Best MBA schools on the west coast?

[DiamondT]

<p>Do you realize that most respectable, knowledgeable academians and businessmen don’t even consider the Jia Tong survey a legitimate ranking?</p>

[Ivy_Grad]

<p>

1.) Haas is an excellent business school. It has excellent ties to Asia, and is one of the top choices should one want to pursue a career in business in Asia.

</p>

<p>I agree, on balance, with what justsomeguy wrote.</p>

<p>Look, Haas isn’t a bad choice - a great one even, but to say that its THE best choice for those seeking business / career opp. in Asia is more than a stretch, and further, although it is arguably a Top 10 MBA program, it’s just not at the elite level of HBS, Stanford GSB, Wharton - whether one is considering the Asian angle or not.</p>

<p>I think we’ve beaten this horse to death and CalX will continue to argue otherwise, in which case, I’ll be happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Berkeley’s brand name in Asia is not inferior to any school other than Harvard. The Jia Tong ratings confirm that.

</p>

<p>Then, as IvyGrad said, why does Jiao Tong rank Stanford ahead of Berkeley? Does that mean that Stanford’s brand name is better than Berkeley’s in Asia? </p>

<p>

Sakky questions the methodology of that ranking, but the reality is that international prestige rests above all on things like Nobel Prizes and research, and that is no less subjective than the parameters used by USNWR to rank undergraduate institutions (such as alumni giving rate). As a matter of fact, it’s more objective.

</p>

<p>Jiao Tong ranks UCSD over UCLA. Are you really saying that this is highly objective - that people in Asia really see UCSD as more prestigious than UCLA? UCSD is also ranked higher than Penn, Michigan, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and (get this), even more prestigious than the University of Tokyo and the University of Kyoto. Do you really believe this? Are there really all these Asians turning down Tokyo for UCSD? </p>

<p>

Undergrad is irrelevant here. As far as the difference in yield, Sloan’s is more like 65-70%, it’s not a huge difference. There is a strong regional/geographic factor, with about 70% of students from the US. Most of these applicants are from the eastern part of the US. I turned down Wharton because I didn’t want to go East (at the time as well the internet boom made Haas overwhelmingly more appealing to me.)

</p>

<p>68% vs. 50% is a pretty darn big difference. </p>

<p>Sure, there are strong regional factors - for BOTH schools. Berkeley tends to draw people from California, MIT draws people from the East. So what? Trust me, the East has PLENTY of Asian people. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. Sloan actually has a HIGHER percentage of international students (35%) than does Haas (32%). So I certainly don’t see how Haas is any more international than Sloan is.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/MBA/community_5.html[/url]”>http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/MBA/community_5.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/program/classof07profile.php[/url]”>http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/program/classof07profile.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

It’s only a minor detail really, but in order to graduate from Berkeley, you have to ACTUALLY GET INTO Berkeley first. Unlike all other top schools, Berkeley doesn’t do financial legacies. If one of the Li sons couldn’t even graduate from Stanford (a school that’s hard to get in for non-legacies but where it’s ridiculously easy to graduate from given that 95% of grades are Bs or better), his academic dedication can’t be all that great… Maybe Mr Li wanted his sons to go to Berkeley. After all, he does think highly of Berkeley, having donated $40,000,000 to Berkeley and nothing of that scale to other US universities as far as I know.

</p>

<p>So are you saying that Li KaiShing got his sons into Stanford via financial legacy? I would like to see some proof regarding that. I know PLENTY of wealthy people who nonetheless couldn’t get their children into Stanford.</p>

<p>But in any case, this is neither here nor there. We’re talking about business here. Business success has a lot to do with networking and personal contacts. You might say that rich people are shoehorning themselves into Stanford. But as a budding businessman, that just makes Stanford more desirable from a networking standpoint. After all, if you had gone to Stanford 20 years ago, you might have had a chance to meet one of the Li boys, and that could be your ticket to success in Asia. </p>

<p>Hence, even if you’re right, and Stanford let the Li boys into Stanford because of money, that doesn’t detract from the desirability of Stanford from a future business standpoint - if anything, it actually ENHANCES it. </p>

<p>

This issue, like most sakky has presented is a bit of a red herring though, as it’s not about which school has “the better Asians”, it’s about which school offers the better gateway to Asia and helps its graduates position themselves to do business in Asia.

</p>

<p>I think they’re the same thing. Like I said, business is mostly about networking, and networking requires that you associate yourself with the best people. In the case of Asia, it’s the best Asians. The truth is, the best Asians prefer to go elsewhere. </p>

<p>

You will still be reducing the “Asian ties” to the current attendance patterns of Chinese MBA students. That is a gross distortion of the topic, if not another outright red herring. It brushes off the deep cultural, historical and geographical exposure of Berkeley to the Far East. How does MIT’s Asian Studies dept compare to Berkeley’s? Do they offer a similarly strong Asian business emphasis as Haas? What is the extent, in quantity and quality of their Asian network vs Berkeley/Haas’? Could MIT have had a Chinese chancellor decades ago, as Berkeley did?

</p>

<p>How am I reducing it to purely Chinese MBA students. Let me ask you - why do people joke that MIT actually stands for “Made in Taiwan”? Why are there so many Chinese students (either Chinese-American or Chinese nationals) in all of MIT’s programs? </p>

<p>I will leave it up to the readers to decide whether having an Asian Studies program or an Asian chancellor is important to the future of business success. I would argue that it isn’t important at all. After all, let’s use another example. Nobody in HBS, not even the Asians, seem to care very much about the Harvard Asian Studies program. Nobody seems to care about the fact that Harvard has never had an Asian President. The same is true of Stanford.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

If Haas did have the most asians and the best connections to Asia, it seems like Cal <em>would</em> be the best for doing business in that part of the world.

</p>

<p>First off, it doesn’t even have the most Asians. I have to believe that HBS does, simply because HBS is far and away the largest full-time business school in the world, and so would have the most students of ALL ethnicities. </p>

<p>Nor does Haas even have the highest percentage of Asians. Again, like I said, clearly the schools with the highest percentage of Asians are schools IN ASIA. Yet I think few people here are seriously thinking of getting their MBA at the University of Hong Kong. </p>

<p>Nor does the overall university matter for much. The truth is, graduate students (particularly MBA students) tend to interact very little with undergrads. The cultural divide is simply too large. HBS students interact very little with regular Harvard undergrads. Stanford MBA students do not interact much with Stanford undergrads. </p>

<p>What really matters is not the number of Asians, but rather the QUALITY of them for networking purposes. I would trade contacts with 1000 regular Asians for a strong connection with just Li Kai-Shing, or one of his sons, for example. So you have to look at where the best Asians WANT to go. Even the best Asians tend to prefer to go to the West than stay in Asia. After all, I think we can all agree that very few Chinese students are going to turn down Harvard Business School for a Chinese university.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I did read your argument about Li not having donated money to Stanford the first time around. It’s a bit of a silly argument because schools like Stanford will admit a legacy like his son, but they wouldn’t change his grades for money, so there are no political or PR barriers to his donating to a school, and furthermore one of his sons already graduated from there. </p>

<p>It’s kind of funny that sakky brought Li to bolster his argument about Berkeley’s presumed inferiority when in fact it turned out that Berkeley dwarfs all other US schools in terms of the esteem Li places on it…

</p>

<p>If what you are really saying is true, and Li KaiShing got his 2 sons into Stanford purely as a financial legacy, then that MUST mean that he has donated quite a lot to Stanford to have gotten his sons in - arguably more than he donated to Berkeley. </p>

<p>You can’t have it both ways. Either his sons got into Stanford purely on their merit, or they got in by their father’s money. If it’s the former, then that means that they probably could have gotten into Berkeley but chose Stanford instead (because, like you said, getting into Stanford is very hard without money). If it’s the latter, then that means that Li has donated money, and we just don’t know how much (as I’m sure nobody is eager to publicize details of the kind of money you need to get your sons into school). </p>

<p>But you can’t have it both ways. I find it funny that you didn’t see this logic before. </p>

<p>

That “ONE SINGLE SURVEY” is actually the best indicator of Asian brand perceptions.

</p>

<p>The best indicator? I would like to see somebody justify how is it that Asians see UCSD as somehow seen to have a better brand than UCLA. Or Michigan. Or Penn. Please explain this to me. Yet that is what Jiao Tong would have you believe. </p>

<p>Again, I return to my original argument. Jiao Tong is about resarch. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a brand preference survey. I think few Asians would really choose UCSD over UCLA or Penn, and certainly not over the University of Tokyo. I think few Asians would choose Wisconsin over Michigan or Duke. </p>

<p>

Read your post again, first you tell me that Stanford is superior to Cal because it is one rung higher, then you say that MIT isn’t inferior to Cal because it’s only one rung lower. I’d say you should pick an argument line and stick with it…

</p>

<p>Uh, I think you should also be consistent with your argument. You have said that Cal and Stanford were basically the same (even though Stanford is one slot higher), then you have turned around and said that Cal is better than MIT (because Cal is one rung higher).</p>

[sakky]

<p>

My argument was: Berkeley is only ranked top 10 overall, but it distinguishes itself from most other top 10 schools in its outlook on Asia, technology and entrepreneurship.

</p>

<p>Technology and entreprenership, you say? </p>

<p>USNews graduate MBA specialty rankings in entrepreneurship:</p>

<ol>
<li> Babson College (Olin) (MA) </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)<br></li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> University of Southern California (Marshall)<br></li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)<br></li>
<li> University of Michigan–Ann Arbor (Ross)<br></li>
<li> University of Texas–Austin (McCombs)<br></li>
<li> University of California–Berkeley (Haas)<br></li>
</ol>

<p>Information Systems</p>

<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)<br></li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper) ¶ </li>
<li> University of Texas–Austin (McCombs)<br></li>
<li> University of Arizona (Eller)<br></li>
<li> University of Minnesota–Twin Cities (Carlson)<br></li>
<li> University of Maryland–College Park (Smith)<br></li>
<li> New York University (Stern)<br></li>
<li> Georgia State University (Robinson)<br>
Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)<br></li>
<li> Indiana University–Bloomington (Kelley)<br></li>
<li> University of Michigan–Ann Arbor (Ross)<br></li>
<li> Arizona State University–Main Campus (Carey)<br>
Purdue University–West Lafayette (Krannert) (IN)
University of Georgia (Terry)<br></li>
<li> University of California–Irvine (Merage)<br>
University of Pittsburgh (Katz)<br></li>
<li> University of California–Berkeley (Haas)</li>
</ol>

<p>Production/Operations (basically, manufacturing)</p>

<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)<br></li>
<li> Purdue University–West Lafayette (Krannert) (IN) </li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper) ¶ </li>
<li> University of Michigan–Ann Arbor (Ross)<br></li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)<br></li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Northwestern University (Kellogg) (IL) </li>
<li> Columbia University (NY)
Indiana University–Bloomington (Kelley)<br></li>
<li> University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler)<br></li>
<li> University of California–Los Angeles (Anderson)<br></li>
<li> Michigan State University (Broad)<br>
Ohio State University (Fisher)<br></li>
<li> University of Chicago<br></li>
<li> Georgia Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li> University of California–Berkeley (Haas)<br>
University of Texas–Austin (McCombs)<br></li>
</ol>

<p>Supply Chain/Logistics, basically getting stuff shipped, including to/from Asia. (Haas is unranked)</p>

<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)<br>

<ol>
<li> Michigan State University (Broad)<br></li>
<li> Arizona State University–Main Campus (Carey)<br></li>
<li> Ohio State University (Fisher)<br></li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper) ¶ </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> Pennsylvania State University–University Park (Smeal)<br>
Purdue University–West Lafayette (Krannert) (IN) </li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)<br></li>
<li> University of Tennessee–Knoxville<br></li>
<li> University of Michigan–Ann Arbor (Ross)<br></li>
<li> University of Maryland–College Park (Smith)<br></li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Columbia University (NY)
Northwestern University (Kellogg) (IL) </li>
<li> Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
Indiana University–Bloomington (Kelley)<br></li>
<li> University of Wisconsin–Madison<br></li>
<li> University of Arkansas–Fayetteville (Walton)<br>
University of California–Los Angeles (Anderson)<br>
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler)<br></li>
<li> Dartmouth College (Tuck) (NH) </li>
<li> Duke University (Fuqua) (NC)
University of Chicago<br>
University of Minnesota–Twin Cities (Carlson)<br></li>
</ol></li>
</ol>

<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/mba/mbaindex.php[/url]”>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/mba/mbaindex.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[sakky]

<p>

Aurelius, most of sakky’s arguments tend to be excruciatingly long red herrings (approach which tends to impress the CC peanut gallery), and that’s one of them. Don’t expect me to address many of his rhetorical meanderings…

</p>

<p>Perhaps you should just concede that you can’t answer them. I think I have made my arguments quite solid. </p>

<p>

The best path towards an Asian career would be to work there a few years then get an MBA at an American university with a strong Asian focus and outlook. And Haas is clearly superbly equipped for that mission, much more so than most other top 10 MBA programs. I think my argument is quite clear and solid.

</p>

<p>Yet again, I would simply ask why is it that so many Asians would disagree and choose another school over Haas? Are they dumb?</p>

[DiamondT]

<p>Cal is to Stanford as France is to the USA.</p>

[Aurelius]

<p>Calx, I haven’t thoroughly analyzed Sakky’s rhetorial devices but I think she has an excellent knowlege of UC Berkeley (as well as MBA programs) and can probably has good judgement on these topics. </p>

<p>

Reading this forum is akin to being in a room with a bunch of people yelling at the top of their voices covering their ears.

Well it’s a good change from the typical undergraduate argument wars that we have in CC. lol</p>

[Ivy_Grad]

<p>

Calx, I haven’t thoroughly analyzed Sakky’s rhetorial devices but I think she has an excellent knowlege of UC Berkeley

</p>

<p>Sakky is a she? Wow, didn’t see that one coming…</p>

[CalX]

<p>sakky, I will gladly concede that I don’t have the time to address all your tangential arguments. While you’ve spent an hour writing a few pagefuls, my time is too precious.</p>

<p>Just a sampling: “Are there really all these Asians turning down Tokyo for UCSD?” well virtually no one applies to both universities. Was that statement ignorant of that basic fact, or was that just a bit of disingenious rhetoric?</p>

<p>

Berkeley tends to draw people from California, MIT draws people from the East. So what?

I don’t think you got my point about the fact that most Eastern applicants prefer to stay East, and there are far more people out East than in California. Haas loses out in terms of yield to MIT and other top east coast schools with easterners, who represent the majority of the US applicant pool.</p>

<p>As far as rankings, it’s a bit of a stretch to rank Haas below Arizona State in MIS when in fact a substantial portion of the global software industry is located near Berkeley, or to rank Texas ahead of Haas in entrepreneurship when the Bay Area has the world’s largest concentration of venture capital in the world and people like John Doerr are campus fixtures at Haas… Perhaps much more of a stretch than ranking UCSD ahead of UCLA. Those “emphasis” MBA sub-rankings are a chance for the second tier schools to shine, a bit like the regional rankings in USNWR.</p>

<p>As far as the Li progeny’s admission to Stanford, they don’t even need to donate millions, it is understood that by enrolling at Stanford, they are much more likely to donate in the future. You “would like to see some proof regarding that”? It’s a bit naive, to say the least, to doubt that a multibillionaire’s son is not treated differently by a top private school’s admissions office… You “know PLENTY of wealthy people who nonetheless couldn’t get their children into Stanford”, well how many of those were sons of billionaires, as opposed to mere multimillionaires (there are something like 14 million millionaires in the US…)</p>

<p>Yes, you’re right, Stanford has a high proportion of heirs to fortunes and that’s a good thing for networking. But the fact is, Berkeley is very highly esteemed in Asia, as Li Sr’s unique huge donation shows.</p>

<p>Asian nationals don’t come to Haas to take the joint Asian Studies MBA program, but it’s a great program for those who are interested in doing business in Asia and need to develop more insight into that region. Those programs aren’t primarily geared towards Asian nationals. Formally learning about the cultures and studying the languages will certainly help Americans and other non-Asian nationals to gain perspective on the region.</p>

<p>You are also wrong about “where the best Asians want to go”. Berkeley’s overall yield is significantly higher for Asian applicants. I would also guess based on personal experience that Haas is preferred to other similarly-ranked MBAs by most Asian applicants.</p>

<p>

DiamondT:Cal is to Stanford as France is to the USA.

I think you’re being too complimentary about Berkeley in terms of intellectual and cultural discourse. Stanford is not nearly that far behind Berkeley.</p>

[Wildflower]

<p>Hey Mods: Can we lock this thread? …I ran out of popcorn</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Just a sampling: “Are there really all these Asians turning down Tokyo for UCSD?” well virtually no one applies to both universities. Was that statement ignorant of that basic fact, or was that just a bit of disingenious rhetoric?

</p>

<p>But even if they did apply in great numbers, how many would really turn down Tokyo for UCSD? </p>

<p>I think the reason is pretty clear - those who are applying to Tokyo are not going to seriously consider UCSD. </p>

<p>

I don’t think you got my point about the fact that most Eastern applicants prefer to stay East, and there are far more people out East than in California. Haas loses out in terms of yield to MIT and other top east coast schools with easterners, who represent the majority of the US applicant pool.

</p>

<p>All that really means is that MIT is giving people what they want. If it’s geographic preference that they want, and MIT is giving it to them, then so be it. If I put a school in the middle of the desert, then no matter how good it is, some people won’t want to go, and that’s my own fault for putting it in the middle of the desert. MIT certainly should not be ‘penalized’ because it happens to be in a desirable part of the country where lots of people are. </p>

<p>Besides, this supposed East-coast bias doesn’t seem to hurt Stanford very much, as Stanford has an EVEN BIGGER yield than Sloan does. </p>

<p>

As far as rankings, it’s a bit of a stretch to rank Haas below Arizona State in MIS when in fact a substantial portion of the global software industry is located near Berkeley, or to rank Texas ahead of Haas in entrepreneurship when the Bay Area has the world’s largest concentration of venture capital in the world and people like John Doerr are campus fixtures at Haas… Perhaps much more of a stretch than ranking UCSD ahead of UCLA. Those “emphasis” MBA sub-rankings are a chance for the second tier schools to shine, a bit like the regional rankings in USNWR.

</p>

<p>Read 'em and weep. That just shows that Berkeley really isn’t all that good at entrepreneurship or information systems, despite having geographic advantages. After all, how many successful tech companies have been founded by Berkeley grads, compared to, say, Stanford grads? The cutting truth is, there really aren’t that many. Truth be told, Stanford tends to suck up all of the oxygen when it comes to VC and to tech entrepreneurship in the Bay Area. Silicon Valley did, after all, get founded around Stanford. Not Berkeley. </p>

<p>

As far as the Li progeny’s admission to Stanford, they don’t even need to donate millions, it is understood that by enrolling at Stanford, they are much more likely to donate in the future. You “would like to see some proof regarding that”? It’s a bit naive, to say the least, to doubt that a multibillionaire’s son is not treated differently by a top private school’s admissions office… You “know PLENTY of wealthy people who nonetheless couldn’t get their children into Stanford”, well how many of those were sons of billionaires, as opposed to mere multimillionaires (there are something like 14 million millionaires in the US…)

</p>

<p>Even if this is right, then you are only conceding that the Li’s ARE LIKELY TO donate to Stanford in the future, and potentially (indeed, probably) more money than they will ever donate to Berkeley. </p>

<p>And like I said, that’s neither here nor there. When you’re talking about networking, you want to go to the school where you can build the best network. If people like the Li’s are going to Stanford, then that means that YOU should probably also go to Stanford, if for no other reason, then for a chance to meet the Li’s. If the top Asians prefer to go someplace else than Haas, and you want to do business in Asia, then YOU should also want to go to that someplace else, wherever it is. </p>

<p>

You are also wrong about “where the best Asians want to go”. Berkeley’s overall yield is significantly higher for Asian applicants. I would also guess based on personal experience that Haas is preferred to other similarly-ranked MBAs by most Asian applicants.

</p>

<p>Again, this is a claim of which I would love to see some proof. I agree with IvyGrad that, of all of the ethnicities, Asians tend to be the MOST brand-conscious and upwardly mobile/conscious, in which case they would tend to value the highest ranked school most of all. In fact, having lots of Asians can often times be seen as actually a BAD thing, as, depending on the details, that might mean that the school is simply too easy to get into, which hurts the brand name. </p>

<p>From what I have seen of the nouveau riche in China, they not only value brand-names, but EXCLUSIVE brand names, in the sense that they want to associate themselves with brands that are difficult to obtain, because they want to separate themselves as far as possible from the masses. Coach handbags are not good enough, for example, as they are seen as ‘masstige’. They want Louis Vuitton. DKNY is not good enough. They want Gucci. </p>

<p>Now, let me be clear. I am not saying that Haas is a bad school. Ivygrad isn’t either. That’s not the point. The point is, I (and he) see the claim that Berkeley is ‘the best’ gateway to business in Asia to be a highly provocative claim at best. It would seem to me that if all you want to do is work in Asia, then what you should do is simple GO TO ASIA. Meaning, get a job in Asia. Go to school in Asia. Get your MBA from Asia. Just go there. Why would you need a gateway to Asia if you’re already in Asia. </p>

<p>I’ve known people who have done just that - have simply gone to Asia. Some of them held out for a job that would send them to Asia, and were willing to take a paycut for the opportunity. Some of them actually decided to go to school in Asia (either through study-abroad or just applied to programs in Asia). Some have gone to Asia through NGO’s, i.e. the Peace Corps. Some of them decided to work for an Asian company in a job that would require frequent travel to Asia. If Asia is what you really want, then it would seem to me that this is the best way to do it. </p>

<p>What Haas can offer is a top 10 MBA education that does, I agree, have pretty good ties to Asia (although, again, I would strongly hesitate to say that it has ‘the best’ ties). That means that Haas is a perfectly fine school. But let’s have some respect for some of the other programs out there.</p>

[CalX]

<p>

how many would really turn down Tokyo for UCSD… I think the reason is pretty clear - those who are applying to Tokyo are not going to seriously consider UCSD.

</p>

<p>For the second time… Virtually nobody has to make that decision. UCSD and Tokyo U target totally different student nationalities/constituencies. It’s a stretch to apply the notion of cross-yield between those two schools.</p>

<p>-About the regional aspect of the yield: it’s true that Stanford is less dependent on geography as an all-round top 3 MBA program. But your champion, MIT, is more dependent on geography. It helps it with the Eastern applicants which are a huge segment of the applicant pool. </p>

<p>-Companies founded by Berkeley grads? What kind of computer are you using right now? Because Intel and Apple, for starts have Berkeley founders. Who runs the top new media company, Google? Schmidt went to my Berkeley dorm, as did several Asian cabinet members.</p>

<p>-Silicon Valley grew in the south bay because that was the empty and cheap (orchards!) part of the Bay Area with very limited anti-growth regulations and a great infrastructure (roads, business-friendly municipalities.)</p>

<p>-WRT your rankings, it’s more a case of “read them and laugh” than “read them and weep”. Since you’re so fond of yields, how does the yield of Arizona State’s MBA compare with Haas’? Seriously. </p>

<p>And talk about your use of fillers, gratutiously throwing in somehow Supply Chain/Logistics ranking and trying to tie it in with technology and Asia… If you want to study Logistics at Berkeley, you go to the IEOR dept for a masters, not to business school! And Berkeley beats the crap out of almost all of these schools in Industrial Engineering. Same with IT and CS.</p>

<p>

and potentially (indeed, probably) more money than they will ever donate to Berkeley.

No, you don’t know if the young Lis are even going to match the Li gift to Berkeley and donate $50-150 million (equivalent to a NPV of $40 million for a gift years/decades down the road) to Stanford in the future. We do know Papa Li hasn’t, at least not in the scale he donated to Berkeley. Maybe the Jr Lis would rather buy another island or Van Gogh instead, or pay off an ex or two. Schools like Stanford take that “gamble” any day, sure.</p>

<p>Some of the top smart Asians do/did go to Berkeley though, including billionaires and their family members. The contacts I’ve made at Cal have shaped part of my professional focus the last few years.</p>

<p>Asians are brand-conscious, but the point is that Berkeley is a great brand in Asia, more so than in the East Coast. It’s much more of a "Herm</p>

[Rabban]

<p>Very good discussions- I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I am afraid that many posters here do not fully understand Asian’s culture and its tradition – One cannot fully understand a country’s culture and their mode of thinking in short time period. In fact, it is preposterous for one to claim he/she knows it by having stayed there for few years (or month?). As an Asian-American who spent a good deal of my time in Asia and U.S. (about half and half), I think I am qualified to point out some of the misconceptions that had been expressed here.</p>

<p>Truth about World-Famous School (drum roll please). They are:</p>

<p>1) World Prestige(overall): ** Harvard, MIT, Berkeley** followed by Stanford Columbia. Sorry Ivy-Grad, but Princeton is not well recognized especially in Asia, perhaps for its religious seminary school?
2) Best World-Famous Engineering Schools: ** MIT, Berkeley, Stanford <a href=“no%20arguments%20here”>/b</a>
3) Best World-Famous Non-engineering Schools: Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Columbia</p>

<p>As you can see, Berkeley does have a slight edge over Stanford in terms of world-wide prestige. So I don’t think it’s too much to argue that Haas is more desirable school than Stanford GSB especially one wants to get involved with Asia business or whatnot. </p>

<p>Consider the following facts, any one with gray matters up there would agree with me :)</p>

<p>1) Historically top scholars from Asia came to this country to get their Ph.Ds. We Asians think PHD is like a gold medal, and Masters deg is like a silver medal. All glory to Gold medalist. Most science/engineering majors got their degrees in MIT/Berkeley, non techies got theirs in Harvard/Columbia/Berkely/what-nots.
2) A good majority of those PHD’s returned their respective country and got honored and all and took up high-ranking government/industry/research/academic positions, including professorships at the top Asian Colleges. So you see their resumes on newspaper, radio, tv and wham here you go – Harvard, MIT, Berkeley. So general population know they are the best schools in the world
3) Next, when the next-generation top Asian students want to further their education or researchers from top private/government people want to go to US for study/post-doc/or whatnots, they usually talk to their professors/supervisors. And wham again… those H/M/B educated professors/supervisor would mention about those alma Mata (wouldn’t you?)
4) So it goes on and one… The aura of Harvard (#1), MIT, Berkeley grow and grow
5) Comprehendo?</p>

<p>Phew, man this is the longest post I’ve ever posted so far. O I admire you guys sakky & Clax etc for your long posts…:)</p>

[Wildflower]

<p>Hey all, how does Cal Tech play into all this? (obviously not as a bus school, but as a Uni).</p>

[cbreeze]

<p>It’s going to take a long time to meet a member of the Li (that family) at Stanford. The first 3rd generation boy was just born 2 months ago.</p>

[kfc4u]

<p>about brand names… i think the difference between stanford and berkeley from an asian perspective (the universities, not business schools) is about analogous to the difference between wharton and HBS from an american businessman’s perspective. </p>

<p>basically any difference is negligible. of course, this perspective can only be understood if we took off our american glasses that (what many of us would assert as “rightfully”) show stanford as better than berkeley/haas even though both are really really good.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

For the second time… Virtually nobody has to make that decision. UCSD and Tokyo U target totally different student nationalities/constituencies. It’s a stretch to apply the notion of cross-yield between those two schools.

</p>

<p>I don’t even need anybody to make the decision. I think the majority of Asians would agree that Tokyo is more prestigious than UCSD. Heck, even UCLA is considered more prestigious than UCSD. Hence, your assertion that Jiao Tong is a measure of prestige cannot be correct. </p>

<p>

But your champion, MIT, is more dependent on geography. It helps it with the Eastern applicants which are a huge segment of the applicant pool.

</p>

<p>More dependent than Stanford? Probably. But that’s not the question. The question is, is MITSloan more dependent on geography than Haas? The answer is highly unclear. It seems to me that, simply because of in-state tuition alone, Haas is probably more dependent on geography simply because that in-state tuition tends to draw lots of instate students. Furthermore, as I pointed out, Sloan has actually MORE internationals, as a percentage of its student body, than Sloan does. </p>

<p>Furthermore, get this, Sloan actually has a HIGHER percentage (about 8%) of its graduates taking jobs in Asia than Haas does (6.5%). And those Sloan graduates who take jobs in Asia get higher average salaries than do the Haas grads who take jobs in Asia. In fact, overall, more Sloan grads take international jobs (21%) vs. Haas grads who take international jobs (16.5%). </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/careercenter/04_05Stats.html#NINE[/url]”>http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/careercenter/04_05Stats.html#NINE&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://mitsloan.mit.edu/global/employment/detailed05.php[/url]”>http://mitsloan.mit.edu/global/employment/detailed05.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Companies founded by Berkeley grads? What kind of computer are you using right now? Because Intel and Apple, for starts have Berkeley founders.

</p>

<p>Uh, I think I said HAAS graduates who founded companies. </p>

<p>First of all, Andy Grove is not a founder of Intel. He was an early employee, but not a founder. Hence, he doesn’t count. Woz WAS a Berkeley grad, but as we discussed, only AFTER he had already founded Apple. He dropped out, founded Apple, then came back to Berkeley.</p>

<p>But, again, that’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about Berkeley as a whole. I’m talking about HAAS. Let’s face it. Haas does not have the track record of founding tech companies that Stanford GSB has. </p>

<p>

-Silicon Valley grew in the south bay because that was the empty and cheap (orchards!) part of the Bay Area with very limited anti-growth regulations and a great infrastructure (roads, business-friendly municipalities.)

</p>

<p>But don’t see that that was not accidental? The fact that the South Bay had few anti-growth regulations and business-friendly municipalities had a lot to do with Stanford’s influence. Stanford administrators, most notably Terman, were instrumental in fostering the political and economic climate that allowed for growth to occur. Let’s be honest. Berkeley had a streak of anti-business within its professorial ranks, and that hurt its ability for its profs and its students to be entrepreneurial. Vestiges of that anti-business attitude still exist within certain departments at Berkeley. </p>

<p>But the point is, we have to give credit where credit is due. Stanford put itself in a position to seize a huge opportunity. Berkeley wasn’t, even though Berkeley, at the time, was a far better established school. As I noted on other threads, Berkeley has already won 6 Nobels before Stanford had even won one. So Berkeley should have been able to take the California tech entrepreneurship ball and run away with it. The truth is, Berkeley dropped the ball, and Stanford picked it up and scored with it. That may be harsh to say, but that’s the truth, and I think even many Berkeley administrators would have to admit that it’s the truth. </p>

<p>

-WRT your rankings, it’s more a case of “read them and laugh” than “read them and weep”. Since you’re so fond of yields, how does the yield of Arizona State’s MBA compare with Haas’? Seriously.

</p>

<p>My point is, they’re no worse than your rankings. We can both cite rankings that are difficult to believe. If you want to cite Jiao Tong, then I will continue to cite the USNews specialty rankings. </p>

<p>

No, you don’t know if the young Lis are even going to match the Li gift to Berkeley and donate $50-150 million (equivalent to a NPV of $40 million for a gift years/decades down the road) to Stanford in the future. We do know Papa Li hasn’t, at least not in the scale he donated to Berkeley. Maybe the Jr Lis would rather buy another island or Van Gogh instead, or pay off an ex or two. Schools like Stanford take that “gamble” any day, sure.

</p>

<p>It doesn’t even have to be a singular gift of $50 to $150 million from the Li’s. It has to do with ‘network effects’, which are admittedly difficult to measure but still exist. For example, how many other rich Asians will now be convinced to send their children to Stanford to try to copy the Li’s, and how much money will they donate? How much “in” does Stanford now have with the Hong Kong business community, and with the greater China business community, because of the Li’s? It’s the same reason why Stanford brought in Chelsea Clinton, as that instantly gives them entree to the Clintons forever, and, by extension, to numerous powerful Washington political figures. </p>

<p>Personally, I think Haas ought to start competing this way. If Haas isn’t currently competing in this fashion, then they really ought to. I think that Haas actually DOES compete this way, in the sense that if Haas realizes that you are a rich and powerful figure, you are more likely to get admitted to the MBA program. Perhaps not the BS program, but the MBA program, as the MBA program subscribes to no formula or Academic Index for admissions. But regardless, if they don’t, then they probably ought to. That’s the way you bring in powerful people and build a powerful Haas network. </p>

<p>

[quote]
Asians are brand-conscious, but the point is that Berkeley is a great brand in Asia, more so than in the East Coast. It’s much more of a "Herm</p>

[sakky]

<p>

1. World Prestige(overall): Harvard, MIT, Berkeley followed by Stanford Columbia. Sorry Ivy-Grad, but Princeton is not well recognized especially in Asia, perhaps for its religious seminary school?
2. Best World-Famous Engineering Schools: MIT, Berkeley, Stanford (no arguments here)
3. Best World-Famous Non-engineering Schools: Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Columbia</p>

<p>As you can see, Berkeley does have a slight edge over Stanford in terms of world-wide prestige. So I don’t think it’s too much to argue that Haas is more desirable school than Stanford GSB especially one wants to get involved with Asia business or whatnot.

</p>

<p>I think it is too much to argue, simply because I have never seen Asians who knew Berkeley who also didn’t know Stanford and who thought that Stanford was at least as reputable, if not better. I’m talking not only about Asian-Americans, but also about Asian nationals. Even the (flawed) Jiao Tong ranking stated that Stanford had a higher ranking than Berkeley did.</p>