<p>For people interested in making a big starting salary out of college (in IB or MC)</p>
<p>Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, Wharton/Penn, Columbia, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Yale, Brown, Michigan, then some other schools</p>
<p>"semiserious,</p>
<p>Maybe at your school, Vanderbilt is more popular than Chicago (hard to believe actually) and I agree that prestige can be dependent on where you live. However, I think your view shaped by your experience is hardly representative of what most "educated" people think when it comes to Chicago vs. Vanderbilt. I used "educated" because many people, particularly in our part of town (I live in So Cal also), care absolutely nothing about academics. When people live in the vicinity of a place where movie celebrities earn thousand times more than an average Harvard grad, people get rich by speculating California housing marking, and bartenders on Sunset Blvd make more than typical professionals, they probably care less about academics. I also heard many people in LA earn their living by doing porns, escorting, and drug dealing. In other words, you can make more $$ easily without hitting any book than well-read persons in LA. This applies to other places (I grew up in HK and had lived in northeast, midwest, nor cal before) to certain extent but not at the level of Los Angeles. </p>
<p>However, if you are well-read, you'd notice Chicago definitely has bigger name. For example, if you read about economics, you'd come across the term "Chicago school of thought". Many theories and ideas of modern economics came from researchers/professors in that school. Chicago's b-school and physical sciences are also very solid and known for their highly quantitative and theoretical approach. </p>
<p>"
I agree.I´m an international student who lived in 4 different countries so far and vandy is not in the same league as Chicago at all...</p>
<p>My top list:
Harvard
Stanford
Columbia
MIT
Princeton
Berkeley
Yale</p>
<p>Berkeley undergrad is far below the rest of the list in terms of electivity, class size and undergrad experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
eliminate uchic, berkely, johns hopkins.</p>
<p>their acceptance rates are too high
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the above posters (beefs and xjis)...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley undergrad is far below the rest of the list in terms of electivity, class size and undergrad experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>a) Its average SAT scores are competitive with top privates (and that's without superscoring). 99% are in the top 10% of their classes. The average UW GPA is a 3.9 and the average W is a 4.3. Its acceptance rate was about 20% this year. Sure, these stats are debatable, and it isn't insanely selective like HYPS, but it's very selective. Besides, prestige isn't based so much on selectivity, but to the degree that it is, Berkeley does just fine. (Prestige is going to rest more on grad school strength and the school's track record in prominent parts of the average person's life, like government and such.)</p>
<p>b) Berkeley's class sizes:
61% under 20
14% over 50</p>
<p>MIT's class sizes:
61% under 20
14% over 50</p>
<p>So I don't think its class sizes are what would "disqualify" it.</p>
<p>c) Undergrad experience is too hard to quantify and compare objectively. Not to mention it's not going to have much to do with prestige. (Example: Harvard undergrads often complain about their experience--large classes, lack of professor accessibility, etc.--and yet Harvard is still probably the most prestigious university.)</p>
<p>Really, this "prestige" issue is still poorly defined in CCers' minds...</p>
<p>But Cal has a very different applicant pool than top private colleges. Mostly CA public HS grads, it's a self selecting group. I'd also beg to differ that it has the same SAT average as top schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
eliminate uchic, berkely, johns hopkins.</p>
<p>their acceptance rates are too high
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jmanco, Are you SERIOUS??</p>
<p>Berkeley is just a powerhouse when it comes to its graduate programs. </p>
<p>UChicago? Oppenheimer, Fermi Lab, Particle Accelerator, Physics, Math, Atom Bomb, IBanking, Economics and Business? Nobel Prize winners, powerhouse intellects??</p>
<p>Hopkins spends nearly equivalent of half its $3 billion dollar endowment on research every year, $1.5 billion dollars. In the academia world, no research university has surpassed $1 billion dollars in research spending annually except Hopkins with Wisconsin distant second at $800 million dollars.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I don't think anybody's bowled over by Stanford's sports except those who follow college tennis and volleyball. Clearly the only sports that should figure into into such a list are MEN's football, basketball, lacrosse, hockey, and baseball. USC should clearly be on the sports enthusiasts' list, along with Boston College, and Wisconsin. And maybe Virginia, Texas, and Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But Cal has a very different applicant pool than top private colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think so--I daresay it's a pretty significant overlap.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd also beg to differ that it has the same SAT average as top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say it's the same--I said it's competitive with them. (Meaning, it isn't far out of their league.)</p>
<p>OK, Kyledavid, I'm guessing you go to Cal?</p>
<p>IMO the overlap lies in the many, many kids who are at Cal because they didn't get into an ivy nor top LAC.</p>
<p>Consider that Cal gives no advantage to legacies or URMs. Then consider the considerably lower SAT scores vs, top colleges. Itis MUCH easier to tget into than a top 20 private.</p>
<p>i say we just do 5 most prestigious.</p>
<p>then *almost everyone will come to an immediate agreement.</p>
<p>now that i think about it, it would have been a hell of a mess really if OP asked for 6 most prestigious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OK, Kyledavid, I'm guessing you go to Cal?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I don't. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO the overlap lies in the many, many kids who are at Cal because they didn't get into an ivy nor top LAC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And in the many, many kids at Cal who got into top privates but chose Cal. (If not for financial reasons, then for other ones.) Hell, I have a friend who chose Cal over Harvard and Yale just recently, and not for financial reasons.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then consider the considerably lower SAT scores vs, top colleges. Itis MUCH easier to tget into than a top 20 private.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, no, I'd say it's harder to get into than quite a few of US News 20 top privates, and equal to a few of the others. I think it'd be better to say it's easier to get into than HYPSMC.</p>
<p>.... ppl choosing Cal over Harvard or Yale (for things other than financial reasons) must be extreme outliers in the statistical point of view. </p>
<p>especially if you are talking about undergrad.</p>
<p>...well, maybe i'd understand if these kids were engineers.</p>
<p>xjis. I agree with you. HYPSM. After that come 20-30 more.</p>
<p>Are you kidding, it's far easier then the bottom of the ivies, Cornell.</p>
<p>We are talking 95% of applicants being from high schools in the 48th ranked K-12 system in the Country. </p>
<p>On your friend who turned down H any Y for Cal and not for financial reasons, has anyone found him help? Friends don't et friends do that!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you kidding, it's far easier then the bottom of the ivies, Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you say so...</p>
<p>(I'd say they'll emphasize different things, but definitely not 'far easier.')</p>
<p>
[quote]
We are talking 95% of applicants being from high schools in the 48th ranked K-12 system in the Country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good job--you just bashed quite a few people on this forum with such an arrogant and elitist statement.</p>
<p>Realize this: the students who matriculate at Berkeley are the best of the best of California. Sure, on the whole, California's K-12 schools are not the best--but they do produce plenty of excellent students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On your friend who turned down H any Y for Cal and not for financial reasons, has anyone found him help?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now your comments are bordering on plain mean. He chose it because he liked it more—I’m sorry that’s so difficult for you to swallow.</p>
<p>FWIW, I'm a student at Berkeley's rival school, so I'm not exactly trolling for it (as I have no vested interest in the school).</p>
<p>Jesus what's up with all the cal hatin?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its average SAT scores are competitive with top privates (and that's without superscoring). 99% are in the top 10% of their classes. The average UW GPA is a 3.9 and the average W is a 4.3. Its acceptance rate was about 20% this year
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And a set of mostly meaningless statistics for a state school with a small OOS population. The only comparable statistics are ACT and SAT scores where the Cal DOES trail considerably ... unless your definition of top privates means PEER privates -- and that is not exactly the same group!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
But Cal has a very different applicant pool than top private colleges. </p>
<p>I don't think so--I daresay it's a pretty significant overlap.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, that may very well depend on your definition of overlap. Except for geographical-based overlap with Stanford, the overlap with schools ranked well above Cal is mostly negligible. </p>
<p>
[quote]
OK, Kyledavid, I'm guessing you go to Cal?<br>
No, I don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You really should. You probably will be the only Stanford student crying when the Axe stays at the Farm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
FWIW, I'm a student at Berkeley's rival school, so I'm not exactly trolling for it (as I have no vested interest in the school).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for the comical interlude, KyleDavid. If there were an entry in an encyclopedia for "Cal Trolling," they'd have to place your name and picture in the text. Thousands of trolling posts on CC will do that to you! :D</p>
<p>How can something be prestigious if it has high acceptance rates?</p>
<p>Then it's easier to get in and people don't ooh and aah</p>
<p>
[quote]
And a set of mostly meaningless statistics for a state school with a small OOS population. The only comparable statistics are ACT and SAT scores where the Cal DOES trail considerably ... unless your definition of top privates means PEER privates -- and that is not exactly the same group!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, of course, xiggi would have to come and show his hatred of Cal... So much for relatively mild debate. :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, that may very well depend on your definition of overlap. Except for geographical-based overlap with Stanford, the overlap with schools ranked well above Cal is mostly negligible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither you nor I can substantiate that claim, so we can leave it at "I think...".</p>
<p>
[quote]
You really should. You probably will be the only Stanford student crying when the Axe stays at the Farm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why the unnecessary additions, hm?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks for the comical interlude, KyleDavid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Repeat the above...</p>
<p>
[quote]
If there were an entry in an encyclopedia for "Cal Trolling," they'd have to place your name and picture in the text. Thousands of trolling posts on CC will do that to you!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Try to find 'em. ;)</p>