The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why non-elite schools will never become elite:
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 21st, 2004 2:57 PM Author: lavender temple old irish cottage There is simply too much of an already-existing establishment for the non-elite to ever catch up to the elite schools in terms of endowment, student-spending, research, grants, excellent faculty, and everything else that makes up an elite academic institution. Non-elites have the only hope of attracting bright students with money or other rewards in hopes that they'll matriculate, but those students will always be deviant from the norm, and by far, the best students will almost always attend an elite school. It's a cycle-- the students of the current elite schools will go on to be more successful than the average graduate of a non-elite. There is simply no way to break the cycle... just my rationalization. HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368801) |
 |
Date: September 21st, 2004 2:58 PM Author: spruce cruise ship prole elite = HYPMS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368805) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:00 PM Author: Garnet stain Agreed, outside of Harvard, Yale, Penn, MIT, and Stanford there are no elite schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368809) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:01 PM Author: doobsian orchestra pit University of Pennsylvania or Penn State? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368815) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:02 PM Author: spruce cruise ship prole well theres also the hyper-elite level (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368820) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:10 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio Wrong. Harvard, Yale, Northwestern, Stanford, and MIT are the only elites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368845) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:17 PM Author: Pink jap No love for Princeton or Cal Tech or any of those other schools? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368873) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:29 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio Much love for Princeton and Caltech, also true elites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368927) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:21 PM Author: White quadroon No, no. It's "Princeton" not Penn, and you forgot Caltech.
HYPSMC or more pronounceably (and ridiculously) CHYMPS (I can't take credit for that one; it was someone several years ago on the PR board). |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:22 PM Author: spruce cruise ship prole theres only enough room for 1 nerd school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368897) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:31 PM Author: White quadroon 1) It's mostly nerds at all the schools.
2) MIT people would tell you their school is becoming far too well-rounded to be regarded as "only science and technology" anymore. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:44 PM Author: Garnet stain Subject: Bullshit You're at UMich now, right? You don't really believe that UMich is mostly nerds, do you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369029) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 1:00 AM Author: White quadroon Subject: Huh? No, but UMich isn't in my CHYMPS group either, so that doesn't matter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1372550) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 12:10 PM Author: Garnet stain I doubt CHYMPS is made up of mostly nerds. *MAYBE* CalTech and MIT have nerds as a slight majority, but definitely not HYPS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373955) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 1:27 PM Author: White quadroon I've been to all except H and Y and the students definitely seemed nerdy to me (at P and S there were lots of nerds pretending not to be nerdy--at M and C they were a lot more honest with themselves). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1374367) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 1:36 PM Author: Garnet stain What definition of nerd are you using here?
Smart ==//== nerd
The fact that Princeton has such a strong jock fetish alone should make it clear that Princeton isn't a nerd campus. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 5:17 PM Author: Rusted selfie step-uncle's house it's clear that they try to not be nerdy by having a strong jock fetish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1381295) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 7:27 PM Author: White quadroon Bingo. It wouldn't be there if they weren't, truly, nerds. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1381958) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 4:03 PM Author: spruce cruise ship prole intelligent kids, yes. nerds, no.
|
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:29 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio I always thought the "C" stood for Columbia... (j/k) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368930) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:36 PM Author: unholy shimmering shrine mood actually i'd say Columbia College is 'elite,' as well as Wharton. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1368977) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:41 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio Yeah, but I shy away from naming "parts" of colleges elite unless you're talking about graduate programs (for instance, NYU Law is elite, but NYU undergrad is not). I don't know why, but it just seems like a stretch to say, for example, that a Columbia political science graduate is "elite," but a Columbia electrical engineering graduate is not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369005) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:44 PM Author: Garnet stain Agreed, the degree comes from the same place regardless. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369035) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:44 PM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station Subject: Not at all. I see the pointlessness of distiguishing between the eliteness of a Columbia Poli Sci grad and a Columbia ( i dunno...uh) Philosophy grad. But the difference between the eliteness of SEAS and the college in ther respective fields is too large to ignore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369790) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:46 PM Author: unholy shimmering shrine mood yeah, that's true. plus Columbia College is the MAIN undergrad school there, it's not like "just another undergaduate school in the university system."
when you say "I went to Columbia for undergrad," you're talking about A&S.
Wharton, though, is pushing it i guess. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 6:18 PM Author: Garnet stain There are FOUR undergrad schools at Columbia University and the other three combined are larger than Columbia College; therefore, Columbia College certainly is "just another undergraduate school in the university system." Columbia has the same number of undergraduate schools as Penn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1370082) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:41 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre "There is simply no way to break the cycle"
Yes, there is: Money. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:42 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio case in point: WashU, though I don't know if anybody really buys it as an elite school, even with its meteoric rise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369012) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:44 PM Author: Garnet stain WUSTL isn't elite. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369038) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:46 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio Depends on who you ask, but from my POV, I'd also say it's not. I'm not one of those people, though, who only considers HYPSMC elite. I believe that there are other elite schools. WashU just isn't one of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369047) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:48 PM Author: Garnet stain HYPSMC definitely aren't the only elites; hell I question whether MIT and Caltech are even elites at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369063) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:53 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio Well this is a debate that will rage on fruitlessly for weeks, as it has in the past. I'd say that any university with MIT or Caltech's research output and selectivity is strong enough to be called "elite." Yeah, yeah, they're heavily specialized, but even if you take that into account, it doesn't get much more elite than that if you're an aspiring engineer or scientist.
*edit: As for MIT, I certainly think it counts as an elite comprehensive university. Just look at the strength of its humanities programs and business school. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:55 PM Author: Garnet stain Selectivity has little to do with whether a school is elite.
As you said yourself, MIT, and especially Caltech, are far too specialized to be called elite. Might as well lump Juliard into the elite category as well if you're going to use that argument. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:57 PM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio I certainly do see Juliard as an elite institution. Is it a comprehensive university? No, it's not even pretending to be. MIT and Caltech are certainly elite *institutions*. Whether or not they're comprehensive universities is another debate entirely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369126) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 4:00 PM Author: Garnet stain IMO being a comprehensive university is a prerequisite for being an elite. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369148) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 3:55 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library MIT is def. elite. Its non-science programs are all pretty amazing. Hell, Sloan business is one of the top 3 or 4 business schools in the US.
Caltech has an elite student body and an elite faculty but I'd say it's not an "elite" school the same way that HYP are elite. It's too specialized. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 4:01 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre The linguistics department isn't too shabby either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369155) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 4:02 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library I think their linguistics is one of the best in the US. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369158) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 4:42 AM Author: fiercely-loyal home linguistics is technically science, dumbass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373255) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:21 PM Author: Gay Irradiated University Depends on which branch (theoretical, applied) and how broad your definition of science reaches. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1380893) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:48 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre I don't think you realize what sort of debate you'd get yourself into if you took this seriously.
So consider me a kind person for not embarrassing you. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:53 PM Author: White quadroon FYI Sloan was not in the top 5 in the WSJ rankings released this year.
Caltech offers degrees in engineering, science, social science, business, and the humanities. That's about everything but fine arts.
If you're going to argue that, say, some of Caltech's humanities aren't very good, I would counter that (For example, Caltech has had 16 history majors since the program was introduced in 1969. 4 of them are now profs. I'd challenge any other schools to beat that average.)... but further, I'd point out that Yale and Harvard have pretty bad engineering programs, but I still given them credit for HAVING them (i.e. being comprehensive). Just because their rep is made in other areas doesn't cancel their comprehensiveness.
|
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 6:13 PM Author: unholy shimmering shrine mood Subject: i know this is getting off-topic, but.. Sloan is one of the best, no doubt. average GMAT at Sloan MBA is higher than the average at HBS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1370005) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 6:28 PM Author: White quadroon Caltech is one of the best at the humanities, no doubt. Average VERBAL SAT score at Caltech is higher than the average at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or MIT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1370207) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 10:59 PM Author: unholy shimmering shrine mood ah, touche (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1371754) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 6:30 PM Author: Garnet stain GMAT means little in MBA admissions though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1370222) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 11:00 PM Author: unholy shimmering shrine mood i thought GMAT and GPA were pretty big. what are the real determinants? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1371758) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 11:02 PM Author: Garnet stain GPA is virtually meaningless... The single biggest factor is work experience. Work experience is to MBA admissions what the LSAT is to law school admissions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1371768) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 4:00 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre "WUSTL isn't elite."
Not yet. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:27 PM Author: pea-brained swashbuckling puppy my school was established >100 years after yours and kicks its ass HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369669) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:37 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library Stanford is quite the anomaly. I guess it was just the right school in the right location. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369740) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:40 PM Author: pea-brained swashbuckling puppy all elite schools are anomalies.
his theory is disproved and un-sensible. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:41 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library I'll agree with that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369772) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:41 PM Author: Spectacular Orchid Private Investor Indirect Expression I don't think ElGreco has ever posted anything for any reason other than to make himself feel superior to others. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369773) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:44 PM Author: pea-brained swashbuckling puppy im in one of those phases where all my posts are just expressing my longheld hatred or apprecation, which i have perhaps censored in the past, of certain posters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369794) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:47 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library Some of what he said makes sense, but schools like Stanford, Harvey Mudd, and Rice tend to disprove his "theory." I consider them to be elite and they are all post 1850 (if memory serves). Not to mention the LACs, most of which are post-1850 as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369807) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:47 PM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station Stanford is a testament to what a shitty backwoods school can do with a metric crapload of money. WUStL (unfortunately) in 2 or 3 decades will be the next Stanford (if it stays the course), and USC will be the next WUStL. OTOH, if Berkeley continues on its path, I foresee it becoming the next William & Mary, or worse, Rutgers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369808) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:50 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library I don't understand this post. If an institution (regardless of age) has the money to attract top students and professors, why is the school in the wrong? The sum of a school's "elitedom" is its ability to educate and perform research at the top level, no? If someone converted an old high school into "Joe Shitbag U" and had 1450+ SAT students, top professors, and the money/resources to perform top notch research...does this make the school bad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369820) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 5:56 PM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station I never said this was a bad thing. I dislike WUStL not because it spent a lot of money to get better, but because it games the admission system like no other. In fact, one of the biggest reasons I liked Stanford was because it took an active role in making itself a premier university, and to this day does not rest on its laurels. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1369863) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 6:29 PM Author: elite stage mad cow disease Oh, Berkeley will be fine. The current cycle has been rough, but Cal has pulled through in tough times in the past. It will, however, have to rely much more on private donations in the future.
What is more worrisome is the growing gap between rich and poor in academia. The elite privates are getting way too rich. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2004 11:03 PM Author: Garnet stain LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1371774) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 2:06 AM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre If Berkeley thinks like you, then Berkeley will not be fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1372909) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 11:41 AM Author: elite stage mad cow disease It will not be fine because I think it is going through a rough patch, but will end up being OK? Or you don't think that private support is going to be important?
What the fuck? |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 2:05 AM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre USC already is the next WUSTL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1372904) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 11:38 AM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund >WUStL (unfortunately) in 2 or 3 decades will be the next Stanford (if it stays the course)
I'd bet a large amount of money that this will never be the case, even assuming a Harvard-size endowment at Wash U, unless they move the campus to another part of the country, which they won't. East and west coast elite families will NEVER send their kids to St. Louis, Missouri unless they feel their backs are to the wall. Stanford is doing a damn fine job luring kids away from Harvard (to say nothing of YPM). We're not going to live to see the day I have to spend energy convincing kids at Harvard admit events to turn down Wash U. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 11:42 AM Author: elite stage mad cow disease "elite families"?
jesus, you can sound snooty at times. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 11:57 AM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund Not a normative comment -- I'm just describing the world as I see it. When lawyers, doctors, and investment bankers in Manhattan and San Francisco start treating Missouri as something other than a backwater, I'll be the first to say it's a smart move. When their kids stop making up the bulk of admits to selective colleges, I'll be the first to cheer about it. Till then, can you suggest a less "snooty" way to describe this reality? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373895) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 12:00 PM Author: elite stage mad cow disease I think "wealthy" families sounds far less snooty than "elite". Elite is suggestive of some type of selective breeding, and is anachronistic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373905) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 12:02 PM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund But I'm not just talking about wealth. I'm talking about highly educated people in the power structure, the ones running Wall Street, academia, and the professions. They, not necessarily the rich, are the ones grooming their kids for top schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373914) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 12:08 PM Author: elite stage mad cow disease Highly educated people in the power structure running Wall Street, academia, and "the professions", whatever that means, are, with extremely few exceptions, wealthy.
I'm done. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 12:09 PM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund Yes, but many many wealthy people are not highly educated members of the power structure. Those wealthy people not in the power structure may well be willing to send their kids to Missouri -- but they are (dramatically) statistically less likely to be the kids also admitted to HYPS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373952) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:49 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre "East and west coast elite families will NEVER send their kids to St. Louis, Missouri"
They don't have to in an increasingly meritocratic society. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:52 PM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund Increasingly meritocratic in the sense that we've gone from being a 5% meritocracy to a 10% meritocracy. Who your parents are, in terms of their education, income, values, etc., is a stunningly good predictor of whether you'll end up at an elite school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1381119) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 5:00 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre (1) Don't pull numbers out of your ass.
(2) Your last argument doesn't say anything about my claim. You're trying to play some sort of long distance equivocation game with the word "elite," and you're not fooling anybody except, perhaps, yourself. The fact that a predictor exists don't say anything about WUSTL or other schools particularly given the possibility that the predictor will simply include WUSLT within its scope several years down the road. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 10:54 AM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund (1) You pulled the assertion that this is an "increasingly meritocratic society" out of your ass. I'm rebutting you by saying that if there's an increase, it's from teeny to tiny. Look who's running for president and tell me that things have really changed.
>You're trying to play some sort of long distance equivocation game with the word "elite,"
Why don't you tell me what I meant, since you won't take my word for it about what I meant? |
|
Date: September 25th, 2004 9:28 AM Author: White quadroon Well, the "look who's running for president" argument strikes me as a non sequitur. Are you advocating getting rid of elections? I would say that in politics "having whatever characteristics are necessary to get people to support you" is what passes for merit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1389106) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2004 2:48 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre "You pulled the assertion that this is an "increasingly meritocratic society" out of your ass."
Just because I do it, that doesn't mean you should.
And, it can be supported by the shift toward performance based pay (Incentive, Oct. 2004). It can be supported by the difference between prestigious college admissions standards around the time of Vietnam and now. I could go on, but the point is, no, I didn't pull it out of my ass.
"Why don't you tell me what I meant, since you won't take my word for it about what I meant?"
You seem to think that elite families are necessary for an elite college to exist. Not so. One could simply take the top kids from good suburban high schools and still get an elite college. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:02 AM Author: doobsian orchestra pit because william and mary is such a bad school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1379382) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 8:53 PM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station Compared to where it was 200, hell, 100 years ago, absolutely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1382467) |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 11:50 AM Author: doobsian orchestra pit i'd argue it's better (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1385108) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 1:58 AM Author: Soul-stirring clown school i hope you die (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1378444) |
Date: September 21st, 2004 10:05 PM Author: Ebony pungent meetinghouse Northern Illinois! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1371504) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 3:37 AM Author: metal newt Stnaford blew out the "established" schools in less than a decade. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373195) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 12:00 PM Author: Scarlet Chapel Trust Fund "Blew out" is a strong term, but it had no competition as the leading university in the most dynamic part of the country, and it got its footing there when the area was in its infancy (not unlike Harvard & Yale did in New England). Right now there is no equivalent area of opportunity for a school to make its name. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1373904) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 4:08 PM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station It had massive competition in the form of Berkeley as a leading insitution four or five decades ago. People would've laughed in your face had you siggested passing up Berkeley for Stanford. That is why it's so amazing. It's as if Brandeis decided today that it would strive to be among the very best universities in the world, and through sheer magnitude of spending, bested Harvard (by far) by 2050. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1375117) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2004 4:15 PM Author: elite stage mad cow disease I think I've posted this elsewhere, but what made Stanford was WW2 and two dudes: William Hewlett and Dave Packard.
And it doesn't hurt to have a LOT of land, and being private. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 1:57 AM Author: zippy peach messiness I disagree--I think Los Angeles is the place where this will occur and USC will be the campus to do it. If you take a look at all of the major metropolitan areas in the U.S., each has an elite (or two) private:
Boston: Harvard/MIT Chicago: Chicago/NU NYC: Columbia/Princeton/Yale Bay Area: Stanford/Berkeley
L.A. does not have one (Caltech is way too small and too specialized to be counted. It would be one thing if it could compete in the humanities and social sciences like MIT can, but it doesn't). I really see USC taking over the L.A.-area in the next 20 years and playing up its Pac Rim connections to become the next Stanford by 2050. The fact that it just completed the largest capital campaign in the history of American higher education and that it has received four nine-digit gifts (next closest school can only boast two) says something about the school and its future.
|
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:13 AM Author: White quadroon 1) USC's gifts are not atypical. None rank in the top 20 largest gifts to a university. My current university got a 9-figure gift just this week.
2) The school that you wrote off (Caltech) received a gift that is larger than all four of USC's recent gifts put together. By a lot.
3) While Caltech, because of its size, cannot fill some local functions for the metropolitan area like Berkeley or Stanford does (i.e. taking a lot of students) it does quite well (better than USC) at several of the other local functions of a top college or university: serving as a center for research and a repository of experts, soaking up local philanthropy, etc.
4) Arnold Beckman died this year. I'm not sure if the terms of his will are known yet....
http://chronicle.com/stats/big_gifts.htm
|
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:15 AM Author: lavender temple old irish cottage Hey.. are you at UMich now? How do you like it there? What are you studying? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1378526) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:22 AM Author: White quadroon Subject: It's good My advisor is excellent (a Caltech man, so why wouldn't he be?)
I'm doing aerospace engineering. Subfield is fluid mechanics, sub-subfield is turbulent/supersonic mixing, hypersonics, etc. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:24 AM Author: lavender temple old irish cottage Sounds hefty. Are there a lot of CIT grads at UMich? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1378564) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:25 AM Author: White quadroon On the faculty or in the student body? 5 of the 19 aero professors did either undergrad or grad at Caltech.
2 people from my undergrad class of ~200 came here for grad school (the other is EE). |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:27 AM Author: lavender temple old irish cottage I bet it's cold compared to sunny CA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1378576) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 3:06 AM Author: White quadroon I'm from Michigan originally. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1378695) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:44 AM Author: zippy peach messiness 1. That's wonderful that UMich has a name for its b-school--but how many nine-digit gifts has it received in its history? Also, when was it founded and what is its endowment? The remarkable growth in USC's endowment (from $400 million in the early 90s to over $2 billion now) is unprecedented.
2. Caltech's gift was $300 million and another $300 million over ten years. USC's Annenberg gifts are $120 and $100 million, and to my knowledge were both immediate gifts. The Mann gift was over a period of some years, and the Keck gift also seems to be immediate. So I'd love for you to explain to me how $120 million+$100 million+$110 million is smaller than $300 million.
3. I don't really see what point you're trying to make here. Caltech has never had top social science and humanities (or business, law, film, communication) programs, and it probably won't in the future. USC, on the other hand, features many such schools and is only on the rise.
EDIT
The USC cash gifts total $330 million according to the Chronicle article you cited. The Caltech gift is $300 million over 5 years and another $300 million over 10 years. If you look at the way endowment returns have behaved over the past 5-10 years, I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say that the $330 million (plus $112.5 in stock and cash over 8-10 years from Mann) will be substantially more in ten years than the $300 million in 10 and the $300 million in 5 for Caltech. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 2:52 AM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station I certainly would not say that USC has (even close to) top programs in social sciences and humanities. Its crown jewel is its film program, and theatre and architecture are strong, but I certainly wouldn't call its business program top (unless you are absolutely sure you want to stay in SoCal...and even then...) and surely no one would say USCs law school is better than even UCLA; slightly under, yes; even, perhaps; but certainly not better.
And most importantly, the quality of the undergraduate pop, what typically sets the elite apart, is greatly lagging behind top schools. For most californians apply to the top schools, it's the sure bet safety that will sweeten the deal by throwing money at you; nothing more. This last, and biggest, obstacle of lack of perceived prestige will take decades for USC to remedy. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 3:17 AM Author: zippy peach messiness Reread my post--nowhere did I say that USC has top social science and humanities programs. But it is my contention that it will within 40 years. As for the professional schools, you would have to be living in a cave to suggest that Marshall is not one of the top two (and I would content it has now become the top) b school in the L.A.-area. I would also agree with the characterization of USC Law as being on par with or slightly below UCLA. However, the film school is the top in the nation, music school is top-15 and top-2 on the West Coast, Annenberg is top-15, Engineering is top-6 according to US News (yeah yeah, we could have a long argument about this one). The point is that USC has a strong enough base to build on in the coming 40 years.
I don't think your last comment is nearly as true now as it was 5 years ago. USC's admit rate is 26%, its average SAT score is close to 1350, and the quality of the UG pool is increasing dramatically with each passing year. That problem could easily be solved within 10-15 years. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 3:42 AM Author: White quadroon RE your final line: I know I laughed heartily and tossed my USC mail in the trash back in high school.
Among several of my Caltech friends who wanted to stay in California for grad school, USC was the ultimate, ultimate last backup (kind of the role Michigan State served for me!) You know, if you can't get into the grad program at Caltech, or Stanford, or Berkeley, or UCLA, or even maybe now UCSB or UCSD... at least there's always USC.
Two of my Aero friends had the plan that if they didn't get into any of their other schools, they'd go to USC and then actually do all of their grad research at JPL (i.e. Caltech's private NASA center--which represents literally billions more in funding that isn't even included in the other figures in this thread!) with connections they'd established as undergrads. Of course, they did end up getting into every grad program they applied to--except for Caltech--and are now at MIT (and married to each other). But it's good to have a convenient safety school. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:02 PM Author: zippy peach messiness I think it's wonderful that you tossed your USC admit letter into the trash--do you want a cookie? Things have changed substantially from 5-10 years and and they will only continue to change. Please stop putting words into my mouth--show me where I said USC was a prestigious school. You can't, because I didn't. Once again, because you seem to be unable to read my previous posts, I am making the point that USC is BECOMING a prestigious school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1380756) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 5:14 PM Author: elite stage mad cow disease I think you are absolutely right that USC has come a long, long way. And its alumni support is very strong, so who knows. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1381260) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 10:35 PM Author: White quadroon Who said anything about an admit letter? This was USC junk mail (they sent quite a bit, as I recall--second only to WUSTL, in my experience).
Why in the world would I apply to USC when I could've gone to UMich, a significantly better school, for the in-state tuition rate? (Actually, as it turns out, for free, but we'll leave aside scholarships as I assume USC would've offered a nice one too.) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 3:42 AM Author: carmine set personal credit line NO ONE outside California considers USC prestigious, besides a few scattered sports fans and alumni.
HTH
P.S. This isn't to say it's a bad or even mediocre school, but a giant endowment doesn't immediately translate into prestige (e.g. Emory's case).
You could make the argument that it **WILL** become more prestigious when it has even more money in the future, etc etc, but the Ivies (and other super elites) currently have giant purses as well, and across-the-board excellence to boot. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 8:16 AM Author: White quadroon Good point on Emory.
USC doesn't even have a giant endowment though, especially for the size of the school!
I think his argument (based on a couple recent donations) is that the money, the quality and the prestige are all imminently "on the way." :-P |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:05 PM Author: zippy peach messiness Was I making a point on per-capita endowment figures? No. Of course Caltech has a huge one, because it's a freaking boutique school that enrolls less than a thousand kids. USC has historically been a large campus, and right now it is attempting to become less tuition-dependent. Obviously, there is an inverse correlation with donations and the number of students an institution must enroll. As the money comes in (as it has been for the past 5-10 years), you'll see the class sizes dropping. USC went from 3,000 a few years ago to 2,700 now, and that figure will gradually drop until it hits 2,000 15-20 years from now. In addition, the transfer population will also be reduced dramatically.
The money has already begun with a good foundation--it's there. As for the prestige, it's certainly getting up there with each passing year. Quality is another issue, but I would say that Letters, Arts and Sciences is gradually getting better. Again, prestige development is not an overnight affair. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 10:32 PM Author: White quadroon Tuition income, by the way, is approximately 4% of Caltech's budget--and in fact that's really more like 2%, since more than half of the students are grad students, the majority of whom are generally funded either through external research grants or external fellowships.
This is the kind of financial independence only a very, very few schools have, and that USC will probably never attain.
Caltech enrolls around 2000.
|
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:21 PM Author: zippy peach messiness It escapes me why you would try to mislead people into thinking that Caltech enrolls 2,000 undergraduates. If you read my post, you would have seen that I referred to the "3,000" USC figure as a UG number. Why would I use 3,000 to describe USC's incoming freshmen number and then turn around and use the term "kids" to describe every single person enrolled at Caltech? Let's be real--Caltech graduated 244 people last year. If that isn't a boutique school, I don't know what is.
What point are you trying to make with the tuition figures? Are you only trying to advance my point about Caltech being way less tuition-dependent NOW than USC is. You should also take into account the fact that Caltech is one of the cheapest elite schools in the country when it comes to tuition. So that means your 4% or 2% figure is even lower. Again, I really don't see why you're bolstering my argument about Caltech already maxing out its tuition independence status. USC has a long, long way to go with that and will benefit greatly when it is able to become more tuition independent. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 1:37 AM Author: White quadroon Grad students, stunning as it may be to you, also consume resources, take up space in housing, occupy seats in classes, and benefit from the endowment. Why did you bother to go on about USC's grad programs if you didn't want to talk about Caltech's?
"Let's be real--Caltech graduated 244 people last year. If that isn't a boutique school, I don't know what is."
I don't think you can accurately define a school offering majors in fields as diverse as math, engineering, the pure sciences, literature, history, econ, and business as being a "boutique." And 900 undergrads, 1100 grads is on par with the total number of students at a lot of LACs with FEWER fields of study available that I don't think you'd define offhand as boutiques. (Unless in your mind "boutique" = "smaller student body than the ultimate standard; that is, USC").
Let's be honest here--Caltech has incredible resources, with which they could choose to give a reasonably good education to many students, or arguably the best on earth to very few. Choosing the second route might make the school unique, but if anything it ENHANCES the school's standing.
The REASON Caltech is so cheap is because tuition is a drop in the bucket already, so why soak people like USC does? Caltech could easily make tuition free if they decided to (I believe this will come within the next 10 years--we'll see. I think someone will give money specifically to endow it, but that wouldn't really be strictly necessary.)
So your point, basically, is that Caltech is in an incredible financial position and "USC has a long, long way to go with that"? I'll definitely agree there. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:56 AM Author: elite stage mad cow disease I think part of vaulting into the top is having a "nice" name, as much as I hate to say it. The University of Southern California just sounds kind of lame.
Trust me, if Stanford had been "Rodriguez University" or "Bradley University", I doubt it would have reached its current stature. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:56 AM Author: Floppy House-broken Base Digit Ratio I thought that The Leland Stanford Junior University was a community college. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1379614) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 12:16 PM Author: White quadroon Good point. Colleges named with one of the cardinal directions and a state name tend not to be very good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1379700) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:07 PM Author: zippy peach messiness This is one point I will agree with you on. USC's name definitely has hurt it both because of how generic it is and the University of South Carolina's use of the USC acronym. Nevertheless, poor names didn't stop Brown, University of Chicago, Northwestern, etc. We can quibble over what the definition of "elite" is, but I certainly include the aforementioned in any list of prestigious schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1380784) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:52 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library I presume you rank USC as a prestigious school as well (along the ranks of NW, UChicago, and Brown)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1381115) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 5:07 PM Author: zippy peach messiness Would I place USC alongside those schools? No. In the context of the 4,000+ universities in this country, would I call USC prestigious? Ehh, perhaps. But, without a doubt, I would consider various discrete elements of USC (Film School, OT Program, Engineering, maybe even UG business) prestigious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1381208) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 7:29 PM Author: White quadroon See, I would say the one and only truly "elite" segment of USC is the Film program, and even then it's in large part due to an accident of proximity.
Engineering? Ha. That's already covered pretty well in SoCal, thank-you-very-much. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:23 PM Author: zippy peach messiness Wow, wonderful historical analysis and logical reasoning skills.
"USC is in Los Angeles. Hollywood and the entertainment world are in L.A. Thus USC developed a prestigious film program because it is in L.A." |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 1:42 AM Author: White quadroon The argument goes in the other direction.
A prestigious film program could pop up at maybe one of two or three colleges with proximity to Hollywood that would be interested in that sort of thing. USC got lucky, but the odds were pretty damn good. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 10:46 AM Author: zippy peach messiness Of course being in L.A. is a prerequisite for developing a prestigious film school. That's why NYU is such a great school, right?
The odds were pretty damn good? There are hundreds of colleges in the L.A.-area, and USC ended up as the one with the #1 film school. Just accept the fact that it's the best, and freaking move on already. You feel the need to bash on USC for no reason whatsoever. I only call you out where you make factual errors and where I can get Caltech on those facts. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 11:29 AM Author: White quadroon Hey troll! I think it's pretty pathetic that a university would place as much pride in its FILM SCHOOL as you apparently do. Now THAT's boutique! What a specialized and useless-to-most-students program.
(Also: New York, as you must well know, is the second place in the United States where films and TV shows are commonly made. It makes complete sense that some New York-area school would develop a prestigious film program as well. The odds for both NYU and USC were pretty good--it's not as if the film industry was just going to pop up around WUSTL or something.)
You're not going to be able to "get" Caltech on anything, buddy. It's a better school than USC, always has been, and always will be. You know this, deep in your soul. Caltech will always be regarded as Southern California's best and most prestigious school, and I can tell it just eats at you!
Well, don't worry. I'm sure you plan to stay in Los Angeles anyway, so your USC degree won't be worthless. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 9:11 PM Author: Tripping aquamarine gas station Just to show you how I perceived that you said USC had top social science and humanities programs, you said "...Caltech has never had top social science and humanities...USC, on the other hand, features many such schools..." Not that it matters (since I understan what you were trying to say now) but you can understand the misperception.
But on more important matters, saying that Marchall is the one of the top two programs in the LA area is like saying 1 = 1. By default it'll be top two in LA, and I'm sure it serves its students well when they remain in Souther California; but to be sure, the USC degree has a long way to go before it's perceived to be as valuable as a UCLA degree, and I stand by my comment that its prestige (and I use that word *very* loosely) is limited to Southern California, as opposed to UCLA (which largely is valuable throughout the West), Berkeley (valuable on the coasts), and Stanford (valuable throughout the country).
You're right, we could have a long debate about the Eng school. I won't even begin to talk about this one.
USC has come a long way, for sure. But it still has a very long way to go. Note that there is no school in the vicinity of WUStL that it directly competes with; when you include the entire midwest, most will view Chicago, Northwestern, or Michigan as more prestigious. In the case of USC, you have a direct competitor in the same city that for as long as your existence has been seen as the better school where the clearly better students are. USC may have closed the gap somewhat, but I assure you most of the incoming class at SC was rejected by Berkeley and UCLA (and for quite a few, UCSD), and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future, unless *both* USC continues with its whirlwind fundraising and merit scholarship giving, *and* UCLA and Berkeley face never-ending budget cuts. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 1:48 AM Author: White quadroon "I assure you most of the incoming class at SC was rejected by Berkeley and UCLA (and for quite a few, UCSD), and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future."
I think that sums it up rather nicely. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 3:32 AM Author: White quadroon 1) Who cares about UMich? That's exactly my point--that it's not all that unusual for schools to receive gifts in that range. That's its only relevance to this discussion (unless you'd also like to consider that it's more highly-regarded and respected than USC--just like Caltech).
2) How about you add up all the other Caltech gifts on the list, too? For instance, the Keck Foundation gave millions more to Caltech ($136 million, to be exact) than they did to USC. Is the money any less valuable because they did it in two chunks, thus eluding your arbitary "9 digits" threshold?
3) I'm not sure where you're getting your information from--Caltech absolutely has top social science programs. (Example: #14 in Econ, ahead of 3 Ivy League schools and WAY ahead of USC, tied for #40! That's remarkable, given that we're talking about a couple dozen students, total.) The Caltech social science PhD program, while small, pumps out professors--because they come out with a rigorous, quantitative background that's basically unmatched.
Your edit: These kinds of gifts don't even generally GO to the endowment. Returns are thus pretty irrelevant. Regardless, Caltech's endowment is over half of USC's--although USC has SIXTEEN TIMES as many students and TEN TIMES as many professors. I think that's basically the final word. Caltech is a square only a couple of city blocks on a side, but it's pretty fertile ground--and something USC can't now match, and never will. The Institute may be small in geographic size, but intellectually, it pulls a lot more water than USC could ever hope to. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:18 PM Author: zippy peach messiness You must mean that Caltech was ranked #19 in Economics (unless, of course, you're talking about USNWR--which is crap compared to the NRC Rankings). How about some other rankings? How about basically every other social science or humanities field? Good luck finding Caltech there, because it doesn't look like they have a single other program developed enough to be ranked.
Poli Sci, Psychology, Sociology, the list goes on. I never made the point that USC has amazing social science programs. You, however, said that "Caltech absolutely has top social science programs." If by "top social science programs" you actually meant one 19th-ranked Economics department, then I guess you're right. Add to this the fact that the NRC Rankings were released in 1995 (well before USC began its ascent), and it looks like we're in for some surprises when the 2005 NRC Rankings come out next year.
EDIT: Your friends are a bit odd if they consider UCLA to be such a better Aero school. USNWR has it at 12, and USC at 15. As for overall engineering rankings, USC is 6 while UCLA is 16. Even if you compare prestige scores, UCLA beats out USC by just .2/.3 in peer and recruiter scores. With all factors combined, I would hardly say that USC would be considered dead last. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 7:28 PM Author: White quadroon "With all factors combined, I would hardly say that USC would be considered dead last."
Well, then when it's your place to do the considering, consider it how you like!
Further, I don't know what you're talking about with NRC research rankings. 1995? Come on. On the Econ program (which you got wrong; it's #14, not #19--and note that USC, once again, is still tied for #40!), I was using USNews rankings for this year.
Caltech has a "unified" social science program that is basically a combination of econ and political science (in varying measures). Since it's one program, it's only ranked in one category in USNews. However, its graduates get jobs in a range of econ, polisci, and other related fields. The point is not how "developed" the program is--it's more the size. There are maybe 20 or 30 social science grad students at Caltech at any one given time. Half a dozen or so get their Ph.D.'s each year. That's tiny, yes--but nearly all land tenure-track jobs, which is not at all common in the humanities or social sciences. Is the name recognition huge? Of course not, we're talking about 5 or 6 students a year. But it's an extremely effective program. Caltech's philosophy is that small size (coupled with a HUGE endowment for that size!) gives the school a certain nimbleness that it would not have if it were bigger. Caltech consciously avoids growing larger--it's actually a big deal, trying to keep focused on the size. Student and faculty numbers have remained fairly consistent, but staff and especially postdoc numbers (there are now 2 or 3 postdocs for every professor) have absolutely exploded. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 7:51 PM Author: Fishy Station Toilet Seat Subject: This is one of the most embarrassing TROLL threads of the year I don't knoe whose bragging is more pathetic - yours or the USC guy's. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1382142) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 7:52 PM Author: White quadroon ...that you hadn't yet posted in.
I think the Top Ten is pretty much occupied for good. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:25 PM Author: zippy peach messiness I'd love for you to explain how I'm trolling NYCFan. I'm simply stating facts and letting people draw conclusions. Never here did I say once that USC is a prestigious school, etc. I am merely asserting that, based on a host of verifiable and historically dependable characteristics, USC has a very good chance of breaking into the ranks of the top universities in the country in the coming 40 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1383407) |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 1:55 AM Author: White quadroon Trolling can be loosely defined by two cases:
1) Attempting to assert that an obviously-lesser school is somehow equal or even superior to better schools, or will become equal, or is "imminently trending" or whatever. You and the Northeastern troll fit in this category.
2) Attempting to assert that some single school is the clearly outstanding institution out of a group that is quite obviously roughly equivalent (I'm thinking here of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, for example). NYCFan is the classic example here; I would also place the new breed of "Penn is obviously the best non-HYP Ivy" trolls in this category.
What I am doing to you, by the way, is not trolling--it's more akin to what I call "clubbing a baby seal" (loosely defined as "troll of category 1 is pwned in a fundamentally unfair fight").
I hope this helps. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 8:01 AM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library ""Penn is obviously the best non-HYP Ivy" trolls in this category."
Ooooh, I have a trolling category! Seriously, I don't think Penn is the best non-HYP ivy, but it's definitely not the cesspool people would have you believe. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 11:42 AM Author: White quadroon Don't worry, category 2 trolls annoy me somewhat less, I think (just because category 1 trolls are so damn ridiculous--better to split hairs than create something from thin air.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1385061) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:30 PM Author: zippy peach messiness 5 or 6 students? Wow, I don't even feel like continuing this thread. In any event, stop claiming that I have my facts wrong:
http://iserver.saddleback.cc.ca.us/AP/sbs/econ/
http://stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/area36.html
Would you like more links, or will this stop you from trolling more with inaccurate data? |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 1:44 AM Author: White quadroon Your "facts" (if rankings can even be described as such in the first place) were right 10 years ago, perhaps.
Mine are from this year, TROLL. |
|
Date: September 25th, 2004 2:39 PM Author: zippy peach messiness Convenient that you ignore that ONE is more well-respected (much more so) than the other. Also, stop shifting the argument into new territory without addressing the fact that you are wrong in making certain statements. Also, are you so immature that you have to turn this and other posts into name-calling matches? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1389881) |
|
Date: September 25th, 2004 10:04 PM Author: White quadroon No, TROLL, I just think labeling your posts for what they are is fun, accurate, and convenient.
BOTH rankings support the fact that Caltech is better than USC in Econ. I'd also challenge you to find a SINGLE science/engineering discipline where USC beats Caltech. |
|
Date: September 26th, 2004 12:50 AM Author: zippy peach messiness Am I talking to a wall?
"BOTH rankings support the fact that Caltech is better than USC in Econ."
When the HELL did I ever say or even imply this?!
It's not even worth it to respond to your posts anymore--you clearly refuse to address points I bring up directly, and instead choose to put words into my mouth and develop empirically unsupported claims. |
|
Date: September 26th, 2004 1:09 AM Author: White quadroon You're talking to a wall of your own construction--nothing you make up or predict about USC or will change the fact that it is not, in fact, the best school in southern California and that this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1392434) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:57 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre "Caltech absolutely has top social science programs."
Rankings of that type are almost universally for grad programs. They don't bear a strong connection to the undergrad program. (But maybe you were talking about grad students.)
I'm not saying that Caltech is bad at those things. I'm saying your evidence for their being good is not so great.
In other news...
Caltech's campus seems nice. I go to the Huntington Library every now and then and I pass Caltech on the California Blvd. side. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 7:31 PM Author: White quadroon If I said "pumping out professors," yes, I'm talking about grad programs.
At a school the size of Caltech, YES the grad and undergrad programs are very connected. Not only because undergraduates at Caltech are extensively involved in research: In just about every division, junior and senior level classes are also the introductory grad level classes.
The Huntington and Caltech are closely affiliated; Caltech humanities profs get special access to their extensive library of rare documents. My medieval history advisor loves it. History grad students actually come to Caltech to study under him during the summer, in large part because of the Huntington partnership. |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 3:51 AM Author: Bat-shit-crazy provocative theatre "The Huntington and Caltech are closely affiliated; Caltech humanities profs get special access to their extensive library of rare documents."
Heh, heh...
I go there because I'm know a USC professor who has a fellowship there. (That's one of the reasons this thread made me think of that.) |
|
Date: September 24th, 2004 11:36 AM Author: White quadroon Yeah, they give fellowships (usually for a period of several month or years) to academics from all over the world--but with Caltech hum profs it's automatic (if their research is at all related, of course). It makes sense, since the institutions are almost literally right next door. (They let us use their parking lots for Commencement overflow every year, even. Nice people.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1385025) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 11:55 AM Author: White quadroon I want to hear what the USC troll has to say. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1379606) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2004 4:10 PM Author: mahogany narrow-minded coldplay fan library Go Trojans! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=85396&forum_id=2#1380805) |