<p>You really do not know much about Michigan at all. Or Georgia Tech and UIUC for that matter. Those three are among the toughest programs out there. I know several professors and TAs at Michigan who did their undergraduate studies at CalTech and MIT, and they are of the opinion that Michigan Engineering is as demanding. I know several (more than 10) students who transfered from Michigan to Cornell and from Cornell to Michigan and they found them identical in terms of toughness and rigor. I really do not know on what you are basing your opinion. But if it is on summer classes, you are nuts. First of all, Michigan does not teach core courses in the summer. And secondly, summer classes are alwys more lax. I took summer classes at Princeton and Chicago and found them much easier than Michigan...but I am not crazy enough to judge those two peer institutions by the toughness of their summer classes.</p>
<p>Collegehelp.....you ask if an MIT degree has help me. Well, in some ways, it has opened some doors. But it was not nearly as important as many on these boards would have you believe. You see, when you begin your career, your real education is only beginning. Within a short period of time, where you went to school will not matter at all. You will be judged based on your job performance....and how that performance improves over the years. The time spent pursuing your degrees will recede to a mere footnote in importance. So, the question to ask is, after 10 years on the job was I a better engineer because I went to MIT? My answer is: not likely. Too much of my education was obtained on-the-job. </p>
<p>You need to go to a school that gives you a good solid foundation. Many schools can to that. Pursue a graduate degree. By that point, you may be targeting specific professors with specific research programs...and what "school" may not even enter into your thought process.</p>
<p>One thing I want to mention.....I am addressing long term <em>technical careers</em> in engineering (note also that my area of expertise is in aerospace). If you <em>really want</em> to become a manager, or use engineering as a spring-board to a business career, different considerations apply.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>You certainly miss my point. Gee, I'm not comparing the summer course and regular classes literally. However, on the other hand you really don't know about Caltech or MIT at all, as well as Berkeley or Stanford. Caltech, MIT, and Berkeley is really really tougher than Michigan or UIUC. Every year there will be 2 or 3 Caltech students transfer to Stanford, not because they are not smart enough, but they simply couldn't stand the workload. You know what, professors at MIT/Caltech who did their undergrad at Michigan/UIUC tend to give lighter workload. Whether you like it or not Michigan Engineering is not really competitive and its bell curve variance is pretty large. If you don't believe me, you can always put questions like 'how do you think of Michigan Engineering workload' on MIT/Caltech/Berkeley threads and see the response yourself.</p>
<p>I actually know MIT, Cal and Stanford very well. As well as you do. From several family members and very close friends who went there to my own research, I know them well. I agree that CalTech is tougher. So tough that it actually defeats the purpose of a well rounded undergraduate education. MIT is tough, but they have a lot of grade inflation. But Michigan is as tough as Cornell and Stanford. You make it sound like a Michigan degree is questionable. Make no mistake, a 3.8 (3.5 if you are looking into Business programs and 3.7 if you are looking into graduate programs in Engineering)from Michigan will get a student into almost any graduate school in the nation and will certainly guarantee a student admission into a top 5 program in any field of study. </p>
<p>The problem here is that you do not know Michigan. To you, Michigan is a typical state university. But it is not. Michigan defies every myth there is about large universities. It is one of the top 10 universities in the country in every respect, from faculty to student talent, from resources to job opportunities and from networking potential to graduate school matriculation etc... In fact, Michigan is the most well rounded university in the country. Only Stanford comes close. It has one of the most gifted student bodies you will find anywhere. There are, at any point in time, more talented students at Michigan than at any other university in the country. Michigan's bottom 30% may not be the smartest people on earth, but the top 50% of Michigan's student body is as good as they come...and 50% of Michigan is 12,000 strong.</p>
<p>No Alexandre, I do realize that Michigan is a strong university. I believe I may have friends in Michigan considerably more than yours in MIT. MIT is almost as tough as Caltech, and MIT does NOT have grade inflation, so discard that myth, will you? Berkeley is hard too, but because the bell-curve variance is large, the more dilligent students may get A easier at Berkeley than at MIT/Caltech. I've just attended Cornell engineering for one summer so I couldn't say much about it. But the same thing cannot be said for Stanford. Stanford, despite its first rate prestige and student, allows lax environment with some grade inflation even for its engineering department. Now Michigan curricula is not even as tough as Stanford. I gathered this data in the same way, i.e. talking to friends and relative in the corresponding schools. Nevertheless, again I believe that the number of my friends in Michigan are way bigger than yours in Stanford or MIT, pardon my bluntness, and hence I would take my resource to be more credible, at least for myself. And frankly speaking, I don't believe at all that top 50% Michigan students are as good as top 50% Stanford students, anyway you put it. Pardon me again for being brusque, but what is difficult and rigorous for Michigan students may not be difficult for average MIT students. There's a price for low/high selectivity of a school. You can't get things for free, can you?</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, Michigan graduate school on the other hand is much stronger and more well-known. This is based on the fact that Michigan has top notch faculty and resources. But again as public school, Michigan undergraduate school suffers large variance syndrome and has less strong student body. Michigan, along with Berkeley and UVa are the leading public universities as you stress repetitively, however, while the cream students may be as strong as the ones in top privates, you can't take for granted that its average students would have similar quality.</p>
<p>And oh yes, I never said that Michigan degree is questionable. You seem to be prejudiced against me :). Notice that we are indeed splitting the best of the best in the States here, which only comprises small percentage of the population. Of course if you take the average universities in the States, like University of Alabama, as a gauge, then MIT may look no different than Michigan, i.e. they belong to upper 0.5% percentile of the curve. But if we are splitting the top 0.5% and take UCLA as the median, then I think you should re-valuate your view.</p>
<p>Stanford has an average SAT around 1450 while the top half of UM would have approximately a 1400 average. The top quarter might be more equivalent to Stanford and with 1500 students in the top quarter, the number is similar to that at Stanford.</p>
<p>I've read this entire thread, and no one ever mentions Texas A&M. I would argue that A&M has at least as good of an engineering program as UT. My cousin is going through the computer engineering program at A&M, and it's tough even for him. I would venture saying it is one of the best engineering school in Texas, on par with Rice and UT.</p>
<p>the top half of berkely is has an SAT average of about 1440.
<a href="http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/research_intensive/sat.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/peers/current/research_intensive/sat.htm</a></p>
<p>And that's over 12,000 students right there. Quite a large amount, about the same as Stanford, MIT and Caltech combined.</p>
<p>Rtksyg, I did not say that the top 50% at Michigan is equal to the top 50% at Stanford. But the top 50% at Michigan is equal to the Stanford, Princeton or MIT student body at large. The mean SAT range of the top 50% of the Michigan undergraduate student body is in the 1330-1600 range. The average high school graduating class rank for those students is in the top 1%. So the top 12,000 students at Michigan are as strong and gifted as the 4,000 students at MIT or the 4,000 students at Princeton or the 7,000 students at Stanford etc... </p>
<p>As for the grading, your are wrong. Michigan's curriculum and grading is known in the academic world. It is hands down one of the toughest (ranked 7th in terms of stinginess if I recall...and most ranked above Michigan were LACs. Cornell was in the top 10 too). Like I said, a 3.7 out of Michigan can get into any graduate Engineering program in the nation. Getting an A at Michigan is like getting an A anywhere. Unlike Stanford and peer institutions, Michigan only hands out As to the top 15% of its students. That means that roughly, only a third of its very talented students get As. The rest are stuck with Bs even Cs, since roughly 50% of the studetns at Michigan get Cs.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Okay let's open our cards here, so you are saying that top 12,000 students at Michigan are as strong as the 5000 students at MIT or 7000 students at Stanford ?! Well this is a VERY strong claim, I doubt even the top Michigan students would see themselves academically equal to MIT students. The fact that MIT admits on the average have academic accomplishment that Michigan admits lack of must be true since MIT doesn't admit randomly. In other words, MIT would not be willing to swap its chosen 4500-5000 admits with the 12000 admits of Michigan. Do you really believe that the best students from Michigan state would prefer UMich to MIT or Stanford? Com'on, generally the best students from Michigan would rather attend HYPSMC than Michigan itself. I don't think you can argue that.</p>
<p>As for grading, in private universities like MIT or Caltech, many small classes are graded by the students' absolute score in the test. For example, at Caltech to get an A, the rule of thumb is to get above 95% for your exam (I can guarantee that the exam would be several times more difficult than the one given at Michigan). Also in MIT, there're some classes that only give A to the top 5%. It depends more on the performance of the classes. However, you must agree that Caltech/MIT, taking the best science/engrg talents in the States, has many students who can get A easily, no sweat. On the other hand, Stanford practices grade inflation, hence the percentage of students getting A is higher than it should be. However, frankly speaking these students <em>on the average</em> are the cream of crop in the States. Almost all of these students can get into Michigan should they want to, but the reverse is not true. This means there's a significant academic accomplishment gap between the students of those schools and those of Michigan whether you admit it or not. Accordingly, the level of stinginess on grade you mentioned is measured by the performance of Michigan students, not MIT students, not Stanford students. Put it bluntly, a C student in MIT would probably be an A- students in Michigan.</p>
<p>"Like I said, a 3.7 out of Michigan can get into any graduate Engineering program in the nation."</p>
<p>I really doubt your claim. The average Caltech and MIT admits for graduate students typically have GPA above 3.85 (From other schools). And so far any Michigan grad student that I've met at MIT has undergrad GPA score 4.0/4.0 (average people in MIT whom you claimed to be 'geniuses' LOL!). Hence I would think that you don't really understand the competitiveness of graduate school in engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Go to graduate school, and get at least a Masters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesnt an undergrad degree from top engg college helps you to go to a good grad college? I mean top grad institutes would prefer students from top 10 undergrad colleges rather than last 10 of top 100 colleges. isnt it?</p>
<p>Rtksyg, you are incorrect in assuming that students who get into MIT would pick it over Michigan. MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Yale and Harvard do not give merit scholarships. Do you think a middle income family would rather spend $200,000 on an education when they can get an equal education for free or for $50,000? As you would say, "com'on". Many Michigan residents, even the wealthy ones, cannot justify paying $200,000 for H,P,S,M and Y when they can get Michigan for almost free. And Michigan also gives merit aid to many students. So many students with 1500+ on their SAT pick Michigan simply because it would cost them $10,000/year instead of close to $50,000/year at H,P,S,M and Y. </p>
<p>Even I, who comes from a wealthy family, would have reservations if I were given a choice. I would most likely pick Stanford or Harvard over Michigan...as difficult as it may be. I would probably also pick MIT and Princeton over Michigan, though it is less likely because the quality of life at Michigan is so much better and the quality of education is roughly the same. I would pick Michigan over Yale any day. Most of my fellow Wolverines would tell you the same thing. </p>
<p>Finally, your assumption that a C student at MIT or CalTech would be an A student at Michigan is laughable. I know 3 students who had 3.6 GPAs at Michigan who transfered to MIT and all of them maintained 4.8-5.0 GPAs at MIT. I also know a couple of students who transfered from MIT back to Michigan for family and financial reasons and they struggled to maintain their perfect GPA. So I would have to say that an A- at Michigan is like an A- anywhere.</p>
<p>Yes, lidude, you're right.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Are you saying that most of 12000 Michigan students are admitted to Caltech or MIT but choose not to enroll ? LOL ! Don't you think you have too much bias on your alma mater? Like you, I am also an international student, but from the country I come from Michigan is regarded as indiscriminate and promiscuous, obviously comes to mind only after lower Ivies and Berkeley. It is a fact that C student at Caltech would be an A students at Michigan, nothing to be laughed (this is a fact known to Caltech students, post in Caltech thread if you don't believe me). If your friend who got GPA 3.6 at Michigan now get 4.8-5.0 (although I've never seen one in MIT), that only means that he doesn't even have the spirit to study in Michigan, may be he was partying every night at Ann-Arbor and got 3.6. On the other hand students who transfered from MIT to Michigan I believe hide their real reasons, i.e. couldn't stand the workload at MIT, the most common reason for MIT drop-outs.</p>
<p>And oh btw, only a very few people get 5.0/5.0 in MIT engineering, so I suggest you trim down the hyperbolic example of yours. It's also almost impossible for a transfer student to get such GPA (these students would have been admitted directly to MIT in the first place, often with scholarships)</p>
<p>Rtkysg, I never said that 12,000 of Michigan's students got into MIT and CalTech. What I did say is that about half of Michigan's students are as good as your typical students at Stanford, Princeton or MIT. </p>
<p>Secondly, my friends who transfered to MIT were studying their behinds off...which explains why they could maintain 3.6 or 3.7 GPAs. They transfered to MIT because MIT is THE BEST in Engineering...and they did not want to settle for #2! I respect that decision. But when they got to MIT, they did not struggle. They maintained 4.8+ GPAs. One of them graduated with a near 5.0 GPA. She just completed her MBA at HBS by the way. Bangladeshi girl...very capable.</p>
<p>If CalTech students believe that a C at CalTech is equal to an A at Michigan, they are derranged. Maybe you should talk to the dozens of CalTech educated professors and PhD students currently at Michigan and share this fascinating factoid with them? They certainly seem to think much more highly of Michigan than you do.</p>
<p>As for Michigan's reputation in your country, I am not surprised. You are most likely East Asian or Subcontinental Asian. I can tell from your tone and your milsplaced elitism. I am Asian too... so I know. But I personally also know that in educated circles anywhere in the World, Michigan is considered neither "indiscriminate" nor "promiscuous"...words that are as outdated and as ignorant as the masses in our part of the world. In fact, in most educated circles, Michigan is synonymous with any other top 15 American university.</p>
<p>"Rtkysg, I never said that 12,000 of Michigan's students got into MIT and CalTech. What I did say is that about half of Michigan's students are as good as your typical students at Stanford, Princeton or MIT. "</p>
<p>Alexandre, you're saying that the top 50% Michigan has the similar academic accomplishment as the average MIT/Stanford students. This implies that the top 50% Michigan would typically be admitted to MIT. Sorry Alexandre, you would never convince me that Michigan and MIT have such a large number of cross-admits. Most Michigan students are MIT/Stanford rejects whether you like it or not, the fact would not change Alexandre. </p>
<p>Again, for any one example like your Bangladeshi friend, I could give a list of MIT/Caltech drop outs who now excel in Michigan. And btw, when you're talking about PhD and Professors, it's obvious that you are not an academic yourself (I forget whether or not you have a PhD). Notice that getting a professorial or faculty position at Michigan IS very prestigious since faculty position at HYPSMC is normally open only for the leading researchers in the academic circle. Hence it isn't strange that they respect Michigan highly, as do I. However, if you ask them whether the workload for Michigan undergrad is similar to MIT/Caltech, you would most probably get the unwanted answer from them. Specifically, if you read the biography of Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, he said that he was totally shocked to see how relax Cornell was compared to MIT. He himself couldn't stand the lax atmosphere and moved to Caltech. Put it bluntly, again MIT is not worth its name if any top 50% Michigan could get into MIT.</p>
<p>Please, you don't need to stereotype my kind of people as I shall not stereotype you with your country. Michigan in the world is well known as an academic powerhouse, but everyone knows that getting to Michigan is relatively easy, and hence it is promiscuous. Michigan may be synonymous as the other top schools in academic circles, but certainly not in terms of student quality.</p>
<p>As usual, we disagree on this topic. To you, college admissions is a simple equation. To me, it is a random and inaccurate process. I will stand by my statement that the top half of Michigan's student body is pretty similar to the overall student body at MIT or Stanford. The numbers support my position...not yours. So, if to you, MIT's reputation hinges on its rejecting the top 50% of Michigan's student body, I would say that MIT's reputation is indeed not that good. I can guarantee you that the top 50% of Michigan student body is capable of getting into MIT. Not all of them would get in of course...since the top 50% of Michigan is 300% larger than MIT's entire undergraduate student body, but all of them would be seriously considered and several would be accepted.</p>
<p>Your claim that your know MIT and CalTech dropouts who excel at Michigan must be interesting since Michigan has an offical cutoff for transfer students. Any transfer applicant with less than a B average is automatically rejected. Unless you consider B students to be "drop outs", I doubt you know any drop outs who excelled at Michigan.</p>
<p>I never read Feynman's autobiography, but I did read his "Six Easy Pieces". Great book...and great writer. </p>
<p>You say that "Michigan may be synonymous as the other top schools in academic circles, but certainly not in terms of student quality." Most people worthy of an intellect would not judge a person by the university they went to. I have met geniuses who went to Auburn University and morons who attended Harvard. To judge a person based on where she/he studied is very dangerous. Michigan is regarded as one of the top 10-15 universities in the US...full stop. It would not be so without a highly accomplished student body.</p>
<p>Yes Alexandre,</p>
<p>Seems we need to end this debate without solution as always. Well, political debates never have mathematical and exact solution, don't you think so. :)</p>
<p>While you guarantee that the top 50% of Michigan student body can get into MIT, I would guarantee that most of these students are in fact rejected at MIT. I don't think the numbers back you up in this case. </p>
<p>As I far as I know, dropping out doesn't necessarily mean failing the classes. Many of the students drop out or perhaps transfer to a less difficult school. Michigan is one of the favorite schools in the list. And actually many of these students have B or B+ average. </p>
<p>You indeed should read his biography to increase your view in academia world. BTW does the movie American-Pie2 describe Michigan ?</p>
<p>Average people would normally want their kids to go to the most prestigious schools, not to mention intelligent people. It's no coincidence that rich senators/businessmen would typically want their kids end up at Harvard. If you regard Michigan grads with GPA 3.5+ as geniuses, I don't think you should call any Harvard student a moron. Michigan can still be one of the top 10-15 universities as long as its faculty and graduate schools are not as indiscriminate as its undergraduate school.</p>
<p>If you ppl have to choose one among Georgia Tech, UIUC and UMich for undergrad engg(Computer Science), then where will you go? Pls. support your answers with reasons..... Since you people seem to be very knowledgable abt academic as well as job market, your answers will highly influence my decision.</p>