<p>Maguo, I will start by saying that I know about Michigan because I am a University of Michigan alumnus. </p>
<p>I think you are focusing purely on the USNWR overall rankings, which clearly favors small private universities over large state universities. It completely ignores comon concepts such as economies of scale and intangibles and comes up with a flawed overall ranking. </p>
<p>It doesn't take a genius to figures this out. For example, Washington University is not nearly as good as the University of Chicago or Cornell, and yet, it is ranked well above them in the USNWR. Cal and Michigan are ranked in the top 10 in every field of study, their students get similar job offers and graduate school placement as students from Northwestern, Penn or Cornell, and yet, they are not ranked in the top 20. </p>
<p>But if you look at the fine print, you will see that Cal and Michigan both rank very highly. Their peer assessment score (4.8 or 4.7 and 4.6 or 4.5 respectively) are up there with Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Penn. Fiske gives all of those schools a ***** academic rating. The National Research Council (rankings according to the top academics in the US) ranks Cal and Michigan among the top 5 universities in the nation, and the USNWR subject rankings (primarily ranking of graduate programs) both rank Cal and Michigan among the top 10 nationally in every field of study, up there with the likes of Chicago, columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn. All top companies in the nation will, with few exceptions, recruit heavily at Michigan and pay Michigan recruits as highly as students from other top universities. Graduate school placement is also very impressive. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, Michigan was 30th in the nation at placing students in top 5 Law Schools, top 5 Medical Schools and top 5 MBA programs. Penn was 16th, Chicago was 21st, Northwestern was 20th and Cornell was 25th. The slight difference can be attributed to the fact Michigan is much larger, and yes, admittedly, altough the top 50% ofr so of Michigan students are brilliant, the bottom third or so of Michigan's student body is not quite as strong as students you would find at schools like Columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn. But identical students from Michigan and say Penn or Columbia will get equal consideration because those universities are generally regarded as equals. </p>
<p>Isn't convenient that in all ways, Cal and Michigan are considered equals to the other schools but somehow, mysteriously, they manage to be ranked significantly lower in the USNWR overall undergraduate ranking. </p>
<p>As for the acceptance rate, it has nothing to do with academic quality. The University of Chicago and the University of Michigan always have acceptance rates that hover around 50%. But that does not mean the students aren't very driven and academially inclined. The average Michigan student graduated from high school with a 3.8 unweighed GPA, ranked in the top 5% of his/her class and got a 1330 on the SAT in one sitting (which translates to a 1380 when measured the way private schools measure their Freshman class mean SAT scores). And that's with an undergraduate student body that exceeds 24,000 students. Cornell University, my graduate school alma matter, had 14,000 undergrads, and they are not that far better, on average, than Michigan's 25,000 undergrads. If you take the top 14,000 students at the university, you would get a scary results.</p>
<p>I am not sure I understand what you mean by "lack of funding". Michigan is a state university. 65% of its students are in-staters and they pay a mere $17,000 (including room and board) to attend one of the World's great universities. Do other elite universities like Duke or Penn, which cost over $45,000 when including room and board, charge a mere $17,000 to 65% of their students? Why should Michigan, on top of being so cheap to attend for 65% of its student be cheap for the remaining 35%? Even then, Michigan does give FA packages to out of state students, but do not confuse Michigan's not giving much FA to students with lack of funding. Michigan gives huge FA to over 75% of its students when you consider that 65% of those students are in-staters and pay next to nothing to attend. That's yet another way the USNWR hurts state universities. They compare sttate schools, which are already very cheap comparatively, to private universities and expect them to give as much aid per student. </p>
<p>But that does not mean Michigan is not financially stable. At $4.2 billion (at the end of 2004), Michigan's endowment is the 7th largest among all Universities. Only the Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT and Columbia are wealthier. I actually think Michigan overtook Columbia this last year to become the 6th wealthiest university in the nation. And Michigan's wealth is outpacing all other universities. In 1990, Michigan's endowment stood at a mere $500 million, good for 26th in the nation. In the last 16 years, Michigan's endowment increased by 1,000%, leaping over 20 universities. Currently, Michigan spends close to $800 million on research annually, second or third in the nation. Michigan annual operating budget, not including hospital operations, exceeds $2 billion, third only to Stanford and Harvard. </p>
<p>In short Maguo, I hope you look beyond the misleading USNWR rankings. When I tell you that Michigan is on par with the likes of Cornell and Northwestern, I mean it. But don't take my word for it. Talk to graduate school adcoms, corporate recruiters at major firms like Ford, Procter and Gamble, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey and to professors at top universities etc... Do not listen to your friends or rely to much on any one ranking. Most importantly, go with your gut. Chose a school where you feel you can be happy.</p>