<p>I know for a fact that Umich and Berkeley are far more recognized internationally than lower ives such as Brown, and Dartmouth, some people don't even know about Princeton but they know about Cornell as president of Taiwan went there and it is famous for engineering.</p>
<p>Yeah, but would you honestly turn down Princeton to go to Cornell?</p>
<p>I did. It has an excellent undergrad business program and theres really not that much difference in prestige. Oh yea and its way more fun. This whole post has been about how pretigious school X is or which companies recruit from where. You should also take into account whether you actually like the school. My high school is a pipeline into princeton but I liked cornell better. I had the choice to go to swathmore or u of chicago but people there have no social lives. And I for one do not want to spend 4 years in a library.</p>
<p>you're an idiot to have chosen Cornell over Princeton. Ever heard of O.R.F.E.?Operations Research & Financial Engineering > Cornell Undergrad Business
...in every important way....by alot :(</p>
<p>Well I wouldn't say he's an idiot, they're both really good schools. However, it's my personal opinion that Princeton is the best undergradute opportunity in the U.S. so I wouldn't have chosen Cornell. You can't go wrong either way!</p>
<p>How would a B.S. in Economics and a certificate in Markets and Management from Duke fare in the I-banking job hunt / top MBA admissions?</p>
<p>Lots of pertinent suggestions so far. My suggestions are as follows :</p>
<p>Take coursework that enhances your public speaking skills.
Learn how to prepare and make presentations well.
Hone your social skills. Join a fraternity. Play intramurals. Play golf.
Get very physically fit. Learn to dress and look good.
Seek out leadership and entrepreneurial opportunities.
Focus on developing sound, disciplined, efficient work habits, without procrastination.
Early on, research business opportunities that may be available to you after undergrad that will best lead to visible success for you, and make sure you meet their requirements.
Being able to think and talk quickly on your feet is an important skill, but I'm not sure how to enhance these abilities. Maybe join an improv. comedy troupe?
Practice doing elementary arithmetic rapidly in your head.
Take courses that help develop your writing skills.</p>
<p>If you do the above you will enhance your chances of doing well in the workplace. And I think everyone has agreed that demonstrated track record in the workplace is critically important.</p>
<p>On a different matter, I had a reaction to an earlier post by Sakky on % alumni attending top 10 law schools (post #24, page 2). Alexandre made a point that this statistic is misleading for Michigan due to the diversity of its student body. I'd make the same point about Cornell. It has about 7 undergraduate colleges that are all different with respect to student interests and admissions standards. To really isolate a student's odds of getting into a certain class of grad schools it would be most appropriate to look at the stats for the particular college at Cornell, not the university as a whole. When I was applying to colleges the stats for each entering College at Cornell were broken out separately in the guide books; I wish they still did this.</p>
<p>Of the Cornell undergraduate colleges, the following are likely to produce fewer law school applicants than a typical liberal arts college: Agriculture, Human Ecology, Hotel, Engineering , Architecture. That leaves Arts & Sciences and ILR. And while there is overlap and there are many outstanding ILR graduates who do attend top law schools, it has typically been the case that the Arts school is more selective/ has better stats than ILR.</p>
<p>in PA and it was well known that Michigan wasn't even considered a safety for most students. Cornell gets the nod for being the school that gets all the rejects from the top schools, but at least its ivy. I don't know of any of my friends who would actually reject Cornell for Michigan, but I am sure it happens. Maybe Michigan alumni know something more that College prep high schools kids know, but the only reason why anyone would apply to Mich is if Cornell was a reach.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I don't know of any of my friends who would actually reject Cornell for Michigan, but I am sure it happens. but the only reason why anyone would apply to Mich is if Cornell was a reach.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>How about rejecting Cornell for Michigan by not even applying to Cornell? Michigan is my "safety" and it's a very respected one. I would be happy at Michigan. With Mich under my belt, my plan is to reach for my other schools, that is, reach higher than Cornell (nothing against Cornell of course). So while Cornell may be a reach for me, I'm not looking over it because it's a reach. On my new potential college list, every school is arguably harder to get into than Cornell. Many might say my list is unrealistic now, but it's okay because I have Mich to back me. If I wanted to, I could apply to Cornell with a more realistic shot of getting in, then use Cornell as my safety, but I'm not going to because I'd rather be at Mich anyway. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would do so.</p>
<p>Actually Drop65, Michigan is generally seen as a substitute for Northwestern, Cornell and Penn. Those four schools have many shared applicants and they attract them equally.</p>
<p>Interesting. Well I am applying to Northwestern out of the above list. Also Chicago, a few of the top LACs, and an ivy. This list is tentative though.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I don't know what you are basing your information on, but you are simply wrong. Even Mich alumni are smart enough to know their school is not a substitute for a top 20 school, let alone a top 10 school.. or wait you even went farther; a number 4 school. You shouldn't spend your time cheerleading a school that isn't even considered in the Top 20, because prospective applicants can do a simple search and see that over 20 schools are ranked higher than Michigan. Face it, the rep isn't there.. Its a good school, but a safety for people who can't get into a top 20 school. </p>
<p>If you look at the link you provide, there is a column for "peer assessment". That's the most important criterion and the only gauge of "rep" which you seem to think is so important. Cornell, Michigan, Penn get Peer assessment scores of 4.6/5.0. Northwestern gets a score of 4.4/5.0. I would say that reputationally, all four are in the same ball park. Secondly, Michigan is a top 20 school. In fact, it is a top 10 school in most respects, from academic strength to academic reputation to endowment. Finally, I was not stating an opinion. It is a fact that Cornell, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn have many cross applicants (according to Barrons and to Fiske) and those applicants like all 4 schools equally. It is indeed easier to get into Michigan than it is to get into the other three schools. But that does not make Michigan any weaker academically.</p>
<p>Monydad, I think you're trying to argue to me that self-selection of students indicates that some Michigan or Cornell students (those studying engineering or other non-arts majors) are self-selecting themselves away from law school, and hence it is unfair to count those students when assessing the size of their students bodies relative to the number of their students going to top-flight law schools. </p>
<p>I would actually counter by arguing that self-selection cuts both ways. I would argue that many many of the incoming freshmen at both Michigan or Cornell would absolutely love to get into a top-flight law school. For example, if they knew that (magically), they would be granted such a law-school admissions letter (i.e. to Michigan Law), they would happily take it. The fact is, the reason why a lot of engineers, or ILR students (at Cornell) study what they are studying is not simply because they don't want to go to a top-flight law school. Many are doing it because they suspect they may not be able to get into a top-flight law school, and so they are hedging their career bets by getting a marketable undergraduate degree. Even those very strong incoming students who do think they could get into a top-flight law school often times still study engineering just to give themselves a "backup career path". Hence, the self-selection is occuring on the front-end as well as on the back-end and it is by no means clear which way it swings the data. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would also argue that lots of students come into Michigan and Cornell intending to apply to top-flight law schools, but then never do, because they get mediocre grades. Alexandre has said on another thread that only a small fraction of Michigan engineering students get the grades necessary to make themselves competitive for elite law schools. And plenty of Michigan and Cornell engineering students who are barely passing would love to get into a top law school. Sure, the best Cornell and Michigan engineers probably don't care about law school, because they can get good engineering jobs, or go to engineering graduate school. But what about those engineers who are barely scraping by with straight C's? Clearly they're not going to be getting to engineering graduate school. They're not going to have great engineering jobs waiting for them when they graduate. And at Michigan and Cornell, I think we all know that there are quite a few engineering students who are barely scraping by. They're not going to apply to any top law schools because they know they don't have a prayer of getting in. Yet, of all the engineers, it is precisely these bottom-feeders (for lack of a better term) who would want to go to an elite law school the most, because they know they probably don't have a bright future in engineering waiting for them. Take the top 10 engineering students at Michigan, and offer them admission to Michigan Law, and sure, maybe none of them will bite. Take the bottom 10 engineering students at Michigan, and offer them admission to Michigan Law, and I think quite a few will bite.</p>
<p>The point is, even a look at the overall rates of who applies from what particular college at Michigan or Cornell does not tell you all that much about who really wants to go to law school. Just because you don't apply doesn't mean that you don't want to go. It often times means that you just don't think you can get in. If I have straight C's, I am not going to waste my time applying to Yale Law, even if I want to go. I would argue that plenty of people at Michigan or Cornell, even the ILR or engineering schools, would like to go to top law schools, but don't apply because they don't think they have a reasonable chance of getting in.</p>
<p>I have a young son. It would please me if he were to grow to be more than 6-feet tall. Should I therefore encourage him to play basketball rather than baseball, because basketball players are statistically more likely to be more than six feet tall?</p>
<p>The fact that a lower percentage of the graduating class from Berkeley will win admission to the top graduate programs says nothing about how a high school senior who is offered admission to both undergraduate schools influence her chances for admission to the graduate program will be improved or diminished by chosing one school over the other.</p>
<p>Sure there's a diffrence between the average test scores of the entering freshman classes at Stanford and Berkeley. But you could probably select from among Berkeley's larger freshman class a smaller group the size of the freshman class at Stanford, with test scores just as high as the Stanford freshman class. (One piece of anecdotal evidence in favor of this theory: there were 45 people with Berkeley undergraduate degrees in my law school class at Berkeley, at 40 Stanford graduates.)</p>
<p>Well, if you truly believe that it's all up to the individual and the choice of a particular educational program has little value, and you want to follow that road of logic to its natural conclusion, then I can also say that those who get into top graduate schools tend to be more succcessful, that says nothing about the value of a top graduate school for a particular individual. In other words, you are arguing that maybe Stanford undergrads are more able to get into top graduate schools than Berkeley undergrads can, just because Stanford undergrads are simply better students in the first place, and has nothing to do with Stanford specifically, and hence there is little point in striving to get into Stanford over Berkeley. If so, then I could equally argue that maybe people at Yale Law get top law jobs just because those students are top law students, and has nothing to do with Yale Law specifically, and so there is no point in striving for Yale Law. If I'm a genius law student with a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT, then if it doesn't matter if I go to Yale Law or some no-name 4th tier law school - I'm a genius and I will inevitably get a top-flight law job regardless. Hence, not only have you managed to invalidate my post, you have managed to invalidate the entire thread. </p>
<p>The point is that the fact that we're even arguing about the value of getting into the top graduate schools in the first place implicitly means that we are all conceding that it is indeed important to get into those top graduate schools, or in other words, we don't believe in simply individualism. In other words, I think we all agree that even putting aside the quality of the incoming students aside, it is still a positive thing to get into Yale Law. I think most of us would agree that the guy with the 4.0 and the 180 LSAT is probably better served by going to Yale Law than some no-name law school. Hence, if that's the case, then we would probably also believe that certain undergraduate programs better serve their students than others do, particularly as it comes to getting its students into top-flight law schools.</p>
<p>I have heard the arguments for 'individualism' before, and while individualism is undoubtedly important, the fact is, so is the quality of your schooling. The fact is, a high-quality person will still probably succeed even if he/she goes to a bad school (either undergrad or law school), that person is more likely to succeed by going to a good school. </p>
<p>In particular, in the case of Berkeley vs. Stanford, I would point to the support and advising services at Berkeley, which are very sorely lacking vis-a-vis Stanford. I think even the most hardcore Berkeley supporter would have to concede that advising at Berkeley is not exactly a highlight of the Berkeley experience. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean that you're well-adjusted or that you're immune to problems - romantic, personal, psychological, or otherwise. It is easier to fall through the cracks and get lost at Berkeley than it is at Stanford, ane one piece of supporting evidence to demonstrate this is the conspicuously lower graduation rate at Berkeley than at Stanford. Geniuses are certainly not immune to life's problems, and in fact, to some extent, may actually be more vulnerable to them. Plenty of geniuses go to Berkeley, run into life problems, and not only get no help from Berkeley, but in some cases, actually get hindered by Berkeley. "Oh, you had this and that problem, and so your work quality has slipped? That's too bad for you. We don't care. We're putting you on academic probation and/or expelling you from Berkeley." </p>
<p>The other thing I would point to is the aspect of grade inflation. I think we would all agree that Stanford is a more grade inflated school than Berkeley is. And when it comes to getting admission to a top-flight law school, grade inflation helps immensely. Nor is grading necessarily correlated with genius. As many college students know, many classes are in effect 'random grade generators', where the grade you get is not really correlated with the work you put in or the quality of your work. This is especially true in many humanities and social sciences courses where the work basically consists of subjective papers and grading is therefore based on 'feel' - or in other words, whether the grader just happens to like the paper or not. Give the same paper to 2 different English profs and you will often times get 2 entirely different grades. You can write an absolutely brilliant paper, but if the prof doesn't like it, you will get a bad grade. However, at Stanford, what is considered to be a bad grade is rarely less than a 'B'. At Berkeley, a bad grade can easily be a 'C' or worse. Whether you think it's right or wrong, the fact is, law school admissions is tremendously grades-driven, and hence undergraduate grade inflation helps immensely to get admitted. That jibes with what I've been saying in other threads - if you want to go to law school, you want to do what you have to do to maximize your grades, and if that means going to an undergrad program and/or an undergrad major that tends to grade easily, then so be it. Stanford can therefore be seen as the 'safer' choice. </p>
<p>But all of that comes down to the basic point that certain undergrad programs are better gateways to the top law schools than others. As to your question of what is specifically happening at Berkeley, while, true, I cannot statistically prove one way or the other that one is absolutely and necessarily better than the other, I can present the sort of statistics that Berkeley undergrads need to get into top law schools. Hence, if you are a Berkeley undergrad, these stats tell you the sort of odds you are facing if you want to go to law school.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>It looks to me like the Berkeley grads who were admitted to the law schools on the list had, on average, LSAT scores close to the average for those admitted to the schools.</p>
<p>At Penn's law school, 8 out of the 21 who applied were admitted. The successful ones averaged a 169 on the LSAT, and a 3.71 GPA.</p>
<p>"I think we would all agree that Stanford is a more grade inflated school than Berkeley is." It depends on what you mean by grade inflated. We can all agree that Stanford awards a higher percentage of A's than Berkeley does. Would a paper submitted to a class at Stanford be awarded a higher grade than the same paper would be get in a comparable class at Berkeley? I doubt it. </p>
<p>The fact that the average sale price of a house in one neighborhood is higher than the average sale price in the next neighborhood doesn't necessarily mean that housing prices in the first neighborhood are more inflated. The first neighborhood could simply have better houses.</p>
<p>Prove to me that a university gets grads with lower LSAT scores into top schools, and I'll concede it's truly a better gateway to law school.</p>
<p>I was too late to edit that last message. It does appear that the Berkeley students admitted to a lot of law schools on the list had LSAT scores around the 75th percentile for all students admitted. This may be related to the fact that the class of 2003 at Berkeley was admitted after Prop 209 (and the Regents of the University) abolished affirmative action. If 20% of a law school class is admitted under an affirmative action program, the median LSAT of the portion of the class not admitted through such a program may be close to the 75th pecentile of the entire student body.</p>
<p>"The fact is, the reason why a lot of engineers, or ILR students (at Cornell) study what they are studying is not simply because they don't want to go to a top-flight law school. Many are doing it because they suspect they may not be able to get into a top-flight law school, and so they are hedging their career bets by getting a marketable undergraduate degree."</p>
<p>As far as engineers are concerned, or architects, frankly I doubt that you believe your own argument.</p>
<p>To state what is, to me at least, the obvious: </p>
<p>Most engineers have no interest in a career in law. Their primary areas of interest are math and science. Frequently they are exceptionally good at those subjects and somewhat less good at subjects requiring extensive reading & writing. </p>
<p>Conversely many law-bound people have just the opposite set of interests and talents. If they were offered entry to a prestigious engineering school they would not take it. Not simply because of money, but because they would fall on their face; it's not where their talents or interests lie.</p>
<p>I myself was an engineer, and have no interest in being a lawyer or attending law school. Any law school. My wife is a lawyer, but she could not be an engineer. She's very bright, but she took no science courses after her junior year of high school, and this was not an accident.</p>
<p>My point is that when comparing stats of this nature for primarily liberal arts schools, you should compare them to Cornell's liberal arts school, not it's school of architecture, or engineering, or whatever. An applicant to Cornell applies to a particular college (eg Arts& Sciences, Engineering, etc), not to Cornell as a whole. These are six (or so) different undergraduate colleges that all happen to be at the same place. Each of the schools, and the abilities and objectives of their students, are different. Lumping them together serves no valid purpose. It is misleading to an applicant who necessarily will apply to only one of its colleges. These are separate colleges, they are not a homogeneous whole. You should treat each of them seperately, and look at the stats for it by itself.</p>
<p>If you want to examine the tendency of students at the Cornell College of Engineering to attend top law schools, or whatever, compare it to the tendency of Carnegie Mellon U engineers to do the same, not to Colgate U liberal arts majors, or whatever. And don't mix them in with liberal arts majors of another college that happens to be on the same campus. Otherwise your conclusions are nonsensical and irrelevant. In my opinion.</p>
<p>Here's an example of another riduculous conclusion you can arrive at by inappropriately lumping different colleges together. You can compare matriculation rates at top engineering graduate programs. The colleges you decide to compare are: MIT, Carnegie Mellon College of Engineering, RPI, Case Western Engineering College, Illinois Institute of Technology, and Cornell. Except for Cornell you (inappropriatley) lump together all 6 (or whatever) of its separate undergraduate colleges, not just its College of Engineering.</p>
<p>Lo and behold, when you complete this study you find that Cornell (as lumped together by you) has the lowest rate of matriculation to prestigious engineering graduate programs.</p>
<p>This is clearly misleading and distorted, because an applicant interested in engineering would apply to Cornell's College of Engineering, not to some fictitious composite of all of Cornell's individual and separate colleges. Cornell's College of Engineering would have a quite competitive graduate enrollment rate, and that is what is relevant to this student. But because you have lumped it in with all these other irrelevant colleges which also happen to be located at Cornell, you have reported an erroneous conclusion to that applicant.</p>