Columbia University vs. University of Michigan

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
61

<p>

</p>

<p>If we are going to be arguing about factors that change how people perceive a school, then like you stated we would take into account the quality (however we define it) of the student body. Perhaps perception of a university affects employment opportunities of the students there but that again tells us nothing about the actual school.</p>

<p>Most of your arguments in favor of Columbia have been based on the quality of the student body, but this is an unfair argument to make. Michigan is a public institution with a vast amount of resources. It isn’t in the business of making class sizes artificially small but rather trying to graduate as many people as it’s resources allow, without severely affecting the research objectives of the University. If Michigan historically had only accepted classes of 500 people each, then would you not agree that that would make it a more selective institution? If selectivity is related to strength of a student body (whether by correlation or causation) then Michigan would have a stronger student body relative to it’s current one. It will have done this without making any fundamental changes to the institution itself. It then seems reasonable to assume that selectivity or strength of student body do not tell us any real information about the quality of a University. </p>

<p>If we accept that strength of a student body is not a quality of a university, and if we assume that career placement is derivative of the strength of the student body (possibly not true), then you have not in any way proven that Columbia > Michigan.</p>

62

<p>Wow…where to start LazyKid? You are confusing selectivity with quality and reputation. That is not uncommon for the “younger crowd”. Columbia is definitely more selective than Michigan, and its students are, on average, stronger academically. I never claimed otherwise, although the extent to which Columbia’s student body is stronger is hard to ascertain since Columbia does not release a Common Data Set Report and they are notorious for not including admissions data of the General Studies and Nursing schools in their overall admissions statistics. </p>

<p>Regardless of how selective Columbia really is, the fact of the matter is, not many people in the real world will judge a person based on where they went to college. There are way too many gifted people who attended sub-par universities and way too many duds who attended excellent universities, and people with experience recruiting talent (be it adcoms at graduate schools or corporate recruiters) know that. </p>

<p>I also disagree that Columbia students are more “intellectual” than Michigan students. You will seldom find a more intellectual campus or town than Michigan/Ann Arbor. You must have let your preconceptions of Michigan (and of more selective universities) influence your judgement. Again, it is not uncommon for younger people to be intimidated by something as insignificant as a university’s acdeptance rate. That will not impress more mature audiences, I assure you.</p>

<p>This said, like I stressed above, selectivity and quality/reputation are not the same. The primary questions to ask oneself are:</p>

<ol>
<li>Does one receive a better education at Columbia than at Michigan?</li>
</ol>

<p>That cannot be measured. Both universities have distinguished faculties across all academic fields and are known for having very strong and innovative curriculae. It is up to the individual to make the most of the experience at college, but clearly, the sky is the limit at those two universities.</p>

<ol>
<li>Does Columbia have a stronger reputation than Michigan?</li>
</ol>

<p>Not according to any survey I have seen. The Peer Assessment score of undergraduate institutions conducted by the USNWR rates Columbia (4.6/5.0) and Michigan (4.5/5.0) roughly the same. The couple of general population surveys conducted by Gallup also rates the two schools roughly the same. Obviously, Columbia is going to have a stronger reputation than Michigan on the East Coast and Michigan a stronger reputation than Columbia in the Midwest. Both have potent reputations on the West Coast and internationally. Reputation according to the masses will favor Michigan thanks to its very popular athletics programs. Reputation among the highly educated would be roughly equal since reputation is almost entirely derived from graduate programs and both universities excel in that domain.</p>

<ol>
<li>Do companies recruit more actively at Columbia than at Michigan?</li>
</ol>

<p>Again, there is no corporate survey that suggests Columbia is more highly regarded than Michigan. Companies recruit just as actively at Michigan as they do at Columbia, though it must be mentioned that Michigan attracts a more diverse range of companies. The major BB IBanks and Management Consulting Companies recruit as highly at Michigan as they do at Columbia, but you have many companies that recruit at Michigan that do not recruit at Columbia. </p>

<ol>
<li>Do graduate schools give preference to Columbia alums over Michigan alums?</li>
</ol>

<p>Since both universities are regarded as peers in academe, it is highly unlikely that a candidate from Michigan will be given less credit than a candidate from Columbia, assuming the two have comparable credentials. </p>

<ol>
<li>Does Columbia have more resources availlable to undergraduate students than Michigan?</li>
</ol>

<p>Michigan’s endowment stands at $7.8 billion. Columbia’s comes close, though I think it is slightly lower than Michigan’s. As such, both universities are very well off. From a per-capita point of view, Michigan has 41,000 students while Columbia has 28,000 students. Columbia’s endowment per capita is slightly larger than Michigan’s, but Michigan also receives hundreds of millions of dollars in state appropriations annually. Both have huge libraries and incredible research opportunities for undergrads. I would say that both universities offer unlimited resources to undergrads, but in both schools, undergrads must take the initiative to find those resources.</p>

<p>Now I reiterate my initial comment in post #52; I believe that Columbia has the edge over Michigan, but that edge is insignificant. I would rate Columbia anywhere between #6 and #9 in the nation while Michigan would fall somewhere between #10 and #17.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree with this statement. From my educational experiences so far, from elementary school to college, I learned a great deal from my classmates. The reason I was very challenged from my college experience was that many kids were very serious students who asked thoughtful questions in classrooms and who, many times, seemed to enjoy intellectual challenge and learning. This was a big learning difference from my high school, where over 90% of kids weren’t motivated at all and I’d bet on average, kids at my high school could not care to know who the senators of the state we lived in were. The point is, the caliber of student body - the ones you are going to spend and study with for four years of your 20s, do constitute large portion of shaping your overall educational experience. That is not to say that U of Michigan’s student body is bad or anything, I just claimed that Columbia’s student body is top notch and one would likely to receive a very rigorous, intellectually challenging education both in and outside of classrooms at Columbia.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Regardless of the fact that Michigan is a public institution, it does not change the fact that Columbia is significantly more selective. Let’s face it - there are tons of private schools that are not very selective, or at least, not even close to as selective as Columbia. Look at Columbia’s NYC rival: NYU. NYU is private, yet, is not nearly as selective as Columbia. I think Michigan should not be compared to Columbia at undergraduate level. Look at the U.S. News Rankings. If one is to compare Michigan to, say, USC, Tufts, Boston College, UVA, or UNC, I think we have a more appropriate comparison. Columbia is a peer of Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, and the like.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We live in a world in which branding is very powerful, and often times, the branding is positively correlated to the exclusivity of the product. For instance, most people would agree that Ferrari is more desirable, exclusive, and prestigious compared to Porsche. Why? Ferrari is more exclusive, and it is because there is a higher bar of entry: higher price tag. Now, I would argue that Ferrari is not worth 100k additional dollars over Porsche 911 in terms of quality of product, regardless, Ferrari is just much more exclusive and exotic.</p>

<p>Or, look at the jobs/companies. Even if there may not be much salary difference between working at Deloitte Consulting or McKinsey, most in the know would agree that McKinsey is far more prestigious. McK’s barrier of entry is higher than Deloitte, by several notches.</p>

64

<p>“… although the extent to which Columbia’s student body is stronger is hard to ascertain since Columbia does not release a Common Data Set Report and they are notorious for not including admissions data of the General Studies and Nursing schools in their overall admissions statistics.”</p>

<p>Not including admissions data on a significant number of students is why I have to question exactly how strong the Columbia student body is overall. It seems to me that practices like this are just another example where top privates are jobbing numbers to improve their standings/ratings.</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Only visited Michigan once. Michigan just appeared to be an energetic, down-to earth, ‘regular’ and traditional atmosphere. Students there just looked like regular college students. Columbia and Harvard gave me an intense aura of intellectualism stemming out of hardcore students who all seemed to surpass my level of intellect and talent by a mile.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree. To illustrate my point, I am not sure if you are familiar with the world of law firms in NYC. Within the circle of most lawyers, there clearly exists tiers of law firms. Wachtell, Cravath, S&C are tops, and lawyers coming out of these firms have superior exit opportunities and get a lot of respect, from both lawyers and recruiters. Yet, most Big Law NYC firms pay associates similar amount of money. Regardless of this fact, since certain law firms are more selective than others, they are deemed to be more elite. Law firms such as S&C or Cravath are known to be feeding ground into the most elite government agency jobs, top investment banking jobs, and other prestigious in-house corporate attorney jobs. </p>

<p>Or, one could say, since certain law firms are more elite than others, these firms attract more applicants and can choose to beef up their selectivity. </p>

<p>Whatever the sequence of that may be, the point is selectivity and prestige are positively correlated.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Alexandre, I know a couple of kids from my high school who went to Indiana University and got jobs at Goldman and Deutsche Bank IBD, respectively. Yet, I knew tons of IB-wannabes from my Ivy UG who failed to make a cut at any IBD. What does that mean? </p>

<p>All that means is that employers care a lot about many factors beyond one’s academic credentials: such as personality, interviewing skills, work experience, so on. </p>

<p>I actually think one’s chances of making it to IBD is greater out of Michigan than Columbia, all else equal. At Columbia, you would be struggling to make it to middle of the class due to heavier competition and your competition is of highest caliber.</p>

<p>At Michigan, you could have no trouble getting 3.5+ and position yourself for interviews at top firms. I am aware that even if you went to Harvard, if your GPA is 3.0, you don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting interviews from any top consulting or banking firms. So, in that regard, going to Michigan could actually work in your favor.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Alexandre, I know many people from Columbia Law School who went to no-name UGs. Some kids went to schools such as University of Southern Alabama, etc. Yet, they all made it to a top law school. Grad schools, from my impression, don’t care about the prestige of your undergraduate. For med/law schools, they care only about GPA + MCAT/LSAT. For MBA, your work experience trumps all other factors. </p>

<p>I think attending a more prestigious institution isn’t a dominant factor in making you or breaking you in your future career or success. But, for certain fields, such as law, IBD, or management consulting, attending a more prestigious institution can work in your favor if you play the cards right. There are no guarantees, however. And, I know that U of Michigan is a good school and one’s success will not be limited by attending Michigan over Columbia. But, that is not same as saying Columbia and Michigan’s prestige difference doesn’t exist.</p>

66

<p>For me, Columbia would be a no-brainer. Michigan has a great reputation but there’s no way around this, Columbia is a cut above. You will always regret not going to one of the top 5 schools in the world. Also, living in NYC in college is a very different experience from living in ann arbor - its a great college city but NYC is a different animal. You’d definitely get a more traditional experience in Michigan - if that’s important to you, then you have to do some thinking. Otherwise, Columbia is better by just about every other measure (yes, including the tuition cost , since the ROI on a Columbia education is going to be much higher than Michigan).</p>

67

<p>"You will always regret not going to one of the top 5 schools in the world</p>

<p>I would agree with the above comment. Not sure what it has to do with Columbia, but it was a good thought.</p>

68

<p>Uh…</p>

<p>Harvard
Yale
Stanford
Columbia
Oxford</p>

<p>you can debate several others like INSEAD, LSE, CIT, but its in that league. UMIch isn’t.</p>

69

<p>Harvard
Yale
Stanford
Columbia
Oxford</p>

<p>This looks like a multiple choice. Here is the question: Which of the above schools is the outlier?</p>

70

<p>haha you crack me up. did you get rejected from Columbia or something?</p>

71

<p>Jgerson, Columbia and Michigan are in the same league. The top 5 universities in the US are:</p>

<p>Harvard
MIT
Princeton
Stanford
Yale. </p>

<p>Globaly, Cambridge and Oxford are also better than Columbia. Clearly, Columbia does not belong in the top 5. In fact, I do not know of a single global ranking that has Columbia in the top 5.</p>

<p>Also, INSEAD is purely a MBA program and LSE is not in the same league of Columbia or Michigan, unless you are looking at Economics departments. I am not sure how those two popped in there as both are very limited academically. LSE’s endowment is a whoping 80 times (EIGHTY TIMES) smaller than Michigan. The university is bankrupt. Incidently, I was given an unconditional offer to attend LSE back in 1992, but I turned them down flat after visiting their joke of a campus. I was also admitted into Columbia, but my mother (an alumna) recommended against going there. </p>

<p>“you can debate several others like INSEAD, LSE, CIT, but its in that league. UMIch isn’t.”</p>

<p>Tell that to the hundreds of university presidents, the majority of which seem to rate Columbia and Michigan in the same exact league for their reputations as undergraduate institutions.</p>

72

<p>“Clearly, Columbia does not belong in the top 5.”</p>

<p>Saying “clearly” doesnt make it so. I will be the first to admit that rankings are subjective - to a point. You’ll have a very hard time finding non invested people arguing that Columbia and umich are in the same league. that’s not to bash Umich - its a great school - it’s just not on the same level in terms of the accomplishments of faculty and past alumni, and exit opportunities for current undergrads, which is what i think we’re talking about here. Just as a comparison here is a list of notable Columbia people (it includes Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Obama, FDR and dozens of nobel laureates, etc.). UMich just cant compare. </p>

<p>[List</a> of Columbia University people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Columbia_University_people]List”>List of Columbia University people - Wikipedia)</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>99% of people on earth would strongly disagree with your statement.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Columbia is an eqaul peer of schools such as Yale or Princeton. Princeton has slight edge in ‘wow’ factor, and Harvard has the most prestigious brand on earth. However, in term so undergraduate school quality, caliber of student body, and prestige, Columbia is right there with Princeton and Yale, with Harvard being the undisputed king.</p>

<p>I highly disagree with your rationale that outside of HYP, all Ivies = U of Michigan. That is flat out wrong.</p>

<p>There is a much smaller difference in student caliber in say, between students at Harvard and Brown, compared to students at Brown and U of Michigan. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a much more plausible and acceptable grouping than, say, grouping Columbia and U of Michigan in the tier.</p>

74

<p>“99% of people on earth would strongly disagree with your statement.”</p>

<p>“You’ll have a very hard time finding non invested people arguing that Columbia and umich are in the same league.”</p>

<p>LazyKid and jgerson, can you show me a survey that proves your points? I have already provided several that show that most people very much consder them to be peers, including the USNWR peer assessment rating which is precisely an opinion poll. The most part, you are passing off your personal opinion as fact. Try to back it up with tangible facts.</p>

75

<p>Alexandre, what survey did you show me? if only saying something made it so, id be driving an RX8 while being pleasured by minka kelly as we speak.</p>

76

<p>haha… and by “rx8” i mean “rs8”. big difference. still good with minka kelly, though.</p>

77

<p>USNWR PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE OF UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTIONS (out of 5):
Harvard University 4.9
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.9
Princeton University 4.9
Stanford University 4.9
Yale University 4.8
University of California-Berkeley 4.7
California Institute of Technology 4.6
Columbia University 4.6
Cornell University 4.6
Johns Hopkins University 4.6
University of Chicago 4.6
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 4.5
University of Pennsylvania 4.5
Brown University 4.4
Duke University 4.4
Dartmouth College 4.3
Northwestern University 4.3
University of Virginia 4.3
University of California-Los Angeles 4.2
Carnegie Mellon University 4.1
Rice University 4.1
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 4.1
University of Wisconsin-Madison 4.1
Washington University-St Louis 4.1
Emory University 4.0
Georgetown University 4.0
Georgia Institute of Technology 4.0
University of Texas-Austin 4.0
Vanderbilt University 4.0</p>

<p>GALLUP POLL (reputation among the masses)

  1. Harvard
  2. Stanford University
  3. Yale University
  4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  5. Princeton University
  6. University of California-Berkeley
  7. University of Notre Dame
  8. Duke University
  9. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
  10. University of California-Los Angeles</p>

<p>GALLUP POLL (reputation among the highly educated)

  1. Harvard University
  2. Stanford University
  3. Yale University
  4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  5. Princeton University
  6. University of California-Berkeley
  7. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> Number One University in Eyes of Public](<a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public)</p>

78

<p>

</p>

<p>This list suggests that some people in the study may perceive Notre Dame, UC Berkeley, U of Michigan, UCLA to be better than Cal Tech, Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, U of Chicago, Northwestern, Georgetown, and Johns Hopkins…</p>

<p>All this says is that there are lots of lay people out there in this country who are very ignorant and clueless. And, they’re likely to follow football and think Notre Dame is like god.</p>

<p>In semi-educated circles in major cities, or in NYC at least, Ivies, Duke, Stanford, and MIT are tops. There is a big difference between Columbia and Michigan. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This list is the opinion of academics. Hence, Michigan would score high because it is a large research university with a lot of top faculty doing tons of research. This has nothing to do with the undergraduate student body.</p>

<p>When I was applying to law schools last year, within my group of friends at my college, I told them that I got into Columbia Law. The reaction was “Wow!! Congrats” “That’s sick”. A couple of girls actually gave me a hug.</p>

<p>When I told people at my college I got into U of Michigan Law School, the reaction was “Isn’t that a party school?” “They have hot girls” “Didn’t you say you were applying to top law schools?” And so on.</p>

<p>People at my college didn’t know that Michigan was top 10 law school, and were generally surprised to hear that Michigan had a top law school. Meanwhile, Columbia was generally considered to be in equal rank as Harvard or Yale Law.</p>

<p>I noticed the same thing back in my high school. When kids were applying, most top students intended to go to Ivies, Stanford, or Duke. The types who enrolled at U of Michigan were generally top 20-30% type of kids with SATs in 1300s - respectable class rank, but not the top. The very top kids viewed Michigan as a safety school, fwiw.</p>

<p>Fair nor not, that is the general perception that I was exposed to. And, I just can’t help but think that an Ivy school with 8% acceptance rate is much more elite than a large research state university with 50% acceptance rate.</p>

79

<p>LazyKid -well you sure now convinced all of us. I mean look at your deep research on the subject which is what your people at your college think. That is way more meaningful that a bunch of 'ol academics at top institutions.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Ahh young grasshopper…the world is a very big place.</p>