<p>I am one of the top students in my class and to my dismay I was wait listed from all the Ivies. I was accepted into Boston College and the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor, and I am torn between the two. I got into the Carroll School of Management at BC, but for U of M I would have to apply to Ross at the end of freshman year. I love the sports atmosphere at UM and the academics, but I feel it may be too large and it is too far from home because my family is very close (I live in CT). BC is in boston which is awesome, and the campus is the right size and beautiful, however itâs never on par with UM in rankings academically. In essence, which school has a better reputation academically in the US? Ad for job recruitment? I want to do consulting, possibly biomedical. Which school is the best for that? And what is the best thing to major in for consulting?</p>
<p>Iâm actually in the exact same position as you. Although I didnât apply to any ivies I was rejected by my #1 choice and wait-listed by my #2. </p>
<p>Here are the threads I posted addressing more or less the same problem:
<a href=âhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1313342-university-michigan-vs-boston-college-csom.html[/url]â>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1313342-university-michigan-vs-boston-college-csom.html</a>
<a href=âhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/business-major/1313359-university-michigan-vs-boston-college-csom.html[/url]â>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/business-major/1313359-university-michigan-vs-boston-college-csom.html</a></p>
<p>
tbh I personally feel that UM and BC are comparable at the undergraduate level (UM obviously being superior at the graduate level), with perhaps BC being slightly stronger simply based on a more undergraduate focus. But hey thatâs just me.</p>
<p>The Carroll School of Management is an excellent school. BCâs campus is nicer and its in Boston. They are comparable academicallyâŠBC is the âhotterâ school. I would lean towards BCâŠ</p>
<p>Class sizes will be much larger at UM and you will be paying tuition comparable to a private school. Go to BC undergrad and apply to Ross for MBA instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Econ comes to mind, but top consulting firms hire all types of majors; pedigree is first cut, and thatâs where Michigan trumps BC. AskJeeves:</p>
<p><a href=âUM%20obviously%20being%20superior%20at%20the%20graduate%20levelâ>quote</a>âŠ
[/quote]
</p>
<p>âŠwhich is where prestige arises.</p>
<p>Ross all the way!!!</p>
<p>Even though I love BC, I would DEFINITELY choose Michigan.
Iâve been to the Ross School of Business building. Itâs more than awesome.
I know someone who graduated from Ross and she got a job at A.T.Kearney (in NYC) right awayâŠ
Also, check this out.
[A.T</a>. Kearney Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay](<a href=âhttp://www.salarylist.com/company/AT-Kearney-Salary.htm]A.Tâ>A.t. Kearney Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay)
A.T. Kearney average salary is $110,772, median salary is $112,500 with a salary range from $48,000 to $510,000.</p>
<p>As far as majors:</p>
<ol>
<li>Mathematics</li>
<li>Engineering</li>
<li>Comp Sci</li>
<li>Economics</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I donât understand what the point of this statement is. The OP is seeking an undergraduate education (which I feel is comparable at BC and UMich), he is not applying to graduate programs.</p>
<p>Apologies on the late, semi-necro response.</p>
<p>^^Simple. For research Unis, âprestigeâ arises primarily from research, which essentially means grad programs. Even Harvard alums donât claim that H is known for its âundergrad educationâ and/or teaching. :D</p>
<p>Michigan has historically been considered the #2 public, just behind Cal Berkeley (and all of its Nobels earned by the grad programs). Thus, in the world of liberal arts academia, Michigan is well thought of.</p>
<p>OTOH, BC is a liberal-arts focused college with ~half of its students in âvocationalâ majors (Comm, Biz, Nursing, Educ); since vocational majors donât generate much prestige, BC and other similar colleges are ratings-challenged.</p>
<p>(Before you mention Wharton, you need to recognize that all Wharton undergrads receive a degree in Economics â a traditional liberal arts degree.)</p>
<p>None of this may matter to most undergrads, but the question was asked about âprestigeâ, and for certain jobs, prestige matters a lot (Wall Street and government, for example.)</p>
<p>For most undergrads, Iâd recommend a top private over a top public for the same money. But for those needing prestige, for whatever reason, publics like Cal-Berkeley and Michigan easily beat colleges ranked 30+.</p>
<p>bluebayou, I am a bit suprised by your dismissive remarks surrounding BCâs academics. Usually you present a more informed viewpoint.</p>
<p>Itâs been said before but Iâll repeat it, that while there are what appear to be strictly âvocationalâ majors (by the way, teaching and nursing were âprofessionsâ last I heard) it bears remembering that the liberal arts agenda to which BC adheres demands that ALL students â yes, even business majors â take a number of courses from the traditional liberal arts. That is because BC strives to educate the whole intellect, and a balanced array of divergent courses goes a long way to achieving that goal. BC is not producing one-dimensional graduates as voch-tech schools would do.</p>
<p>If BC can be faulted at all it would be due to the âappearanceâ it projects of âtrainingâ students for the âreal worldâ, rather than having them languish in the âivory towerâ reading the great philosophers (though they do that too!) â but, then again, isnât that what most (including Michigan!) universities do â that is they appreciate the realities of modern life and develop curricula to accomodate it?</p>
<p>Tough choice. i would pick BC if business is your goal because âa bird in handâŠâ. I donât think the differences in reputation and quality, etc are such that you should be focused on them. Itâs not like you are picking between Top U vs Neverheard of State College. Youâll get people who will argue adfinitum about which is âbetterâ.</p>
<p>@bluebayou</p>
<p>I think your points on prestige are fair, and by your measure, UM is more âprestigiousâ than BC (I wouldnât say more competitive, I expected to get into both and I did). However in the way you describe âprestigeâ it comes as being some trivial + superficial measuring stick. But if it determines whoever gets the job offer at some bulge bracket investment bank, I guess I canât necessarily argue against that.</p>
<p>Anyways I was addressing a different point. The OP mentioned something about UM having a much higher standard of academics than BC, and I responded by saying that I feel this perception is a) somewhat exaggerated, since I think the undergraduate standards are comparable, and b) largely fueled by UMâs second-to-none graduate programs, rather than the strength of the overall undergraduate liberal arts education.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also it seems that a lot of people are strictly comparing Ross to Carroll. There is no doubt that Ross is the superior program, however as OP pointed out, he did not gain direct/preferred admission into said program. I thin</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Perhaps you donât approve of the word, âvocationalâ, but it is standard terminology in the education field.</p>
<p>Regardless, I was giving my observations on one factor of prestige in academia, (of which others are free to disagree), but dismissive of BC it is not. (As an aside, I believe that all religious colleges get dinged by the secular academics, but that is a different issue.)</p>
<p>But before anyone disagrees with the liberal arts-vocational majors, they should check out ccâs premed thread and ccâs prelaw thread wrt to majoring in what academia considers a vocational major as opposed to liberal arts. In short, liberal arts is better for professional school. Why would that be if was not considered more rigorous? Further, plenty of law school deans who classify biz and nursing as âvocationalâ.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps trivial to some, but published research is huge in the academic world. Itâs what results in tenure. It results in national and international prizes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is more than appearance. Philosophy, for example, gives course and major credit for working, for student advising⊠:)</p>
<p>The fact that CSOM students have to take a few Core courses is not relevant to academics. The relevant point is that research in say, marketing, is just not as highly valued by the prestige-hounds as research in organic chemistry or English Lit or Philosophy. The fact that Comm is in A&S is not much help either, since many other colleges put Comm in the J or b schools. Thus, itâs a guilt by association. lol</p>
<p>(Or compare Penn-Wharton and Penn-Nursing to BC. All Wharton undergrads receive an Econ degree. Penn-Nursing students also major in the liberal arts. Penn Arts & Science students are allowed to take classes in the Nursing school. Not so at BC, where its Nursing students have a completely different curriculum from A&S, and a liberal arts double is extremely difficult.)</p>
<p>Another way to view the academic lens is through the State of California Master Plan for higher education. (Not saying that California is a model, by any stretch, but the MP was designed by academics, and directed a Nobel prize winner.) When the MP was adopted, the UCs were charged with offering PhDs in liberal arts and basic research, and were precluded from âvocational fieldsâ (their term, not mine). instead, vocational majors were considered the responsibility of the Cal State system, as part of their âexcellenceâ. Thus, nearly all Cal States offer business, many have nursing, unlike the UCs, all of which are ranked in the top 100 Unis. Coincidence?</p>
<p>BC has excellent programs and offerings. But BC would have to do something a lot different to play the rankings game â not that it should nor desires to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I concur with most of your point #2. (There are a ~dozen Unis with equally top-notch grad programs.)</p>
<p>âPerhaps trivial to some, but published research is huge in the academic world. Itâs what results in tenure. It results in national and international prizes.â</p>
<p>I acknowledge that. However I just donât think that Iâm going to get more âbang for my buckâ by attending a large, state, research university rather than say a small LAC simply because some faculty department at the former writes a research paper that Iâm likely never going to read.</p>
<p>âBC has excellent programs and offerings. But BC would have to do something a lot different to play the rankings gameâ </p>
<p>Do you mean like having four of its junior faculty winning Sloan Fellowships this year�</p>
<p>You bet, leanid. All national honors and awards are awesome for prestige-hounds. </p>
<p>But your example also reinforces my position: those Sloan Fellowships were achieved in Arts & Sciences, the (traditional) liberal arts side of the BC house. And since BC is half non-(traditional) liberal arts (Iâll avoid the âvâ word to not offend others), only ~half of the faculty of a college of 9000 students are in position to win such awards.</p>
<p>Well, that bolsters my position too as it underscores BCâs quality, in that it was number 1 this year in Massachusetts (beating out even H and MIT) with four Sloans. Not bad when olny âhalfâ the faculty is even eligibleâŠ</p>
<p>Exactly right. IMO, BC is under-ranked for what it offers. And I was just trying to point out why I believe that to be the case, and will probably remain so. Which is ok, bcos I donât get the sense that BC cares much about national rankings. </p>
<p>(OTOH, perhaps they do care about their rank relative to that âotherâ Jesuit school in DC. lol.)</p>
<p>BC Carroll is pretty well recruited so I would probably choose that over Michigan if Ross isnât a guarantee. I would say BC and Michigan have comparable undergraduate prestige; UMich is thought of higher in the Midwest while in the Northeast BC will be more highly regarded.</p>