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

Graduate School
161

<p>So sad, those school put up school origin data for a totally different purpose than what it is been used for currently.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This got me laughing though. LDB versus the crew is always entertaining.</p>

<p>Gotta grab ma popcorn.</p>

162

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not precisely the same, but the differences between HYPSM and the rest are greater than the differences that exist among the latter alone. I don’t think it’s accurate to flatten differences among those 20+ schools though, because there are many stark differences that exist. But your objection to separating HYPSM is a different matter.</p>

163

<p>“Separating HYPSM for whatever subjective reasons and then blandly pronouncing the next 20+ schools to be precisely the same is absurd.”</p>

<p>I agree. We should just look at the PA scores at USNWR to determine which universities are most prestigious for getting students into top professional schools. Wasn’t that the title of this thread?</p>

164

<p>Saying Duke is as great as HYPSM is also a big slap on the faces of the lower-ranked ivies, top LACs (Amherst, Williams, the Claremont Colleges, Shwarthmore, Bowdoin, etc), elite privates (Northwestern, Chicago, NDU, etc) and top-ranked publics (Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UVa, Texas-Austin, etc.) </p>

<p>The data would show that, in general, Duke is not any better than Brown or Berkeley or Chicago or Michigan, for example. It can’t even be that better than Brigham Young either.</p>

165

<p>

The only faces that need a slap are the ones that go into hysterics anytime they think the word “Duke” is being placed within 50 characters of “HYPSM” or any of its constituent colleges. </p>

<p>Nobody is saying Duke is Harvard, Yale, or anything else. Even lesdia said that very plainly in another thread.

Ignoring the BYU comment, which is perhaps intended to be deliberately provocative, I think most people would agree with you – I certainly would and have stated precisely the same thing on numerous occasions. I firmly believe a go-getter (and I do emphasize that!) can acquire an equally good education at a top private and a top public. </p>

<p>That said, one does wonder what sense of “better” you’re referring to, as it’s a very vague term often bandied about with little indication of what’s being considered. Better at what? Better in what sense? There several different ways one could say one school is “better” than another.
[ul][<em>]What about, say…award production? In the production of Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, NSF scholars, etc., Brown and Duke do better than most publics (except UNC and UVA for the Rhodes) and generally fall right behind HYPSM.
[</em>]Alternately, one could use peer assessment as a measure. Here one can conclude that Berkeley is better than Brown, Duke, and Michigan.
[<em>]As yet another measure, one could consider selectivity. By that measure, Brown and Duke are better than Berkeley and Michigan.
[</em>]Or perhaps one could measure sports. Looking at the directors cup results, UNC is better than the other publics, and Berkeley is better than Duke, which is turn is better than Brown.
[li]One could also consider international prestige, where Berkeley and Michigan are better than Duke and Brown.[/ul][/li]Bottom line…who cares? Goodness, one can slice and dice the data any way one wants to in order to come out with the “right” rankings. Duke and Ivy supporters will tout selectivity, placement, and award production lists. Public school supporters will tout peer assessment and graduate rankings. LAC supporters tout PhD production lists. I think if there’s that much disagreement, it is VERY obvious that there is no clear-cut “better” school (or group of schools) to be found by such measures. It’s perhaps best to simply call them all great schools and be done with it. </p>

<p>In the meantime, all of these students and graduates of elite public and private universities still have to put on their pants one leg at a time, just like the rest of us…even HYPSM students. ;)</p>

166

<p>“What about, say…award production? In the production of Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, NSF scholars, etc., Brown and Duke do better than most publics (except UNC and UVA for the Rhodes) and generally fall right behind HYPSM.”</p>

<p>Care to expand that list to Fulbrights etc…? </p>

<p><a href=“US Fulbright Program - Home Page”>US Fulbright Program - Home Page;

<p>As you can see Michigan does quite well here and they have for years.</p>

167

<p>^ Wowie, 38% of Arizona State applicants got Fulbrights, compared to Michigan at 28% (or Harvard at a pathetic 20%). AS must be far more prestigious in the eyes of the Fulbright people.</p>

168

<p>Brilliant observation tk. Now do you want to go and look up the data on the others awards and report back here with your resuts so I can make snide remarks as well.</p>

169

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>hahahaha. Warblersrule is almost entirely positive about Michigan and yet rjkofnovi still has an axe to grind and picks out the one quote that could conceivably by misconstrued as a negative to UMich.</p>

<p>Great post warblersrule. I agree completely.</p>

<p>Oh, by the way, according to the last year’s Director’s Cup final standings, UNC = 7, Berkeley = 9, Duke = 10, UMich = 25, and Brown = 91. So, essentially in sports UNC=Berkeley=Duke>UMich>>Brown. What an egregious error by warblersule! :wink: If you can’t tell by the smiley, I’m joking.</p>

170

<p>

</p>

<p>Total of Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Goldwater and Udall scholars since 1986
Rank among all universities</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>K-State</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell </li>
</ol>

<p>[K-State</a> awards](<a href=“http://consider.k-state.edu/awards/]K-State”>http://consider.k-state.edu/awards/)</p>

171

<p>“hahahaha. Warblersrule is almost entirely positive about Michigan and yet rjkofnovi still has an axe to grind and picks out the one quote that could conceivably by misconstrued as a negative to UMich.”</p>

<p>Just pointing out the fact that Michigan does do very well in certain award areas.</p>

172

<p>"Total of Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Goldwater and Udall scholars since 1986
Rank among all universities</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>K-State</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell </li>
</ol>

<p>Now tell me what are the percentages of the students who applied for those awards at those school who actually who actually received them?..I’ll be waiting…Oh by they way, KState must be “far more prestigious” in the eyes of these commitees than Brown, Chicago, MIT, and Cornell, let alone Michigan.</p>

173

<p>lesdiablesbleus:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nah…</p>

<p>Next, you’re going to say that students from these schools can drive down Sunset blindfolded. The students at these u’s are good but not that good.</p>

<p>And, you’re actually not saying much. UCLA’s a public school and has probably a good 4x’s the undergrads…and truly, most of the students from these schools could gain entry to UCLA. </p>

<p>Flipping things around…for the total CA students that apply, UCLA has rejected a good portion that have gained entry to most of these schools you listed. I would take CIT out of the mix as the students who gain entry there are usually from another planet stats-wise.</p>

<p>Since there is no formulaic threshold of admissions that UCLA employs to distinguish admits and denials, there are a good portion of high-stat kids from top-notch HS’s, eg, 3.9uw/2200’s, that UCLA rejects quite regularly (…to give kids from bad HS’s a chance…based usually on performance at one’s native HS, though there is significant leap-frogging at individual HS’s usually wrt scores and secondarily wrt grades/class-rank…all under the guise of ‘holistics’…), and probably too often for its own good and not all related to engineering applicants or specialty-school admissions. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Meh…</p>

<p>You’re probably writing of a firm/company on the EC. They’re probably doing this to reduce the cost of recruitment wrt geography.</p>

174

<p>

Unfortunately, I would not. I predicted that someone would bring that up and originally included a rebuttal in my post but decided to take it out for space reasons. </p>

<p>For one, Fulbrights are not undergraduate-only like the others. They’re often (perhaps more often) awarded to graduate students as well as (more rarely) faculty. In either case, universities with large/strong graduate programs are favored in a list of Fulbrights.</p>

<p>For another, the Fulbright is extraordinarily uneven in terms of selectivity. It is really not all that difficult to get one in, say, Malaysia - but it is much, much harder to get one for the UK. Without knowing where the Fulbrights are awarded, a simple number awarded is nearly useless.</p>

<p>Look, as I noted before, I like Michigan a lot. I don’t think there’s any shame in admitting it could work on some things (what school doesn’t?), and fellowship advising is one of them. Heck, even the school newspaper awknowledged that much. </p>

<p>[Michigan</a> Daily - The Real Reason You Didn’t Win a Rhodes Scholarship](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/content/real-reason-you-didnt-win-rhodes-scholarship]Michigan”>The real reason you didn't win a Rhodes scholarship)</p>

175

<p>Michigan (as well as Cal and UCLA) definitely needs to open an office devoted entirely to the fellowship advising if it wants to do better in that domain. Harvard and Yale have had such offices for decades and many other universities have invested heavily in such offices in recent years. </p>

<p>Bluedog, the last couple of years have been back for Michigan athletics. Most years, it finishes in the top 5. I would give it another year or two before Michigan returns to its winning ways. I know you were joking, but a Wolverine never jokes when it comes to sports! ;)</p>

176

<p>“Look, as I noted before, I like Michigan a lot. I don’t think there’s any shame in admitting it could work on some things (what school doesn’t?), and fellowship advising is one of them. Heck, even the school newspaper awknowledged that much.”</p>

<p>While I agree with what you are stating, I suppose Michigan decides to put it’s resources into gaining awards that can benefit dozens of students/year and not just one or two.</p>

177

<p>rjk, while I agree that Michigan could find a better use for money spent on fellowship advising, I think the University has sufficient money to splurge on frivolous pursuits.</p>

178

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not denying Michigan’s results (or Arizona State’s) are impressive, but the Fulbright numbers represent one more instance of the problem identified in post 158:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We’d have to compare sets of equally qualified applicants submitting equally well-prepared applications in order to assess the role of school prestige on outcomes. The best finding would be to discover that prestige (or any other selection effect) plays a negligible role in the process. That would indicate the process is fair and objective.</p>

179

<p>

Well, not really. That would imply that someone is arguing that the fellowship production is linked to prestige, which I don’t think anyone is claiming (I certainly wasn’t). I see it linked much more closely to advising and selection. Most schools, particularly large ones, have enough good students to field a viable crop of at least 4-5 students a year for the more selective fellowships. What varies is the amount of preparation those students get - whether or not they’re notified about fellowships, whether or not they get practice interviews, etc. </p>

<p>Kansas State does extraordinarily well in Goldwater production, for example, because it pushes its math/science kids to apply for that fellowship - not because it’s somehow a hidden gem in STEM education or extremely prestigious with the awards committee.</p>

<p>As for the allocation of resources, well, fellowship production is considered a hallmark of a good college. The production of 40 or so Rhodes scholars over a college’s lifetime doesn’t impact most students, obviously, but it reflects well on the college. Likewise, having a Nobel laureate as an emeritus professor doesn’t have a lot of impact, but it reflects well on a college.</p>

180

<p>Some more data…</p>

<p>UCLA LAW
[2010</a> Incoming Class Profile](<a href=“http://www.law.ucla.edu/prospective-students/admission-information/Pages/2010-incoming-class-profile.aspx]2010”>http://www.law.ucla.edu/prospective-students/admission-information/Pages/2010-incoming-class-profile.aspx)
“The top represented schools by number of students enrolled for fall 2010 are: UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, Duke University, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Cornell University, University of Southern California, Princeton University and Yale University.”</p>

<p>BOALT LAW
[Berkeley</a> Law - Entering Class Profile](<a href=“Entering Class Profile - Berkeley Law”>Entering Class Profile - Berkeley Law)
“113 undergraduate schools represented. Most predominant are UC Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard, UCSD, USC, Brown, Yale”</p>

<p>VANDERBILT LAW 2008-10, 2012, 2013
[Vanderbilt</a> University Law School :: Combined classes - colleges represented](<a href=“http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-students/class-of-2010-profile/combined-colleges-number/index.aspx]Vanderbilt”>http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-students/class-of-2010-profile/combined-colleges-number/index.aspx)
[Vanderbilt</a> University Law School :: Class of 2013 colleges](<a href=“http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-students/class-of-2013-profile/class-of-2013-colleges/index.aspx]Vanderbilt”>http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-students/class-of-2013-profile/class-of-2013-colleges/index.aspx)
<a href=“http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-students/class-of-2012-profile/2009-colleges/index.aspx[/url]”>http://law.vanderbilt.edu/prospective-students/class-of-2012-profile/2009-colleges/index.aspx&lt;/a&gt;

  1. Vanderbilt: 65
  2. Duke: 30
  3. Florida: 24
  4. UVA: 24
  5. UGA: 23
  6. Yale: 20
  7. Cornell: 19
  8. Michigan: 18
  9. Princeton: 17
  10. UNC-Chapel Hill: 17
  11. Georgetown: 15</p>