<p>That hardly begins to cover "every non-academic area," slipper1234. "Etc" doesn't follow any logical progression.</p>
<p>Size of school? What? That must be why employers and graduate and professional school admissions staff love Mills College so much more than Berkeley, right? And Berkeley more than ASU?</p>
<p>You completely misunderstand. The examples I list should be a great start to why the publics are not nearly as competitive, but if you want some more reasons the fact that only two/five elite consulting firms or 2/7 banks recruit at Cal while almost double that number recruit at NORTHWESTERN should be another great example. </p>
<p>As for size, the truth is that Cal and Michigan (I'll use these two examples) would easily be ranked in the top 10 if they had an undergrad student body the size of the Ivies. The career services office could afford to serve the student body more, they would be much more selective (this is critical! 75% of the "prestige" you get from an Ivy is the fact that people instantly know you are smart), the professors could actually better assist undergrads, there would be far fewer sections led by TAs, the schools could offer their own exclusive study abroad programs, and MOST IMPORTANTLY they would be able to FUND undergrad research and give undergrads the OPPORTUNITIES they get at the Ivies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GatorEng23, schools like Amherst and Brown are not "no name" colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never did.</p>
<p>Well, that was kind of the implication, since those schools were both brought up in discussion.</p>
<p>BTW: I might be over-negative on the top publics, in some areas they shine (UCLA film for example). I'm mainly referring to the general A&S experience. The main point is that Cal/ UM fans try to place them among the top 10 based only on the quality of professors and ignore every other factor critical to undergrad (outlined above). Its like arguing a car is awesome based only on the chassis, when the rest of the car is barely average. Sure a great chassis is important, but so is the engine, interior, etc.</p>
<p>Note to Cal/ UM fans: Start arguing that they belong in the top 15-20 and no one will argue back, you might even gain some converts. Its this HYPSMCal sillyness that causes so many people to fervantly argue otherwise.</p>
<p>Slipper, the reason why only 2 out the top 7 (Bain, BCG, Booz Allen, McKinsey, Monitor, AT Kearney and Makaron) MCs and 2 out of the top 10 IBs recruit at Cal is because those two industries are primarily East Coast based. Yes, they have regional offices in the West Coast and Midwest, but their primary offices are in the East Coast. If you look closely, those companies do not recruit more heavily at Stanford than at Cal, so clearly, it has nothing to do with your entirely incorrect assumption that state schools aren't competitive. It has more to do with the fact that most Cal students generally prefer working for zippy Silicon Valley tech companies than for East coast IBs and MCs. </p>
<p>To further illustrate my point, look at the University of Michigan. 6 of the top 7 MCs and all of the top 10 IBs recruit HEAVILY at Michigan. By heavily, I mean comparable to most of the private elites (top LACs, Northwestern, Duke, Dartmouth, Penn etc...) on a per capita basis. Last year, close to 100 undergrads joined the top 7 MCs and another 300 or so undergrads joined top 10 IBs. Two thirds of those undergrads did not belong to Ross. That's close to 10% of the Engineering and LSA student population. McKinsey alone, which is notorious for hiring very few undergrads, recruited over 22 (only 5 of which were from Ross) Michigan undergrads. </p>
<p>And your conjecture that the Ivies have better alumni networks is completely off. Michigan and UVa have alumni networks that can, at the very best, be matched by the Ivies. </p>
<p>I would definitely agree that where student-faculty contact is concerned, Michigan and Cal lose out to the liks of Dartmouth and Brown...but not to Penn, Columbia and Harvard, all of which have faculties that are identical to Cal and Michigan in their commitment to research and their graduate students.</p>
<p>And one more thing Slipper. Cal and Michigan faithfull aren't saying that they are better than all universities other than H,M,P,S and Y. What they are saying is that they are just as worthy of top 10 consideration as schools like Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You completely misunderstand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe. I think part of the problem is misstatement, or perhaps a lack of clarity due to a lack of specificity or completeness. Do you mean to say in what you think are the most important non-academic factors, the top LACish private colleges or the top private colleges in America beat the top 5 or whatever publics? Something different? My possible reading is not identical to saying “In every non-academic area the top publics are weak.” The second claim has a far larger scope (all things) as opposed to a choice few things you outlined after the original claim. With regard to size, you seem to really mean the resources per capita. Certainly this is related to size (just like it’s related to resources), but it isn’t size.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Slipper, the reason why only 2 out the top 7 (Bain, BCG, Booz Allen, McKinsey, Monitor, AT Kearney and Makaron) MCs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Kearney and Makaron are top 7 consulting firms? I would venture to say that Mercer has to be in the top 7 somewhere. </p>
<p>But regardless, I have to object to slipper's comment. I am pretty certain that I saw at least 4 of them recruit at campus (Bain, BoozAllen, McKinsey, and Mercer) recruiting at Cal, at least in the old days. Maybe a current Cal student can check Cal OCR to see if they are still there, but I have to believe that more than 2 of them are still there. McKinsey is DEFINITELY there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and 2 out of the top 10 IBs recruit at Cal is because those two industries are primarily East Coast based.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as the IB's are concerned, I know that Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Lehman are so-called "Berkeley Circle Employers" which basically means that they have the run of the Career Center, and those Circle Employers definitely make their presence known. So at very least there will be 3 IB's actively recruiting at Berkeley. </p>
<p>Alexandre, I actually think they are saying Cal is along the lines of HYPSM. If you read some of the posts I've read this past week (from sensai, rabban, and others) you'll see that is in fact the case. But I do think that this viewpoint comes from a very small minority, and luckily it hardly appears to convince anyone.</p>
<p>As for Cal and Michigan's place, I agree that they offer a very different value proposition that places like Dartmouth/ Brown which are more like elite LACS. They are much more similar to places like Penn, Columbia, Chicago, Cornell, JHU, and Northwestern, schools which for the most part IMO be ranked between 8-15. But I believe Michigan/ Cal are right after this set of schools due to fewer resources per undergraduate student (150K vs. 200K per student IS a big deal) and lower selectivity. It comes down to the fact that Cal and UM are so large. If they both had around 10K undergrads they would easily be in that category, but they are much bigger and that is why they should be ranked about 15-17 IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look closely, those companies do not recruit more heavily at Stanford than at Cal
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I strongly suspect that they actually do recruit more heavily at Stanford than at Cal. </p>
<p>For example, the following is the link to the recruiters who are registered to recruit at Stanford. Punch stuff in, see the results, and I think the results for MC and IB tend to be somewhat better than Berkeley's. Note, many of the firms seem to have classified themselves in different categories. For example, Goldman Sachs is classified under "Financial Services", not "investment banking". </p>
<p>
[quote]
By heavily, I mean comparable to most of the private elites (top LACs, Northwestern, Duke, Dartmouth, Penn etc...) on a per capita basis. Last year, close to 100 undergrads joined the top 7 MCs and another 300 or so undergrads joined top 10 IBs. Two thirds of those undergrads did not belong to Ross. That's close to 10% of the Engineering and LSA student population. McKinsey alone, which is notorious for hiring very few undergrads, recruited over 22 (only 5 of which were from Ross) Michigan undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These are interesting stats. May I have a link?</p>
<p>Slipper, what happens in 5 years, when Michigan overtakes Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn in endowment per capita and matches them in terms of selectivity? Michigan has significantly narrowed the gap over the years. In 1990, Michigan's endowment per student was roughly 300%-400% smaller than those schools. Today, it is merely 25%-30% smaller. If you want to differentiate between schools based on such small differences, so be it. But do not try to argue the other way when the tables are turned. </p>
<p>Sakky, good catch with MErcer. I should definitely have included them. I do not have a link to the entire figures. I did communicate with the Career offices of LSA and Engineering at Michigan and they confirmed that McKinsey hired 14 and 3 students from those two colleges respectively. Those numbers are also consistent with the figures given to me by an HR colleague of mine who works at McKinsey, only she could only list 19 Michigan undergrads who joined McKinsey last year. The career offices at the Colleges of Engineering and LSA also confirmed the numbers of students who joined other firms, but they were admitedly quite spotty.</p>
<p>For Ross, the link below gives pretty solid statistical information.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the CoE and LSA doe not offer nearly as much information, although the CoE does provide some detail.</p>
<p>lol...so basically from all this i can only conclude the probably best undergrad for chem in california is cal...i guess there is no definite list for undergrad major rankings. =( oh well thanks guys~!</p>
<p>Eh, maybe Caltech, Stanford, Harvey Mudd, or Pomona win, and they win out in certain ways. There's plenty to choose from in CA. Really, any UC would probably be fine for you, and less elite LACs, such as Occidental and Pitzer would may also be fine for you.</p>
<p>Damn, so many posts while I was sleeping…God, you folks should have some other hobbies</p>
<p>prestige:lol, you better print out my post #48, and post it on your desk – a good reminder of your silliness and possible consequence…. Tonight, Show it to your wife (or ur mom) so she can give a bear hug.</p>
<p>
[quote]
basically from all this i can only conclude the probably best undergrad for chem in california is cal
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously! After all, Berkeley is one of the few selected WCUs.</p>
<p>WCU : Harvard-Berkeley-MIT-Stanford-Yale-Princeton-Columbia-Caltech</p>
<p>You just can’t go wrong attending one of the WCUs. So true for the chem. major in particular. After all, Berkeley is number 1 in the world in Chemistry!!!</p>
<p>Just in case, you're interested in BIOchemstry</p>
<p>comptational nano-scale Chemistry is another hot area:</p>
<p>Alexandre, those "small differences" are what distinguishes the #8 school from the #15 school. If UM or Cal ever catches up or exceeds the Ivies in selectivity or endowment per student I would be the first to call them a tp ten. Until then they will be 15-20 in my book.</p>
<p>you couldnt pay me to go to a giant research institution for undergrad.</p>
<p>hypothetically speaking, which would you consider a stronger department (we'll keep it at chem, cause that was the original question)?</p>
<p>-School A has 60 chem majors, 5 of whom go on to 'prestigious' grad schools/jobs related to chem.
-School B has 6 chem majors, 5 of whom go on to 'prestigious' grad schools/jobs related to chem.</p>