But as previously discussed they're not that similar... there is a clear east coast bias in CMU and a west coast bias in Berkeley (esp. if you take into account that the overwhelming majority of Quant jobs in the USA are in NYC)...
From what I've seen, the biased could be attributable to many factors, such as, personal preferences of location, opportunities in the surrounding area - which makes the whole application process much easier for the applicants, and, so on. But for a school as prestigious and respected as Berkeley, location is seemingly a small factor - not as huge as you've vivaciously emphasized in almost all discussions you've participated in, because Berkeley's program would get the respect that NYC schools would normally get, even in NYC or London or Shanghai or Hong Kong or Dubai or Brazil or Mexico or anywhere else. In other words, school location does not supersede prestige, respect and alumni network in choosing a program. Yes there is a slight advantage for NYC schools due to proximity. But large banks/firms/companies in NYC aren't closing their doors to graduates of other well-respected programs. Stanford grads, for example, can land a job in NYC if they'll seek those opportunities. And, so are Chicago, MIT and Princeton grads. It probably would be a little more complicated for them and would require extra work, but they'll get it somehow. Most qualified students are aware about that fact. People go to those places despite not being located in NYC because of the program strength, prestige, networking, respect and opportunities after graduation, which time and again, have proven that they can be as marketable as those graduates of NYC schools are, or even more, as indicated by verifiable, quantifiable data.
Me: "you're not in NYC, therefore you have access to fewer opportunities in NYC"
You: "But some people still get jobs in NYC! Therefore we clearly must have the same exact access."
Me: *facepalm*
This isn't a "my school vs. your school" argument, CMU is not my school. This is a "reading comprehension" argument...
Well, like I said, no one here is denying that proximity provides easier access to many companies' doors located within the area. How much is that of a huge factor over the other factors, which I personally think are just as important in choosing a program, such as, brand name, program strength, alumni network, school environment and so on, is what I am debating about. Did you get that? If school location is your single criterion for choosing a program, then I think you're not thinking very well, and you're going to miss a lot what other schools outside of NYC provides.
Granted location weighs way more than the other factors would, why then are those NYC schools don't have 100% employment data? In other words, if what you're claiming is always true that NYC schools have always had the advantages for NYC employment, those NYC schools would have had a 100% employment acceptance rate at those top NYC companies, correct? But we both know that they don't. In fact, in many instances, those positions that many NYC grads would fight for are given to grads of schools located outside of NYC, such as, Berkeley, Chicago, MIT, Princeton and Stanford, a strong indication that location - though admittedly is an advantage as it would give you easier time in applying - is not that huge enough of a factor to overthrow the other factors. Because in reality, top NYC companies aren't closing their doors to grads of other top schools located outside of NYC. That's one reality that you miserably failed to understand. Most top companies are meritocratic -- they look at the strength of the applicants not where his school is located. And, Berkeley, Chicago, Stanford, MIT and such schools are full of highly qualified students. And, again, sadly, you're trying to ignore that reality.
