<p><em>snerk</em>
I finally bought that movie yesterday. Chica chica yeah.</p>
<p>I know that in all likelihood I’ll have a choice between three state-run schools (Univ. of Del., Univ. of Md., and UMBC), but they’re all very good schools and I would be happy at any one of them. Am I somewhat disappointed in the long run that I won’t be going to a top school? Not really, since I think it more matters what you put into a school than what it automatically does for you…</p>
<p>Mirabeau, one of my dad’s colleagues, who’s probably the most brilliant man I know–MIT grad in EE and CompSci and PhD in EE, 21 patents, etc. His daughter goes to UMD and he speaks very very highly about the school. You could do a lot worse than UMD, UMBC, UDel :)</p>
<p>It’s one thing to say that many successful people are graduates of schools with modest reputations. It’s quite another to say that “the kids who come from Harvard are idiots.” That’s just silly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They usually are not stupid, but they are usually quite successful. Our president had a 2.35 GPA at Yale.</p>
<p>Collegehopeful in Post 133: “No one believes Oxford > Harvard. Harvard has the biggest name in the world and is ranked # 1 on every top world rankings.”</p>
<p>Collegehopeful, have you ever been out of the USA???</p>
<p>I’d say they’re pretty equal.</p>
<p>Not bummed at all. I go to Northeastern. Could have gone to a school with a better reputation, but I made the best choice I could have. Absolutely love it. I think at the end of the day, if it’s a good fit, the name shouldn’t matter. I know that’s an outrageous idea around CC, but I love my school, “modest” reputation and all, I work hard, and my chances of getting into a good med school are looking pretty good so far… but maybe I should keep my mouth shut until I make it through organic chem and biochem!</p>
<p>i agree with emily. right now i go to university of maryland - college park. i was a bit bummed about it in the beginning since i had gotten into both carnegie mellon and cornell (my top choice schools) for engineering. but i LOVE LOVE LOVE maryland now. it’s waaaaaaaay cheaper and im in all these special programs where i get a lot more attention and i think it might even end up better for my resume… so don’t let brand name get you, there’s a lot more to a school than just name.</p>
<p>I don’t feel bummed at all about not going to a top school. In fact, I didn’t really apply to many top schools in the first place (I only applied to 2, got in 1). Whenever I would tell people where I’m going they would ask me what on earth made decide my school. I would just say that it was the school that I felt most comfortable at. I think that’s all that matters. Like benandjerrys said, “there’s a lot more to a school than just name.”</p>
<p>I try not to think about prestige but when I see all my ivy league friends get top jobs in NY and Chicago and my big state school/lower tiered friends get jobs at Macy’s I can’t help but wonder…</p>
<p>Yeah, I’d love to work for the big Macy’s in NYC :)</p>
<p>what did the people who ended up working at Macy’s study?</p>
<p>Harvard is # 1 in terms of prestige anywhere in the world. Look at the THES and London rankings. Even though other schools could be argued to be better, the authors and critics of the ranking have acknowledged the rankings would lose credibility if Harvard was not placed at #1. Also he general consensus is that Oxford and Cambridge are in decline. Both have reported large deficits and suffer from sub par facilities. Harvard’s endowment is greater than the endowments of every college in the U.K. In fact more and more British students are opting for ivy’s over the once revered Oxbridge. Tradition will always hold schools like that back. Oxford especially which is relatively weak in the sciences compared to Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton. Rankings favor the schools with strong science and medicine programs and because of that Oxford has lost prestige over the years. Studying physics at MIT or Stanford would be conspired more prestigious than studying the classics at Oxford.</p>
<p>collegehopeful,</p>
<p>The rankings may still not capture the local flavor, so to speak. I’d be willing to bet that a Tokyo U. degree would be more impressive to most Japanese than a Harvard degree. This has nothing to do with actual quality of the universities (Harvard is light years ahead of Todai), but due to local perceptions. We all have our own reality distortion fields thanks to cultural and national biases.</p>
<p>collegehopeful78: American visiting students, seen as a subsidy, are looked down upon by many Oxbridge students. More and more British students are applying to Ivies because Ivies are recruiting harder abroad (see last year’s article in The Economist). Further, I assure you, Blackstone recruits here, the Rhodes astrophysicists aren’t complaining, and the lackluster facilities are more the whining of, in the words of a Marshall, “spoiled brats.”</p>
<p>“Also he general consensus is that Oxford and Cambridge are in decline.”</p>
<p>I don’t exactly think there is any concensus over such a silly statement. Cambridge still has more nobel prizes than anywhere else in the world (and still wins them on a regurlar basis)… so yeah I don’t think it’s exactly rubbish. Personally, I find it funny that Ivy pushers always get uptight about Oxbridge (as it’s likely the only other schools in the world that might be more prestitgious than the Ivies) but you never hear Oxbridge folks getting uptight about the Ivys. To me, it’s quite clear who’s insecure ;-)</p>
<p>Well, let’s be fair here. Oxbridge are clearly excellent institutions, but there seems to be something of a feeling from within and outside that there are problems at present or on the horizon. That’s not to say that they are by any means not deserving of their status as premier institutions, but they are going to need some retooling in the future if they want to keep up.</p>
<p>Well, to be fair I think that description fits almost all Universities… even the all mighty Harvard (re: the large amount of infighting amoungst the faculty in recent years over University reform issues).</p>
<p>In regards to Oxbridge, the biggest issue there is the fact that both Universities are totally different from anywhere else (both in their organizational structure and academic structure). From my observations it seems Cambridge is doing better than Oxford in adapting and Cambridge is managing to maintain most of it’s traditional form whilst also mixing in a more ‘American style’ attitude of coupling research with startup companies and running an aggressive private fundraising campaign (Bill Gates’ quarter billion or so a few years back was a good start).</p>
<p>UCLAri & rocketman08, you are correct.</p>
<p>Oxbridge has recently realized the need to use fundraising tactics long known to its American brethren. e.g., Oxford is only now starting to build an alumni network; rumour has it that New College had to sell some of its real estate (to keep lecturers from high paying positions in the States? who knows). Part of the problem is that each college has its own endowment, so each college is fighting with the university for cash. The main facilities–Radcliffe science library, the Bod, &c–are funded by the university, so they are hardly in disrepair, but facilities from college to college get spotty, but by spotty, I mean that libraries aren’t 24 hours everywhere. Almost any book you need for academic purposes will be retrieved, regardless of where you are. I’ve only heard five types of people complain:</p>
<p>(1) those who haven’t been given professorship/whatever it is so they can have the library purchase texts (unfortunate typical academic bureaucracy);
(2) students at colleges who don’t have 24 hour library access (this I understand, but neither does Yale, if I remember correctly);
(3) British press who are offended at being second to Harvard in rankings (The Economist)
(4) catty Rhodes scholars who write Crimson editorials (my grapevine says that those two are a sullen pair at best)
(5) American students with some crazy inferiority complex</p>
<p>Right now the gaps in funding for colleges are being met by holding conferences (companies pay big bucks to hold their white-tie dinners at Oxford), visiting students, and other forms of “selling out.”</p>
<p>But, surely, UCLAri, couldn’t a similar statement be said about Harvard’s Allston expansion? It comes from their need to stay relevant.</p>
<p>rocketman, wasn’t Gates’s contribution just for the Gates trust? None of the money then goes directly to the University, right? It is funding for students.</p>
<p>The real problem (regarding research) is not Oxbridge, but the British government. It is outrageously difficult to find research as an undergrad in the UK. REUs are everywhere in the States. The US government just outspends on every level.</p>