<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Washu</li>
<li>Hopkins</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Tufts</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>Wake Forest</li>
<li>Brandeis</li>
<li>NYU</li>
<li>William and Mary</li>
<li>Boston College</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
<li>Lehigh</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>Rochester</li>
<li>U of Illnois- Urbana-Champaign</li>
<li>Wisconsin-Madison</li>
<li>Case Western</li>
<li>RPI</li>
<li>UC-Davis</li>
<li>UC-Danta Barbara</li>
<li>Washington</li>
<li>UC-Irvine</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>University of Florida</li>
<li>Texas-Austin</li>
<li>Tulane</li>
<li>Miami</li>
</ol>
<p>good work…</p>
<p>Michigan just keeps going down and down. Sooner or later it might not even be in the top 50.</p>
<p>^Just no. The day we’re ranked behind UF academically is the day pigs fly. </p>
<p>Can’t complain with the schools above us, they’re all great.</p>
<p>it’s ridiculous how usnews just ranked usc above michigan. is michigan doing something about this? make SATs optional? join the common app. crowd? i don’t think michigan has ranked this low ever.</p>
<p>Someone 15 years ago could have said the same thing about the day USC is ahead of Michigan is the day pigs would fly.</p>
<p>For all of us who say Michigan is a great university, why is it ranked so low? If it’s on par with Penn, Columbia, Duke, John Hopkins like many posters have posted on these forums…why are we consistently ranked so far down? Where are we lacking?</p>
<p>^Well Im not one of those people who thinks that highly of UM. I think its right where it should be. 3 public schools above us, no beef with that.</p>
<p>So Harvard is tied with Princeton for first? I always thought if the day would come, it would be Yale…</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, thanks for the list.</p>
<p>well, the usnews ranking favors small undergraduate schools in a research university setting (the types we call overrated). It’s not really anything wrong with Michigan, it’s just a formula that usnews decided to use. The only things I think Michigan can do to go up in these rankings in the short term:</p>
<ol>
<li>Join the common application group.</li>
<li>Continue the effort in seeking out alumni for donations. </li>
<li>Make ACT/SATs optional for instate students.</li>
</ol>
<p>Stop accepting 50% of applicants?</p>
<p>KB10,
I would add </p>
<ol>
<li>Decrease the size of its incoming class… which in turn leads to…</li>
<li>Lower acceptance rate and</li>
<li>Lower student to faculty ratios</li>
</ol>
<p>Last year, when UM dropped to 26, I wrote a post about how UM would continue to suffer in the US News Rankings unless it made significant changes to its admissions policies. Maybe many of us still think that UM is under-ranked in the rankings, but at some point the perception created by US News will become reality, which will negatively impact UM’s PA scores, the one metric used by US News that Michigan is stellar at.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the sentiment on these boards about how Michigan in-state students are supposedly inferior to their out-of-state counterparts.</p>
<p>While i admit this is purely anecdotal evidence, based off of the environment that i have been raised in (farmington hills - suburb of detroit), many of the brightest students from around this area chose Michigan over many of the more “elite” schools ranked ahead of Michigan in these rankings. Of the out-of-state students i know who go to Michigan (who dormed with my instate friends), most of them are struggling at Michigan…as i get the vibe they are the more affluent type who are not as much worried about studying and their grades as they are about getting in the greek scene(which isn’t a bad thing). </p>
<p>…Just my two cents</p>
<p>i never meant to imply that instate students are inferior. But, instate students tend to spend less time on prepping for standardized tests and their test scores on average are lower. And since Michigan already knows the quality of the high schools in its own state, at some of the best high schools in michigan, the admissions office can just waive the SAT for, (just as an example) the top 5%, and just say, you are not guaranteed admission, so if you scored well on the SAT, that will help, but you don’t have to send in your scores if you think they will negatively impact your chances.</p>
<p>What do you mean “3. Make ACT/SATs optional for instate students.” I thought it already was. You take one or the other right?</p>
<p>You know what I find interesting. UCLA is higher than UM even though UM’s middle 50% have higher SAT, ACT, AND GPAs.
UM and UCLA have relatively the same population size.
Rankings are really ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>USC? What a joke. Otherwise rankings are fine. What do you epect when you admit half of the people who apply. I bet we are the highest ranked who let in half of the kids who apply.</p>
<p>See I don’t trust this thread. The OP has only one post. Doesn’t really show much credibility. I’m just skeptic.</p>
<p>University of Michigan is a great school, though so is University of Southern California. University of Southern California is a school I have in thought to consider myself, but financial aid is low ( I think). I don’t know too many schools that have ACT/SATs optional besides Wake Forest University (which I’m also attracted to).</p>
<p>If it means anything, this is the same list that’s on the Penn thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/767305-penn-4-again.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/767305-penn-4-again.html</a></p>