BU vs UMich

College Search & Selection
101

<p>

</p>

<p>Because your criteria for comparing universities is not clearly defined. This what you said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But there is no proof of this. The best I can go by is the quality of undergrads at Michigan and at michigan is not impressive. And this is way below that at Dartmouth and company even in science and engineering classes.</p>

<p>

[quote]
No offense Sefago, but anybody who does not count Michigan among the top universities in the nation is ignorant. There is no clear cut top 10 or top 25 university, but no educated person with true experience would claim that a school like Dartmouth is superior to Michigan. And this is not a recent development either. Michigan was considered among the academic elite (arguably among the top 5 universities in the US) in the late 19th century.

[quote]
</p>

<p>No offense taken. I still dont count Michigan in the top 20 at least for undergraduate education, excluding liberal art colleges. Dartmouth is superior to Michigan, period. I dont think much can be done to convince me otherwise- I have seen enough of Michigan to form my own conclusions. I am sure the period you are talking about is the US NEWS academic peer rating. And these “academic elites” are not judging the undergraduate program at UMich- they are judging the whole university. Considering the fact that a large number of academics would have done graduate school/post-doc at Berkeley, UMich or have collagues who have done so e.t.c its pretty easy to see the obvious bias.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In all fairness to Dartmouth- Michigan is close to 6.5-7 times its size. Considering the fact that Dartmouth students want to stay in the Northeast as opposed to the south/midwest (where most engineering firms are located), it would be a waste of time and money for most companies to come to Dartmouth. Also the numbers of Dartmouth ppl at MC and Ibanks would be larger than Mich more likely even by raw numbers alone </p>

<p>I think personally I have been offtopic myself. Back to topic though </p>

<p>BU vs UMich</p>

102

<p>“Because your criteria for comparing universities is not clearly defined.”</p>

<p>Actually Sefago, my criteria have often been laid out. Quality of faculty, quality of facilities, breadth and depth of curriculum, academic reputation in academe and professional recruitment on campus. On a more abstract level, academic versitality and diversity, research activity and intellectual vitality on and off campus play a part.</p>

<p>“The best I can go by is the quality of undergrads at Michigan and at michigan is not impressive. And this is way below that at Dartmouth and company even in science and engineering classes.”</p>

<p>That is a single criteria Sefago, and although Dartmouth does edge Michigan in this regard, the edge is neither significant, nor meaningful. That is not to say that the quality of a student body is not a criterion in determining quality of academics offered at a university, but it is not the only one, nor does it outweigh all other factors, individually or combined. I also find it pretty arrogant when somebody is not impressed by the quality of the Michigan student body. There are literally thousands of undergraduate students of the highest caliber enrolled at Michigan at any point in time. Since 1993, Michigan has produced more Fullbright scholars (350) than any university in the US save Harvard, Yale and Cal. I think Dartmouth produced 80 or so, which is also impressive considering its size. In that same period, Michigan has enrolled more students into top graduate programs than all but 4 or 5 universities in the nation. Even as a ratio of the total student population, Michigan (which has a higher ratio of non Arts and Science students than most elite universities) would rank among the top 20 universities (LACs not included as we are talking about national research universities). But in terms of absolute numbers, Michigan would definitely be among the top 10 and arguably among the top 5. How can that be if the students were truly not “impressive”?</p>

<p>“No offense taken. I still dont count Michigan in the top 20 at least for undergraduate education, excluding liberal art colleges. Dartmouth is superior to Michigan, period. I dont think much can be done to convince me otherwise- I have seen enough of Michigan to form my own conclusions.”</p>

<p>Fair enough. </p>

<p>“I am sure the period you are talking about is the US NEWS academic peer rating. And these “academic elites” are not judging the undergraduate program at UMich- they are judging the whole university. Considering the fact that a large number of academics would have done graduate school/post-doc at Berkeley, UMich or have collagues who have done so e.t.c its pretty easy to see the obvious bias.”</p>

<p>Not really Sefago. I am fairly certain that a very small percentage of the people behind the Academic reputation rating attended Michigan or Cal or have loyalty to those institutions for whatever other reason. I am surprised that you accuse people who think highly of Michigan of being biased. And even if it were so, aren’t those who think highly of other universities also biased?</p>

<p>“In all fairness to Dartmouth- Michigan is close to 6.5-7 times its size. Considering the fact that Dartmouth students want to stay in the Northeast as opposed to the south/midwest (where most engineering firms are located), it would be a waste of time and money for most companies to come to Dartmouth. Also the numbers of Dartmouth ppl at MC and Ibanks would be larger than Mich more likely even by raw numbers alone.”</p>

<p>Do you have proof to back your claim? I would say that the placement rate (qualified students applying for such jobs who actually get offers) for Michigan students is as high as it is for Dartmouth students, but I have no figures to validate this claim. I do have raw placement figures for Ross students (which enrolls the lion’s share of Michigan students interested in such careers), and they are pretty impressive, but as long as Dartmouth does not publish placement figures, we will never know how it stacks up against Michigan. I actually ran a quick comparison between Ross and Wharton from 2006 until 2010 just a couple of days ago. I looked at the placement numbers into 9 large IBanks (Barclays since 2009, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers until 2008, Morgan Stanley and UBS) and 4 major Management Consulting firms (Bain, BCG, Booz and McKinsey). Over that 5-year period, 30% of Wharton students were placed in those 13 companies, compared to 20% of Ross students. I doubt Dartmouth had higher placement numbers into those companies than Wharton, which means that their placement figures were probably not much more (if at all) impressive than Michigan’s.</p>

103

<p>I wrote a bunch of stuff but I think I will pass and withdraw myself from this lol until later.</p>

104

<p>“A key question: what are you likely to learn in a UMich classroom that you couldn’t learn in a BU classroom?”</p>

<p>The same thing could be said for virtually any school in this country with that simplistic statement. Certainly Boston College would be included in that same train of thought…</p>

105

<p>My college friends would agree with lesdiablesbleus’s list. Tier 4 and tier 5 can be merged though. I don’t completely understand why people when went to school 1 on this board act like they just got slapped in the face when people post something like the average student at school 2 is smarter than the average student at school 1. Either they don’t understand that top students at most of the top 50 schools are about the same in terms of smartness and feel the need to defend their own school, or they were average students (and so did get slapped in the face).</p>

<p>“I looked at the placement numbers into 9 large IBanks (Barclays since 2009, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers until 2008, Morgan Stanley and UBS) and 4 major Management Consulting firms (Bain, BCG, Booz and McKinsey). Over that 5-year period, 30% of Wharton students were placed in those 13 companies, compared to 20% of Ross students. I doubt Dartmouth had higher placement numbers into those companies than Wharton, which means that their placement figures were probably not much more (if at all) impressive than Michigan’s.”</p>

<p>Alexandre - I don’t think you really understand what makes undergraduate programs at Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, Stanford, and MIT special. Yes, there are very smart people at top flagships and top privates, but the concentration of smart people is a lot higher at schools like Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, etc. Your placement numbers are misleading (or incomplete to say the least). First, it doesn’t say whether the students were placed into front office, middle office, or back office. Second, since you use banks and management consulting firms as the criteria for success, I don’t think you understand that the very top students gun for elite buy-side firms like Bain Cap, Blackstone, Bridgewater, Citadel, etc. Investment banks and management consulting firms are usually the plan B for student at Wharton, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, etc. Top employers (which is the best measure of percentage of students going into certain firms) at Wharton, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, Duke, etc. are Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, etc. Can the same be said of UMich and other top public schools? No. And, don’t give me the “students at UMich aren’t as interested in making money” argument. Don’t misunderstand me, the top hundred or 5-10% of students at UMich are just as capable as the to 5-10% at any Ivy. The average student at UMich isn’t as smart as the average one at Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, etc.</p>

106

<p>I went the #3 law school in the US (sometimes #2), and I’m not ashamed to say the average student there is not as smart as the average one at Yale Law School, although the top 10% at both law schools are about equal; it’s just the truth. Same goes for colleges.</p>

107

<p>^ true. However, I also think a major problem comes from people not knowing what goes on in a school and are quick to rank it. I am sure Alexandre had a great academic experience in UMich to place it so highly. Other students at Emory or Vandy or tufts might feel too that they got a rigorous education and deserve to be a tier above certain schools. But sometimes you have to avoid bias in forming opinions.</p>

<p>Tier 4 and tier 5 can certainly being merged, with Northwestern, JHU, Berkeley and Rice (A school of 8,000 with a huge research citation impact) being the strongest in the group.</p>

108

<p>I agree with IvyPBear. I attend Dartmouth, and I won’t hesitate to admit that the average student at Harvard is smarter than the average student at Dartmouth. The top 10% of the students are very much comparable though simply from the fact that they usually end up at Harvard Med, Mayo, Yale Law, HBS (straight from undergrad), Wharton (straight from undergrad), Blackstone, Bain Cap, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Stanford statistics PhD, etc. You can replace “Dartmouth” with “Columbia,” “Princeton,” “MIT,” “Penn,” “Duke,” “Berkeley,” “Williams,” “UMich,” “UVa,” “Rice,” etc. and the statement would be just as true.</p>

109

<p>I’m sure Alexandre is a smart person and had a great experience at UMich. My comment was not referring to UMich specifically. I think the most obvious example of what I was saying is Cornell. Whenever someone insinuates that the average student at Cornell is not as smart as one at Columbia. A frenzy starts, and defenders pops out from everywhere to point out how Cornell CAS has SAT comparable to Columbia, how Cornell engineering is the best in the Ivy League, how the president of Czech Republic is an alum, and other facts irrelevant to whether the question of whether the average student at Cornell is as smart as the average one at Columbia.</p>

110

<p>Once again a thread on CC has totally strayed away from it’s original discussion. :-(</p>

111

<p>will not be the first nor the last time. Deal with it</p>

112

<p>“A key question: what are you likely to learn in a UMich classroom that you couldn’t learn in a BU classroom?”</p>

<p>The same thing could be said for virtually any school in this country with that simplistic statement. Certainly Boston College would be included in that same train of thought… </p>

<p>It might be a “simplified” way to look at it, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant. In fact it’s about as relevant as it can get. All of this hand-wringing over which school is better academically (not just Michigan vs. BU, but all the other comparisons on cc), and you concede that there really isn’t a significant difference in what someone could learn at Respectable College X and Respectable College Y? That’s the house of cards that collegeconfidential is built upon…that you can actually learn something in the classrooms at Cornell that you can’t learn at Kansas State.</p>