BU vs UMich

College Search & Selection
61

<p>"I would say UMich is a tier or two above McGill at the undergrad level. The quality of undergraduate public education in the US is superior to that in Canada. "</p>

<p>Funny, I heard the exact opposite from Ivy/Ivy-level faculty, students who have studied at both institutions, and a college classmate who now teaches at UBC. The last in particular said with few exceptions…the teaching/intellectual level at Canadian public unis is far higher than most except possibly the top-tier publics like Berkeley, UMich, and UVA. </p>

<p>"But one of my son’s science teachers has many friends teaching at BU and is convincing my son that it is highly undervalued and that particularly in science it is very good. And my son does like Boston. Oh well, more choices are good. "</p>

<p>First, the science departments at Brandeis, Tufts, and BC tend to be stronger than BU from what I’ve heard. </p>

<p>More importantly, is your son an aspiring scientist or pre-med? </p>

<p>One thing to be aware of is that most Boston area universities’ science departments like the ones I listed above tend to be more oriented towards pre-meds. While this does not necessarily affect the quality of the education, it could negatively affect your son’s college experience due to the cutthroat grade grubbing, greater unforgiving curves in intro science courses, and being around extremely “mercenary” students who aren’t really interested in learning anything beyond getting high grades necessary for med school admission. </p>

<p>Comparatively speaking, UMich’s science departments send their graduates to both medical and science PhD programs so there’s a greater mix of students genuinely interested in science vs the pre-professional pre-med type students friends TA undergrad courses keep ranting about.</p>

<p>"UMichigan academics probably comparable to Tufts in the Boston area. Michigan >BC or BU with much older acacdemic tradition with the Wolverines. BU, BC, and Northeastern are old rivals among themselves. "</p>

<p>Overall, UMich > Tufts, Brandeis, BC, BU, etc. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, they tend to be a little below MIT and Harvard.</p>

62

<p>

Interestingly, statistics bear this out. Tally so far:</p>

<p>Michigan affiliates: 6
BU affiliates: 0</p>

<p>Posts by Michigan affiliates: 26
Posts by BU affiliates: 0</p>

<p>Michigan undergraduates: 26,208
BU undergraduates: 18,283</p>

<p>

I’ve always found this line of reasoning somewhat difficult to follow. Would BU be better, perhaps, if it were magically transported to Montana? :confused: After all, it would be the best school in the state and perhaps the best in the Rockies region. </p>

<p>The other Boston schools are nothing to sneeze at, which I’m sure you know since you frequently recommend Northeastern; discounting a college because it is in the vicinity of Harvard but not as good is somewhat odd and smacks of insecurity.</p>

<p>It’s best to simply say that McGill is stronger than BU in most areas, which is more succinct and accurate.</p>

63

<p>McGill is decent but its not as good as most people think it is at the undergraduate level. It would not be better than BU academics wise but if you care about perception then yes McGill is viewed as better. Even the BU vs Michigan discussion- I would wager that the academics at both schools are the around the same- all the Michigan pom-pom boys love overrating an decent public school at the undergraduate level into a super elite school. Its not as if the academic curriculum at Michigan is specially crafted by a God. BU would have a standard and I am sure its at par with most schools in the US.</p>

<p>McGill would be around the same as UMich but thats it- A top 30-35 US school at most. University of Toronto is even better than McGill, people should do their research better and stop focussing on “perceptions” or subjective judgement.</p>

64

<p>"Overall, UMich > Tufts, Brandeis, BC, BU, etc. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, they tend to be a little below MIT and Harvard. "</p>

<p>***, UMich>Tufts lol. You mean UMich’s graduate departments are better than Tufts. Tufts is a rigorous LAC-type school which screws it up since most people only know famous research schools. I wonder what would be your view of Williams (a school whose departments cannot be ranked vs. UMich or Berkeley. Considering the fact that on a per capita basis students from Williams achieve way more on nearly every level than Mich students.</p>

65

<p>“Funny, I heard the exact opposite from Ivy/Ivy-level faculty, students who have studied at both institutions, and a college classmate who now teaches at UBC. The last in particular said with few exceptions…the teaching/intellectual level at Canadian public unis is far higher than most except possibly the top-tier publics like Berkeley, UMich, and UVA.”</p>

<p>The quality of a typical public undergraduate education in the US is superior to the quality of a typical public education in Canada. There are very smart students at both McGill and UMich, but the overall quality of UMich is higher at the undergrad level. At the graduate level, the two are about equivalent in terms of research.</p>

<p>I agree with sefago. Undergraduate programs at UMich and Tufts are comparable; there are very smart students at both of these schools.</p>

66

<p>

This is unbelievably false by the way. Michigan and Tufts are roughly on part, with the edge going to Tufts with regards to undergraduate education.</p>

67

<p>lesdiablesbleus, Michigan and Tufts are not comparable. Both are excellent in their own way, but Michigan’s peers are Cal, Cornell, Northwestern and Penn, whereas Tufts peers are Emory, Georgetown, Rice and Vanderbilt.</p>

68

<p>"***, UMich>Tufts lol. You mean UMich’s graduate departments are better than Tufts. Tufts is a rigorous LAC-type school which screws it up since most people only know famous research schools. I wonder what would be your view of Williams (a school whose departments cannot be ranked vs. UMich or Berkeley. Considering the fact that on a per capita basis students from Williams achieve way more on nearly every level than Mich students. "</p>

<p>I’d place Williams far above UMich as Williams is more comparable to the HYPSM level of the Ivies. However, Tufts is certainly no Williams…</p>

<p>Moreover, UMich is strong in nearly every department at the undergrad level comparable to the lower-level Ivies whereas Tufts is very uneven in this regard. For instance, its science departments are overwhelmingly oriented towards pre-meds rather than aspiring scientists and their engineering school can’t hold a candle to either UMich or McGill at the undergrad level. </p>

<p>They do have IR/poli-sci due to their ties with the Fletcher school, but other than that, they’re not that much different from any other SLAC below the lowest rungs of the Ivy level.</p>

69

<p>Rhodes Scholars by school. UMichigan 25, BU 8, Holy Cross 5, Tufts 4, Brandeis 2 , BC2. With only 2800 undergrads at Holy Cross vs Michigan’s 26000, BU 18000, BC 9-10,000, Holy Cross does a great job.</p>

70

<p>"lesdiablesbleus, Michigan and Tufts are not comparable. Both are excellent in their own way, but Michigan’s peers are Cal, Cornell, Northwestern and Penn, whereas Tufts peers are Emory, Georgetown, Rice and Vanderbilt. "</p>

<p>Subjective assessment. I personally dont consider UMich equivalent to cornell or NW. A tier below them. I subjectively consider Rice for example to be at par with Ivies and such schools but not UMich. I consider peers of UMich at the undergraduate level to be around USC/Tufts/WFU. </p>

<p>Considering the fact that students at Emory, Georgetown and Rice are statistically better than UMich, I wonder what makes UMich better or special at the undergraduate level than these colleges.</p>

71

<p>"Rhodes Scholars by school. UMichigan 25, BU 8, Holy Cross 5, Tufts 4, Brandeis 2 , BC2. With only 2800 undergrads at Holy Cross vs Michigan’s 26000, BU 18000, BC 9-10,000, Holy Cross does a great job. "</p>

<p>Not sure the number of Rhodes Scholars per school is a good metric as there may be a fair amount of academic/institutional politics involved. Knew a few classmates who ended up being screwed because one of the interviewers was a retired military officer with an open bias against institutions he perceived as too favorable to GBLT students. Granted, this was more than a decade ago and I hoped that interviewer has been replaced for the sake of subsequent Rhodes candidates.</p>

72

<p>“I’d place Williams far above UMich as Williams is more comparable to the HYPSM level of the Ivies. However, Tufts is certainly no Williams…”</p>

<p>Why do you think so? You think UMich is better than Tufts probably because it has better graduate/NRC departments. But there is no way for you to compare Williams to UMich except by your subjective opinion. It follows that rigorous LAC schools like Tufts who have the misfortune of having a few graduate schools placing them in the USNWR section would be seen as subpar because they dont shine at the graduate level despite providing their students with training possible superior to Mich or berkeley. </p>

<p>You are downplaying Tufts, Brandeis based on one factor while excluding that factor when you are comparing Williams to UMich. Doesn’t that look a bit weird . . . you are not performing a uniform comparison.</p>

73

<p>

Durhhh…Emory, Gtown and Rice are a fraction the size of Michigan. Expand Emory or Gtown to Michigan’s size and I doubt they’d have stronger student averages.</p>

<p>Michigan offers many more great academic program variety than Emory, Gtown or Rice…all of this in a fine college town instead of a mega city with big college athletics. That is what makes UMich better at the undergraduate level. Different strokes for different folks.</p>

74

<p>Michigan v. Tufts:
Hard to compare. Both are excellent schools, but this is apples to oranges. </p>

<p>Brandeis:
Has a decent business school, but not much else. Often discussed as a slightly overranked school.</p>

<p>Williams:
It is hard to compare Williams to a giant national university, but Williams (and Amherst) are still the cream of the LAC crop, and they are significant universities. Unless you are looking at a hard science degree, Williams (and amherst) are going to be better on most levels than any of the large public universities, including the great ones like Michigan.</p>

<p>Holy Cross:
Holy Cross is a good school, but by no means is it even in the sam epicture as Tufts/BC, let alone Michigan, and definitely not even in the same world as Williams. Not sure why that guy brought it up, as it is not even being discussed.</p>

75

<p>"You are downplaying Tufts, Brandeis based on one factor while excluding that factor when you are comparing Williams to UMich. Doesn’t that look a bit weird . . . you are not performing a uniform comparison. "</p>

<p>I’m sorry, but while Tufts and Brandeis are highly respectable schools, they are certainly are not ranked at the lowest rungs of the Ivy-types based on academic quality across the board. I already outlined the unevenness of Tufts’ overall academic quality in two areas. </p>

<p>As for Brandeis, other than English, history, math, and Near-East studies and their sciences which is also overwhelmingly geared towards pre-meds and not aspiring scientists…the rest of their programs are so-so. </p>

<p>Moreover, I had one friend who transferred from Brandeis with a 3.7+ college GPA with advanced coursework there who ended up struggling with C/C- level grades and even failing a few courses before floundering to graduation two years behind schedule with barely a 3.0 cumulative GPA from Oberlin.</p>

76

<p>Small liberal arts schools like Williams, Bowdoin and Holy Cross offer small class size,most if not all classes taught by full-time Profs. vs graduate assistants, and alumni networks with giving rates exceeding most Ivies. Michigan and CAL are huge by comparison with extensive graduate offerings.</p>

77

<p>“Durhhh…Emory, Gtown and Rice are a fraction the size of Michigan. Expand Emory or Gtown to Michigan’s size and I doubt they’d have stronger student averages.”</p>

<p>Expand Gtown, Emory, and Vanderbilt’s faculty size to make them research intensive. Find ways of spending more $$$ on research and these schools would have graduate standings at par with Mich/Berkeley. Michigan and berkeley get a significant part of their reputation from their size. </p>

<p>But Emory, Gtown and Rice or Vanderbilt were not set up to cater for large students- they are primarily liberal art type colleges with some professional schools and a bit of research. If their professors are dedicated to rigorously training their students as opposed to to conducting the same level of research as Mich/Berkeley- what says thats wrong.</p>

78

<p>Thats not the point of my argument though. I am just pointing out that opinions are subjective and usually unbalanced. For example Williams has no famous department except maybe art history, but everyone in " the know"knows its a great school. However the standards for comparison change quickly when you shift to tufts- which is a similar LAC. Does not make sense. Dartmouth has very few top 10 departments if any at all, but never have I heard Dartmouth being called academically below UMich before. Neither does Brown have anything distinguishable. The only thing special about them is that they are Ivies. Rarely have I heard the argument that Michigan’s or berkeley’s academics are superior to these schools. However people are quick to berate Rice/Vanderbilt and Emory which have several better ranked departments than Brown or Dartmouth.</p>

<p>So really I am confused and I would pose this question again and again on CC- why can people not stick to one uniform definition of academics?</p>

79

<p>"Small liberal arts schools like Williams, Bowdoin and Holy Cross offer small class size,most if not all classes taught by full-time Profs. vs graduate assistants, and alumni networks with giving rates exceeding most Ivies. Michigan and CAL are huge by comparison with extensive graduate offerings. "</p>

<p>Regarding graduate offerings, keep in mind that the close faculty student interaction combined with high academic standards at the topflight small LACs means that many upper-level and even some intermediate undergrad courses at such institutions may be comparable to graduate courses at Research I universities. </p>

<p>A reason so many friends from my LAC thrived in graduate school…including many Ivy/Ivy-types like Berkeley and MIT compared to those who graduated from larger research 1 universities including many Ivies.</p>

80

<p>

Because people study different things…prefer different things, etc.</p>

<p>There are only a handful of schools that offer tremendous depth across the entire range of academic disciplines.</p>