<p>harvey graduates earn more than any other school in cali. too lazy to get source but will if enoff ppl complain.</p>
<p>Nujabes, here’s your source.</p>
<p>[Best</a> Schools in California By Salary Potential](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/best-schools-in-california.asp]Best”>Best Colleges in California | Payscale)</p>
<p>^ I feel that’s very misleading. Other schools like UCB and UCLA are way larger and offer many, many more majors than harvey mudd (they offer like 7 or 8). Furthermore harvey mudd’s majors are all majors that lead to relatively high incomes (engineering, Biology, etc.). Other larger schools have these same majors but their averages are weighed down because they offer a ton of majors like say Women’s Studies etc. (majors that do not have as high of earning potential).</p>
<p>I don’t see how USC is ranked in a lower tier then UCLA. I feel that UCLA and USC are so close that there pretty much equal and interchangeable with each having their own advantages. For example, USC was statistically harder to get into (slightly slightly!) based of SAT scores and admission (hollistic). However, UCLA is a little more prestigious around the world as USC has just joined the high tiers within the last 10 years. I would say the List goes. </p>
<p>Stanford
Cal Tech
Berkeley
USC/UCLA
UCSD</p>
<p>(excluding LACS)</p>
<p>Also I was reading that a UCLA degree in California is the worst out of Standford,USC,Berkeley, Ucla, as if you go North to work, Stanford and Berkeley degrees will get you further, and if you go South to work USC will get you further.</p>
<p>wasn’t suggesting that SAT’s be used as a school ranking. But I was pointing out an accurate list of California colleges based on the intelligence of the undergraduate student body. It’s indisputable that higher SAT scoring students are smarter and higher performing than lower scoring students, therefore the smartest undergrads are:</p>
<p>1) Stanford
2) Cal Tech (wherever HM fits in here)
3) Pomona
4) USC
5) Cal
6) UCLA
7) UCSD
8) Davis</p>
<p>these are facts, USC passed Cal last year and USC is significantly higher than UCLA. This guy Steve Sample openly ran the Stanford/Duke game plan over the last 18 years at USC. And it worked. Stanford did it in the 1800’s, Duke did it in the 40’s and 50’s, and USC just did it over the past 18 years.</p>
<p>1) raise a heck of a lot of money from alum (Sample raised billions)
2) buy the best profs in country (USC is packed with Harvard/Stanford profs)
3) buy top students (15k merit scholarship to any NMSF, annually)
4) Develop a world class athletic program because top sports are directly related to more applications and higher quality students applying. (if USC was a country in would rank 12th in the Olympic medal count)</p>
<p>Usc superscores that SAT scores. Also pretty much all the top 50 schools are filled with ivy league phds. When I went to ucsb every one of my professors had their degree from MIT and similar schools but you’re not gonna care about that if they cant teach.</p>
<p>super scoring has a marginal effect on overall, a couple points at best, if that. half of the 2nd and third time test takers score lower on their SAT’s. If Cal or ULCA super scored their numbers wouldn’t change much. if any.</p>
<p>But Cal and UCLA does have some of most 4.0+ students than anywhere else in the country…of course 90% of them got their 4.0+ grades from the 49th worst public school system in the country. show me smart kids, small class sizes, and good profs and I 'll show you the best schools, and in California they are private (Stanford, USC, Pomona, etc), not public/government schools</p>
<p>^ “It’s indisputable that higher SAT scoring students are smarter and higher performing.” </p>
<p>indisputable? orly? haha you are funny. and ahh the truth comes out…it’s the public/government thing, i was trying to figure out your angle. we could go back and forth on ucla vs. usc all day but for you to say usc is a better school than ucb? keep drinkin’ that kool aid’ lol</p>
<p>“But Cal and UCLA does have some of most 4.0+ students than anywhere else in the country…of course 90% of them got their 4.0+ grades from the 49th worst public school system in the country” </p>
<p>Are you talking about California? because US News ranks our highschools 3rd (that’s right 3rd) in the whole nation sooooooooooo??? oh and the UC system is the number 1 research institution in the world. guess the old govment’s doin’ somthing right there. </p>
<p>@ nabilesmail " was reading that a UCLA degree in California is the worst out of Standford,USC,Berkeley, Ucla, as if you go North to work, Stanford and Berkeley degrees will get you further, and if you go South to work USC will get you further."</p>
<p>No one gives a crap about your degree in 5 years. I was reading an article that talked about the way everyone always wants to get into a top tier school and think “oh if I went to Harvard I’d be making bank!” yet what they fail to realize is that it is not the school that truly makes these students successful but their intense drive and natural ability that makes them highly successful. a graduate of Harvard can turn out to be nobody and a someone from a CSU can end up a millionaire once they hit the workplace because that’s where it’s all about what you’re made of. Of course those top schools are so crazy hard to get into that the drive it takes to get in is a pretty good predictor of how hard that individual will work their whole life.</p>
<p>^^right, the kids with lower SAT scores are smart and the kids with higher SAT scores are stupid, ya you must be right since you’re one of the lower SAT UCLA students, that makes you smarter.</p>
<p>and NO the majority of successful people did not graduate from CSU’s. For Entrepreneurs looks to USC, like the founder of salesforce.com, for inventors look to Stanford like the founders of google, for doctors look to Cal and UCLA. Good schools do produce highly productive people, way more than CSU’s</p>
<p>^ you must do terrible on the context reading portion of exams. first, i promise you my SAT score was higher than yours. I’m not whack enough to flaunt that kind of stuff but you went there, i’ll pm you a pick of the official if you want to be put into your place. second, obviously I don’t assume this inverse logic that you sadly presented (wow you’re bad at rhetoric and logic). but the SAT has many, many flaws and exceptions when it comes to measuring intelligence. you’re the one who demonstrated that you fail to understand these concepts when proclaiming your statement was “indisputable” haha it still makes me laugh as I type it. third-dizzle (let’s mix it up) did you even read the end of my post? if not that should deal with that whole second part of yours. try reading slowly…</p>
<p>^ well said friend. my thoughts exactly.</p>
<p>^ok if u agree then why did u say “i didn’t try at CC” if u realized how important it was to get good grades? why did u end up with what, a 3.40? i can’t remember how low it was</p>
<p>^
lakerforever24 sadly disenfranchised with his own life decided it prudent to lash out at the forums that had so recently rejected his trollish presence. angered by their lack of care at his trollings he lashed out more fiercely than ever! until one day he looked in to the mirror and realized that for all of his ramblings, he was worthless. he quietly crawled under his bed never to be heard from again. the community rejoiced, the outlandish liar and embellisher of stats had gone. the forums were once again a place free of ■■■■■■…mostly…</p>
<p>/endstory</p>
<p>hahaha yeah thats the word for lakerforever24, ■■■■■.</p>
<p>^oh no! my feelings are hurt! a bunch of community college rejects are insulting me!</p>
<p>i see lakerforever24 edited his original post to amend “a bunch of community college rejects are insulting me!”</p>
<p>sad hahaha</p>
<p>Is that your only comeback?</p>
<p>lakersforever24, no, no its not. i am as quick witted as they come. i just felt a lil sad for you.</p>
<p>here’s my punchline: 3.36</p>
<p>gg</p>
<p>wow youre as creative as you are trollish.</p>