<p>crimsonbulldog-- I am giving you objective data solid substance. And those opinions are of academics not college students.</p>
<p>harvardguy, I'm not sure what you mean. You're giving me solid data on someone's subjective opinion (for example, I listed a number of data points that your sources don't seem to mention that many science undergrads will hold in very high importance, such as number and quality of undergrad research opportunities). And like I keep saying and you keep ignoring, a general list of the best schools in "Science" means very little to a scientist who knows what they want to specialize in. A list of the best schools in, say, "Electrical engineering" or "nuclear physics" (which MIT2010 showed you) would be a bit more helpful. No?</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- What I mean is that the data I gave was based on the opinion of reputed academics not college students. So their opinion does matter to a budding scientist. And I replied to your every post, so looks like I am not ignoring you.
As for field specific rankings you seem to mention only USNews.</p>
<p>Their opinion matters but it is not the be-all and end-all.</p>
<p>You replied to every post but ignored many of my most important points. For example, I pointed out many flaws in the last study you showed me (they don't mention whether all those Nobel Laureates actually involve themselves in undergrad life, for example, by teaching classes or advising undergrad research), that you don't seem to address at all. All you are saying is "this study says Harvard is better than MIT in science therefore it's stupid to go to MIT over Harvard under any circumstances!".</p>
<p>If I am misinterpreting you in any way, please tell me, but this is the impression your posts have given.</p>
<p>If you find me any field-specific rankings beyond USNews, please show me some :) The reason that's all I've talked about (although you must realize there's more to it than just rankings, anyway--those are opinions, not facts) is because you haven't showed me anything else that is field-specific.</p>
<p>Your points seem to be (according to your last post):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The opinions of acdemics is not the be-all and end-all.
How can I argue with that? Thier opinion matters more than yours or mine or any college student's. And that is why THES asked them not you or me. So that seem to be a clear point.</p></li>
<li><p>All Nobel laurates may no get involved in undergrad researches, but some may. After all Nobel laurates are very important people. They have better things to do than teach undergrads. But atleast the are there in the university.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And I NEVER said "this study says Harvard is better than MIT in science therefore it's stupid to go to MIT over Harvard under any circumstances!" </p>
<p>I was asking MIT2010 why he chose MIT over Harvard for Science when Science at Harvard is sooo strong. That started this debate. Bye the way MIT2010 never said a thing, no justification and you (GuitarManARS) took it this far. But I am not complaining. Fine by me.</p>
<p>I gathered "this study says Harvard is better than MIT in science therefore it's stupid to go to MIT over Harvard under any circumstances!" because you implied MIT2010 is stupid for choosing MIT over Harvard, without bothering to ask his particular circumstances (quote: "Is MIT2010 stupid or what?"), and then supporting your opinion solely with studies saying Harvard is better than MIT in science.</p>
<p>"Thier opinion matters more than yours or mine or any college student's. And that is why THES asked them not you or me. So that seem to be a clear point." I do believe I pointed out a number of ways in which those academics don't address certain points that a prospective undergrad may want addressed, such as research opportunities and grad school placement. Getting a Ph.D. does not make you a god. Academics are not infallible. If I have a valid criticism of the study, you can't explain it away with "they're professionals, don't question them."</p>
<p>"2. All Nobel laurates may no get involved in undergrad researches, but some may. After all Nobel laurates are very important people. They have better things to do than teach undergrads. But atleast the are there in the university." Oh, come on. At least they're there in the university? What's the point in having a Nobel Laureate around if you never interact with him/her? Being able to admire him/her from afar? A rank based on how many big-name scientists a university has isn't too meaningful without adding in how many of them actually contribute to the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>"I was asking MIT2010 why he chose MIT over Harvard for Science when Science at Harvard is sooo strong." Science at Harvard is, in many fields (but NOT all) very strong, but so is MIT's.</p>
<p>By the way, you keep seeming to conveniently avoid the most important point I'm making: it doesn't matter how great a school is in science in general if it is not as good in the particular field you want to go into!</p>
<p>I'm making a very simple point: there are many cases in which a student will want to choose MIT over Harvard, be it for academic reasons or otherwise, and be very justified. It is completely inappropriate to call MIT2010 stupid or lambast him simply because he chose MIT over Harvard. Would you really disagree with that? Do you really believe there is no situation in which it is a good move to choose MIT over Harvard?</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- Don't personalize, rationalize !!!</p>
<p>O.K. GuitarManARS I get that. I called MIT2010 stupid for choosing MIT over Harvard for Sciences and I take it back.</p>
<p>So how about Harvard vs. MIT.
You may choose any university for your particular field based on your preferences. I get that too. But a particular field aside, which one is more reputed OVERALL? What do you think? Does my data support any particular university OVERALL?
I repeat highest reputation OVERALL (not any particular field).
What do you say?</p>
<p>OK, that sounds fair :)</p>
<p>Overall, I honestly have no clue. I want to say MIT but the sheer size of Harvard makes it pretty competitive, as your data show. Personally, for science in general I probably would take MIT over Harvard, because it gives you such a comprehensive science education whereas Harvard's is amazing in some fields and not much in others, and because there seems to be lots more opportunity for undergrad research at MIT--something of immeasureable importance when it comes to applying to grad school.</p>
<p>At that level, though, MIT and Harvard are both amazing and reputation-wise are probably about equal.</p>
<p>Remember, by the way, a college decision shouldn't be based on reputation...</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- About your last statement
"Remember, by the way, a college decision shouldn't be based on reputation..."
what if the decision is to made by a graduate research student with a really impressive academic record intending to change his subject from Computer Science to Business Economics or vice versa for a PhD?</p>
<p>I know you are just a college student but you do seem to be very vocal about your opinions in this forum in particular. So what do you say?</p>
<p>As far as reputation goes I gave Times Higher Education Supplement rankings and Academic Ranking of World Universities in favor of Harvard. What do you have in favour of your assertion that Harvard and MIT are equal in reputation?</p>
<p>Come on I am waiting ...</p>
<p>Actually, I'm a high school senior.</p>
<p>What do you mean exactly by "what do you say?"?</p>
<p>I say they're about equal because at that incredibly high level, the difference between those two rankings is miniscule. There are many, many schools besides Harvard and MIT, almost all of which both schools trump in those rankings. An employer, or a grad school admissions committee, looks on both schools with utmost respect. MIT and Harvard are top of the top, despite any tiny differences in those rankings. A smart employer/admissions committee/what have you will realize that those rankings are not hard fact, they are subjective, and that more factors into reputation than just those rankings.</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- Nice one. I guess I got my answer from you.</p>
<p>haha. Excellent.</p>
<p>By the way, I missed your first question. Do you mean a Comp Sci major in undergrad going into business economics (or vica versa)? I don't know the specifics of either field--you'd have to ask someone on that. Sorry!</p>
<p>GuitarManARS-- No I meant Graduate or PostDoc in those fields.</p>
<p>dudes...chill the fux out....harvard and MIT aren't even comparable. how the heck do you compare two institutions of learning comprising tens of thousands of people?!?!?!</p>
<p>You ever been up in a cockpit before, harvardguy?</p>
<p>jimbob1225-- How did THES and ARWU do that? Just like that. ;)</p>
<p>harvardguy, you should apologize your calling me "stupid" without any justification in the first page.</p>
<p>MIT2010-- I already did that, twice. See my back posts. My aim was to compare the universities generally not attack you personally.</p>
<p>Check this <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng/brief/engrank_brief.php</a> for engineering ranking: MIT = #1, Harvard = #21
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/che_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/che_brief.php</a> for top chemistry programs: MIT = #1, Harvard = #3
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/phy_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/phy_brief.php</a> for top physics programs: MIT = #1, Harvard = (unknown because not in top three)
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/geo_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/geo_brief.php</a> for earth science programs: MIT = #2, Harvard = (unknown because not in top four)
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/com_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/com_brief.php</a> for computer science programs: MIT = #1, Harvard = (unknown because not in top four)
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/mat_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/mat_brief.php</a> for top math programs: MIT = #1, Harvard = #2
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/bio_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/bio_brief.php</a> for top biological science programs: MIT and Harvard tied for #2</p>
<p>I really don't want to argue with you, but OVERALL ranking does not matter; I chose university based on particular fields not the OVERALL!</p>
<p>MIT2010-- Yes, that's my boy. That is the answer I was expecting from you. Was it so difficult to provide reasons for your actions? Objectively maybe? Took you very long to figure out. You really didn't have to argue at all. Now since you don't want to continue this discussion with me ("don't argue"), I guess I will discuess your response and the data you provided with others. :(</p>