<p>i don’t know why youre being so bitter lol.</p>
<p>maybe the fact that berkeley has remained somewhat stagnant…or even fallen down in prestige since the 60s and virginia has only moved up? I don’t know, I don’t want to know really. </p>
<p>But the fact remains is that you seem to want to pick a fight when all I was saying is that I don’t think its fair to say that 1 is better then the other with no basis to stand on. Has the president of yale taken classes at virginia, berkeley, or michigan? probably not. has the president of stanford taken classes at virginia, berkeley, or michigan? probably not. if thats the case, then his opinion means about as much to me as yours does at this point. You’re not going to convince me that Berkeley is better than UVa, just as I wont convince you that the 3 schools are peer institutions, and to say 1 is definitively better than the other is obtuse. so i’m going to stop posting on this thread. you can have the last word if you want.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You said nobody on the east coast thinks Cal is better than UVA, and I was simply pointing out that at least one person, the president of yale, thinks it is. If you want to question his oppinion you have my blessing, but I have no connection with him so maybe you should write him a letter, as I won’t be able to pass along any of this information to him. As far as Cal being stagnant, that’s your oppinion, but you’ll notice that it has been stagnant on the top of the list of best public schools in the country, so it could be worse I guess.</p>
<p>i know i said i wouldn’t post again…i lied…</p>
<p>i hope you didn’t honestly think i meant every single individual who lives on the eastern seaboard - because you know i didn’t.</p>
<p>I do find it interesting though that atleast in this study done by stanford (which i’m fond of, and i’m sure you are to) that uva is preferred over berkeley…everywhere in the country…even in california - i reference you to page 39. i just thought that was rather odd…but does hammer in the fact that uva is considered a better choice than berkeley - so I guess that has to count for something? Anyway, like i said originally, I think that uva berkeley and michigan are all great schools - you can’t go wrong at each of them. To try and say 1 is better than the other really is trivial - and i will argue to the end that it is :-).</p>
<p>Slipper, you truly underestimate Michigan’s alumni network. It is one of the top 5 (according to Forbes and Money Magazines) in the US…not in terms of size, but in terms of per/capita net worth, influence and loyalty. And UVA’s alumni network is pretty impressive too. I am not sure why you take offense to people who think that Dartmouth and Michigan are of equal quality and reputation. It is true that they are vastly different universities and suit different styles of people but in all ways that matter, those two schools are equals.</p>
<p>BBall, Chicago’s mid 50% SAT range is 1330-1530. Harvey Mudd’s is 1380-1560. Is Harvey mud more prestigious than Chicago? </p>
<p>Caltech’s mid 50% SAT range is 1450-1570. Stanford and Princeton’s mid 50% SAT range is 1360-1550. IS Caltech more prestigious than Princeton or Stanford. Is Harvey Mudd as prestigious as Princeton and Stanford? </p>
<p>My bad about bringing a LAC into the case in point. But I asked if Caltech was as prestigious as Princeton or Stanford…I asked if Caltech was MORE prestigious. Afterall, their SAT range is higher than Princeton’s or Yale.</p>
<p>I noticed that UT-A is very low in almost all ure rankings… ( that is if it is even in the ranking)… so far that ive heard… UT-AUstin is a prestigious school comparable with other top public schools ( berkeley, umich) in terms of quality of education. Please comment</p>
<p>Alexandre, my “taking offense” to people thinking Michigan and Dartmouth are in the same category is due to the fact that although in terms of “Peer Assesment” Michigan is slightly ahead, it loses in all other areas related to undergraduate eduation and doesn’t have near the same caliber of student body, attention on undergrads, or powerful network (I don’t believe Michigan’s Network is close to Dartmouth’s. There is a cohesiveness that few schools over 10K students have, even ignoring the success of graduates.) It has less money to focus on undergrads and its alumni attachment is focused on sports rather than community. Dartmouth wins (and by a significant margin in most areas) on every level except research, which it compensates for by focusing almost 100% on undergraduates. And we all know that at the undergrad level learning from Professors is better than from TAs, no matter how good the TAs are. I’ll grant there are exceptions where departmental rank matters (engineering, film, art, etc), but for a majority of students they don’t. Otherwise Amherst and Williams would not be so successful at placement and recruiting.</p>
<p>Michigan is one of the top 10 Universities in the country perhaps, but its not top 15 undergrad.</p>
<p>+Northeastern will go from 115 to 95, perhaps higher if their peer score goes up.
+Drexel will go from 109 to 98.
-Boston U will drop to 65.
-UMass Amherst will drop from 98 to 106.
+University of Cincinnati will move up from the third tier to 120.
+UConn will move up from 68 to 63.</p>
Of course Princeton’s physics department is one of the best. Caltech’s is as well. </p>
<p>My question was more about how rtkysg was defining ‘prestige in physics’. Is it the quality of the education undergraduates get? Is it the general perceived quality of the undergraduate education? Is it the general public’s perceptions, or is the perception among physicists? How do you justify ranking them or saying they are equal?</p>
![http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/0503news/einstein.jpg[/url]](http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/0503news/einstein.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
