apply there. The fact that she hasn’t heard of Berkeley says volume about the level of information she has. It’s a polite way of saying she’s ignorant. No pun intended.</p>

<p>

Why is it relevant to a student not interested in IB or finance?

I’m not sure. But perhaps you can ask the same question why those peeps from HYPSM eventually end up at banks rather than somewhere else or their respective fields. If the information I got was correct, more than half of MIT engineering grads join banking instead of tech/eng’g firms where they can practice or hone their skills as real engineers.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

My daughter is interested in chemistry.

</p>

<p>

Berkeley was never on her radar screen in the first place, and there isn’t anything compelling enough about Berkeley that would make me as a parent insist that she give it a second thought.

</p>

<p>Too bad. Cal’s College of Chemistry is tiny, with a lot of close faculty-student interaction; it also happens to be one of the top-ranked programs in the country/world. One of the few programs at Cal which is worth an OOS “thought”, IMO. Of course, even a small college within a large Uni is still not a LAC.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Cornell is similar to Berkeley, only that Cornell is smaller.

</p>

<p>Except for the major difference that Cornell has a national student base and Berkeley is mostly students from California. And that’s a huge difference, and one that is definitely tilted towards Cornell.</p>

[Pea]

<p>

For someone who claimed to be majoring in chemistry and alleges that s/he hasn’t heard of Berkeley is totally unbelievable.

</p>

<p>Yes, that is totally unbelieveable and that is not actually what Pizzagirl said. What she said was</p>

<p>

Berkeley was never on her radar screen in the first place, and there isn’t anything compelling enough about Berkeley that would make me as a parent insist that she give it a second thought.

</p>

<p>There is a difference between someone who hasn’t heard of Berkeley and someone who has heard of it and isn’t interested in attending.</p>

<p>A radar screen doesn’t contain all of the schools a person has ever heard of, it contains those schools the prospective student might be interested in attending. A school that the student would attend only if Hell froze over isn’t on their radar screen.</p>

[monydad]

<p>“Is Wellesley a target school for banking and finance just like Cornell, for instance, is?”</p>

<p>I would say so, at the time, anyway, at my BB firm. We had analysts from there, they came via on-campus interviews in the usual manner. Welllesley benefits from being in the Boston metro area, firms are nearby there recruiting anyway so a special out-of-the-way trip is not required to recruit there. It has a long tradition, historically the most prestigious of the seven sisters, and the one with the highest concentration of grads focused on economics and finance, with a body of alums in the industry. Hence it is rather heavily recruited for an LAC.</p>

<p>It’s a very good school.</p>

<p>When you say “just like Cornell”: I can’t vouch for the number of teams they send out there, or the number of functions they hold, etc. But in the sense of, they interviewed there, if they interview and you are good enough you can get in. And people did in fact get in, so it was not merely a courtesy stop. Beyond that I have no basis to say “just like” this or that school, I don’t know.</p>

[drax12]

<p>Cal’s CDS reports a [mean gpa of 3.84](<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2010-11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;), page 9, and the Cal Admissions website reports a [3.93 mean](<a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp&lt;/a&gt;). Again, I don’t think it’s possible to have a mean gpa of 3.93 for incoming frosh unless the school were CIT. The difference of .09 gpa points is quite substantial; you’d need 90% of the incoming frosh > 3.9 and top-3%. That’s not going to happen… Otherwise, good job, carry on.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

No, no, PHantasm, it is you who is missing the point. And continue to do so.

</p>

<p>xiggi, please explain how “actual matriculation data” demonstrates anything statistically significant about what people think of different schools’ prestige. As I see it, people can matriculate at a school and still hold others in high regard.</p>

<p>(This, if you couldn’t tell, was the point of contention - as my response to Pizzagirl. You jumped in with a discussion of matriculation data. Missing something much?)</p>