Undergrad. Major Rankings Questions

College Search & Selection
201

<p>Man, b-school, b-school, b-school.</p>

<p>I couldn't give a dead roach about b-school-- no offense to my esteemed colleagues in business, of course.</p>

<p>B-school is but ONE component of an educational institution, undergrad or grad. I'm just as concerned with how well students fare in med schools, law schools, MA programs, PhD programs, art programs, after ROTC, etc.</p>

<p>We have a pretty narrow and money-centered view here on CC.com quite often, and it'd be nice if we once in a while explored the rest of the employment world for once.</p>

<p>If you can, however, give me a good reason for why big East Coast firms are the best proxy, then I'll accept using them. Otherwise, let's be more holistic.</p>

202

<p>
[quote]
B-school is but ONE component of an educational institution, undergrad or grad. I'm just as concerned with how well students fare in med schools, law schools, MA programs, PhD programs, art programs, after ROTC, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK, fair comment. But let me ask you this: if you are interested in business (or law or medicine) who cares what the rankings of other fields are? For example, for those interested in medicine, do you think people really care that UCSF or Johns Hopkins don't have business schools? </p>

<p>I actually think the comment you make about "overall consistency" works in the Ivies' favor - I think this is what separates the Ivies from other elite schools (with the notable exception of Stanford). If one were to take a quick look at the three major professional schools (law, business, medicine):</p>

<p>Law
Yale
Harvard
Stanford
Columbia / NYU / Chicago</p>

<p>B-School
Harvard
Stanford
Wharton
MIT / Kellogg / Columbia / Chicago</p>

<p>Medicine
Harvard
Johns Hopkins / UCSF
UPenn / WashU
Duke / Stanford
Yale </p>

<p>Ivies are just undeniably strong across the board in every major professional grad school (and consider also that some Ivies don't even have professional programs - i.e. Brown and Princeton don't have law or business schools - Dartmouth doesn't have a law school - Princeton doesn't have a medical school etc. - but does the fact that Princeton lacking any of the majors - b-school/law/med - hurt its ranking as arguably the best undergrad program in the country?) And to expand upon this point - does anyone argue that from the UNDERGRAD perspective that the Ivies are all considered Top 10/15 material?</p>

<p>So all things considered, really only Stanford stands alone in matching up with the elite Ivies. Where's Cal? Where's Michigan? OK, so if you want to get a PhD, I fully submit that Cal is absolutely in elite territory. But, ironically, the "consistency problem" remains: just look at Cal's undergrad and professional school rankings - they are notably below the "elite" level of the Ivies + Stanford. (and besides, I'd rather get a PhD from Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford than Cal no matter what the field of study - no matter what Cal's rank is - it's just a matter of my "revealed preference")</p>

<p>So while your comment about "consistency" of the OVERALL institution is a fair point - I actually think this hurts the publics and underscores the strength of the Ivies.</p>

203

<p>Not so fast the_prestige. You always completely underrate Michigan. How can you in good conscience not at least acknowledge Ross as a top 7 or 8 MBA program and Michigan law as a top 5 or 6 Law school? The employers and academics seem to think very highly of both programs. Career placement out of those two programs are on par with other top 6 or 7 programs. </p>

<p>Even Michigan's medical school is considered one of the top 7 or 8 in the nation. </p>

<p>In the traditional disciplines, Cal rivals Harvard and Stanford and Michigan rivals Columbia, Cornell and Penn.</p>

204

<p>
[quote]
Ivies are just undeniably strong across the board in every major professional grad school (and consider also that some Ivies don't even have professional programs - i.e. Brown and Princeton don't have law or business schools - Dartmouth doesn't have a law school - Princeton doesn't have a medical school etc. - but does the fact that Princeton lacking any of the majors - b-school/law/med - hurt its ranking as arguably the best undergrad program in the country?) And to expand upon this point - does anyone argue that from the UNDERGRAD perspective that the Ivies are all considered Top 10/15 material?</p>

<p>So all things considered, really only Stanford stands alone in matching up with the elite Ivies. Where's Cal? Where's Michigan? OK, so if you want to get a PhD, I fully submit that Cal is absolutely in elite territory. But, ironically, the "consistency problem" remains: just look at Cal's undergrad and professional school rankings - they are notably below the "elite" level of the Ivies + Stanford. (and besides, I'd rather get a PhD from Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford than Cal no matter what the field of study - no matter what Cal's rank is - it's just a matter of my "revealed preference")

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The_prestige, I think you go too far here. We agree on most issues, but I'm afraid I cannot support you on this one. To say that you would prefer to get a PhD from HYPS rather than Cal regardless of the discipline is a minority opinion. I think it's safe to say that certain schools have certain strengths in certain programs. </p>

<p>In fact, you alluded to this yourself when you said that * "if you are interested in business (or law or medicine) who cares what the rankings of other fields are? For example, for those interested in medicine, do you think people really care that UCSF or Johns Hopkins don't have business schools? ". * That's exactly right. If you want to go to medical school, would you really rather choose, say, Brown Medical School or Dartmouth Medical School, rather than Johns Hopkins Medical or WU just because Brown is an Ivy? This is despite the fact that for undergrad, Brown and Dartmouth are preferable to Hopkins or WU. Similarly, I doubt that when it comes to business schools, the Yale School of Management can draw better revealed preferences than, say, Kellogg, even though for undergrad, Yale is clearly preferred to Northwestern. </p>

<p>Similarly, I find it hard to believe that Berkeley would truly lose out on an overall revealed preferences ranking in PhD programs in all disciplines to HYPS. This is strongly dependent on the program involved. For example, I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that Berkeley would lose many of the top PhD engineering students to, say, Yale. It's similarly hard for me to see how Berkeley would really lose out on a lot of the top PhD chemistry students to, say, Princeton.</p>

<p>Keep in mind why you are getting a PhD in the first place. Nobody gets a PhD just for the heck of it. If you just want to make money or advance your career, there are far faster ways to do that than to get a PhD. People get PhD's in order to become academics and researchers, and hence they should be interested in attending a program that fellow academics and researchers consider to be strong. Having a PhD in engineering from Yale, or even Harvard or Princeton, is just not going to have the same pull within the engineering academic community that having a PhD in engineering from Berkeley will. This is analogous to the situation of how regular people may have never even heard of Northwestern, but the business community understands the strength of the Kellogg MBA, or how regular people may have never even heard of UCSF or WashingtonU, but the medical community understands what their medical schools are all about. </p>

<p>Hence, whatever problems or however unpreferred a particular undergrad program has, who cares about that if you're not pursuing an undergrad degree? People who go to WU pr Hopkins for medical school don't seem to mind that the WU undergrad program is only the #65 oreferred undergrad program or Hopkins #29 preferred undergrad program, and I strongly suspect that either of these med-schools are more preferred than either Stanford or Yale Medical School. People who go to NYU for law school don't seem to care about whatever weaknesses the NYU undergrad program may have suc that NYU is the #41 preferred undergrad program. People who are getting their MBA from Kellogg don't seem to mind that Northwestern has only the #23 preferred undergrad program. </p>

<p>The_prestige, I think you're making the same mistake that a lot of the Berkeley fanatics are making. They make the mistake in preferring Berkeley undergrad because of how strong the Berkeley GRADUATE programs are. However, you seem to be making the same mistake in choosing grad programs because of how strong the UNDERGRADUATE program is. Just because a school is strong for grad does not make it strong for undergrad, and just because a school is strong for undergrad does not make it strong for grad.</p>

205

<p>Alex, I never said that Michigan wasn't a Top 10 law school (you'll note that I only listed 6 or 7 law schools)</p>

<p>As for business schools - you, Slipper and I have discussed this subject ad nauseum - basically Slipper and I feel that Michigan's b-school - albeit a great one - is not a top 7 b-school (its just not better than any one of the schools I listed - that's not a knock on Michigan as much as a point of how competitive those spots are).</p>

<p>As for Michigan's medical school, USNWR has it listed tied with 4 other schools for 11th -> Can you explain how Michigan jumps those other 3 schools (including Columbia which I did NOT list) -> and then further, jump another 3 or 4 spots to ascribe it a no. 7/8 ranking?</p>

<p>Again, your own prejudice is clearly showing Alex.</p>

206

<p>Sakky your points are well taken - particularly on the PhD front.</p>

<p>I would, however, offer a rebuttal to your points about Yale's SOM. I wrote about this previously in another thread (discussing the pros/cons of a Cornell MBA vs. a Yale MBA) a while back, but will cut and paste much of my main points:</p>

<p>
[quote]
5-10 years ago this would have been a no-brainer for Cornell.</p>

<p>But times change.</p>

<p>Yale has since switched from awarding Master's degree in Public and Private Management (MPPM, which is accredited as both an MBA and an MPA (Master's Public Administration)) to awarding the much better recognized MBA.</p>

<p>This important change has made a noticable difference in "recruiting" on two critical levels: 1) attracting more companies to come to seek MBAs and 2) attracting a more competive student body.</p>

<p>The proof is in the pudding. Over the course of the last 5 years or so, Yale's School of Management rankings have been climbing steadily from a Top 20-25ish program to a Top 10-15 program.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, Cornell's b-school has been going in the opposite direction. 10-15 years ago Cornell was arguably a Top 5 school. Over the last 5-10 years, Cornell is struggling to maintain a Top 10 position.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in another thread somewhere, I predict that Yale SOM will solidify a solid Top 10 position within the next 5 years and over the course of the next 10+ years, I can see it vying for a Top 5 spot.</p>

<p>Based on what?</p>

<p>1) Its current steadily increase in rankings (no other school has had a faster upward trend over the last 5 years)</p>

<p>2) Name / prestige. You just can't beat it with a stick. Starting with the Yale name just gives you such a fundamental edge. Will the MBA grads be HBS or Wharton quality? No. and corporate recruiters and top would be MBAs alike know this...</p>

<p>But as Yale starts breaking into some Top 10 lists (i.e. Cornell levels), where would you rather be a graduate of - Cornell or Yale - all things being equal? Still don't know? Where would you rather be a graduate of knowing that Cornell's position has slipped over time and Yale's position has been increasing? Now that its SOM has gained momentum, they are now only beginning to start leveraging the Yale name - i.e. attracting top faculty and students. It's really only a matter of time until its B-school starts acting like its other affiliated programs - does that mean that its B-school is riding on the coattails of its other more established programs? Of course! But that's the beauty and power that the Yale name possesses. In other words, if Princeton were to start a business school tomorrow, of course it would start with a huge hill to climb, but is there any doubt that over the course of the the following 10-20 years that a Princeton MBA wouldn't be worthy of the Princeton name? I for one wouldn't bet against it. Yale SOM is already in the enviable position of "getting over that initial hill".</p>

<p>3) $$$ will start flowing more steadily to the program, research, etc. The Yale network, access to $$$, endowment, etc. are already kicking into gear. Yale alums won't settle for a second rate B-school.</p>

<p>4) Watch CNBC, read the WSJ - you'll notice the frequency of which Yale SOM professors are often interviewed. Perhaps its proximity to Wall Street, perhaps its (again) the Yale name (given that a Yale MBA isn't really = to a Cornell MBA just yet), but still I am seeing far more activity and press coverage of Yale professors vs. Cornell professors... and at some point perception starts becoming reality - i.e. as Yale SOM starts gaining more legitimacy, it starts becoming a virtuous circle (which is how all elite programs begin) -> quality name -> attracts -> quality students -> attracts -> quality professors -> boosts quality name -> re-start cycle, etc. etc.</p>

<p>... Now. All of that said, Yale has a LONG way to go indeed until it starts vying for - being considered the same quality / level of HBS / Wharton / Stanford / Kellogg / MIT...</p>

<p>But Cornell? Yale's momentum alone should be enough for you to consider enrolling there.</p>

<p>If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd say that Yale's upward trend continues and that Yale SOM solidifies a position in the Top 10 over the next few years.</p>

<p>Put simply, right now you'd rather be a Cornell MBA grad. Tomorrow (and that's really what matters) you'd rather be a Yale MBA grad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bottom line: Yale's SOM is a fast riser... not ENTIRELY due to the Yale name but a significant reason is due to the sheer strength of it. If I were applying to B-Schools today (or the next few years), Yale would certainly be on my list --> just on the basis of a high level of confidence that 5-10 years from now Yale's SOM will be a serious player.</p>

<p>My prediction is that Yale breaks into the Top 10 within the next 10 years (perhaps sooner).</p>

207

<p>I don't deny that Yale SOM is a fast riser and may indeed reach the top 10 within the next 10 years. </p>

<p>However, it's an entirely different question as to whether Yale SOM will reach the level of a, say, Kellogg anytime in the next 10 years. I highly doubt that this will occur. While I disagree with BW that Kellogg is the #1 B-school in the nation (for I think that honor goes to Harvard simply based on probable revealed preferences), Kellogg is clearly a member of the M7 and that's a tough club to break into. </p>

<p>But the point is this. Individual programs should be judged on their individual merits. Every school has some programs that are stronger or weaker than others at that same school. Just because Berkeley may be superstrong in PhD programs does not necessarily make it superstrong in undergrad. But vice versa is also true - just because Berkeley may not be superstrong in undergrad does not mean that it is not superstrong in PhD programs. Like I've always said, while Berkeley may not be the best place to go for undergrad, it may in fact be the best place to get your PhD (depending on your discipline, of course). In fact, I know quite a few people who did their undergrad at places like HYPSMC, and then spurned their own school in order to go to Berkeley for their PhD, even though their own school wanted them back. I was just talking to a guy who is in a PhD CS program at Harvard, and he told me, quite frankly, that he would rather have been going someplace else like Berkeley for his Phd, because that is where the top profs for his field (computer databases) are at. But he didn't get into the Berkeley PhD program. He didn't get into ANY of the programs for databases, and that's why he is at Harvard. He says he may try to transfer over to a better program later. Harvard is not bad, but it clearly isn't the best program for his field.</p>

208

<p>
[quote]
Every school has some programs that are stronger or weaker than others at that same school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fully agree.</p>

<p>I also don't disagree with your points about Cal and PhD strength - though, for me personally, if I had to spend the next 5-7 years (or more) getting a PhD, after a certain level, I think I'd just as soon choose a comfortable location (call me totally superficial) - in other words, if I could pick and choose from a Top 10 list, after name considerations and subject strength, I'd probably look at the campus and location (esp. since I'd be spending the better part of nearly a decade there) ... I think I'd choose Stanford ... (I know we haven't even discussed any particular field - I can't believe that Stanford is going to suck in many fields - but that's just me). After a certain point - esp. when we are talking about the better part of a decade (i.e. not an in-and-out 2 years) - from that perspective - I'm all about comfort level and quality of life... maybe that's why I'll never be confused for a hardcore academic...</p>

<p>At any rate, my point was simply to respond to UCLAri about "OVERALL" strength of a universities.</p>

209

<p>Yeah, where is Berkeley or UCLA? Cal's pretty close behind the lists you made for law and business school (I don't know much about business schools, but I thought it was right around the same area as Kellogg and Columbia, at least on some rankings I've seen). For medical school, it really has none, but has some very close ties to UCSF. UCLA law is right at the bottom of the top 14 or right outside of it, medical school of very top quality, and business school a handful of spots down (bottom of the top 10 to the top 20).</p>

<p>How useful and helpful is comparing 8 schools to 1? In addition, to say that a school like Berkeley or UCLA aren't overall strong seems pretty foolish to me. Certainly saying sometime like another school, say Stanford, is overall stronger would make sense, but just because another school or other schools are stronger overall does not mean that Berkeley or UCLA is not strong overall. It just means they aren't the strongest overall. But my, are they pretty close.</p>

210

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, where is Berkeley or UCLA?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. That's the whole point. Where ARE they? </p>

<p>They aren't at the "elite" levels - Top 20 does not = Top 10.</p>

211

<p>Uh, Berkeley law isn't? I've seen business rankings put Haas in the top 10. But again, why the arbitrary number of 10? And for the record, half the top 20 schools are in the top 10. :)</p>

212

<p>
[quote]
I also don't disagree with your points about Cal and PhD strength - though, for me personally, if I had to spend the next 5-7 years (or more) getting a PhD, after a certain level, I think I'd just as soon choose a comfortable location (call me totally superficial) - in other words, if I could pick and choose from a Top 10 list, after name considerations and subject strength, I'd probably look at the campus and location (esp. since I'd be spending the better part of nearly a decade there) ... I think I'd choose Stanford ...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know about that. There are reasons to prefer Stanford over Cal, but I don't think I'd say that the location is one of them. The truth is, Palo Alto is a boring suburb, and the South Bay/Silicon Valley is not exactly the most thrilling of places to live, something that even most Silicon Valley residents would concede. It's a good place to find work and make money, it's a good place to raise a family, but not exactly the most interesting place to live in, particularly if you're a student. </p>

<p>I think essayist/tech-entrepreneur Paul Graham said it best:</p>

<p>"For all its power, Silicon Valley has a great weakness: the paradise Shockley found in 1956 is now one giant parking lot. San Francisco and Berkeley are great, but they're forty miles away. Silicon Valley proper is soul-crushing suburban sprawl. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/caterina/34637/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/caterina/34637/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point is, from a pure locational issue, it's hard to see how one could make the case that the city of Palo Alto is a more comfortable place to live for a college student than is the city of Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
At any rate, my point was simply to respond to UCLAri about "OVERALL" strength of a universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Using an overall metric means that you also have to include the strength of Phd programs. That would therefore mean that can't ignore the fact that schools like Brown and Dartmouth have few (perhaps no) elite PhD programs. It should also be noted that Berkeley's law and business school are still better than or equal to that of several of the Ivies. For example, both are better than Cornell's business/law schools. Haas is considered to be better than the Yale SOM, and is basically tied with Dartmouth Tuck. Boalt is basically tied with Penn Law. </p>

<p>It's difficult to make a true overall assessment of a particular university, because certain schools just don't have certain programs. For example, MIT doesn't have a med school or a law school, nor does it have most humanities PhD programs (except for the Media Lab). Caltech not only lacks that, it also lacks even a business school. Princeton doesn't have law/med/business schools. Berkeley doesn't have a medical school. You don't want to overly punish a school just because it doesn't even have a particular program. I.e. nobody says that MIT is a terrible school just because it doesn't have a med or law school. On the other hand, you shouldn't "reward" a school for not having certain programs. For example, Yale's engineering PhD programs may not be elite, but that doesn't mean that Yale would be better off by not having these programs at all. Hence, it's difficult to weight how strong an overall school is. </p>

<p>However, whatever weighting you use, I think it's probably true that Cal remains a top-10 overall school. After all, it's not that easy to name 10 other schools that would really be overall better. After you get past Stanford and Harvard, things get a bit dicey. To include Princeton would mean ignoring the fact that Princeton doesn't have any professional schools. To include MIT or Caltech would ignore the fact that they lack most non-technical grad programs. Yale and Penn have relatively weak grad engineering, and Penn's PhD science programs are not in the top 10. Many of Columbia's and Cornell's PhD programs are also not in the top 10. </p>

<p>Hence, I am fairly comfortable in placing Cal in the top 10 on an overall basis. It's not a top 10 undergrad school0, but it does have arguably a top 10 law and business school, and clearly most (probably all) of its PhD programs are in the top 10. Most of the other potential candidates for the overall top 10 have deficiencies. </p>

<p>However, like I said, I don't think this is a particularly meaningful way of looking at schools anyway. If you want to get your PhD in engineering, you don't care about how strong your school is in English or History. This is why most engineering PhD students would prefer an MIT or a Berkeley over, say,a Harvard over a Yale. If you want to be a doctor, and the Washington U Med School will help you to get the residency you want, then who cares about the the problems of the Washington U undergrad program? Programs should be looked at in isolation. You want to go to the program that will help you accomplish your goals.</p>

213

<p>The_prestige, you should know by now that I never allow my personal sentiments for Michigan to cloud the issue. My priority on this forum is to give students as accurate a picture as possible and I never stray. </p>

<p>"Again, your own prejudice is clearly showing Alex"</p>

<p>Some unfrequent posters may question my loyalties, but I expect more of you.</p>

<p>Michigan's medical school was ranked #7 in 2005 and is always ranked between #7 and #11. However, according to academics and residency directors, Michigan is always ranekd between #6 and #8. This year was no different. Michigan had assessment scores of 4.4 by both peers and residency directors, slightly above Columbia's 4.3 average and Yale's 4.2 average. And Columbia was not ranked above Michigan this year, it was tied with Michigan at #11. And Yale wasn't ranked #7 or 8, it was ranked #9. Yale's Medical school was ranked #11 two years ago, and Michigan was #7 then. In fact, Michigan was ranked ahead of Yale in Medicine for 3-4 years in the early to mid 2000s. Does that mean Michigan's medical school was better than Yale's for several years years ago and is now worse? Of course not, they are peers. Michigan's medical school is on par with Columbia's, Stanford's and Yale's. The fact that the USNWR keeps fluctuating doesn't change that fact.</p>

<p>Michigan Law school is one of the top 6 or 7 in the nation, full stop! Yale and Harvard are the top 2, Stanford and Chicago come next, then you have Columbia, Michigan and NYU. All the peer assessment ratings (we can all agree that at the graduate level, peer assessment ratings are pretty accurate because they are so specialized) and recruitment and placement statistics support that point of view. </p>

<p>As for Ross, I don't how one can rank it out of the top 7 or 8 programs in the nation. Again, peers and recruiters always rank it among the top 6 or 7. Most respected rankings have them ranked between #1 and #8, including BW which has ranked Ross #5 historically.</p>

214

<p>
[quote]
At any rate, my point was simply to respond to UCLAri about "OVERALL" strength of a universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think I was even talking about overall strength. I was just saying that b-school isn't the perfect proxy for everything.</p>

<p>I would go to MIT as an undergrad in a lot of things. I wouldn't go for theater. One size does not ALWAYS fit all in these things. While Ivies undoubtedly offer the closest thing, looking only at b-schools won't demonstrate that. That's all I was getting at.</p>

215

<p>
[quote]
it's a good place to raise a family

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i'd argue that the average age of a PhD candidate is anywhere from mid-to-late 20s if not early 30s... that's prime "family raising" age - i.e. the "roaring 20s" are kind of in your rear view by then - in other words, by that time, you're generally more interested in which neighborhoods have the best schools rather than the best nightclubs...</p>

<p>i actually prefer the tranquil nature of Palo Alto over the Bay Area's "beggar's paradise". really, my point about stressing location was specifically related to the hypothetical PhD situation - i.e. when you are a little bit older, a little but wiser - you've been there and done that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, whatever weighting you use, I think it's probably true that Cal remains a top-10 overall school. After all, it's not that easy to name 10 other schools that would really be overall better. After you get past Stanford and Harvard, things get a bit dicey. To include Princeton would mean ignoring the fact that Princeton doesn't have any professional schools. To include MIT or Caltech would ignore the fact that they lack most non-technical grad programs. Yale and Penn have relatively weak grad engineering, and Penn's PhD science programs are not in the top 10. Many of Columbia's and Cornell's PhD programs are also not in the top 10.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, that's precisely my point. Remember when my initial reply to UCLAri was to note that "what does a pre-med student care whether UCSF or JH doesn't have a business school." In other words - and I know I got off on my "Ivy" tangent there earlier - but basically, who cares if a certain university doesn't offer a certain program - as long as the programs they DO offer are world class?</p>

<p>As you mention - it's hard to measure universities vs. colleges vs. LACs in this respect. The best way to look at it is to take an analogy - say looking at automobiles.</p>

<p>Say LAC or LAC-like universities (e.g. Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Williams, etc.) are similar to "niche" cars that stick to doing something and doing it extremely well - say, like a Ferrari or Lamborghini - they don't make SUVs, they don't make pick-up trucks, they don't make four door sedans - they make sports cars. Period. Value for money? Probably not. But for those who can afford it, its probably the best education that money can buy.</p>

<p>Then you've got large, research oriented universities - publics and privates - and within that spectrum you've got some schools that are truly elite across the board say like Porsche (which makes sports cars and SUVs and do both exceptionally well - they are industry "standard setters" say the academic equivalant of Harvard or Stanford) and then you've got Mercedes (who also make Chrysler - i.e. some programs aren't as good as their flagship cars) let's call them the academic equivalant of, say, UPenn / Cornell / Duke. </p>

<p>Then you've got companies like the Japanese automakers - high quality, value for money - I kind of see this as the "elite" or "Public Ivy" equivalant - i.e. at the lower-end, still extremely high value for money - and have access to good levels of funding - and so at the very high end (Lexus, Acura, Infiniti) they go head to head with the more expensive BMW's of the world. </p>

<p>The Japanese (Honda and Toyota) also do research at the very highest automotive levels - such as F1 construction - and I would say that would be the equivalant of Cal. People really serious about cutting edge technology in the auto industry look at the innovations (e.g. on-board computer technology, steptronic shifting, anti-lock braking etc.) which eventually trickles down to the mainstream... but it's very esoteric to most people - kind of like PhD's - i.e. very high level stuff, the best of the best - but most people on the street probably don't know or care about this level of academia (even though its arguably the most important) - just like few people know or realize the impact that high end racing has had on your everyday car...</p>

<p>OK, so I'm stretching this crude analogy a bit but you kind of get the picture right?</p>

<p>Bottom line: is Ferrari "better" than Mercedes? Depends. Is Toyota "better" than BMW? Perhaps... it depends on what you are measuring - what is "important" to the person judging - which perspective are you coming from?</p>

<p>It comes back to TourGuide's earlier post about why Alexandre and Slipper will never agree. Rather than ask, "is Condi Rice better than Paris Hilton" - it's more instructive to ask something like:</p>

<p>"if you were in a Hummer and had a free pass to run over Paris Hilton or Condi Rice, who would you run over..." er... or something to that effect.</p>

216

<p>
[quote]
And Columbia was not ranked above Michigan this year, it was tied with Michigan at #11

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alex, I urge you to read my last post in response to yours. I never said that Columbia was ranked above Michigan.</p>

<p>Here is what I wrote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for Michigan's medical school, USNWR has it listed tied with 4 other schools for 11th -> Can you explain how Michigan jumps those other 3 schools (including Columbia which I did NOT list) -> and then further, jump another 3 or 4 spots to ascribe it a no. 7/8 ranking?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Note that when I mentioned Columbia, I was merely asking how Michigan, ranked by USNWR as no. 11 (along with Columbia) justifies a ranking of no. 7/8. That's all I was asking.</p>

<p>Alex, I've got a tremendous respect for your views - you know that and I've stated that on multiple occassions. We happen to disagree on certain matters - but that doesn't mean that I don't respect your views.</p>

217

<p>The_prestige, I know you respect me, which is why I was disapointed when you insinuated that my rating of Michigan was based on prejudice rather than reason. </p>

<p>To answer your question regarding Columbia and Michigan medical schools, if you are going to include Yale, you must include Columbia and Michigan because they are identical in terms of quality, research and reputation. They are peers in every sense of the word. </p>

<p>That is also my stand on including Chicago, Columbia and NYU Law schools without including Michigan Law or including Chicago, Columbia, MIT and Stanford MBA programs and not including Ross. Those are all peers as far as I am concerned. Everything from peer and professional ratings and statistics to starting salaries and resources availlable to the students points to their being peers. </p>

<p>Sure we can be stubborn about it and remain narrow, but we wouldn't be doing anyone here any favors. I personally used to believe that Michigan was better than Dartmouth and Brown (and most other elite LACs) back in the day. This forum, thanks to the participation of regulars like Slipper, Sakky and yourself, has educated me. I now know I was wrong and that although they are impossible to compare, Dartmouth and Brown are at the very least equal to Michigan.</p>

218

<p>Likewise Alex. </p>

<p>I have to admit - even to my own embarrassment - that before coming to CC, when I thought of Michigan, I thought of the Wolverines, Big 10 and big time football.</p>

<p>I now know much better. Michigan is an outstanding university in the best sense of the word - a world class research institution. I started paying attention to things like the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index as tracked and released by the University of Michigan - basically THE industry standard for gauging consumer confidence.</p>

<p>You've definitely enlightened me as I'm sure you have enlightened countless others (though I still feel you are a bit partial to the Public U's as I am to the Ivies - but hey, that's totally understandable given that we are both giving the best of each others' perspective - there is a Yin and Yang balance there IMO).</p>

<p>I don't know why we spend so much time arguing over the same things all of the time!</p>

219

<p>
[quote]
i'd argue that the average age of a PhD candidate is anywhere from mid-to-late 20s if not early 30s... that's prime "family raising" age - i.e. the "roaring 20s" are kind of in your rear view by then - in other words, by that time, you're generally more interested in which neighborhoods have the best schools rather than the best nightclubs...</p>

<p>i actually prefer the tranquil nature of Palo Alto over the Bay Area's "beggar's paradise". really, my point about stressing location was specifically related to the hypothetical PhD situation - i.e. when you are a little bit older, a little but wiser - you've been there and done that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Of the many Silicon Valley workers I know, including many who are significantly older, even THEY don't particularly like living in Silicon Valley. They appreciate the fact that it is safe, it's staid, but they don't really actually LIKE it. This is, incidentally, why so many tech workers will live in San Francisco and put up with the hellacious 101/280 commute to the Valley, because the fact is, SF is cool, and the Valley isn't. </p>

<p>I would also dispute the characterization of Berkeley as a beggar's paradise. This holds true for the South and West sides of campus. However, if you want tranquility, you just have to find a place on the North side, which plenty of graduate students do. Few undergrads hang out there (because there are no dorms there), few bums hang out there (because there are few commercial establishments there), and there are few tourists there (because there is really nothing to see, as it's all residential). I think that neighborhood compares extremely favorably with any neighborhood around Stanford. That is where many of the married grad students live, especially the ones with kids. </p>

<p>The difference is that you if you want action, it's only a short walk to the South or West side. However, Stanford is basically 'pure tranquility', whether you want it or not. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Then you've got large, research oriented universities - publics and privates - and within that spectrum you've got some schools that are truly elite across the board say like Porsche (which makes sports cars and SUVs and do both exceptionally well - they are industry "standard setters" say the academic equivalant of Harvard or Stanford)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would hesitate to say that Harvard is elite across the board. Harvard's glaring weakness is engineering which, while pretty good, is clearly not as good as some of its other programs. In particular, Harvard engineering, particularly the grad engineering program, seems to be filled with lots of students who, frankly, weren't good enough to get into a better program like MIT's, Stanford's, or Berkeley's. </p>

<p>Stanford is probably the one school that can claim to have no weaknesses. But even that is not as cracked up as it may seem. Stanford lacks certain programs, for example a public policy school, which Harvard, Berkeley, and Princeton have. It doesn't have a public health school, which Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley have. Nor are these necessarily niche programs. The Harvard Kennedy School of Government has nearly 3 times the number of graduate students than does the Harvard engineering program. Hence, if anything, it's engineering that could be considered the 'niche' program, at least at Harvard. {Heck, the Kennedy School has almost as many students as Caltech has in its entire undergrad population}.</p>

220

<p>
[quote]
Most respected rankings have them ranked between #1 and #8,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am only aware of one ranking that ever ranked Ross #1, and that was the WSJ. That was also the same WSJ ranking that at once point ranked Stanford somewhere in the 40's and this year ranked HBS as #14, behind such "luminaries" as USC and North Carolina. For these reasons and many others, I do not find WSJ to be a respected B-school ranking. Frankly, it's a ridiculous ranking. </p>

<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MB_05_Scoreboard.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MB_05_Scoreboard.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>