<p>** Discussion over.**</p>
<p>Not so fast. The_prestige: You will soon hear from my lawyer.</p>
<p>Slipper, why is the "discussion over"? That means we all agree. I personally do not agree. I think Cal is ranked somewhere between #6 and #17 at the undergraduate level (#1-#3 at the graduate level). Yes, H,M,P,S and Y are a notch above at the undergraduate level. But other than those 5 schools, no other undergraduate institituon can claim to be better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, Berkeley-educated professors are the majority of the entire ChemE department faculty of MIT, arguably the best ChemE dept. in the world!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rabban, considering that Berkeley has 22,000 undergrads, Berkeley ought to have lots and lots of successful alumni from the undergrad program simply by weight of sheer numbers. </p>
<p>The key is that the AVERAGE Berkeley undergrad does not do as well as the AVERAGE undergrad at some of the other schools mentioned. This is true basically and sadly because Berkeley has a long tail-end of rather mediocre students that pulls down the averages. The sad truth is that there really are a lot of Berkeley undergrads who, frankly, aren't that good. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. About 10% of all Berkeley undergrads never even graduate. I'm not talking about the not graduating in 6 years, I'm talking about never graduating at all. Now obviously some of them drop out because they find something better to do, but a great many of them don't graduate because they flunk out of Berkeley. Hence, I think it's safe to say that Berkeley has more undergrads who eventually flunk out than Caltech has total undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But other than those 5 schools, no other undergraduate institituon can claim to be better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am fairly certain that Caltech can make a very strong claim to being better at the undergrad level. Certain LAC's also.</p>
<p>Rabban and my discussion is over...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yea but you know what I mean. Ranking MBA schools and even ugrad b schools based on anything "educational" should come second to job success
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You said it yourself - it should be about job success, right? Yet it's fairly unambiguous that Harvard, Wharton, and Stanford have tremendous success in placing their grads into top jobs. Just look at the salary rankings - Harvard, Wharton, and Stanford grads consistently obtain the top 3 average salaries of all of the B-schools. Look at the companies who hire from these schools, and you will notice that they generally tend to be among the most desirable companies. For example, I read that in one year, more than 1/3 of the entire graduating class of HBS got offers from McKinsey (although obviously not all of them took those offers). That's simply unbelievable considering that McKinsey has been one of the most desirable and prestigious employers for new MBA's, and clearly the most desirable and prestigious consulting company. </p>
<p>So you have to ask yourself - if recruiters dislike HWS, then why do their grads get such good jobs with such high salaries? More importantly, who cares whether the recruiters dislike them? You said it yourself - the bottom line is whether the graduates are getting top jobs. For HWS, the answer seems to be yes - in fact, like I said, they are getting the top 3 average salaries of all of the B-schools. Hence, 'recruiter satisfiaction' is therefore irrelevant.</p>
<p>i went to Dartmouth and have every reason to love WSJ because of its constant placement of Tuck in the top 2. I too think its bogus.</p>
<p>the WSJ MBA ranking is not really "bogus" as much as its the "wrong" ranking for most people.</p>
<p>i.e. if you are a recruiter, it's an awesome ranking... but since most people here are not recruiters - i.e if you are interested in ranking the best MBA programs out there then it's absolute crap.</p>
<p>If you are a good student at Berkeley what does it matter to you if some students are failing out? You are the one getting the good education and if it is good enough to end up teaching at MIT it is good enough period. State schools have the ideal of giving people a chance at a quality education unlike more super selective schools that take only top students and try to do no harm.(quote from Harvard dean)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are a good student at Berkeley what does it matter to you if some students are failing out?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll give you 3 responses. #1, how do you know that you are not going to fail out? The truth is, nobody really knows when they come in. I know quite a few students who flunked out of Berkeley who I am absolutely positive could have done very well at a lesser school. It's far far better than graduate from UCDavis or even San Jose State than to flunk out of Berkeley. In fact, one of them, a close friend of mine, deeply regrets having ever gone to Berkeley at all. He said he should have gone to Davis or UCSC or some other lesser school, because at least by doing so, he would have graduated by now. Now all he has is a trashed academic record full of failing grades from Berkeley. He can't transfer to a decent school because no decent school wants to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school. </p>
<p>Secondly, the presence of bad students at Berkeley detract from the Berkeley brand-name. When Berkeley brings in bad students, these bad students give Berkeley a bad name, regardless of whether they graduate or not. For example, I know another guy who was simply put, an absolutely terrible student who got admitted to Berkeley anyway, and then proceeded to flunk out. {I feel sorry for the first guy, but not for this guy, as this guy clearly deserved to flunk out}. Let's call this person "J". I remember being in a party with a bunch of people with 'J', and he was saying all kinds of stupid things and basically making an ass out of himself. So people asked me who is this guy who was saying all these stupid things, and I said "He's a student at Berkeley" (J hadn't flunked out yet). To a man, all of them replied "He goes to Berkeley? I thought Berkeley was supposed to be a good school". Hence, this guy basically serves as a walking and talking embarrassment to Berkeley. Guys like that make Berkeley look bad, and by extension, make you look bad if you go to Berkeley. People see guys like "J" behaving like fools, and then they start to get a bad impression of Berkeley in general. </p>
<p>But thirdly, these bad students take up academic resources that could instead be used by the good students. I will always remember going to a TA's Office hours that were filled by bad students who were asking extremely inane questions that revealed that they had clearly not bothered to do the reading, and basically just wanted the TA to read the book to them. The issue is that I actually had some serious and high-end questions I wanted to ask, but I could barely get a word in edgewise because other students were asking stupid questions and taking up the TA's time. The TA answered questions in a round-robin fashion, which meant that I only got to ask 2 questions out of my long list of questions, and the rest I couldn't get to. Meanwhile I had to sit around and endure listening to the TA answering extremely simplistic questions that honestly should have been known by anybody who had bothered to do the reading. </p>
<p>But your basic statement is the most telling one. It is not so much that the education is "good enough to end up teaching at MIT" for most students at Berkeley. Sure, Berkeley will always have some superstars who will go on to achieve great things. After all, Berkeley has over 23000 undergrads, so obviously SOME of them will do very well, just by sheer weight of numbers. The issue is what does the AVERAGE undergrad do, and that's where comparisons break down.</p>
<p>The_prestige, I agree that among the rankings availlable, the WSJ is one of the least accurate. But like I said before, with the exception of HBS and CBS, their rankings aren't that far off. All other programs are between 0-6 spots out of place, which is not that bad. Look at this year's ranking:</p>
<h1>1 Michigan - Ross (overranked by 4-7 spots)</h1>
<h1>2 Dartmouth - Tuck (overranked by 3-8 spots)</h1>
<h1>3 CMU - Tepper (overranked by 6-12 spots)</h1>
<h1>4 Columbia (overranked by 1-4 spots)</h1>
<h1>5 Cal - Haas (overranked by 4-7 spots)</h1>
<h1>6 Northwestern - Kellogg (underranked by 2-6 spots)</h1>
<h1>7 Penn - Wharton (underranked by 3-7 spots)</h1>
<h1>8 UNC - Kenan Flagler (overranked by 5-12 spots)</h1>
<h1>9 Yale (overranked by 4-11 spots))</h1>
<h1>10 MIT - Sloan (underranked by #2-5 spots)</h1>
<h1>11 Chicago (underranked by #3 and #7)</h1>
<h1>12 Duke - Fuqua (farily ranked)</h1>
<h1>13 UVa - Darden (fairly ranked)</h1>
<h1>14 Harvard (underranked by 10-13 spots)</h1>
<h1>15 USC - Marshall (fairly ranked)</h1>
<h1>16 Cornell - Johnson (underranked by 1-7 spots)</h1>
<h1>17 NYU -Stern (underranked by 2-8 spots)</h1>
<h1>18 Stanford (underranked by 10-14 spots)</h1>
<h1>19 UCLA - Anderson (underranked by 4-10 spots)</h1>
<p>As we can both clearly see, the ranking is, for the most part, only slightly off, with the exception of HBS and SBS, which are ranked roughly 10-13 spots out of place. Three programs (Fuqua, Darden and Marshall) are fairly ranked. The remaining 15 programs are ranked anywhere from 1-6 spots out of place, which is not that bad, considering all rankings, even the very accurate BW and USNWR, have their brain farts. As Sakky pointed out, BW ranked Stanford and Chicago out of the top 10 a couple of times and ranked Sloan as low as #15. USNWR has ranked Columbia at #10 last year and Michigan as low as 13 a couple of times. In short, there is no perfect ranking.</p>
<p>Sakky, I am not sure I agree with what you say. I have known literaly a dozen students who attended Cal. The "average" ones among them (those who graduated with 3.0-3.3 GPAs all got into top 20 graduate schools and are currently earning 6 figure salaries. A large chunk of Cal students fall in that category. </p>
<p>Two of them did very well and managed to graduate with 3.7+ GPAs. One of them got his PhD from MIT and is now a very high level manager at GE. I lost touch with the other soon after graduation, but she had multiple offers. Only one of those twelve isn't doing so hot, but even he seems to have done ok for himself.</p>
<p>Alex, </p>
<p>The proof is in the pudding on two distinct levels:</p>
<p>1) The universally accepted Top B-Schools: HBS, Wharton, Stanford are outside the Top 5 (name me another ranking that excludes ALL THREE schools outside the Top 5 - I can't think of a single one)</p>
<p>2) Look at who IS in the top 5:</p>
<ul>
<li>Michigan (not a Top 5 school - and, I'm sorry, but no way is it THE best b-school)</li>
<li>Dartmouth (a decent b-school, but even as Slipper - a Dartmouth alum - admits, definitely NOT the no. 2 b-school in the country)</li>
<li>CMU Tepper (I didn't even know Carnegie Mellon had a b-school, seriously, no idea)</li>
<li>Columbia (the only arguable Top 5 school - and much better than the three ranked above it)</li>
<li>Cal (Haas - wow - barely a Top 10 b-school IMO)</li>
</ul>
<p>Alex, look at your own comments - every single school in that Top 10 is way overranked even by your estimates - so how can this represent an accurate picture in any way? Stanford ranked no. 18?</p>
<p>It's just a horrible list Alex in all honesty.</p>
<p>p.s. how can you say that Stanford (at no. 18) is underranked by only 10-14 spots? In other words, at worst, you are saying that Stanford is the 8th best business school in the nation? Name me 7 b-schools which are better than Stanford - I'll give you Harvard and Wharton - so name me 5 b-schools which are better than Stanford.</p>
<p>Its a horrible, horrible list. Alexandre, its off more than almost any other B-school ranking I've seen. If the top 2/3 schools in the country aren't in the top 10 how can one take it seriously.</p>
<p>The_prestige, for the nth time, I agree that the WSJ is not a good ranking. As for which MBA programs I feel are better than Stanford? Harvard, Kellogg and Wharton are my top 3. I think Chicago and Stanford come next, but I also think Columbia, MIT and Michigan are comparable. Depending on what wants, I'd say that there is no difference between #4 and #8.</p>
<p>Alex, if you really thought it was such a horrible ranking - you wouldn't have made a post almost apologizing for the WSJ (post #251):</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
with the exception of HBS and CBS, their rankings aren't that far off.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>at any rate...</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Why do you love the WSJ rankings so much? I mean, if you love them so much, you should marry them!</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>The_prestige, I always say that the WSJ is a weak ranking. I am not willing to dismiss it as easily as you though because I happen to respect the opinion of corporate recruiters. However, corporate recruiters' opinions are only a small part of the equation and the WSJ makes it the entire equation.</p>
<p>UCLAri, behave!</p>
<p>My (serious) question is why can we not just accept different rankings having different criteria and look at them in aggregate?</p>
<p>I mean, feel free to disagree with the rankings firm placements of schools, but it isn't necessarily a poor idea to look at them holistically and comparatively in order to gather a perhaps clearer image of strengths and weaknesses of different schools.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I personally prefer looking at the historic aggregates of the USNWR and BW to come to a final ranking. When that is done, you get a ranking that I always use as my standard:</p>
<h1>1 Harvard</h1>
<h1>1 Kellogg</h1>
<h1>1 Wharton</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago</h1>
<h1>4 Stanford</h1>
<h1>6 Columbia</h1>
<h1>6 Ross</h1>
<h1>6 Sloan</h1>
<h1>9 Fuqua</h1>
<h1>9 Tuck</h1>