<p>My ranking (as an MBA) has always been:</p>
<p>1) Harvard
Stanford
Wharton</p>
<p>2) Kellogg</p>
<p>3) Columbia
MIT
Chicago</p>
<p>4) Tuck
Michigan</p>
<p>5) Cal
Duke</p>
<p>Wow, how shocking! You both agree more than you disagree. </p>
<p>See, we can all get along.</p>
<p>Now what about undergrad major rankings? Not that I would want to derail a derailed thread.</p>
<p>Tier I
HBS
UPenn Wharton
Stanford GSB</p>
<p>Tier II
NU Kellogg
Columbia
MIT Sloan
U Chicago</p>
<p>Tier III
Yale SOM
Dartmouth Tuck
Cornell Johnson
Duke Fuqua
Cal Haas
Michigan</p>
<p>UCLAri, the differences between Slipper, the Prestige and myself are not large. We agree on almost all points. Is there a real difference between ranking the #1 and #4 MBA programs or #6 and #8 MBA programs? Not really. Is there a difference between the #7 undergraduate insitution and the #17 undergraduate institution? Again, not really. Our debate revolves around their attempt to segragate and my attempt to integrate. Who is right and who is wrong? Well, that depends largely on what one values.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am happy that you apparently managed to meet some of our grads who have done quite well for themselves. </p>
<p>However, considering your experiences, it seems to me as if you met a highly self-selected group. The truth is, those Berkeley grads who didn't do so well tend to basically hang around the Bay Area such that you probably don't get an opportunity to meet them. This is especially true of the ones who did poorly, including the ones who never even graduated, they REALLY hang around the Bay Area doing nothing. </p>
<p>But I'll put it to you this way. Just take a gander at some of the reported jobs from Berkeley grads. A guy who graduated in math ends up being a waiter at Kells (a local bar)? A physics grad who ends up painting houses? What's up with that? And these are just the guys who reported. Plenty of people who end up with bad jobs don't even report it because they don't want to report it.</p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm</a></p>
<p>What I have always said about Cal is that it is clearly true that the better Cal grads do very well for themselves. But there is a long tail end of mediocre students at Cal. Not only are these students taking up academic resources that could be better used by the better students, but they are walking embarrassments to the school. Sad but true.</p>
<p>Sakky, they were not "self selected". We are talking about students who graduated in the middle of their class...no honors, no flashy GPAs and for the most part, international students who needed extra sponsorship to remain in the US. I'd say only 4 of those students were good -excellent students (3.5+). The remaining 10 or so Cal students I knew mostly graduated with 3.0-3.3 GPAs. The only similarity most of them shared was major. Most of them were Engineering majors, maybe that's why they all succeeded.</p>
<p>Alex, I'm sure you knew a special lucky group as the postgrad reports speak for themselves. Cal's ugrad placement does not match up to its peers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, they were not "self selected". We are talking about students who graduated in the middle of their class...no honors, no flashy GPAs and for the most part, international students who needed extra sponsorship to remain in the US. I'd say only 4 of those students were good -excellent students (3.5+). The remaining 10 or so Cal students I knew mostly graduated with 3.0-3.3 GPAs. The only similarity most of them shared was major. Most of them were Engineering majors, maybe that's why they all succeeded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They ARE self-selected. Come on, Alexandre, you and I both know that you are a successful guy and so you are prone to be meeting other successful guys. Few bums are going to cross your path.</p>
<p>I happen to know a lot of dropouts/flunkouts from Berkeley possibly by a streak of bad luck. The truth is, they travel in packs. I know one such person really well, and through him, I got to know many others because they hung out together a lot. If I never knew that first person, I would most likely have never met any of the others. </p>
<p>Yet I would state that the facts don't lie. 10% of Berkeley's undergrads never graduate at all. I'm not just talking about not graduating in 6 years, I'm talking about NEVER graduating. Even of those that do graduate, the truth is, plenty of people graduate in creampuff majors with low grades. Let's face it. If you graduate with a 2.1 GPA in 'Peace and Conflict Studies', you probably aren't going very far. Hence, a lot of people who graduated from Berkeley only 'graduated' because they majored in a creampuff major in which, franky, you don't need much more than a warm pulse in order to graduate. Hence, I would say that a significant fraction either never graduate at all, or if they do, they barely graduate from some creampuff major and are thus not much more capable than the people who didn't even graduate. </p>
<p>Besides, I think you've implicitly conceded the point. Merely surviving Berkeley engineering is a major accomplishment in itself, and getting a 3.0-3.3 is an even heftier accomplishment. Sure, these people will probably go on to achieve great things. Yet the fact is, most people at Berkeley are not engineers. Plenty, like I said, are majoring in one of the joke majors. </p>
<p>Berkeley basically consists of 2 schools. One of them is the highly rigorous and demanding school that comprises the majors of engineering, natural sciences, to an extent economics, certain humanities (notably philosophy), and some other majors. But then there is the other school which consists of do-nothing joke majors where you can pass your classes and even get high grades while doing very little work. Granted, not all students in those majors are lazy - some of them are indeed extremely interested in the coursework of those majors. But the fact is, plenty of them are there just because it's easy.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone suggested that Cal was horrible or terrible (with the exception of trolls.) Just that Cal's undergrad program isn't quite as good as its grad program.</p>
<p>I don't see how this is either hurtful to Cal or in any way untrue.</p>
<p>Saying that Cal's undergraduate education isn't as good as its graduate programs is akin to saying that Zinedine Zidane is better at creating plays than he is at scoring goals...or that Pete Sampras was better on a Grass surface than on a hard court. Yes, in all cases, it is true, but does it matter? Zinedine Zidane was still one of the best strikers ever...and Sampras was still practically unbeatable on the hard court. Similarly, Cal's graduate programs are among the top 3 in the World, compared to its undergraduate education which is probably one of the top 10 in the US, though not quite one of the top 5.</p>
<p>Top 10 is a huge exaggeration. Cal is not even top 20 as of now even with its peer rating which is absurdly high. Who would you kick out for the other 9? All 8 Ivies would probably be guaranteed a spot along with other top 10-15schools. Many public schools are much more respected at the grad level and that is a fact. Saying Cal ugrad = Cal grad is like saying NYU Law = NYU CAS or Upitt Med = Upitt ugrad.</p>
<p>If Cal's ugrad was top 10 it wouldn't have such a low graduation rate (which doesn't even account for the people in fluff majors or the ones who squeeze by with 2.0's or those who graduate in 5 years or more). Cal's student body is also 25% community college transfers.</p>
<p>When actual ugrad Cal students consistently point to the impersonal and large student body as a turnoff, a claim such as Cal being top 10 for ugrad is misleading.</p>
<p>AcceptedAlready, I know what I am talking about. Cal is a top 10 undergraduate research university. So are another 15 or so universities. One does not have to kick a school out of the top 10 to make room for Cal. And you need to take some reading comprehension classes. I said that Cal grad > Cal undergrad. What I was clearly saying is that since Cal grad is top 3 in the entire World, Cal undergrad can still be one of the top 10 in the US and be weaker than Cal grad.</p>
<p>I read your post fine which is why I addressed all the points. The thesis is in the first line as always. Top 10 ugrad is still a bit of an exaggeration based on actual Cal student feedback, their student body, graduation rate, job recruitment (non engineering), and other stats. People have mentioned b4 that Cal's ugrad is amazing in Engineering which is very true but a lot of other kids do take fluff majors in the non-Engineering schools.</p>
<p>I guess I just don't agree with having 25+ schools in a "top 10 ugrad" because that is what would happen if you compared Cal's ugrad to other top 25 universities. A lot more than 15 schools would be in the top 10. Personally, Cal's stats should rank it in the top 20 or so overall, around top 5 grad, and top 25 ugrad.</p>
<p>I totally agree. Alexandre tends to ignore tha fact that Cal and Michigan apply the same resources on 25K undergrads whereas the true top ten apply similar resources to 10K students or most often 4-6K students. He also tends to ignore selectivity, which in my experience has alot to do with a school's overall reputation.</p>
<p>I think the quality of the students and where they end up at is the most important factor in judging schools</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: Agreed. Which is why Cal's 25% community college transfer student body and its COMPARATIVELY worse postgrad placement (not engineering) should be accounted in its ugrad. The fluff majors are often overlooked because most people think of the quality of Cal engineers when they think of Cal.</p>