<p>"I know what a “bulge bracket” firm is but I like my term better. "</p>
<p>One track mind? :p</p>
<p>^That does seem to be what this thread has devolved into comparing…</p>
<p>“school prestige is the school’s connection to top employers”</p>
<p>You keep harping on this and we already proved you wrong. The recruiters are showing up on campus and hiring students. The students OTOH, don’t care to join them in large numbers.</p>
<p>It takes very little to bring out my inner Beavis and Butthead, texaspg.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>~30% of 2012’s enrolling class was from out of state. (14 from another US State, and 13 from another country.)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, UCLA doesn’t give detailed data on what countries its freshmen apply from (or not any that i can find at this time.) However, this link, for transfer students, shows the many universities and countries that represent them that these students apply from. I’d imagine comparable countries would hold for freshmen.</p>
<p>[Profile</a> of Transfers from Intl Schls - 12 Fall - UCLA Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/Adm_tr/Tr_Prof12_intl.htm]Profile”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/Adm_tr/Tr_Prof12_intl.htm)</p>
<p>(admit rate ~4%; yield: 75%)</p>
<p>There’s geographical diversity in terms of states in the US, and in terms of the universities around the world. But if our geographical diversity comes at the sake of racial and socio-economic diversity, that’s perfectly fine with me. We are a state school after all :)</p>
<p>
None of this is relevant to the value of an undergraduate degree from Berkeley RML. The fact is that the majority of Berkeley grads do not get admitted to top law schools unlike Duke’s grads, Berkeley’s medical school acceptance rate is 56% while Duke’s is often north of 80%, and most UCB liberal arts alums are mostly forced to work in dead-end administrative and retail jobs since investment banks and management consultancies don’t recruit non-Haas students. At Duke, there are Philosophy majors who get jobs at Bain and Sociology majors who get jobs at Goldman Sachs. Having a decent GPA and doing some networking is all that matters for job recruiting at Duke.</p>
<p>Haas is not better than Fuqua by the way and neither is Boalt better than Duke. They are dead-even in prestige. I can show you evidence backing up my claim if you would like.</p>
<p>
IIT is as prestigious in India as Harvard is in the U.S. Alexandre and Caltech could make a claim as being the most prestigious university in the country. No one disputes that its the most rigorous and it does have the smartest student body. It is one of the only universities to rank above Harvard in a few rankings. You can graduate from Harvard and feel like a fraud by doing the bare minimum but a degree from Caltech is earned through blood, sweat, and tears. That is the ultimate measure of respect.</p>
<p>
Alright Alexandre, why are Georgetown, Dartmouth, Brown, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Notre Dame considered prestigious universities then since none of them have a plethora of highly regarded graduate/professional programs? Georgetown, in addition, barely has a billion dollar endowment. In fact, out of this bunch, only Dartmouth, Wash U and Hopkins have a top 10 professional program (Tuck Business and Wash U/Hopkins Medicine) while the remainder of these schools’ professional programs fall outside the top 15.</p>
<p>Harvard and Stanford should be ignored since they are special schools that excel at absolutely every metric used to measure universities. No other schools in the world are like that. If you look for the one other common denominator that every top 30 USNWR school shares in common, the only metric you find is undergraduate selectivity as tk has shown.</p>
<p>I think tk21769 and I have proven that undergraduate selectivity determines institutional prestige and not total endowment or graduate rankings.</p>
<p>^ I’m not really trying to prove that undergraduate selectivity determines institutional prestige. Personally, I don’t find the concept of “prestige” very helpful in college choice. First, it’s often unclear what people really mean by it (or how they form judgements about it). Second, the concept is fraught with emotion. Third, it seems to obscure what I would consider more important factors (such as academic quality, affordability, and “fit”).</p>
<p>I was just trying to pin down what posters might mean when they say (with a certain conviction) that some school isn’t “prestigious”, when evidence exists to suggest it measures up very well to other schools held as a gold standard.</p>
<p>It may be the case that for some people, “prestige” is convenient shorthand for something else (having to do with student caliber, research quality, exclusivity, whatever) that they believe has a real impact on what they value (learning outcomes, career outcomes, etc.) But then, if people step into a discussion like this with diverse, mutually inconsistent shorthands, we’re liable to wind up with more heat than light.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s you. You predefined that certain employers (GS, McKinsey, etc.) are “top employers” that everyone should care about, regardless of whether they are interested in those particular industries, which is ludicrous. You also predefined that a school having a lot of students who want those particular industries makes them more prestigious. Your choices are arbitrary and completely irrelevant to the majority of people who have zero interest in i-banking and mgt consulting. </p>
<p>Your metric is all about money. Let’s face it. Your metric says that prestige is correlated with 1) students who want to make a lot of money and 2) companies that offer jobs paying a lot of money. Your metric also says that prestige is something that is apparent to the world at large; this follows from statements you’ve made in the past about how important it is to you that everyone “know” / recognize your school and bow down towards it. I think you’re quite unaware of the concept of quiet prestige, or the concept of quiet excellence that isn’t linked to money and isn’t even apparent except to the cognoscenti. I think you also don’t get that being the kind of person who carefully counts “prestige points”, and is so eager to make sure your particular school is recognized at the top of the ladder, is the antithesis of being in the cognoscenti, is the antithesis of being premium or prestigious.</p>
<p>On the first day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
A Berkeley ■■■■■ from very far away </p>
<p>On the second day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
Two more fanboys from the mighty UC
And Berkeley ■■■■■ from very far away </p>
<p>On the third day of Christmas,
my true love sent to me
… oh, what will that be</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vanderbilt.edu/career/media/pdf/Post-Grad-Report-2012_FINAL.pdf[/url]”>http://www.vanderbilt.edu/career/media/pdf/Post-Grad-Report-2012_FINAL.pdf</a></p>
<p>According to this both McKinsey and Goldman Sachs have hired Vanderbilt grads just this year. So someone is definitely ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>OTOH, xiggi may be getting his gifts that keep on giving.</p>
<p>gfsbrah</p>
<p>“RML are you seriously suggesting michigan and uva are better than vanderbilt? LOL.
michigan accepts like half of its applicants mostly from instate and virginia accepts 1/3. vanderbilt is tied for the most selective college in the south with duke.”</p>
<p>Acceptance rates are not a measure of how good a school is just the market demand for it. UM (most sciences) and UVA (law, business) are stronger in some areas than Vandy and weaker in others.</p>
<p>Goldenboy, most prestigious universities have very strong academics. That is one of the factors that has made them prestigious. You named only a few that do not have strong graduate programs. However, the majority of prestigious universities have very strong programs across many disciplines (top 20 departments):</p>
<p>Harvard (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)
MIT (Bio, Chem, CS, Econ, Geology, Math, Physics, Poli-Sci, Psych + Bus, Engineering)
Princeton (all 12 traditional disciplines + Engineering)
Stanford (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)
Yale (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Law and Medicine)</p>
<p>Cal (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering and Law)
Caltech (Bio, Chem, CS, Econ, Geology, Math, Physics + Engineering)
Chicago (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Law and Medicine)
Columbia (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)
Cornell (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)
Duke (Bio, Econ, English, History, Poli-Sci, Sociology + Business, Law and Medicine)
Johns Hopkins (Bio, Chem, English, History, Physics + Medicine)
Michigan (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)
Northwestern (Chem, Econ, English, History, Math, Poli-Sci, Psych, Sociology + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)
Penn (Bio, Chem, CS, Econ, English, History, Math, Physics, Psych, Sociology + Business, Law and Medicine)
UCLA (all 12 traditional disciplines + Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine)</p>
<p>That being said, academic strength is only one of several factors that determines prestige. Institutional wealth, alumni power and influence and admissions selectivity are also factors. All I am saying is that selectvity alone is not enough. IIT may be prestigious in India, but nowhere else. I know IIT well, and I personally do not think much of it. Just because a university is hard to get into does not make it prestigious. Harvard is famous the world over because of its academic power, not because it is selective. Same goes for all of the universities I listed above. It is their academic reputation that has developped their prestige. </p>
<p>The reason Brown and Dartmouth are prestigious despite not having many highly ranked departments is because they excel in the remaining criteria (wealth, alumni, selectivity). Their Ivy League status certainly did not hurt them either.</p>
<p>Rice, Wash U, Notre Dame, UVa and Vanderbilt share the same characterisitics as Brown and Dartmouth. The only difference is, they do not benefit from the Ivy League affiliation. However, thanks the USNWR rankings, they have also gained ground among high school students. </p>
<p>Georgetown has long been known both in the US and internationally for various reasons, from its strategic location to its reputation in diplomatic circles. </p>
<p>But those 8 universities are the exception. Virtually all other prestigious universities have excellent academic programs at their core.</p>
<p>
What about Emory, USC, Tufts, and Boston College? The so-called “exceptions” can go on and on and on (there at least 13 already). I agree with you that academic reputation matters but I would argue that its empirically proven that selectivity is more important since most people judge schools by the caliber of individuals who they know that have graduated from the university or the media exposure the school receives. Lets f ace it, most individuals have no idea which universities are highly ranked at what subjects at the graduate level.</p>
<p>For instance, Dartmouth is more prestigious than the University of Wisconsin even though the latter has much stronger graduate programs in the traditional disciplines. Obviously Dartmouth’s edge in selectivity outweighs Wisconsin’s edge in academic strength. Clearly all the elite employers and graduate programs agree since all the i-banks/consulting firms flock to Dartmouth and Dartmouth alums are very well represented at the best postgraduate programs like Harvard Law and Stanford Business.</p>
<p>
That’s patently false Alexandre; you may not think highly of the school for whatever reason but admissions officers at America’s elite business schools and graduate programs hold IIT in very high esteem.</p>
<p>In fact, IIT alums are better represented at America’s M7 business schools than your beloved alma mater UMich, which you clearly hold in high regard, even though it is an Indian institution.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/business-school-mba/1224650-top-feeder-colleges-americas-elite-b-schools-2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/business-school-mba/1224650-top-feeder-colleges-americas-elite-b-schools-2.html</a>
IIT: 58
Michigan: 49</p>
<p>This is not even counting the other global elite business schools like LBS and INSEAD where the representation of IIT alums would leave that of pretty much all American institutions in the dust.</p>
<p>You’ll see the same pattern at Stanford and MIT’s Physical Science/Engineering/Computer Science programs where IIT is better represented than all other American schools except HYPSM and Tsinghua in China.</p>
<p>
No, it is widely acknowledged that Harvard is the best school because it accepts the “cream of the crop” from around the world. Most people would rightfully assume that all of Harvard’s graduate programs are top 5 but they would be wrong when they make similar assumptions about Yale or Dartmouth for example.</p>
<p>When we look at the poor reputation that schools like UT-Austin and Wisconsin have despite top-notch departments in the core areas, its clear that Americans could care less about graduate level academics.</p>
<p>I am not going to respond to your entire post, because as it is, we have drifted away from the point of the thread. However, I will address one point.</p>
<p>“That’s patently false Alexandre; you may not think highly of the school for whatever reason but admissions officers at America’s elite business schools and graduate programs hold IIT in very high esteem.”</p>
<p>Yes, they hold IIT graduates in very high esteem because they are extremely qualified and IIT is an excellent university. Then again, so are Georgia Tech and UIUC. While I hold all of those universities in high esteem, I would not use the word “prestigious” to describe them. </p>
<p>"In fact, IIT alums are better represented at America’s M7 business schools than your beloved alma mater UMich, which you clearly hold in high regard, even though it is an Indian institution.</p>
<p>IIT: 58
Michigan: 49"</p>
<p>First of all, do not use the term M7 to me. There are several top MBA programs that chose not to join that group. Secondly, how many IIT undergrads graduate each year? I am guessing 10,000? And how many of those are likely to apply to MBA programs in the US? Michigan graduates ~5,500 students annually, and of those, many of them are interested in professions in academe/education, medicine/healthcare (nursing, pharmacy, social work, public health, dentistry etc…), civil service and law. I am almost cettain that IIT has a significantly greater number of applicants to MBA programs than most top US universities, including Michigan. As for your numbers, please provide me with the links to each of those 7 MBA programs’ webpages that list the eaxt numbers of alums enrolled. Guestimates based on Facebook figures are inadmissible. And unlike IIT, many Michigan alums turn down top MBA programs (including several “M7” programs) to attend Ross.</p>
<p>“This is not even counting the other global elite business schools like LBS and INSEAD where the representation of IIT alums would leave that of pretty much all American institutions in the dust.”</p>
<p>Do you have evidence of this? I mean, from official INSEAD, IMD or LBS sources, not from Facebook or LinkedIn. </p>
<p>“You’ll see the same pattern at Stanford and MIT’s Physical Science/Engineering/Computer Science programs where IIT is better represented than all other American schools except HYPSM and Tsinghua in China.”</p>
<p>That would not surprise me. Most top US universities have fewer than 1,500 students majoring in the STEM fields per class. At IIT, that number is what? Close to 10,000 per class?</p>
<p>At any rate, I am not denying that IIT is mega selective, because it is. As such, it obviously enrolls very, very, very gifted students. But what gets them into top MBA programs is not IIT’s “prestige”, but rather, the fact that IIT is recognized as being a very good university and the talent of those students takes care of the rest. </p>
<p>I stand by my original statement, selectivity alone does not determine prestige. If it were, IIT and Caltech would be more prestigious than Harvard. They are not. Regardless of the ranking, Harvard is significantly more prestigious than both Caltech and IIT…combined. Vanderbilt and WUSTL would be as prestigious as Stanford, and yet, we all know that is not the case. Prestige is determined by several important factors, including academic strength, instititutional wealth, selectvity (yes, it matters) and alumni power/influence. Selectivity is no more important criteria than any of those. The reason why Dartmouth is more prestigious than Wisconsin in the US despite having weaker academic programs is because Dartmouth does better than Wisconsin in two (institutional wealth and selectivity) of the remaining three criteria I listed above. Even in the third (alumni), Dartmouth matches Wisconsin. Furthermore, one should not underestimate the benefits of the Ivy League association.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Institutional Selectivity and Good Practices in Undergraduate Education: How Strong is the Link?” Pascarella, Cruce et.al. in * The Journal of Higher Education*, Vol. 77, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 251-285
<a href=“http://www.education.uiowa.edu/centers/docs/cdre-documents/Pascarella_et_al_institutional_selectivity.pdf?sfvrsn=0[/url]”>http://www.education.uiowa.edu/centers/docs/cdre-documents/Pascarella_et_al_institutional_selectivity.pdf?sfvrsn=0</a></p>
<p>Not that selectivity (or, if you will, prestige) necessarily makes much difference to learning outcomes. The authors find an “inconsistent and trivial relationship between institutional selectivity and measures of learning and cognitive development during college.”</p>
<p>
I’m not sure I’m understanding your point Alexandre. Comparing Georgia Tech and Illinois to IIT, especially IIT Kharagpur, is a total joke. Kharagpur students started doing calculus in like 7th grade while over half (maybe even two thirds) of Illinois/Georgia Tech students couldn’t even crack a 32 on the ACT Math Section or a 700 on the SAT Math protion.</p>
<p>How can you refer to a university that enrolls the most brilliant students in a country as gifted intellectually as India as anything but “prestigious”? Again, most of the top American business schools and engineering/science doctoral programs accept these students in hordes so they think very highly of the best that India has to offer.</p>
<p>
Alexandre, I agree that the term M7 should no longer be relevant since Dartmouth Tuck is clearly part of that elite group now. However, there is a gap in perception and job recruiting from those 8 and Berkeley/Duke/Cornell/Yale/UVA/Michigan/NYU which are on the outside looking in.</p>
<p>
I find this very hard to believe. No one I knew from the grades above me at Duke who had a choice between Harvard/Stanford/Booth/Wharton/MIT/Kellogg and Fuqua chose the latter despite all of them have a great experience at Duke during their undergraduate years. Its time to put away school loyalty and go to program that delivers you the most ROI at the graduate level. Not that there’s anything wrong with Fuqua, its a great school with an incredibly dedicated faculty; its just not on the same tier as a Wharton or a Stanford in terms of prestige.</p>
<p>I’m assuming most Michigan and USC or whatever alums are smart enough to do the same. Besides, its important to expand one’s network and if you went to Michigan for undergrad, you already have access to that alumni network.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that many Michigan undergraduates choose Ross over its 6 other peer business schools (Fuqua, Yale SOM, Darden, Stern, Cornell Johnson, and Berkeley Haas).</p>
<p>
People don’t lie on professional networking Alexandre period. That would make absolutely no sense at all as you are trying to utilize your school’s network to gain you a better footing in the job market. Why would anyone do that?</p>
<p>There are definitely fake profiles on Facebook but the news site Poets & Quants only tallied students belonging to official “Accepted Students” Groups, in which you need an email address verifying your affiliation to the school before you can join.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand this statement since Harvard has a lower acceptance rate than Caltech and enrolls a much more gifted student body with regards to Critical Thinking and Writing compared to IIT. Harvard is more selective than these two schools.</p>
<p>
So you agree that selectivity trumps academic reputation then since Wisconsin is the winner in 2 of the 4 criteria you laid out while Dartmouth dominates the other two? Stanford and Duke aren’t Ivy League schools but they are considered on par with or better than Dartmouth based on “prestige”. Prestige has nothing to do with being part of the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Goldenboy, you enter all discussion with the intent to prove that you are right. Unfortunately, that is not how conversations go. In your attempt to prove yourself right and another wrong at all cost, you make sweeping and incorrect assumptions.</p>
<p>“Alexandre, I agree that the term M7 should no longer be relevant since Dartmouth Tuck is clearly part of that elite group now. However, there is a gap in perception and job recruiting from those 8 and Berkeley/Duke/Cornell/Yale/UVA/Michigan/NYU which are on the outside looking in.”</p>
<p>I disagree with that. There is very little separation, if any, between Booth, Columbia, Kellogg, Sloan and Tuck and the other 6 or 7 programs you listed, Ross included. I agree that Wharton, Stanford and Harvard MBAs have a significant advantage, but the remaining 5 do not have a significant advantage. I personally know several people who have chosen Michigan/Ross over Chicago/Booth, Tuck, Columbia and Kellogg. The vast majority of them studied at Michigan as undergrads (but several did not), but it is definitely more common than you think. If you look at their placement and career progression, it is pretty clear they did not make a mistake. Most of them are e-banders are major companies or principals/partners at major consulting firms. For people interested in Marketing, management or consulting careers, Ross is easily on par with several “M7” programs. Where Ross MBA lags is in Finance careers, which is bizzare considering that most IBanks recruit Ross undergrads in large numbers. Admittedly, the majority of Michigan students I knew that chose Ross over those MBA programs ended up working for major consulting firms or manufacturing/IT firms, but that was their design when selecting MBA programs.</p>
<p>“People don’t lie on professional networking Alexandre period. That would make absolutely no sense at all as you are trying to utilize your school’s network to gain you a better footing in the job market. Why would anyone do that?”</p>
<p>People lie all the time, but that is not why I do not think P&Q is pathetic.</p>
<p>“There are definitely fake profiles on Facebook but the news site Poets & Quants only tallied students belonging to official “Accepted Students” Groups, in which you need an email address verifying your affiliation to the school before you can join.”</p>
<p>That’s my problem with attempting to extrapolate the number of students that are actually enrolled at a program by looking at social media. There is no way to ascertain how accurate the data is to start with. With a sample size that runs below 20 per class for most undergraduate institution enrolled in any one institution, it is not possible to claim statistical significance.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand this statement since Harvard has a lower acceptance rate than Caltech and enrolls a much more gifted student body with regards to Critical Thinking and Writing compared to IIT. Harvard is more selective than these two schools.”</p>
<p>Caltech may have a higher acceptance rate than Harvard, but it accepts students with stronger academic credentials. Besides, Caltech’s female applicants are very self selective. That explains why Caltech accepts only 8% of its male applicants but a whopping 24% of its female applicants. And how do you know how strong (or weak) IIT’s student body’s verbal skills are? At the very least, I would say that all three universities have similar selectivity, but Harvard is heads and shoulders above the other two reputationally. There is no way the prestige gap between Harvard and IIT or Caltech can be explained by selectivity measures. It is because of Harvard’s academic excellence across many disciplines and professional programs that Harvard wins the reputation game over Caltech and IIT, not because it is more selective. Same goes with WUSTL / Vanderbilt and schools like Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Penn and Stanford. Would you say that WUSTL and Vanderbilt are as prestigious as latter 6? </p>
<p>“So you agree that selectivity trumps academic reputation then since Wisconsin is the winner in 2 of the 4 criteria you laid out while Dartmouth dominates the other two?”</p>
<p>I do not agree. In fact, I estimate that academic strength has the greatest weight, but only marginally so. But Wisconsin is not the winner in 2 of the 4 criteria, it is the winner in just 1. In 2 criteria (institutional wealth and selectivity), Dartmouth is the winner while in the other (alumni), they are both roughly even. So the final score in those 4 criteria is 2-1-1 in favor of Dartmouth. When you add Dartmouth’s Ivy League status, it is lights out for Wisconsin.</p>
<p>“Stanford and Duke aren’t Ivy League schools but they are considered on par with or better than Dartmouth based on “prestige”. Prestige has nothing to do with being part of the Ivy League.”</p>
<p>I am not sure you understood my point. Duke and Stanford beat Dartmouth academically (Stanford by a large margin) while matching Dartmouth in the three other criteria (institutional wealth, alumni and selectivity). They do not require the Ivy League membership to enhance their reputation. Same goes with Cal, Caltech, Chicago, JHU, Michigan, Northwestern etc…</p>
<p>tk, I think prestige determines selectivity, not the other way around. Not so long ago, schools like Chicago, JHU and Michigan had acceptance rates in the 50%-60% range. Columbia, Cornell and Penn had acceptance rates in the 40% range. I am talking about 1990 in the case of the Ivies and 2005 in the case of Chicago, JHU and Michigan. That is hardly ancient history. Yet all these universities were founding members of the AAU back in 1900. They have always been considered prestigious.</p>
<p>There was just not that many gifted students vying for spaces at those universities in the 1970s or 1980s. Even today, the reason why some prestigious universities are less selective than others is because they are larger or in undesirable locations. But by and large, prestigious universities will attract many gifted applicants, relative to the number of seats availlable.</p>
<p>Gonna need a giant cuppa coffee to catch up on this thread. Anyone able to gimme the cliff notes version?</p>
<p>
Sure thing, jym!</p>
<p>diaosi: So, I need to compare Vanderbilt to the Ivies. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>RML: Ivies > Vanderbilt. Blah blah, consulting and ibanking, blah blah.</p>
<p>diaosi: LOL, no. Like, what the heck is a Berkeley anyway.</p>
<p>RML: Oh no you di’int! :mad: <em>pulls out lots of random lists</em> Berkeley >> Vanderbilt. Also, every Ivy >> Vanderbilt. Even Cornell.</p>
<p>xiggi: Hey, guys…how did Berkeley even get in this thread? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Everyone else: Shut it! <em>eats popcorn</em></p>
<p>Alexandre: Vandy is no Ivy. It’s more similar to…Rice. Or Notre Dame. Or CMU. Or Tufts. Any other private university, really. Oh, and I <3 Cornell.</p>
<p>diaosi: LOL, you guys are totes wrong. Vanderbilt is the best.</p>
<p>RML: Berkeley >> Vanderbilt! Berkeley! Berkeley! Just look at the business and law placement!</p>
<p>MomofWildChild: Nashville is seriously great, you guys. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl: Really, banking again? Really? That is SO yesterday. </p>
<p>RML: Well, banking people are snobs, so obviously they have the best opinion about colleges. Berkeley > Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>beyphy: beyphy “likes” this post.</p>
<p>goldenboy8784: LOL, RML, you are delusional. Small private universities are more selective and better at doing things. </p>
<p>RML: No, Berkeley is stronger academically. </p>
<p><em>repeat argument between goldenboy8784 and RML several times, interspersed with Pizzagirl commenting about how lame banking is</em></p>
<p>babytitain: Y’all are crazy. <em>is ignored</em></p>
<p>gfsbrah: Haha, Vanderbilt is totally better than Berkeley. You mad, bro? </p>
<p>RML: I still say Berkeley wins.</p>
<p>tk21769: Let us take a moment to ponder the nature of “prestige.” I propose that it is linked to selectivity. A researcher agrees with me.</p>
<p>Alexandre: NOPE. Totally wrong. I think prestige is based on…wealth. Or alumni. I don’t know, basically anything but selectivity. Although I guess it can count for something. Like 5%.</p>
<p>tk21769: Selectivity!</p>
<p>Alexandre: Academics! Money! Footba- I mean, alumni!</p>
<p>goldenboy8784: Selectivity is definitely the most important. That’s why Dartmouth >> Wisconsin. You know, for reasons. Yeah.</p>
<p>beyphy: I’d just like to say that Vanderbilit is not nearly as diverse as UCLA or Berkeley. Just sayin’.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl: LOL, silly Californian. Nobody cares.</p>
<p>diaosi: [cackles</a> over the thread](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_of_Discord]*cackles”>Apple of Discord - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Everyone: <em>getting tired</em></p>
<p>goldenboy8784: Selectivity.</p>
<p>Alexandre: Academics. Also, IIT sucks.</p>
<p>goldenboy8784: Selectivity is the only reason anyone cares about BC or USC. I mean, do they even have graduate programs? Also, IIT is great.</p>
<p>tk21769: Here’s another research citation about prestige and selectivity. </p>
<p>Alexandre: Man, you look dumb like always, goldenboy. Also, prestige makes selectivity. </p>
<p>I think that brings it up to date. We’re only missing the_prestige to chime in with his trusty post about [prestige</a> vs. familiarity](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4939699-post260.html]prestige”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4939699-post260.html) and slipper1234 adding his $0.02 to make this a truly classic CC thread.</p>