<p>Yeah, so he took a list of graduate school strength/prestige and pretended it was relevant for undergrad...good ol' Gourman</p>
<p>When comparing undergrads, its not useful to try and rank individual majors because that assumes grad school strength equals undergrad strength - even though many undergrads don't plan on going to grad school, or have other goals such as professional school, etc. </p>
<p>In reality, comparing undergrads should be done holistically, looking at the overall college strength rather than specific departments - you'll find that HYPSM domnate, as well as other Ivies, and schools such as Chicago are excellent as well. However, just because Chicago has a top 5 grad program, does not mean that it has a top 5 undergrad for Econ - similar things apply to every school.</p>
<p>Yes, but that overlooks the fact the there are very good depts at some non-elite schools where you can get just as good an education--maybe better--because the department is excellent and attracts the best of the the students in that school. Not everyone can get into HYPSM but they can still get a top education from top people who could easily be teaching at those schools but choose not to for various reasons. Nor did many of the top profs in their fields start out at just those few schools.</p>
<p>Josh, because the university focuses its resources on the grad level rather than undergrad.</p>
<p>Because you brought up MIT, I think you misunderstood my point. MIT's undergrad is extremely strong, verified by my approach of looking at the entire undergrad student body - MIT undergrads have high scores, great placement, lots of prestigious awards such as National Merit, etc.</p>
<p>In contrast, Michigan and Berkeley (top 10 graduate programs from what I understand) have an undergrad which is slightly less strong.</p>
<p>Barron - I agree that the primary factor in success is obviously the students achievements - which can occur at any institution, not neccesarily a top 10 private school. </p>
<p>I also believe that if you are going into graduate school, your undergrad matters less than if you are going to professional school or into the corporate world immediately.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, your analysis is flawed. Cal and Michigan are top 10 undergraduate institutions. The Peer Assessment Score says as much. Unless you are arrogant enough to think that you are better informed and wiser than the whoel of academe, then you have to concede the fact that Cal and Michigan are top 10 undergraduate institutions, regardless of your personal bias and limitations.The only universities that are considered better by corporate recruiters and academia are Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. At top universities like Cal and Michigan, there is no distinction between undergraduate and graduate programs. Both undergrad and grad students are tought by the same faculty, participate in similar research and take similar classes. I agree that some colleges are as heavily involved in research and they provide very strong undergraduate programs, but to discriminately target Cal and Michigan as being examples of institutions that are strong at the graduate level but mysteriously weak at the undergraduate level is ignorant and insulting.</p>
<p>Alexandre, there is no way Cal and Mich should be considered top 10 undergraduate institutions. HYPSM... Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Cornell...Georgetown, JHU, Wash U...thats several schools that might have a top 10 claim. Please tell me how students at Mich or Cal stack up to those schools, and how Mich or Cal students are strong enough to be top 10 out of that elite group.</p>
<p>I didn't say Cal or Mich were weak, I just said they weren't top 10. Totally different. I think both schools are great, but comparatively better for graduate school than undergrad (comes with the territory of being a large research institution).</p>
<p>Peer assessment score is based on graduate prestige, which explains why they have high scores in that category. Peer asessment is probably the most garbge undergrad index used by the US News, because it expects academic deans from throughout the country to be familiar with every other school. Its ridiculous and laughable, but just another way to add legitimacy to US News.</p>
<p>Uh...because Michigan's students are weaker than atleast 15 other schools, same for Berkeley. I got that information from many different places, including US News, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal, Collegeboard, National Merit Scholarship Competition, etc.</p>
<p>I've studied undergrad at neither school, and in fact, only one school. Luckily I can use the internet and speak to other people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Peer Assessment Score says as much. Unless you are arrogant enough to think that you are better informed and wiser than the whoel of academe, then you have to concede the fact that Cal and Michigan are top 10 undergraduate institutions, regardless of your personal bias and limitations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Eh...what? So you're saying that, due to the PA score of Michigan and Berkeley, they are top 10 for undergrad? </p>
<p>and so on...Michigan comes a few spots later with a 4.5 PA. Either way, it's not possible to draw the conclusion that Michigan is a "top 10" undergrad institution due to PA score when it's PA score is not even among the top 10. However, Berkeley's is.</p>
<p>HA, based on what Joshua? Have you studied at those 10-12 schools? Just kidddding.</p>
<p>But in all seriousness, if you look at the student bodies of Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Chicago, etc. and then the student body of Cal and Mich, and you don't see the difference in quality, then you aren't looking hard enough. Its pretty clear to me which schools are stronger. </p>
<p>Joshua, keep in mind I am talking about undergrad, I'm not sure if you are confusing that. I'm not talking about grad programs, only undergrad, when I say that Mich and Berkeley aren't as good as Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Chicago, Brown, Northwestern...etc.</p>
<p>I honestly don't see many people with below 1300 SAT scores being admitted to UMich Ann Arbor. Those stats probably take other UM campuses in account.</p>
<p>no they are based solely on the Ann Arbor campus. If they took other UM campuses into account, I imagine the midrange would be considerably lower.</p>
<p>So the average student is different (but not by all that much either as both groups are typically in the top 5% of all students going to college). You still get to study with the best in the field in some of the best facilities. At the larger schools like UM and Cal the lower ability students are not going to gravitate to the tougher majors. They will be in education, communications and the like. Evaluating a school solely by the students is just looking at a small piece of the picture.</p>
<p>I agree. I don't think Columbia is much better than Michigan personally, but when someone says that Columbia et. al are "at most" equal to Michigan and Berkeley, I call bull.</p>
<p>Michigan at Dearborn's midrange is 1100 - 1240, at Flint's midrange is similar. Ann Arbor is definetely dominant.</p>
<p>People who know more than each of us DID rate Cal and Berkeley pretty high - but that rating reflects graduate prestige, not undergrad. Its an assessment of how well-known that university is, and I doubt the academic dean's of every college has much knowledge about the undergrad of every other school. Peer Assessment is a pretty garbage indicator because it puts too much weight on academics who really are only familiar with their own school and the grad schools of other institutions in their field. </p>
<p>Note that you are using the Peer Assessment score to back up your argument, which in turn is just one factor on the US News, which ranks Berkeley and Mich well outside the top 10. I find that funny (ironic?).</p>
<p>Joshua, I don't think Mich and Berkeley are bad schools. I think its ridiculous to pretend that for undergrad they are as good as Penn, Columbia, Duke, and Dartmouth.</p>
<p>No, for one the original question was best for econ/math. There is no one undergraduate dept. There are schools and colleges that can vary in quality at any school. If you want to major in engineering you are not going to some of the elite schools because they don't even have engineering. If you would not go there because there is no engineering you might want to think twice about going there to study econ or math because some schools are very strong in these areas and some elite schools might be weaker in these areas. I am not naming names but most every school--even the elite ones have some clinker depts.</p>