<p>I second UCLAri. That's not much of a point at all.</p>
<p>"I live in berkeley. i've been to berkeley public schools my whole life and I want a change in environment. also, no matter what I feel, I am going to Harvard in a sense for my parents. They worked their butts off so I can have a chance here in the United States and I know that they, in their wildest dreams, wouldnt have imagined their son to be attending Harvard. If I did not live in Berkeley and was not under these circumstances (immigrant, first generation), Cal would easily be my first choice."</p>
<p>I just dont believe you can have that reason for going to Harvard and say prestige isnt important without being a hypocrite. Parents or you being a prestige whore doesnt matter choosing a school based on brand and calling prestige not important still is a contradiction</p>
<p>2bad4u - i didnt say prestige wasn't important. i simply said that I would have gone to Berkeley in a second. I am simply trying to explain why I am loyal to Berkeley and why I will always be loyal to Berkeley. Call me a prestige whore, but I'm going to Harvard for the JFK school of Gov. and Boston.</p>
<p>just take the schools that the most international students apply to (i have no idea which ones lol)</p>
<p>irock1ce,</p>
<p>As an undergrad, what are your options for access to JFK? I've considered going there for grad, but never knew that people have access to their facilities/resources as a lowly undergrad.</p>
<p>I can take quite a few classes at JFK. I also know someone who teamed up with a professor at JFK and interned there.</p>
<p>Going to Harvard over Berkeley doesn't make you an elitist. If you consider the following to be the "ideal" way to admit applicants, then you are a true believer in the "elitist" ideology.</p>
<p>"I am a firm believer in a true meritocracy. Everything should be based purely on one's academic, personal, and extracirricular accomplishments. Overcoming hardships should be lumped in the "personal" category, and should definitely count for something. But it should not be the end all and be all college admissions. If somebody had a hard life, they should definitely be given a boost. But no hardship should make up for a 900 SAT score and really lousy grades. Like it or not, everyone is a product of circumstance. The way I was nurtured and the evironment that I grew up in determined whether I would be a college student, or a murderer, or a dictator, or a hero, or a terrorist, or a ladies man, or a homosexual. Everyone is a product of their environment. Everyone inherits their brain from birth, and has no say about what tendencies it's going to have. Therefore, nothing we do is truly our own, and all our accomplishments/failures are the product of our nurture. So if the entire system of merit is based on evironment and cirumstance, why should we give such a large boost to people who lived in the ghetto just because they lived in the ghetto? Of course, because of their circumstances, they are going to be less academic than a rich kid living in suburbia. But both kids had no choice in the matter, and since everything is based upon circumstances anyway, it makes sense to admit the smarter rich guy than the less-educated poor guy."</p>
<p>Many thanks to ubermensch.</p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>muahahaha. =)</p>
<p>This is merely a believer in determinism, not an elitist.</p>
<p>Here is a list of the Top 50 universities based on prestige...</p>
<p>Thomas, that link leads to an interesting list. Based on my personal experience, though, it surprised me.</p>
<p>Bates College or UW-Madison before Tufts, Rice, Emory or USC? I've never heard of Bates in my life. I would've pegged UCLA farther ahead than #29, and not with Claremont McKenna just one step behind it. Dartmouth before Cal Tech or MIT? Sure it's an Ivy, but... And where's Carnegie Mellon? U Mich before Wash U was a little suprising, too.</p>
<p>What are your own thoughts, Thomas?</p>
<p>What is it based on????</p>
<p>That list is ridiculous from top to bottom. </p>
<p>WAS=great schools, but prestigious? I don't think so...</p>
<p>That list is totally wack. Princeton is not well known at all. Berkeley and UCLA should definitely be higher.</p>
<p>I don't think you would ever be able to rank universities based on a phenomenon as vague as prestige. However people in Scandinavia would probably rank the few foreign universities that they now into 3 groups like this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard/Oxford </li>
<li>Yale/Cambridge/Princeton/Stanford/MIT</li>
<li>Berkeley/Columbia/University of Chicago (yes, ppl hold U of chicago in very high esteem for some odd reason)</li>
</ol>
<p>The list definitly surprised me. I got that list from an administrator at a local college. I'm not sure how they comprised it. I don't agree with it. I agree there could be some of the Liberal Arts colleges ranked higher than some of the big names. However, we also have to remember that just because we have a perception of cetain schools, that's not exactly what other parts of society and the world would see them as. Like U of Wisconsin. That was a shock! However, I was told that major companies follow these kinds of lists VERY CLOSELY. I truly beleive schools like WUSL is a greeat school, but I normally don't consider Tech/engineering schools to be high on prestige (my personal opinion).
I would not put NYU higher than Tufts, Notre Dame and certainly not Vassar, Emory, and Rice.
I don't know....what do you guys (and gals) think?</p>
<p>Here is one more list comprised by a huge think tank of CEO's, doctors, lawyers, politicians and community leaders from the East Coast. It is also based on prestige/selectivity....enjoy....</p>
<p>I hope you all realize that prestige really has nothing to do with how a person will perform in life. The main reason that a disproportionate amount of Ivy-grads do well is because of the qualities that got them into those Ivy's to begin with. A degree from Ivy-U is not the ticket to the good life. Presitge is at best a peripheral concern...ergo this tread is without point. If you work hard and do well in college (whatever college, within reason), there's no reason why you can't do well.</p>
<p>Do not...DO NOT choose a college because of the brand-name. </p>
<p>BTW, Thomas, I'm rejecting that last link out of hand b/c I, along with the vast majority of Americans, don't live on the east coast. I don't know anyone on the east coast, and sometimes, the east coast annoys me.</p>
<p>I agree. I just thought everyone would have fun debating over the rankings. You're right. An Ivy education doesn't guarantee success. However, am I going to an Ivy because it's an Ivy? Yes. Is that the only reason? No. I'm sticking with the Ivies because it's what I want to do. It's something I will be proud of. If a student works hard to get into top-tiered schools, that person should go to any school they choose, regardless of the reason. I don't mind a student going to a school based on prestige. It's not like that school would be a bad school. It's their right to go wherever they got in and for whatever reason.</p>
<p>In terms of prestige, which is recognized as better, Stanford or Cambridge?</p>
<p>I'm Japanese and was accepted by these two universities, but I still can't decide which one to attend next year. In Japan, I think Cambridge has a more impressive name value, but Stanford is also recognized as a university with cutting-edge technological research. </p>
<p>I appreciate your opinions about which one would have more "prestige" worldwide.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that CalTech has more prestige than MIT or that Columbia is ranked higher than Yale. Hmm.</p>
<p>Regarding KAZ's question...it depends where you ask. Most ppl in Asia would say Cambridge but I think in the US, Stanford is more well-known and prestigious. But either way, the difference is very very small. Where do you want to work? In Japan or U.S or UK? Go where your heart tells you and don't worry too much about prestige. You've just got into 2 of the world's best universities!!! Congratulations!</p>