BBA at Ross.

[giants92]

<p>Whoa, yea I’ll apologize for that one (damn vodka). Not that I want to continue this stupid spat (nor can anything that anyone says on an anonymous internet forum be substantiated), but I coincidentally did go to Panch with people last night after the bars, followed by going to a “late night”, lol. For your information, I’m in a widely considered “good” fraternity (not that I’m very active as a senior). I will not elaborate on my “chick” situation (complicated), but failing to “score” was not an impedance last night. You jumped to conclusions just as I did. I like to peruse my oft-visited sites before I crash on some nights.</p>

<p>Now:</p>

<p>

Recruiters who visit Michigan flock to Ross because the smartest kids in the university are in the b-school for the most part and not in Engineering and most definitely not in LSA. The value proposition for hiring from Ross is great for employers because they know they will be able to pick up the cream of the crop academically from Michigan and they will have a solid business foundation already.

</p>

<p>False. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Ross might have a greater proportion of smart kids than does LSA (it does not have proportionally smarter kids than Engin), but the absolute smartest kids are in LSA and the CoE. The smart kids at Ross are in the business-oriented subset. I am much more impressed by the intelligence of the engineers, math majors, and CS majors that I know (I would throw physics in there but I don’t know any physics majors) than of the top Ross kids (those headed for top banks/consultancies) that I know.</p>

<p>

undergraduate business is not a true academic discipline like Economics, Political Science, Biology, Sociology, etc. and is basically a waste of an undergraduate EDUCATION when you have top 10 departments in virtually every proper academic discipline at your disposal in LSA. Instead of studing politics and science from world-class faculty, you’ll be pursuing undergrad biz and taking joke classes like “Human Resources”, “Operations Management”, “Marketing Fundamentals” or whatever that are completely pre-professional and anti-intellectual.

</p>

<p>I agree with this. It is why I forewent Ross. However, you really only need 45 of your 120 credits to be business courses. There’s certainly ample room for a substantial liberal arts education remaining.</p>

<p>

You can do exactly that if you go to a top private school like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, etc. etc. A Harvard English major can get the exact same banking job that a Ross BBA grad can get. A Yale Sociology major can get the same consulting job that an NYU Stern grad can get.

</p>

<p>This is true as well (except for Penn, where you really need to be in Wharton).</p>

<p>

Michigan girls aren’t exactly a feast for the eyes. Just because a school is less prestigious and has a weaker student body, that doesn’t mean it has hotter girls necessarily. Vandy is considered to be slightly more prestigious than Michigan and its girls are much, much hotter.

</p>

<p>Yea, but that’s Vandy, not Duke.</p>

<p>I still don’t understand your affinity to this board.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>

@Alexandre

Michigan football is definitely down. That will remain the case for at least another season, perhaps even two or three. Eventually, Michigan will return to the top. Overall, Michigan Football is considered one the top 5 programs in the nation.

If you look at it from an extreme historical perspective, then yes Michigan has had one of the top 5 programs in college football. However, this hasn’t been the case for some time now. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and USC have performed much better than Michigan overall in the past decade. An elite college football program doesn’t miss bowl games 2 seasons in a row Alexandre. UM might still be the most victorious college football program with regards to overall wins and winning percentage just like Notre Dame is with regards to consensus All-Americans, but neither have been relevant in the national scene lately and Michigan has a losing Bowl Game record overall.</p>

<p>[Counting</a> down college football’s most prestigious programs (1-5) - ESPN](<a href=“LIVE Transfer Talk: Barca to reject PSG's €200m Yamal move - ESPN”>Counting down college football's most prestigious programs (1-5) - ESPN)
ESPN doesn’t consider Michigan to be a top 5 college football program.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

And I would not mention the Director’s Cup LDB.

Why not mention it? This is the worst performance in the Directors Cup by Michigan ever since the competition’s inception at the first time that Duke has done better. While historical results do matter, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that Duke did better this year by a pretty hefty margin (15 spots). I don’t even care about the Director’s Cup but to call Duke nothing more than a basketball would be just as silly as me calling Michigan nothing more than a football school. They’ve both equally strong athletic programs but excel at a different set of sports (Michigan: Football, Hockey and Swimming; Duke: Basketball, Lacrosse and Soccer).</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

I find it hilarious that Duke always brings up Lacrosse. Other athletic powerhouses that care about Lacrosse include Johns Hopkins, Maryland, Princeton, Syracuse and UVa. Ever since Lacrosse has been a division I sport with a National Championship game (40 years ago), only 8 different teams have been crowned National Champions! Any sport with real competition would have had 20+ champions in that same period of time. Heck, even Ice Hockey, which only has 25 or so legitimate programs, has managed to produce 15 different national champions since 1970.

I find it hilarious that Michigan always brings up Ice Hockey. See what I did there? Lax is just as legitimate of a sport as Hockey and its more American to boot. Michigan is one of the few states in the country that actually care about hockey with the prowess of Michigan, MSU and the Detroit Red Wings. The rest of the country could care less save some scattered pockets of people in New England.</p>

<p>At the college level, Lacrosse is big all across the Eastern Seaboard and its popularity is growing in the Midwest, South and California as well. I don’t understand why you consider parity in success among teams to be important when evaluating the importance of a sport. There are 59 Division I Ice Hockey teams and 60 Division I Lacrosse teams so the two sports are almost equally popular. It just so happens that in Lacrosse, the best 5-6 programs tend to dominate the sport because how much better their talent and coaching is compared to the rest of the competition.</p>

<p>This year, the NCAA Lacrosse National Championship featured Notre Dame and Duke, two schools that have never won the title. This was the first title trip for Notre Dame to the championship game so clearly there is room for outsiders to move into Lax’s inner circle. Also, the NCAA Lacrosse National Championship is much more popular than the Frozen Four and sometimes draws even more crowds than the NCAA’s Final Four.</p>

<p>Who cares whether Princeton and Hopkins suck at every other sport? I don’t see how that diminishes their dominance of Lacrosse or the quality of the sport in any way. Maybe one day Michigan will able to field a varsity lacrosse team itself. Until then, there’s no reason to be bitter and not give credit where it is clearly due.</p>

[debrockman]

<p>Uh, I have a B.S. in Business as an undergrad. And yes, it is a respected undergrad degree. And at most good schools, it includes a significant number of liberal arts courses.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>“If you look at it from an extreme historical perspective, then yes Michigan has had one of the top 5 programs in college football. However, this hasn’t been the case for some time now. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and USC have performed much better than Michigan overall in the past decade.”</p>

<p>Nebraska and Alabama have not had a better decade than Michigan. Alabama has had a couple of excellent seasons lately, but was weak in the first half of the decade and Nebraska has struggled most of the 00s. </p>

<p>“An elite college football program doesn’t miss bowl games 2 seasons in a row Alexandre.”</p>

<p>Are you kidding? Virtually every top 10 program has missed bowl games 2 seasons in a row in recent years. Alabama did not go to a bowl game in 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2005. Nebraska did not make it to a Bowl game in 2004 and 2007. Oklahoma did not make it to a Bowl game in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. LSU did not go bowling in 1998 and 1999. USC did not make it to a Bowl game in 1996, 1997 and 1999.</p>

<p>“UM might still be the most victorious college football program with regards to overall wins and winning percentage just like Notre Dame is with regards to consensus All-Americans, but neither have been relevant in the national scene lately and Michigan has a losing Bowl Game record overall.”</p>

<p>Michigan was relevant until 2007. Only the last two and a half seasons has Michigan not been relevant in Football. And although Michigan is 19-20 in Bowl games, most of those were major Bowl games, playing against top 10 teams. </p>

<p>“ESPN doesn’t consider Michigan to be a top 5 college football program.”</p>

<p>That is true, but then again, it does consider it among the top 10. Football has many powerhouses. You know that when programs such as Penn State and LSU don’t even crack the top 10, the sport has many heavy hitters. Had ESPN’s ranking of prestigious programs been carried out in 2005 instead of 2009, Michigan would probably have been #4 or #5. All it takes is a couple of good seasons.</p>

<p>“Why not mention it? This is the worst performance in the Directors Cup by Michigan ever since the competition’s inception at the first time that Duke has done better. While historical results do matter, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that Duke did better this year by a pretty hefty margin (15 spots). I don’t even care about the Director’s Cup but to call Duke nothing more than a basketball would be just as silly as me calling Michigan nothing more than a football school. They’ve both equally strong athletic programs but excel at a different set of sports (Michigan: Football, Hockey and Swimming; Duke: Basketball, Lacrosse and Soccer).”</p>

<p>There are only 2 major sports in the US; Basketball and Football. There are two other sports that matter; Baseball and Ice Hockey. Michigan dominates in two (Football and ICe Hokey) of those four sports and does ok in the other 2. Duke dominates in one of those sports and does ok in another (Baseball). Duke plain sucks in Football and has no Ice Hockey. I love the fact that Michigan does very well in sports such as Gymnastics (particularly women’s gymnastics!), Softball, Swimming and Wrestling, but those sports are irrelevant. But even if you insist on looking at the Director Cup standings, with the exception of 2009, Michigan has been dominant. We are not talking about history LDB. 3of the last 4 years, Michigan has finished among the top 5.</p>

<p>“I find it hilarious that Michigan always brings up Ice Hockey. See what I did there? Lax is just as legitimate of a sport as Hockey and its more American to boot. Michigan is one of the few states in the country that actually care about hockey with the prowess of Michigan, MSU and the Detroit Red Wings. The rest of the country could care less save some scattered pockets of people in New England.”</p>

<p>Hockey is a significantly more important sport than Lacrosse. America has four national sports. Those are Baseball, Basketball, Football and Hockey. The media coverage of those sports and the salaries of their professional athletes far exceed those of any other sport, though Soccer is on the rise and will soon join the other four. And Hockey is very important in several states, including Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin and the Dakotas. In those states, Hockey is always #1 or #2 in terms of importance.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Debrockman is right. Many Business students I know (if not most), double majored in a liberal arts subject. Besides, major programs such as Haas, McIntire, Ross, Sloan and Wharton all have Business programs that work within a broader academic system.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>

@Alexandre

Nebraska and Alabama have not had a better decade than Michigan. Alabama has had a couple of excellent seasons lately, but was weak in the first half of the decade and Nebraska has struggled most of the 00s.

Fair enough. To be honest, I only care about current performance and Michigan’s not having a great start to the current decade.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

Are you kidding? Virtually eand 2005. Nebraska did not make it to a Bowl game in 2004 andvery top 10 program has missed bowl games 2 seasons in a row in recent years. Alabama did not go to a bowl game in 2000, 2002, 2003 2007. Oklahoma did not make it to a Bowl game in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. LSU did not go bowling in 1998 and 1999. USC did not make it to a Bowl game in 1996, 1997 and 1999.

Wow, I didn’t realize how much parity there was in college football. I guess no football powerhouse comes even close to match Duke or UNC’s performance in college basketball. Duke hasn’t missed the NCAA tournament since the 1994-95 season when Coach K suffered a back injury and we had an interim coach. Since the modern NCAA tournament began in the 1985 season, only 3 Duke classes (1998, 2008, 2009) classes have graduated without seeing a Final Four basketball team. To give you some perspective, that would be the equivalent of ONLY 3 Michigan graduating classes leaving college without witnessing their football team make it to the Rose Bowl.</p>

<p>It seems that the top college football programs can’t match the consistent and overwhelming dominance of the top college basketball programs.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

There are only 2 major sports in the US; Basketball and Football. There are two other sports that matter; Baseball and Ice Hockey. Michigan dominates in two (Football and ICe Hokey) of those four sports and does ok in the other 2. Duke dominates in one of those sports and does ok in another (Baseball). Duke plain sucks in Football and has no Ice Hockey. I love the fact that Michigan does very well in sports such as Gymnastics (particularly women’s gymnastics!), Softball, Swimming and Wrestling, but those sports are irrelevant. But even if you insist on looking at the Director Cup standings, with the exception of 2009, Michigan has been dominant. We are not talking about history LDB. 3of the last 4 years, Michigan has finished among the top 5.

I completely disagree with your assertion that Baseball and Ice Hockey are unanimously the next two popular sports after Football and Basketball. As someone who has lived in both the Midwest and the Atlantic Seaboard, I can tell you that Soccer and Lacrosse are as popular in the latter region as Ice Hockey and Baseball are in the Midwest.</p>

<p>Michigan is not “ok” in college basketball Alex. They would definitely be categorized as being “awful”. Duke Football has simply been terrible since 1994, the last year that the team made a bowl game. Ironically enough, Michigan Basketball has been terrible during the EXACT SAME time frame since the 1993-1994 season after the giant recruiting scandal involving the Fab Five, after which Michigan only made the Big Dance a grand total of 2 times (1995 and 2009) and have had a losing record in the Big 10 ever since. They have been absolutely irrelevant during the same time period that Duke Football has been irrelevant.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

Hockey is a significantly more important sport than Lacrosse. America has four national sports. Those are Baseball, Basketball, Football and Hockey. The media coverage of those sports and the salaries of their professional athletes far exceed those of any other sport, though Soccer is on the rise and will soon join the other four. And Hockey is very important in several states, including Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin and the Dakotas. In those states, Hockey is always #1 or #2 in terms of importance.

At the professional level, you’re right that only 4 sports (Football, Basketball, Baseball and Ice Hockey) matter. However, Baseball and Ice Hockey simply aren’t that popular at the college level save for their regions of interest where they dominate. Lacrosse is HUGE at the collegiate level in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, etc. etc. In fact, with regards to collegiate interest, Lacrosse is more popular than Ice Hockey in New York with the presence of the powerhouse Syracuse and regional forces like Hofstra and St. Johns.</p>

<p>What matters professionally doesn’t necessarily correlate to what people care about at the collegiate Alexandre. If you lived in the US and not the UAE, you would know the current trends in sporting events. Lax is the fastest growing sport in America and will soon be the clear 3rd most popular sport after Football and Basketball.</p>

<p>The five major sports in the US are Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey and Lacrosse. The last three are indistinguishable in importance and fan support with perhaps a slight edge to Baseball.</p>

<p>[2010</a> Athletic Supporter’s Cup: Top NCAA Programs of the Year | Bleacher Report](<a href=“http://bleacherreport.com/articles/421957-2010-athletic-supporters-cup-top-ncaa-programs-of-the-year]2010”>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/421957-2010-athletic-supporters-cup-top-ncaa-programs-of-the-year)</p>

<p>According to this ranking, which measures the success of American universities in the 5 sports that matter (Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Lacrosse) unlike the Directors Cup which views all sports equally, Duke finishes #7 while Michigan comes in at #74 with a measly 3.75 points. The Ohio State Buckeyes (my parents’ alma mater) finished #1 by the way. GO BUCKS!!</p>

[feathr]

<p>oh my god. this thread is way out of context.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>

@giants92

Whoa, yea I’ll apologize for that one (damn vodka). Not that I want to continue this stupid spat (nor can anything that anyone says on an anonymous internet forum be substantiated), but I coincidentally did go to Panch with people last night after the bars, followed by going to a “late night”, lol. For your information, I’m in a widely considered “good” fraternity (not that I’m very active as a senior). I will not elaborate on my “chick” situation (complicated), but failing to “score” was not an impedance last night. You jumped to conclusions just as I did. I like to peruse my oft-visited sites before I crash on some nights.

It’s fine man; I was just in a bad mood so I probably overreacted and its silly to fight with anonymous posters online anyway. I hope you’re enjoying senior year of college before reality sets in and our lives suck for the next 2 years.</p>

<p>

@giants92

False. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Ross might have a greater proportion of smart kids than does LSA (it does not have proportionally smarter kids than Engin), but the absolute smartest kids are in LSA and the CoE. The smart kids at Ross are in the business-oriented subset. I am much more impressed by the intelligence of the engineers, math majors, and CS majors that I know (I would throw physics in there but I don’t know any physics majors) than of the top Ross kids (those headed for top banks/consultancies) that I know.

Alright, yeah I buy that. It would make sense that the cream of the crop of LSA and even the above average Engineer is probably better on average than the a typical Ross kid. Its just that there are so many unspectacular kids in LSA that it would make sense for a recruiter to go directly to Ross where everyone meets a certain threshold of academic aptitude and they have a demonstrated interest in business. Otherwise, employers would have to sift through a ton of applications in LSA to find a few allstars and that’s probably not time well-spent for them. Besides most of the representatives from banks/MCs/ad firms would be Ross alums right?</p>

<p>

@giants92

Yea, but that’s Vandy, not Duke.

Dude, I went to high school in the Metro Detroit area and know several hundred people at Michigan and have been to Ann Arbor a dozen times. I honestly think the quality of girls at Michigan and Duke is roughly the same, which is to say not very good. It’s possible that Michigan girls are slightly more attractive, but the weather is warmer here in North Carolina so girls here wear a lot more sundresses. Even a beat chick looks semi-attractive in a sundress while a hot girl often looks mediocre when bundled up with a scarf, a North Face and Uggs, which is unfortunately what most Michigan girls wear year round due to the climate there.</p>

<p>For what its worth, I’ve been to Penn, Stanford, Princeton USC, Vandy, Michigan, UCLA, UVA, UNC and Duke, and as far as ranking girls, I would say that Vandy and USC are well on top. The next best schools would be UVA and UNC followed by Michigan, UCLA (ton of Asian girls though which would move them up or down depending on your preference) and Duke. Penn probably falls after that and there’s a huge difference between it and Princeton/Stanford.</p>

<p>

@giants92

I still don’t understand your affinity to this board.

Other than the fact that I’m a Michigan resident who has relatives and friends at UM, my sister is applying to the b-school this year for undergrad as well as a bunch of other good b-schools and top private schools. So, I check this subforum once in a while to see if there’s any relevant information about the BBA program but also the school in general. If I see something that interests me or I disagree with, then I post on the thread. It’s that simple.</p>

<p>Alexandre and a host of other posters on CC go on every forum on the site and share their views. Others should be able to do the same unless they are ■■■■■■■■.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>LDB, we’ll have to disagree about Lacrosse. I never heard of the sport until I came to the US and most Americans I know couldn’t care less about it. While at Cornell, Hockey was clearly far more important than Lacrosse. Most students I knew at Cornell were East Coasters and they were Hockey-crazy. Lacrosse was a non-entity. </p>

<p>“Michigan is not “ok” in college basketball Alex. They would definitely be categorized as being “awful”.”</p>

<p>Michigan Basketball has been average, not “awful”.</p>

<p>1995: 17-14 (11-7)
1996: 20-11 (10-8)
1997: 24-11 (9-9)
1998: 25-9 (11-5)
1999: 12-19 (5-11)
2000: 15-14 (6-10)
2001: 10-18 (4-12)
2002: 11-18 (5-11)
2003: 17-13 (10-6)
2004: 23-11 (8-8)
2005: 13-18 (4-12)
2006: 22-11 (8-8)
2007: 22-13 (8-8)
2008: 10-22 (5-13)
2009: 21-14 (9-9)
2010: 15-17 (7-11)</p>

<p>Since 1994, Michigan has had 10 winning seasons and 6 losing seasons. Only 5 of those 16 seasons (1999, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2008) can be described as “awful”. The remaining 11 seasons were below average to above average. Duke has not had a winning season in Football in that period. Last year’s 5-7 season was its best since 1994. Michigan’s Basketball program is certainly nothing to brag about, but it is now “aweful”. I would describe it as “ok” or “mediocre”.</p>

<p>“The Ohio State Buckeyes (my parents’ alma mater) finished #1 by the way. GO BUCKS!!”</p>

<p>That explains a lot. I can now understand why you hold Michigan is such low esteem. Nobody closely associated with MSU or OSU can ever see Michigan in a positive light.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>“Alexandre and a host of other posters on CC go on every forum on the site and share their views. Others should be able to do the same unless they are ■■■■■■■■.”</p>

<p>I almost never go to other university forums and the few times that I do, I make sure to be very respectful. </p>

<p>On the other hand, what you do on the Michigan forum is ■■■■■■■■.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>

@Alexandre

Since 1994, Michigan has had 10 winning seasons and 6 losing seasons. Only 5 of those 16 seasons (1999, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2008) can be described as “awful”. The remaining 11 seasons were below average to above average. Duke has not had a winning season in Football in that period. Last year’s 5-7 season was its best since 1994. Michigan’s Basketball program is certainly nothing to brag about, but it is now “aweful”. I would describe it as “ok” or “mediocre”.

Eh whatever, the point I’m making is Duke is good at 2 relevant spots (Basketball and Lacrosse) while Michigan is good at another 2 (Hockey and Lacrosse). The kicker is that Duke is the current national champion in these two sports while Michigan did ok in Hockey this year and had another miserable football season. Hopefully, you guys can make it up to make the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry meaningful once again.</p>

<p>

@lesdiablesbleus

That explains a lot. I can now understand why you hold Michigan is such low esteem. Nobody closely associated with MSU or OSU can ever see Michigan in a positive light.

I don’t hold Michigan in low esteem at all. My sister, who is a high school senior, is considering going there (much to the dismay of my parents) and I believe that it is one of the great research universities in the world, a top 5 public university and arguably UM is a top 25 undergraduate institution. It’s head and shoulders above Ohio State academically and even my parents acknowledge that (though they are both immensely successful; Dad went to Harvard Law School and Mom went to Penn Med).</p>

<p>However, I think its a notch or two below schools like Penn, Dartmouth, Stanford, etc. with regards to quality of undergraduate education. I think that’s a view the vast majority of CC users hold so I hardly think what I do here constitutes ■■■■■■■■ since I understand Michigan’s rightful place. I like to poke fun at the school sometimes since its a rival institution in athletics but it has my full respect</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

On the other hand, what you do on the Michigan forum is ■■■■■■■■.

I’m here to gather information about the school for my sister in her college search process. If I come across threads where I disagree with what people are saying, then I post. Its important for users of the site to get a balanced view of schools, especially when new CC users don’t use the “College Search and Selection” board and go on individual subforums instead.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>“Michigan did ok in Hockey this year and had another miserable football season. Hopefully, you guys can make it up to make the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry meaningful once again.”</p>

<p>Michigan did more than just “ok” in Hockey. They were CCHA Champions and made it to the Elite 8 in the NCAAs, losing to the #1 team in the nation 3-2 in OT. It was not a great season, but it certainly was a good one.</p>

<p>And don’t worry about the Michigan vs OSU rivalry, it still remains the most potent one in college football. Michigan is 60-40 alltime vs OSU and dominated the rivalry between 1980 and 2000, just as OSU dominated the rivarly between 1950 and 1970. Neverdid those 20 year spells jeoperdize the relevance and intensity of the rivalry. OSU will continue to dominate for the year or two, but eventually, things will settle. The 1970-1980 was a golden era for the rivalry, with both programs being equally dominant.</p>

<p>“I don’t hold Michigan in low esteem at all. My sister, who is a high school senior, is considering going there (much to the dismay of my parents) and I believe that it is one of the great research universities in the world, a top 5 public university and arguably UM is a top 25 undergraduate institution. It’s head and shoulders above Ohio State academically and even my parents acknowledge that (though they are both immensely successful; Dad went to Harvard Law School and Mom went to Penn Med).”</p>

<p>Anybody who thinks Michigan is merely “arguably a top 25 university” does not give it much credit. But coming from a Buckeye, it is indeed high praise. Like I said, a Buckeye or Spartan will never be able to see Michigan for what it is.</p>

<p>“However, I think its a notch or two below schools like Penn, Dartmouth, Stanford, etc. with regards to quality of undergraduate education. I think that’s a view the vast majority of CC users hold so I hardly think what I do here constitutes ■■■■■■■■ since I understand Michigan’s rightful place.”</p>

<p>CCers are mostly 15-20 year olds who know little. Their opionion hardly matters in the world. They are more likely to rate a university based on selectivity than on more meaningful metrics, such academic quality, quality of faculty, facilities and resources, reputation, opportunities etc… In other words, CCers rank universities according to selectivity. Grown ups do not rank, they rate, and they do so according to institutional quality. In the former, Michigan is indeed a notc below smaller private universities. In the latter, Michigan is very much on par with the private elites. Thankfully, what matters is what academics think (Peer Assessment score measures that) and what corporate leaders think (there has not been a reliable rating conducted to reflect their opinion). According to academe, Michigan is always ranked between #8 and #15 among research universities in the nation for undergraduate education, very much in line with schools such as Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Dukem Northwestern, Penn, UCLA, UNC and UVa. It seems that academic quality is more important than and unrelated to selectivity. At the graduate level, Michigan is generally ranked among the top 5 nationally.</p>

<p>And LDB, the tone of your posts is disrespectful. You are a guest here. You did not comport yourself in a manner becoming of such a status. The OP asked a question and the responses he was given were balanced. We were not showering Michigan with praise. You did not attempt to balance the responses, you attempted to knock Michigan down. As such, you are ■■■■■■■■. But that’s because you are incapable of being objective when it comes to Michigan. You are genetically predisposed to hate the school. </p>

<p>“I understand Michigan’s rightful place.”</p>

<p>Who uses this kind of language? Such talk is relegated to servants and inferiors. That’s right, Michigan’s “rightful place” is a notch below the private elites! </p>

<p>“I’m here to gather information about the school for my sister in her college search process. If I come across threads where I disagree with what people are saying, then I post. Its important for users of the site to get a balanced view of schools, especially when new CC users don’t use the “College Search and Selection” board and go on individual subforums instead.”</p>

<p>I hope, for her sake, that she does not end up at Michigan. Clearly, people who attend Michigan are not given their due respect in your family and are expected to “know their place”! All I can do is shake my head at such unjustified elitism, arrogance and true ignorance.</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>I put lesdia on ignore a long, long time ago. Now that I FINALLY know why he dislikes Michigan so much, it all makes sense to me.</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“Alexandre and a host of other posters on CC go on every forum on the site and share their views. Others should be able to do the same unless they are ■■■■■■■■.”</p>

<p>Lesdia: You are a ■■■■■ of the first order. Will you please take your own advise and stop posting here? You add nothing to this forum except arrogance.</p>

[bearcats]

<p>my .02 </p>

<p>I have always maintained that alexandre and novi wears maize and blue glasses when they talk about anything michigan on this forum and I have oftened counter their all rosy views with dose of reality. (Just an example in this thread; alexandre calling michigan basketball ok, that’s a downright lie and I doubt he can say it with a straight face in person) a 74-108 (.407) conference record from 2000-2010 in big ten (which isn’t even the best conference) is not ok</p>

<p>However, I also believe that what LDB is doing is extremely immature and speaks to his no-lifedness. Why don’t you stick with your own forum? I criticize anything I don’t like about michigan and ocassionally gives credit where its due, but I am a student and I experience these things first hand and strive to be a voice of reality to balance the maize and blue biased views on this forum. You on the other hand have no ties to the university, and decide to frequently ■■■■■ this forum just to feed your superior complex. I mean seriously, don’t you have better things to do?</p>

<p>Its like the entire banking circle knows that UBS is not quite up to par compared to goldman sachs, but I doubt any goldman sachs banker ever decide to drive down to UBS headquarters in stamford and tell them they are not as good. What the hell is the point?</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“The Ohio State Buckeyes (my parents’ alma mater) finished #1 by the way. GO BUCKS!!”</p>

<p>Why do I get the strange feeling that his mom is a CC poster who goes by the name “hawkette?”</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>Michigan does not suck in basketball bearcats. They’re just absolutely below mediocre.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>

@Alexandre

And don’t worry about the Michigan vs OSU rivalry, it still remains the most potent one in college football. Michigan is 60-40 alltime vs OSU and dominated the rivalry between 1980 and 2000, just as OSU dominated the rivarly between 1950 and 1970. Neverdid those 20 year spells jeoperdize the relevance and intensity of the rivalry. OSU will continue to dominate for the year or two, but eventually, things will settle. The 1970-1980 was a golden era for the rivalry, with both programs being equally dominant.

Fair enough. We’ll see what happens.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

Anybody who thinks Michigan is merely “arguably a top 25 university” does not give it much credit. But coming from a Buckeye, it is indeed high praise. Like I said, a Buckeye or Spartan will never be able to see Michigan for what it is.

My affiliation has nothing to do with how I view the university. What do you want me to say about Michigan exactly? Its not ranked in the top 25 right now and there are a number of universities in the same range as it is right now that are equally deserving as Michigan to move into the top 25. </p>

<p>Do you honestly believe that Michigan is a contender for the #6 spot after HYPSM? If so, it doesn’t sound like you’re being very objective when there’s a mountain of evidence that points to the contrary.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

CCers are mostly 15-20 year olds who know little. Their opionion hardly matters in the world. They are more likely to rate a university based on selectivity than on more meaningful metrics, such academic quality, quality of faculty, facilities and resources, reputation, opportunities etc… In other words, CCers rank universities according to selectivity. Grown ups do not rank, they rate, and they do so according to institutional quality. In the former, Michigan is indeed a notc below smaller private universities. In the latter, Michigan is very much on par with the private elites. Thankfully, what matters is what academics think (Peer Assessment score measures that) and what corporate leaders think (there has not been a reliable rating conducted to reflect their opinion). According to academe, Michigan is always ranked between #8 and #15 among research universities in the nation for undergraduate education, very much in line with schools such as Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Dukem Northwestern, Penn, UCLA, UNC and UVa. It seems that academic quality is more important than and unrelated to selectivity. At the graduate level, Michigan is generally ranked among the top 5 nationally.

How do you know what academia thinks? You don’t even live in the States. Yet you think you know more about colleges and universities than young adults who have countless of CURRENT friends enrolled in various institutions and have access to CURRENT information about the differences in undergraduate quality between those schools.</p>

<p>I know hundreds of current students at Michigan because I went to high school in the state and maybe close to a 1,000 at Duke and about ten a piece at basically every other top school. Who is more qualified to make a judgment about the differences between these schools?</p>

<p>There is asymmetric information regarding the differences in quality between various institutions of higher education in this country because nobody has sat down in classes at every different school or talked to every employer about every single school to make proper comparisons. This is fine…it means that there are no experts on the matter and everyone can offer their input.</p>

<p>You employ an authoritative tone on this matter as if you’re the president of Harvard or something. Even Mary Sue Coleman isn’t going to pretend she knows what all of academia thinks and yet you somehow magically do.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

And LDB, the tone of your posts is disrespectful. You are a guest here. You did not comport yourself in a manner becoming of such a status. The OP asked a question and the responses he was given were balanced. We were not showering Michigan with praise. You did not attempt to balance the responses, you attempted to knock Michigan down. As such, you are ■■■■■■■■. But that’s because you are incapable of being objective when it comes to Michigan. You are genetically predisposed to hate the school.

No, I attempted to give a unique view of the university who is an outside observer yet has significant ties to the school. I don’t “hate” Michigan; its just a fun rivalry at the end of the day. We share more commonalities than differences. If I ran into a Michigan grad in a foreign country, I would probably be glad to run into a fellow Midwesterner and American and chat about how we miss Springsteen concerts, Chipotle and NFL Sundays instead of casting him a look of indignation and turning away in disgust.</p>

<p>One POV you should consider Alexandre is that boosters and alums of other private universities that are ranked much higher than Michigan may also be insulted when you compare their school to Michigan or UCLA or whatever. I know how you and rjk are up in arms anytime someone dares compare Michigan to Boston University and Syracuse as if the latter schools aren’t even in the same league.</p>

<p>A Caltech grad might not consider it to be a great honor to be equated to a UNC grad for instance. Just something to consider.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

Who uses this kind of language? Such talk is relegated to servants and inferiors. That’s right, Michigan’s “rightful place” is a notch below the private elites!

I think you misinterpreted me but I mean that I know that Michigan is a notch below the elite privates with regards to undergraduate quality. Once again, you take everything too personally.</p>

<p>

@Alexandre

I hope, for her sake, that she does not end up at Michigan. Clearly, people who attend Michigan are not given their due respect in your family and are expected to “know their place”! All I can do is shake my head at such unjustified elitism, arrogance and true ignorance.

Once again, my family thinks Michigan is a great school. Otherwise, they wouldn’t consider paying $80,000+ in tuition to send her there. The buck stops with them of course. As always, you have an unwarranted flair for the dramatic Alex.</p>

<p>

@rjkofnovi

Lesdia: You are a ■■■■■ of the first order. Will you please take your own advise and stop posting here? You add nothing to this forum except arrogance.

HAH, this is coming from the poster who tears down Duke at every possible chance and even in threads where the school is not being discussed. The cumulative effect of your presence on these forums is nothing more than ■■■■■■■■ of the highest magnitude.</p>

<p>

@bearcats

Its like the entire banking circle knows that UBS is not quite up to par compared to goldman sachs, but I doubt any goldman sachs banker ever decide to drive down to UBS headquarters in stamford and tell them they are not as good. What the hell is the point?

Except that Robert Wolf, or whoever is in charge of banking these days at UBS, doesn’t constantly tell the media that his company is on par with Blankfein’s and discredit every quantifiable piece of evidence out there like various M&A League Tables to bolster his agenda to make the public see UBS as a “peer” of Goldman Sachs.</p>

<p>This is constantly what Alexandre does with Michigan and the 5 non-HYP Ivies, Duke, Chicago and Northwestern.</p>

<p>I also think its amusing to debate Alexandre because I’ve never met someone who has amassed so much evidence and formal reasoning to support what is clearly the losing side of an argument. He is clearly a very successful and refined man who is well-regarded in his own right, but he still attaches himself to his alma mater like it defines who he is and picks silly arguments with 18-20 year olds about American colleges when he is a seasoned professional. Its almost bizarre.</p>

[MLDWoody]

<p>ok… well… I’d like to ask a question. But first I am gonna have to ask that Duke kid to shut the hell up. OK, you done? You happy you vented? OK, good. Now sit in that corner for a little while and cool down.</p>

<p>Any, would it be worth it for an Engineering Student to get a BBA? I realize I’ll probably have to pick up an MBA once I have a job and am out of college because a lot of employeers have their engineers do that. But right now, I’m wondering if dual degrees would be worth it.</p>

<p>I was planning on graduating a year early, but how prerequisites work that’s gonna be impossible. So I’ll have a lot of extra time in my schedule to fill with the “easy” business and LSA classes</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>“My affiliation has nothing to do with how I view the university. What do you want me to say about Michigan exactly? Its not ranked in the top 25 right now and there are a number of universities in the same range as it is right now that are equally deserving as Michigan to move into the top 25.” </p>

<p>If a ranking does not have Michigan in the top 17, it is not worth quoting.</p>

<p>“Do you honestly believe that Michigan is a contender for the #6 spot after HYPSM? If so, it doesn’t sound like you’re being very objective when there’s a mountain of evidence that points to the contrary.”</p>

<h1>6 would be the highest possible rating. #17 would be the lowest credible rating. Any publication that ranks Michigan lower than #17 is unreliable. The most common point of view, according to the experts, would place Michigan between #8 and #15.</h1>

<p>“How do you know what academia thinks? You don’t even live in the States. Yet you think you know more about colleges and universities than young adults who have countless of CURRENT friends enrolled in various institutions and have access to CURRENT information about the differences in undergraduate quality between those schools.”</p>

<p>I don’t claim to know, I merely quote the various sources, whether it is the Peer Assessment score or Fiske or whatever other source you wish to mention. Generally speaking, any academic rating generated in the academic world will rank Michigan well among the top 20, usually among the top 15, undergraduate institutions among research universities.</p>

<p>“I know hundreds of current students at Michigan because I went to high school in the state and maybe close to a 1,000 at Duke and about ten a piece at basically every other top school. Who is more qualified to make a judgment about the differences between these schools?”</p>

<p>I doubt it very much LDB. Nobody can know that many people. While I was at Michigan, I could not boast of knowing more than 50 or so students. Of my friends from high school, I knew roughly an additional 100 or so students who went to other universities. That’s 150 people attending 15 or so universities. You claim to know 1,500 people? Wow! </p>

<p>“There is asymmetric information regarding the differences in quality between various institutions of higher education in this country because nobody has sat down in classes at every different school or talked to every employer about every single school to make proper comparisons. This is fine…it means that there are no experts on the matter and everyone can offer their input.”</p>

<p>True, but we are talking about opinion, and I would rather take the opinion of university presidents than the opinion of 20 year old kids who, like ALL 20 year old kids, are ignorant and know little.</p>

<p>“You employ an authoritative tone on this matter as if you’re the president of Harvard or something. Even Mary Sue Coleman isn’t going to pretend she knows what all of academia thinks and yet you somehow magically do.”</p>

<p>I certainly know a good deal more than you do LDB.</p>

<p>“No, I attempted to give a unique view of the university who is an outside observer yet has significant ties to the school. I don’t “hate” Michigan; its just a fun rivalry at the end of the day. We share more commonalities than differences. If I ran into a Michigan grad in a foreign country, I would probably be glad to run into a fellow Midwesterner and American and chat about how we miss Springsteen concerts, Chipotle and NFL Sundays instead of casting him a look of indignation and turning away in disgust.”</p>

<p>You may not cast him a look of disgust, but you would clearly think yourself superior. That’s how you come across on CC anyway.</p>

<p>“One POV you should consider Alexandre is that boosters and alums of other private universities that are ranked much higher than Michigan may also be insulted when you compare their school to Michigan or UCLA or whatever. I know how you and rjk are up in arms anytime someone dares compare Michigan to Boston University and Syracuse as if the latter schools aren’t even in the same league.”</p>

<p>That’s because BU and Syracuse are not in the same league as Michigan. Michigan’s peer assessment score is 4.4/5.0. That’s equal to Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern, Penn and UVa. BU and Syracuse have PAs of 3.4/5.0. </p>

<p>“A Caltech grad might not consider it to be a great honor to be equated to a UNC grad for instance. Just something to consider.”</p>

<p>Doubtful. Caltech grads are pure academics and respect Michigan a great deal. They would obviously feel that Caltech is superior to Michigan in the Sciences, but they would not be insulted if somebody claimed Michigan were in the same league as Caltech…although those two universities share very little in common, other than having world class Engineering programs.</p>

<p>“I think you misinterpreted me but I mean that I know that Michigan is a notch below the elite privates with regards to undergraduate quality. Once again, you take everything too personally.”</p>

<p>Yes, I take Michigan very personally. It is an important part of my history. When somebody attacks Michigan by downgrading it, I will take it personally. </p>

<p>"Except that Robert Wolf, or whoever is in charge of banking these days at UBS, doesn’t constantly tell the media that his company is on par with Blankfein’s and discredit every quantifiable piece of evidence out there like various M&A League Tables to bolster his agenda to make the public see UBS as a “peer” of Goldman Sachs.</p>

<p>This is constantly what Alexandre does with Michigan and the 5 non-HYP Ivies, Duke, Chicago and Northwestern."</p>

<p>Institutionally, UBS is inferior to Goldman Sachs. Institutionally, Michigan is equal to non HYP Ivies, Duke Chicago and Northwestern. Your logic fails you.</p>

<p>“I also think its amusing to debate Alexandre because I’ve never met someone who has amassed so much evidence and formal reasoning to support what is clearly the losing side of an argument. He is clearly a very successful and refined man who is well-regarded in his own right, but he still attaches himself to his alma mater like it defines who he is and picks silly arguments with 18-20 year olds about American colleges when he is a seasoned professional. Its almost bizarre.”</p>

<p>Michigan does not define who I am, but it is cerainly an important part of me, just as I hope you will allow Duke to be for you. Loyalty to one’s alma matter is not bizarre.</p>