<p>
[quote]
And if you followed the story closely, you'd also have read Berkeley's response, which was to post anonymous profiles of some of those students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're assuming these students who are more numerically qualified don't have stories of their own and other merits besides their numbers. Admittedly, their stories probably wouldn't be as stellar as the kids whose stories were good enough to make up for a sub-1000 score, but still, tell that to the 1520/4.6/1st generation (and not exactly wealthy) college-going immigrant. I knew someone like that turned down by Berkeley. Think he thought it was fair when the story broke?</p>
<p>Further, if you followed the story closely, Moore's second study concluded these students had a higher dropout rate. Berkeley disputes this however.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Think he thought it was fair when the story broke?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're not debating fairness. </p>
<p>The below-1000 statistics were brought into this discussion because people were using it as evidence that Berkeley wasn't selective, wasn't a good school, was "a joke" etc. I was simply pointing out that a cadre of students with a low SAT don't provide a barometer of selectivity when it's obvious that in these cases, Berkeley used other important criteria for admissions (and had good reason to NOT consider SAT).</p>
<p>Citing examples of 1500+ kids who DIDN'T get in doesn't really support the idea that Berkeley isn't selective. Unless I'm missing something? </p>
<p>Neither does dropout rate. Ask anyone in higher ed--students with a lot of family responsibilities, low income, and huge personal demands are at higher risk for dropout and stopout than other students. A statistic about lower graduation rate for such students wouldn't surprise me if that were the case--but again, how does that support that Berkeley suffers from "lack of selectivity" on the basis of their SAT scores?</p>
<p>You make it sound like its not possible to get into NYU and not Berkeley (which is a much stronger overall school and prestigious school.) And what kind of attitude do you have? Do you think New York students are stronger than California, just cuz New York has Stuy, lol, you are gravely mistaken. Many of the top public high schools are in California. Ivy League enrollments usually have close to 50% of the students enrolling from California. I know Pton this year has 53% of its incoming freshman class from California. Dont think east coast students are "inherently" stronger than west kids, thats not true.</p>
<p>I never said that. I've lived in CA and can tell you that the public schools here are pretty bad for the most part, and most UC students come from mediocre public schools.</p>
<p>I'm not even mentioning all the students who transfer each year into UCLA/Cal from community colleges like SMC and LACC.</p>
<p>NYC public schools are also very bad. Stuy happens to be one of the 3 major magnet schools (theres also Bronxscience and Brooklyn Tech) that attracts students away from bad schools.</p>
<p>And what are sunys? and cunys? If you want to play biased and exclude information, california will lose, but on a fair playing field. UCs vs SUNYs...UCs definitely win. Cal State vs CUNY, i would bet CSUs would still win. The mediocre California public students feed into what? UCSB? UCI? Where do the mediocre NYC students go? SUNYs. Id say cali has, overall, has a very very strong student body compared to other states.</p>
<p>Many very strong students attend community colleges for 1 year and then transfer to a stronger school. Why? Because they want to save money. Taking advantage of a CC for 1 year is well worthwhile. You can get rid of a lot of basic credits for a lot less money.</p>
Citing examples of 1500+ kids who DIDN'T get in doesn't really support the idea that Berkeley isn't selective. Unless I'm missing something?
[/quote]
[quote]
but again, how does that support that Berkeley suffers from "lack of selectivity" on the basis of their SAT scores?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When did I ever say Berkeley suffers from a lack of selectivity? It must be quite easy make counterarguments against things that were never said. I was merely contesting the statement that a previous poster maid in regards to people under 1200 not getting in, and supporting the statement that sub 1000 people do. In fact, I happen to think very highly of Berkeley's admissions standards -- with the exception of the aforementioned article. Perhaps we have more common ground than you'd like to admit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When did I ever say Berkeley suffers from a lack of selectivity?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding; I didn't attribute that particular sentiment to you. My point is the context of this discussion.</p>
<p>As I've read it, this thread has revolved about selectivity, quality, what's the better school, however you want to state that. And the specific point about those 376 or 400 or however many UCB admittees? That arose because people were using SAT averages to support their claims of selectivity and quality. </p>
<p>It started in post #106, where sternman mentioned it to support his earlier contention in post #102 that Berkeley was "a joke." He may not have used the word 'selectivity' in a quotable phrase, but that's the implication he was making (IMHO) when he brought up their SAT scores in the context of quality and difficulty of admission. Berkeley's SATs continued to be discussed. In arguing that he felt Berkeley was selective, Shrek claimed that it was unusual for students under 1200 to be admitted (see post #129). He actually did use the term selective. That's when you supplied the stats backing up the earlier post (post #106) about the students under 1000. I see why you posted it, and thanks for pointing that out. However, it was still about selectivity, which is why I felt compelled to point out that when you know more about those students, Berkeley could still be considered selective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It must be quite easy make counterarguments against things that were never said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>?? I'm lost here. I don't know how one could say it was "never said." </p>
<p>I'm genuinely glad to hear we basically agree, but I don't see how that changes the context of the thread, at least as I've been following it from page 5 or so. This is about Berkeley's selectivity; I don't know how else to read it. I've tried to keep my comments in line with the idea of "is Berkeley selective or not." </p>
<p>At a total loss here. This ain't "quite easy" by any stretch.</p>
<p>hoedown, I meant things <em>I</em> never said, as I thought you were attributing the "lack of selectivity" comments to me since they were mentioned in replies to my posts. I didn't realize it was a rebuttal against the threadwise notion that Berkeley isn't selective.</p>
<p>Again, I think Berkeley is extremely selective, and more so than NYU. I would venture to assume however, that NYU Stern students are stronger than the average Berkeley admit, though Stern students are among the best of NYU.</p>
<p>Okay, thanks; I guess that clears it up. When I said "people" in post #142 I really meant that--people in this thread, not necessarily you in particular. I was too lazy at that point to see who said what; I was mostly trying to figure out how your comments (about the profiles and the people who were denied) fit in with the discussion of selectivity. </p>
<p>Back to the topic at hand--I don't know much about Stern except they are stiff competition for Michigan. Michigan and NYU have had increasing app overlap in the last decade and the immediate admit to Stern is a strong advantage for them. I do think it's funny that a year after the $100 million gift from Ross, someone in this thread claimed (way way back on page one) Michigan is in serious decline. Money isn't everything, but I have to believe that kind of cash would keep a program from tanking. Not that I think Michigan's business school is or ever was. <em>delighted titter</em> You can always count on these boards for entertaining commentary, can't you?</p>
<p>For strictly business or law, if you can afford it, pick NYU over michigan. I think life in the city would be really cool.</p>
<p>I think it's really funny how someone on this thread (earlier on) posted that his visit to u.mich resulted in him 'getting lost in that jungle'. Anybody else feel this way about Mich?</p>
<p>"Lost in that Jungle"--I never go that feeling there. Just a vibrant campus and adjacent town with students everywhere--the ultimate college life experience.</p>
<p>Eternity, Michigan has better graduate school placement (including Law School placement) thant NYU. </p>
<p>In Business, Ross is generally considered as good as Stern, as all the corporate rankings suggest. Internships and permanent job placement statistics at both schools are practically identical. </p>
<p>As far as getting lost in Michigan, only if you are a child needing constant help and not yet ready to face the real world. Grown-ups tend to have an incredible time at Michigan/Ann Arbor. It is, hands down, one of the top 5 college towns in America, and Michigan, one of the most lively and spirited campuses in the nation.</p>
<p>I didn't say that Stern was better than mich. I just said that it might a little more exciting since it's in the city. Imo, Mich. is overall a better school than NYU but for business (undergrad or grad.) and law (grad. obviously), if you can afford it, I think NYU can offer a better experience.</p>
<p>Like I said Eternity, Michigan cannot be topped from a quality of life and excitement point of view and NYU is not one of the select few of universities that can match it. Unless you have no intention of having a collegiate experience and just want to go clubbing for 4 years, NYU just cannot compare to Michigan from a social point of view. In terms of Business education, Ross and Stern are equal, but in all other ways, Michigan provides a better undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>While you're available Alexandre, I'd like to ask a quick question.</p>
<p>I heard that MSU is not signficantly far behind Michigan in terms of reputation and quality of education for it's business programs. Indeed, their accounting program is ranked very high and supply chain and management is ranked top 3 by usnwr. As for as i-banks and other companies, is the respect and prestige for MSU almost that of Michigan?</p>
<p>I'd choose Michigan. New York is a really great city, one of my favorite cities in the world. But I dont exactly see how much you can benefit from what it has to offer as an undergraduate. I'd much prefer going to a more friendly place like mich for undergrad and then go for the big city after ive graduated</p>
<p>As an MBA myself with a consulting background who knows a ton of bankers, I can honestly say with absolute confidence that MSU's prestige isn't even close to Michigan, its night and day.</p>