wolfgang wrote:no, man, you're misinterpreting.
I was saying "in the hypothetical event that they break the top 18, keep their standards high, keep their medians up, get great faculty, etc, etc, EVEN if they do that and are quantitatively (medians, employment, etc) on par with these schools, they're still going to be something positive missing that these others have".
The "they really are on par with these schools" was part of the HYPOTHETICAL, the fulfillment of which STILL wouldn't put them in the same class as those others.
Also, @californiauser: doesn't have to be UCLA. Vanderbilt and texas, who I mentioned all together many times until I got lazy and didn't want to type them all, are well-regarded schools nationally. Why this doesn't translate to national hiring doesn't quite make sense to me but the fact is that these three schools are all great schools, and for some reason seem to be more highly regarded nationally than the rest of the top 20 AND the rest of the first tier.
If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong, but don't take the ONE time where i only mention one school as an example and forget about the other THREE times that I used all three schools together to make a point.
Unless that was a joke. I can never tell with TLS... if i missed the humor, so sorry man!
edit: more likely to be humor now that I'm noticing that nobody called me out for anti-minnesota trolling, which would have been much easier to do, given the post...
UCLA isn't "much, much better" than USC.