<p>Wow, it’s like trying to follow the storyline of a soap opera! I think I’ll go grab some popcorn and stay awhile. How does Berkeley fit into all this? If we’re looking to add hippies to the cast on an Ivy League vs. Vandy thread, wouldn’t Brown make more sense?</p>
<p>Now you’ve done it, LoremIpsum. How dare you imply that for most people in this country, Berkeley just conjures up liberal-hippie vibes and not much else. </p>
<p>(RML is obsessed with Berkeley. His wife went there, her family in Asia was impressed, and he is desperate to show that everyone either loves it or should love it.)</p>
<p>Warblersrule rules! LOL! I never said IIT sucks, I said IIT is not prestigious, despite being crazy selective.</p>
<p>OMG warblersrule. Perfect!! You have saved me hours of reading. Thank you!! Only question… I thought slipper1234 was a “she”…</p>
<p>Carry on…</p>
<p>warblersrule does a great job capturing the inanity of this thread. Mea culpa.
Except I’d like to lodge a complaint that he didn’t fully capture the inanity of where I was trying to go. My real point wasn’t “Selectivity!” but “SAT scores!”</p>
<p>Now I wanna jump back in to drive home that point …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they have always been considered prestigious. Selectivity drives prestige but the best expression of selectivity is SAT scores, not admit rates. See: Pascarella, Cruce et.al. 2006. Also Bowen & Bok, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Rumberger & Thomas, 1993; Thomas, 2003; Dale & Krueger, 1999; Flowers, Osterlind, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2001; Rumberger & Thomas, 1993 …</p>
<p>Now, here’s where Vanderbilt stacks up against the Ivies on that score (75th%ile M+CR per stateuniversity.com):</p>
<p>HYP, Caltech (1590)
Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, MIT, Mudd (1570)
Pomona, Stanford, **Vanderbilt<a href=“1550”>/b</a>
Olin (1546)
WUSTL (1540)
Duke, Swat, Penn, Amherst, Rice, NU, Williams (1530)
ND (1520)
Carleton, Webb Institute, CMU (1510)
Cornell, Emory, JHU, Michigan,Tufts, Cooper Union, Haverford, Georgetown, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Brown (1500)</p>
<p>Why 1550 isn’t commanding more attention from the Big Bulging Banks is beyond me. Maybe their recruiters don’t like country music (or they’re busy praying for the economy at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary.)</p>
<p>There’s also such a thing as social prestige, which is different from academic prestige. And I think Vandy and Berkeley differ greatly in that area.</p>
<p>Oh nooo!!! That Pisacrappa and Tetrazinni ancient article is getting referenced here too??? <<< runs for the barf bag…>>>></p>
<p>Going on my list of classically awesome posts: warblersrule #200.</p>
<p>Going on my list of great one-liners (or one-worders): “Pisacrappa.” (Thanks, jym!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love how we’re supposed to measure the excellence of a college by “but does Goldman Sachs come for a visit”? It’s truly pathetic.</p>
<p>Actually also thought of “Pisacrappa and Tootiefruitie” but alas, t’was after the 20 min. had elapsed and unable to change…</p>
<p>Goldenboy,</p>
<p>
What do you mean? Did you not read what I wrote about Berkeley engineering having the same ranking for both postgrad and undergrad? Haven’t you read the part when I said, in areas where there’s a ranking by USNews for both levels, the same results are produced. Berkeley’s computer science is excellent at the postgrad level. They ranked it number 3. For undergrad level, they ranked it number number one. So, why do you say it’s not relevant when I’ve just proven you wrong?</p>
<p>
Are you kidding me? Do you understand the meaning of the word, “majority”? Duke grads admit rate to Berkeley-Boalt, for instance, is not even 12%, and here you are claiming that the majority of Duke grads are accepted to top law schools. Well, unless you do have a different list of top law schools in your head, your claim that the majority of Duke grads are admitted to top law schools is but bogus. </p>
<p>
Well, that’s because Berkeley does not forbid anyone who will apply to med school. Duke, OTOH, controls their students from applying to med schools, and allow only those graduates who are likely going to get admitted. Therefore, the percentage you’re presenting for Duke does not really picture out Duke’s real ability – as a premed school – in sending graduates to med schools. </p>
<p>
Again, do you know the meaning of the word, “mostly”? Only a handful of Berkeley grads are in that industry. And, I bet the same proportion of Duke grads are in that industry too. </p>
<p>
Not true again. First of all, even someone who majored in South & Southeast Asian Studies at Berkeley can get into Goldman Sachs as an Investment Banking Analyst. <a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2009/SSEAStud.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2009/SSEAStud.stm</a> Duke could hardly do the same, I guess. </p>
<p>And, second, you’re showing your ignorance about how large schools like Berkeley operate. Again, schools like Berkeley (and most elite state universities) are highly departmental. They are not like Duke which runs like an extension to high schools. At Berkeley, every department, every field of study, is like and entire college on its own. Even the admissions at Berkeley are dictated by the respective department. Duke does not operate that way. Therefore, the reason why you’re seeing more Haas grads joining in banking/finance is because of the university’s nature. It’s how it was set-up in the first place. But graduates of other colleges within the university aren’t restricted from seeking banking/finance jobs, and those who sought for such careers were mostly successful in getting it. (Review my example above. Even someone who has as weird a major as Asian&Southeast Asian Studies could get it. ) And, if you see a Berkeley grad not doing well after college, well, you’ll see the same people from HYPSM too, and more so, Duke. </p>
<p>
You can show your evidence, but I seriously doubt it if you can support your claim victoriously. All data will tell that Berkeley’s MBA and Law are slightly superior to Duke’s. Please don’t get me started, Goldenboy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The horse is out of the barn and galloping wildly across the meadow.</p>
<p>Ooh la la! Real royalties! Honestly, RML, I think if the Berkeley administration only knew about the advance work you’re doing on their behalf, they’d figure out a way to pay you to stop.</p>
<p>Ah, Berkeley vs. Duke…now the thread is starting to look like a true classic CC thread. Haha!</p>
<p>
Fixed it for you, Alex… 
Just think we need to include Cal’s defacto medical school, a major past talking point of mine, to help round out the thread.</p>
<p>RML, just let it go.</p>
<p>"“but does Goldman Sachs come for a visit”? " </p>
<p>They do but we have Goebbels acolytes that keep repeating the lie that they don’t over and over and over.</p>
<p>“There’s also such a thing as social prestige, which is different from academic prestige. And I think Vandy and Berkeley differ greatly in that area.”</p>
<p>A very valid point Pizzagirl. However, this thread has primarily addressed social prestige, not academic prestige. I certainly have when responding to those posts. It did not occur to me to compare Cal and Vanderbilt academically. From a purely academic point of view, Cal has a clear advantage. </p>
<p>This said, I would say most top universities, including Cal and Vanderbilt, enjoy a degree of social prestige in their niches. For example, I would imagine Cal would be more “socially prestigious” on the West Coast and Southwest, as well as among the science, engineering, technology crowd. I would imagine that Cal also carries more weight in the academic community and among the more intellectual crowd. Finally, Cal has more social prestige internationally. On the other hand, Vanderbilt will have more “social prestige” in the South and East Coast, as well as among the nouveau riche crowd.</p>
<p>Cal is not socially prestigious in southwest. No one ever mentions it in Texas other than in surprise as in why are they wasting good money going to Berkeley while we have perfectly great state schools in our own state.</p>
<p>It is not cheap going to UCB from Texas and one has to seriously consider 30k per year premium.</p>
<p>
No, no, no, tk. It only proves your analysis is incorrect. Who would agree with you (other than their respective alumni) when you say Stanford is just as prestigious as Vanderbilt, or Chicago is more prestigious than Stanford, or Rice is more prestigious than Cornell? </p>
<p>The UCs, specifically Berkeley and UCLA, weigh HS GPA more than they do SAT scores. How would that even reconcile with your basic argument when even these schools do not value SATs equally? Some excellent LACs don’t even consider SATs. How would those schools fair with the rest that do then with the kind of metric you’re using? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tk, the problem with your analyses is that some of the schools in the list have wider ranges than the others because they are large schools, to begin with. For example, Michigan’s average SAT score is 1500. Vanderbilt’s 1550. But Michigan has 28k undergrad students whilst Vanderbilt has only 7k undergrads. Naturally, large schools would have wider ranges because they have more slots available, not because they have a lower academic standard. You missed seeing that Michigan has many more high-SAT scorers. In your analyses, you ignored the thousands of students who have high SAT scores that have chosen to attend Michigan. You penalize them for a poor reason. </p>
<p>You failed to see that in reality, even when you say that ALMOST everyone at Vanderbilt has a SAT of 1550, the fact remains that there are many, many more students at Michigan who have the same (or higher) SAT scores. That’s something that you failed to see that many top employers have seen.</p>
<p>In Texas, SMU, Austin, A&M and Rice are the most prestigious US universities, outside of maybe Harvard! ;)</p>
<p>By Southwest, I meant Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah (Pac 10 country).</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction, absweetmarie. I realized that was a mistake.</p>