<p>I don't think many unbiased people would agree that UMichigan is on a par with any of those other schools in Alexandre's Group 2; certainly not from a student selectivity perspective. I get the impression from people I've talked to is that UMichigan OOS attendees are those that get rejected at all those other Group 2 schools. M+V SAT of Rice and WUSTL in his Group 3 are 100+ points higher than UMichigan and think Tufts would be a fair amount more highly regarded than any of those other schools in Group 4. Brandeis, RPI, Lehigh are certainly stronger than all the other schools in the Group 5. </p>
<p>I don't know much about the relative placement of public schools except that Cal/Berkeley, UVA, UMichigan are probably considered the best three and would put them in Group 3. I'm curious how you have any context to differentiate UIllinois, UWashington, UMaryland into groups 3,4,5 when they don't seem materially different from each other to me aside from your pro Big 10, anti east coast bias.</p>
<p>"I don't think many unbiased people would agree that UMichigan is on a par with any of those other schools in Alexandre's Group 2."</p>
<p>Really? So in your estimation, a significant portion of the academic world (over 50%) is biased in favor of Michigan? How do you explain Michigan's peer assessment score of 4.5/5.0 (tied with Penn at #12 in the nation). And is Gerhard Casper also "biased" toward Michigan? I fail to see the connection. He never studied or taught in Ann Arbor and yet, he had this to say about the University:</p>
<p>"I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27."</p>
<p>DoctorB, as a fan of W&M and Georgetown in particular, I COMPLETELY agree with you that they get little respect in the forum and I'd place them ahead of the State U research schools listed consistently ahead of them (while by no means degrading those schools).</p>
<p>As for Tokenadult's point about Berkeley: I also completely agree that part of Berkeley's appeal in the West Coast is indeed the fact that it is (comparatively) low-priced for what you get, which raises its profile there (again, not taking away from Berkeley's general excellence at all - but it does seem as though Californians don't always understand that their view of the landscape is not universally shared across the country). </p>
<p>I also believe that the pricing system creates a different impression elsewhere ... even though (say) Stanford for anyone is more expensive than Berkeley OOS, knowing that some people are paying in-state prices for Berkeley has an impact on what I think I'd be willing to pay for it, when I have my own state school. That comparison doesn't come into play if I were just looking at Stanford - I wouldn't implicitly compare its price to my own state school. I think for those of us in states with good state schools to begin with, it takes a lot to consider paying OOS for someone else's state school. As an IL resident, I probably would still pay OOS for UCLA or Berkeley (but likely not the other CA schools), Michigan, Virginia, NC and possibly Wisconsin or Washington ... but I compare the price/value of Berkeley to that of my own state school in a way I wouldn't for a California private school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
DoctorB, as a fan of W&M and Georgetown in particular, I COMPLETELY agree with you that they get little respect in the forum and I'd place them ahead of the State U research schools listed consistently ahead of them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for Tokenadult's point about Berkeley: I also completely agree that part of Berkeley's appeal in the West Coast is indeed the fact that it is (comparatively) low-priced for what you get, which raises its profile there (again, not taking away from Berkeley's general excellence at all - but it does seem as though Californians don't always understand that their view of the landscape is not universally shared across the country).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's look at tuition/fees for W&M, Georgetown and Berkeley:</p>
<p>If a student was paying full sticker price and wanted to major in sciences, engineering, or business, Berkeley would be the clear choice. More top programs at Berkeley translates to higher ranking, IMO.</p>
<p>If a student was paying full sticker price and wanted to major in sciences, engineering, or business, Berkeley would be the clear choice. More top programs at Berkeley translates to higher ranking, IMO.>></p>
<p>I think the experiences are so different at W&M, Gtown and Berkeley that they don't really seem very comparable to me. All excellent, but apples, oranges and bananas. But, I understand that you Berkeley folk get very upset when you don't think Berkeley is getting its due and is properly appreciated by everyone, LOL.</p>
<p>Slipper: I'd say it depends. I don't think you can make that statement across the board.</p>
Which Alexandre addressed with his disclaimer:
"Please remember, those are ALL Tier I universities. As such, they are all excellent and very little separates one group from the group above it or below it."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's how I would group universities according to undergraduate education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those rankings don't seem to measure that. You have the traditionally "prestigious" HYPSM at the top, and I think it's common conscensus on CC that Harvard undergrad doesn't live up to its university's prestige level.</p>
<p>"How do you explain Michigan's peer assessment score of 4.5/5.0 (tied with Penn at #12 in the nation). "</p>
<p>Graduate schools and being the strongest academic school of the five colleges that have won the NCAA title in both football and basketball. Just because the school has world class research professors doesn't mean the best students are sprinting there for UG.</p>
<p>How do you explain that the only grads from Stuyvesant and Bronx Science in NYC attending UMichigan are the ones rejected from all the other schools in your Group 2 and some of your group 3 schools?</p>
<p>In my four Wall Street positions, friends' analyst classes and subsequent positions, my top 5 MBA program and friends' top 5 MBA programs, I would say the 15 most represented schools were: </p>
<p>Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Dartmouth
Brown
Columbia
Penn
Cornell
Stanford
MIT
Duke
Williams
Amherst
Georgetown
UVA</p>
<p>From what I've seen UMichigan isn't even close. I have also met more from Bowdoin, Middlebury, Colgate, Hamilton, Colby, Tufts, Northwestern, UChicago, UTexas, Cal/Berkeley, Notre Dame. Every one of these schools (with the exception of UTexas and possibly Cal/Berkeley) all are more selective with a higher SAT median than UMichigan. Maybe, it's just that I have been part of east coast centric institutions, although not all those schools are east coast.</p>
<p>"From what I've seen UMichigan isn't even close. I have also met more from Bowdoin, Middlebury, Colgate, Hamilton, Colby, Tufts, Northwestern, UChicago, UTexas, Cal/Berkeley, Notre Dame. Every one of these schools (with the exception of UTexas and possibly Cal/Berkeley) all are more selective with a higher SAT median than UMichigan. Maybe, it's just that I have been part of east coast centric institutions, although not all those schools are east coast."</p>
<p>Simple. You're defining "good" as "what gets you onto Wall Street." Even as an econ major myself, I find that definition of what's a "good" school depressing as can be. </p>
<p>And I definitely think it's East Coast centric. Here in Chicago? A UMich degree will easily get anyone where they want to be (with only a few exceptions), and a school like Tufts, which is undoubtedly a fine school, isn't on anyone's radar screen here. Not to mention Colgate, Hamilton, etc. aren't known much out here either. </p>
<p>There seems to be an endemic problem on CC whereby east coast people think their view is the only one, and Californians think their view is the only one ... honestly, there's so much regionalism once you go beyond HYP, IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, I understand that you Berkeley folk get very upset when you don't think Berkeley is getting its due and is properly appreciated by everyone, LOL.
[/quote]
We do? IMO, no more so than supporters of other universities not ranked in Alexandre's Tier 1.</p>
<p>I may be passionate, but I'm not upset. I'm merely trying to educate and dispel false notions.</p>
<p>You claim that Georgetown and W&M don't get much respect, while you think Berkeley may be overrated by Californians...fair enough. But, how come I don't see Georgetown or W&M in any individual major rankings, while Berkeley is nearly at the top ranks in everything it offers (including USNews undergraduate major rankings)?</p>
<p>I'll agree that Georgetown and W&M are a smaller atmosphere while providing personalized attention and an outstanding liberal arts education. However, Berkeley's colleges (especially business and engineering) have small classes, plus the excitement a bigger university can provide...I'm more independent...I'd hate to be lorded over in a stifling small environment...to each his own.</p>
<p>"I'll agree that Georgetown and W&M are a smaller atmosphere while providing personalized attention and an outstanding liberal arts education. However, Berkeley's colleges (especially business and engineering) have small classes, plus the excitement a bigger university can provide...I'm more independent...I'd hate to be lorded over in a stifling small environment...to each his own."</p>
<p>They're all top notch; no need to put others down to build your own school up, IMO.</p>
<p>"Simple. You're defining "good" as "what gets you onto Wall Street."</p>
<p>I wasn't defining anything. Just answering Alex's question of what were the top 15 schools for placing students into top companies and graduate schools from my observed experience. Notice, it is placing the students. Not, what are the 15 schools with the most renowned research professors, which is an entirely different question and to me not so relevant at the UG level. I think it's indisputable that all the schools I mentioned have a higher SAT median and lower acceptance rate than UMichigan. If you want to say, yes that's true, but that's unimportant, well, that's a different story.</p>
<p>"how come I don't see Georgetown or W&M in any individual major rankings, while Berkeley is nearly at the top ranks in everything "</p>
<p>please note that when the rankings were done for Teaching Excellence (which one can argue is more important than anything else in the undergraduate experience), the following results were found:</p>
<p>hawkette, what was the basis for the Teaching Excellence ranking in the 90s? E.g., was it based on student surveys? Peer assessments? Just curious in case you happen to know. Thanks.</p>
<p>^ But, like I said...IF I'm a student who wants to major in engineering, business, etc. I would be better off at Berkeley than W&M and Georgetown, despite the "undergraduate teaching ranking".</p>
<p>Berkeley also offers majors in social sciences and humanities that are comparable to W&M and Georgetown...when you add Berkeley's professional schools, Berkeley should be ranked higher, IMHO.</p>
<p>SAT Scores:
Georgetown: 1290-1490
W&M: 1240-1440
Berkeley: 1200-1450 <em>Of course with a larger student population, SAT averages will naturally resort to the national average</em></p>