<p>sefago, many (naive) high school students will believe what they see on this forum.</p>
<p>sefago appears to think it pretty much doesn’t matter where you go to school undergrad. Maybe I am misreading his comments, but that is what I get out of his discourse. If so, of course it is logical that people that then play up their school would amuse him. It is an opinion, one that millions disagree with, but a valid opinion to hold none-the-less. Seems odd to spend any time on CC then, though. Just more amusement for him I guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does it matter if a few high school students on CC don’t give Cal and Michigan their propers? Are Cal and Michigan hurting for applicants? These students will grow up, get into the real world, and they’ll learn in due time that both schools have excellent reputations. </p>
<p>I don’t get the neediness. I’ve certainly seen threads in which my alma mater was positioned or viewed as one step lower than the tippy-top. Oh well. So other people see it that way. Shrug. I’m satisfied with the education and the opportunities I got and I know I’m at no disadvantage to anybody. There’s just an ego thing you have wrapped up in this that I don’t get. </p>
<p>My very fav CC post of all times was from bclintonk, discussing his D’s acceptance to Haverford – here is the money quote:
</p>
<p>Now, granted, Michigan’s in a different state entirely (ha ha) than Haverford – as most people have at least heard of Michigan, even if it’s only through sports, whereas very few people have ever heard of Haverford outside the Phila area.</p>
<p>But the attitude that bclintonk’s D expresses – quiet self-assurance – is SO much more appealing than the “ooooh! oooh! look at me too! i am superb toooo! how dare you leave me out!” And I’m not saying you are one of the practitioners, because you strike me as a moderate, temperate poster, but within the Michigan, Cal and Duke booster communities, there are a few posters who take it to extremes and their constant wishes to be lumped into the same cluster as HYP et al and their constant angst that the rest of the country doesn’t bow down when one of their alums walks by just seems needy and unattractive.</p>
<p>Continuing my thought - the desperate attempt to be In Among The Top also then leads to a desperate attempt to pretend that everything is roses and perfect. I mean, I was just POINTING OUT that the experience at a large uni such as Michigan is qualitatively different from many of the mid-sized private schools. I wasn’t saying “Large public schools suck!!” But even the difference between an environment scaled for many students and an environment scaled for few – no, all of a sudden there was “no difference.” And that’s nonsense! There is a difference! Whether it’s good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. Some people will prefer the large public u uni settings, others will prefer smaller public u or mid-size private u settings, still others will prefer small LAC’s. How can anyone argue that any of those are uniformly “better” than the other? They’re just different. Why not embrace that difference – Michigan offers a great education in an environment which is such-and-such, precisely because it is relatively large. That’s great for people who prefer that, not so great for people who don’t. But to pretend that there’s just no difference – that’s when it smells of desperation.</p>
<p>Every pro has a con. Every. And that goes for HYP too.</p>
<p>“hmm . . . and you are doing the same thing again. In the academic world no one thinks Michigan undergrad is an elite, however they are aware that their grad programs cover a large number of the top 10.”</p>
<p>Sefado, that’s the kind of comment that makes me defend Michigan. The Peer Assessment rating assigned to Michigan is proof that in the academic world, the general opinion of Michigan is that it is among the top undergraduate institutions. Michigan’s undergraduate Peer Assessment score is tied with Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn. That’s a lot of people who believe it is elite.</p>
<p>One highly regarded academic even spoke out against the USNWR methodology and used Cal and Michigan’s relatively low ranking as centerpiece of his arguement. I am of course referring Gerhard Casper’s famous letter to the Editor of the USNWR written back in 1996.</p>
<p>“I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27.”</p>
<p>[Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html]Criticism”>Criticism of College Rankings - September 23, 1996)</p>
<p>In case you are not familiar with Gerhard Casper, he is a Yale educated scholar who was dean of Chicago’s Law school from 1980-1992 and president of Stanford University from 1992-2000. Keep in mind that Gerhard Casper was writing about the USNWR undergraduate rankings. As you can see sefado, between Casper’s letter and the USNWR Peer Assessment score, there are many in the Academic world who believe that Michigan (and Cal) are elite institutions. Criticize the Peer Assessment score all you want, it does not change that fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No its not proof, thats fallacy. Its proof that its graduate programs is in high regard- very rarely do people know the difference between the two. Asking academic commentators to evaluate undergraudate programs based on reputation would be impossible- how really do you evaluate an undergraudate program? Sit down and think carefully. the academic administrators- most who have spent their time in academia would of course give higher ratings to programs they came in contact with- by default Michigan.</p>
<p>That does not mean UMich undergraduate is at the same level as its graduate program. The same can be said of Harvard too- everyone would expect Harvard to be good, because of its rep in graduate field, but I doubt there is any academic difference between going to Harvard and University of Michigan or if you get a better education going to either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, while it is absolutely true that you and UCB do offer corrections to the “ignorant posters,” you only look at if from one angle. The ignorance is hardly one-sided, and many posts are mere reactions to the constant CHEERLEADING by a number of posters … and this year after year. If there were prizes distributed for relentless cheerleading and common ignorance, I am sure that posters such as RML and that Michigan poster with the hard to reproduce name would be on the first row! </p>
<p>Fwiw, there is no excuses for anyone to pretend that Berkeley and Michigan should be outside the top 30 universities. This is wrong! But it is equally wrong to pretend that the same schools should jump more than a dozen schools currently ranked above them. Of course, all of that is a matter of … personal opinion. As stated many times, we ALL love to pick the data that support our viewpoints. While some cling to the PA, other will point to less competitive student bodies and scarcer resources. </p>
<p>I also believe that some of the “criticisms” are not direct criticism of the schools in particular. For instance, attacking the PA and the use of TAs are NOT attacks directed at Berkeley and Michigan. Schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford (just to name a few) also use TA and have extremely high PAs. Can’t we have the opinion that the CURRENT PA is an atrocious instrument that needs a complete overhaul? As you know, I would welcome a ranking solely based on the PA, if (and solely if) USNews would expand it into well-defined categories, force the respondent to sign affidavits of accuracy, and make the survey AND the complete CDS public on their website. Fwiw, I am convinced that this will someday happens and that the public will have a glimpse at the reasons why schools still cling to hiding their data. This, of course, must make schools such as WUSTL worry. </p>
<p>Then there is the issue of the impact of graduate schools on the UG education and the related gain in academic reputation. After that you have the issue of the LACs and research opportunities. Although, you’re not that in that camp and make incredible efforts to consider LACs for what they are, they are many posters who would never admit that a great education and research opportunities are available at schools that lack a graduate school. For instance, just look at most threads that would ask where one could get the best UG education in subjects such as Econ, Pol Sci, or Intl Relations. YOU do know the correct answers, but many don’t or won’t care to admit to a more balanced truth. On a personal level, I simply stay out of such threads, because combatting ignorance is a hopeless battle. The morons bring you down to their level, and then beat you with … experience. </p>
<p>That is how it works here!</p>
<p>PS I also hope that you know that people can disagree but still like and respect their forum “foes!”</p>
<p>No Sefago, it is proof. You said that “nobody in the academic world thinks Michigan undergrad is elite.” The PA rates Cal and Michigan among the elite undergraduate institutions. Like I said, whether you agree with the PA is a matter of opinion. But the actual meaning behind the PA is clear.</p>
<p>Not surprising Gerhard Caaper taught at Berkeley. Anyways I do agree whole heartedly with the beginning of his statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, I still doubt that peer assessment (greatly affected by graduate school reputation) can be argued to be better or more objectively qualified than class selectivity, or the average quality of undergraduate students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, nothing says that the President of Stanford cannot be wrong! Over the years, there have been people at Stanford who have pushed for changes, and not always positive changes.</p>
<p>If the voices of cpllege presidents are valuable, perhaps you should read what they say about the PA at Reed university, or the dozens of others who expressed their scorn for the PA in an official letter. I am sure you must have read those as well, since they are quite a bit more timely than Casper’s prose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way how is a rank of 21-24-24 second rate?? LOL seems this guy is full of snobbery</p>
<p>Sefago, if a university belongs among the top 10 (Cal for sure and Michigan arguably), being ranked out of the top 20 is insulting. I would love to see what Columbia or Penn students and alums would say if their schools were ranked out of the top 20.</p>
<p>“Fwiw, there is no excuses for anyone to pretend that Berkeley and Michigan should be outside the top 30 universities. This is wrong! But it is equally wrong to pretend that the same schools should jump more than a dozen schools currently ranked above them. Of course, all of that is a matter of … personal opinion. As stated many times, we ALL love to pick the data that support our viewpoints. While some cling to the PA, other will point to less competitive student bodies and scarcer resources.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately xiggi, some of us are trying to establish the fact that Cal and Michigan and several other public universities are much better than this forum makes them out to be. Until that is accomplished, discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of any and all universities is pointless.</p>
<p>“Alexandre, nothing says that the President of Stanford cannot be wrong!”</p>
<p>I was not saying that Casper was right, I was merely stating that his opinion is not uncommon.</p>
<p>Sefago, Casper was an assistant professor at Cal for under two years in the mid 60s. Since then, he had more senior positions at Chicago for over 25 years and at Stanford for close to 20 years. I doubt he has such a strong allegiance to Cal.</p>
<p>alex,
I’ll even defend U Michigan’s rep within academia. As evidenced by the PA scorecard, I don’t think that there is much dispute on this matter. One can argue how relevant that information is to a prospective undergrad (and I have been one of CC’s bigger critics of the value of PA scores), but it would be inaccurate to state that U Michigan does not enjoy a prominent place within academia. </p>
<p>IMO the school is a fine place and belongs in the top tier of State Universities in the USA (along with W&M, UC Berkeley, UCLA, U Virginia, U North Carolina, U Illinois, U Wisconsin). IMO, the differences in this group of schools (with the exception of W&M) are razor thin. </p>
<p>For undergraduate education, however, I would reach a different conclusion than you (and even xiggi). I would not include U Michigan in the Top 30 national universities, much less the Top 10 or 20. Why? IMO, the key factors for the best undergraduate environments are the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> Quality of students (stronger students are preferred)</li>
<li> Size of the classroom (smaller classes are preferred)</li>
<li> Quality of instruction (teaching by profs is preferred and this is not the research rep, but what is actually delivered in the classroom to the paying customer) </li>
<li> Institutional Resources and willingness to spend to support undergraduates (as evidenced by things like financial aid, academic advising, job placement services, other spending per students measurements, etc.)</li>
</ol>
<p>On these criteria, there are many schools that compare favorably over your alma mater. For undergrad, most Americans understand this and, outside of the Midwest, most folks perceive U Michigan as a big state school that serves as a backup for the premier undergraduate schools found in the USNWR Top 25. I know that you fight mightily to combat and debunk that conclusion, but you’re gonna need more than PA scores to be successful. </p>
<p>The good news is that the USA has a lot of good undergraduate choices. But making declarative statements about how your school should rank ahead of many of them reeks of arrogance and insisting on your superiority is an insult to those schools and those posters you seek to jump.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I do not insist on superiority. You are the one who insists that some universities are superior to others. I personally believe that there are many excellent universities. I often state that there is no real difference among elite universities. You are the one who believes that Cal should be ranked around #30 in the US and Michigan around #40. How am I insulting any school pray tell?</p>
<p>You know, Alexandre, you would be a lot better placed if you understood that where your school ranks or doesn’t rank is not a personal judgment on YOU. Really, “Michigan is #25” (or whatever it is, I don’t know, I don’t really care) is not the equivalent of “Alexandre is stupid and he sucks.” </p>
<p>What’s the big deal if it’s not as highly rated as you personally think it should be? Will it change your life any if you woke up tomorrow and USNWR rated Michigan #15 or #5? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone who looks at a university ranked in the 20-30 range and thinks of it as “second rate” is a complete moron.</p>
<p>And xiggi is right. It’s the leapfrogging that is obnoxious. It’s one thing to say, “Hey, when considering top schools, you should consider these two … and here’s why.” It’s quite another to then insist that it SHOULD be top 10 OR ELSE and cherrypick your data. </p>
<p>We all get you love your school. We all love our schools. But your enthusiasm for Michigan doesn’t make Michigan “better” than it is, and it doesn’t take away from the fact that the student body of Michigan isn’t as uniformly “elite” as smaller privates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is not that Casper’s opinion was wrong as much as he has his facts mixed up. USNews does not pretend to rank universities; they pretend to rank the best COLLEGES. And, this where Casper was … confused: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, I wonder which undergraduate programs the esteemed Casper would have removed from the current top 6 to allow for the inclusion of Berkeley and/or Michigan. Would he have sent another letter to USNews if they had the audacity of proposing a ranking that left Stanford out of the top 6 but showed Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Berkeley, Penn, Michigan or a top ten Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Berkeley, Penn, Michigan, Columbia, MIT, Caltech, and Chicago? </p>
<p>This said, I doubt that many would object to see Berkeley ranked in the top 6 in the world in a ranking that CLEARLY indicates that it measures the entire university.</p>
<p>Heck, prehaps it is time for this forum to repeat the joyful exercise of ranking UNIVERSITIES (including UG and Graduate programs) in the United States. The first nine should be pretty easy, don’t ya think! </p>
<p>HYPS, Cal, Caltech, Columbia, Chicago, MIT … after that who knows!</p>
<p>I’ve been reading these debates for over a year now on CC. They’re interesting. I’m a University of Michigan grad student, and I can at least say by this time that I feel some of Alex’s pain…I don’t always agree with him. I’ve been in debates with family on some of the very subjects debated in this thread, and some of the criticisms of these top Public do get under my skin, especially the criticisms that are just plain wrong.</p>
<p>I find Hawkette’s last post particularly disturbing…by the way my undergrad was a small LAC, so I’ve experienced both huge public schools and much smaller environments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On your point 2, after experiencing the smaller classes of a LAC and the classes of Umich, it think a blanket statement on smaller classes as better is really unfortunate and untrue. Do I personally learn any more or less if I’m in a class of 40 vs. 10…personally it doesn’t matter to me. What I will say is that Michigan is way more efficient on many levels at giving its students a quality learning experience with larger classes. With the costs of Universities rising like crazy compared inflation, why is there a huge insistence that you much have a tiny class for a student to learn anything. Why make the point that a class of 15 is better than a class of 35?</p>
<p>On your point 3, have you ever been an engineer in an interview trying to desperately find job and be asked about the latest research in your field and all you can do is sit their clueless because you don’t know what the interviewer is talking about? I’ve been in this situation before I came to Umich. This is why I feel that research rep is critical. Profs can bring their research experience to courses that will be taken by juniors and seniors on a regular basis. These profs are experts, the students get instruction that is based on the newest research, and this instruction is critical for finding jobs and allowing student to get into grad school.</p>
<p>On your point 4, personally, I’ve never seen anything as good as Michigan job placement in engineering for undergrad. These undergrads are getting good jobs and internships even in this economy. Unfortunately, there is no part of the usnews undergrad rankings that includes employer assessment. This is a major omission as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>I do disagree with Alex in that I feel that Publics and Privates are really Apples to Oranges. This is reflected in financial aid issues for out-of-state students. It also reflected in a different philosophy for accepting students. The University of Michigan statement of purpose is to “Serve the state of Michigan”. They need to make the education available to students of the state. This may mean a higher acceptance rate, larger classes, and acceptances of students who are qualified but not the “sure bets” that a smaller school may have the luxury to admit.</p>