<p>Since costs are similar go for location and intended major.
Duke is tops in BME, but not as strong in other engineering disciplines. UMich is phenomenal for engineering. IMO, BME is quite limiting and too popular these days given future employment prospects in the discipline. I would prefer to major in a more traditional engineering discipline like mechanical, electrical or chemical engineering that would provide a graduate a larger employment base.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The amount of Berkeley and Umich pro-bias on these boards is quite amazing
[/quote]
and most deservedly warranted.</p>
<p>Haha - I'm glad to see Evil Asian Dictator and Hawkette spread the wealth and don't just pounce on Cornell with their outrageous Duke elitism.</p>
<p>I used to actually think quite highly of Duke. </p>
<p>What any young college seeker must understand is that people like Hawkette have a very narrowly defined concept of what is deemed valuable at a university. If a school does not fit into that box, it is not deemed different. It is deemed inferior (unless they are the sacred holy gods of all existence, HYPM). </p>
<p>It is unconscionable in such minds to even mention a public university (or a school that receives some public funding, such as Cornell) in the same breath as Duke. Thus, why Hawkette dragged out UNC as if it is in any way the equivalent of UMich. </p>
<p>If you look at those posted stats, very few actually suggest one school is intrinsically better than the other (only different), but Hawkette will post with the statement that one is superior, then back track by saying, "I'm just providing information for potential applicants", even though it's not the point of the thread at all. </p>
<p>Call this a personal attack if you want, but enough is enough of this slandering other schools to make Duke always come out on top. </p>
<p>I'm guessing the stats on stadium size won't be dragged out for this debate...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal, Umich's prestige and peer rankings are based off its graduate programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you think Duke's (and Harvard's and Stanford's and Yale's, and MIT's....) is NOT? :D</p>
<p>btw: why are folks attacking Hawkette? Just bcos she may prefer mid-sized private Unis (over large publics) doesn't make her opinion any more or less important than the rest. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you folks don't think UNC and UMich are peer schools, then you must be certifiably out of your minds. Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, UCLA and UVA make up the top 5 public universities in the country and they are viewed in equally high regard in the academic community and by employers. These 5 schools are as close to academic peers as you can get and all are terrific, cheap in-state options for those unwilling to shell out major bucks for private schools.</p>
<p>EAD. Of course your last statement took my comment completely out of context from what i was implying. Your last statement also proves what i meant about the elitist attitude of some people when it comes to private schools. The ug peer assessment report of Duke on USNWR is 4.4. The ug peer assessment report of Michigan is 4.5. Michigan has a higher PA than Duke. Therefore i call Michigan and Duke peers. You are confusing implied prestige with overall quality of a university. Who am i to argue with the experts who say the PAs of Duke and Michigan are almost the same? Naturally people like you and hawkette discount those numbers because they make Duke look something less than HYPSM and more like the best state schools. By the way, Berkeley's academic ranking is of a higher quality than Duke and Michigan. They have a PA of 4.8, right up there with HYPSM.</p>
<p>
How am I displaying an elitist "private school" attitude when I acknowledged the well-known excellence of the top 5 public universties in the country? You and Alexandre rely far too much on Peer Assessment, the most inaccurate and subjective US News study. Most college presidents only have insider info into the academic reputation and quality of maybe a handful of other colleges at most. Most senior officials in academica have clear biases and rely far too much on accomplishments/fame of faculty when assessing a school. This is why schools like Berkeley, Chicago and Columbia do well in PA when in reality, the true measures of the quality of an institution as it is relevant to undergraduates are the excellence of classroom teaching and the extent of students' interaction with faculty.</p>
<p>Berkeley may have dozens of Nobel Laureates and Fields Medal winners on its faculty but if they aren't dedicated to undergraduate classroom instruction or accessible at all to students, then their qualifications do nothing to enhance the academic experiences of the student body. This is especially true at the undergraduate level where students are still learning elementary concepts in their field of study and thus it is largely irrelevant whether Fenyman or a local state U PhD is teaching an intro Physics class.</p>
<p>Duke is more undergraduate-focused than Michigan because the influence of the graduate schools on the overall institution is less and it has a much better faculty/student ratio. Smaller classes with a more intelligent student body and profs dedicated to teaching create a more conducive environment to learning than a Nobel Laureate teaching a 500-student Intro class where half the students are either not present in class or just aren't interested in the subject matter at hand and the GSI has to lead a majority of the lectures because the prof is too busy with research or academic conferences.</p>
<p>IMO. the best statistic employed by US News to measure the impact of a school on a student after graduation and the quality of an individual's undergraduate college experience is Alumni Giving. Alumni who give back the most are the ones who feel that their college experience was critical to their personal growth and that their alma mater was instrumental in prepating them for the real world as well as setting them on a path to succeed. Duke's Alumni Giving is #3 and UMich isn't even in the top 25 as per my knowledge.</p>
<p>Alumni giving is always going to be higher at elitist private universities for many reasons. It had better be too. There is little to no money coming in from the state to support the university. by the way, how can you be so sure that the professors at Berkeley, for example, are not dedicated to ug teaching? I know you said the "if" word, but that implies you actually believe it to be the case. Did you attend Berkeley? As i've stated in the past, i believe you and hawkette discount the PA data because it shows that Duke is rated lower in that area than Berkeley and Michigan. They are also rated quite a bit lower than HYPSM. Can i assume you feel that those schools are worse than Duke for ug teaching as well? They very well might be, but perhaps Duke should try to improve their PA scores so they can be held up there with the best. Of course that takes a lot of money. Since they obviously have so much of it, there should be no problem achieving that higher PA. In the meantime Duke and Michigan are PEERS according to the PA results on USNWR. The same report you love to quote every other category but the one that makes Duke look like most of the other top schools that have been mentioned.</p>
<p>You are clearly biased against private universities since you keep referring to them as "elitist" without a logical reason. I don't see how Alumni Giving is related to state funding in any way. If UMich alumni are thoroughly satisfied with their collegiate experience, then they should be eager to donate money back to their alma mater down the line. It is clear that even in the best of state schools, a lot of students fall through the cracks and the success of a student can more often be credited to the personal drive and ambition of the individual rather than the academic support system or resources of the school.</p>
<p>I was just using the faculty of Berkeley as a just a mere example of how it is common for professors in state universities to be more involved with reasearch and professional development rather than teaching. I could be completely wrong about the Berkeley faculty, but I doubt it because the "sink or swim" atmopheres of many Berkeley classrooms has been corroborated by many of my acquintances and friends.</p>
<p>Obviously, I'm a little skeptical of a statistical parameter like PA, whose data contradicts the famililar notion of the ratings of the top universities which usually has HYPSM followed by the top Ivy/non-Ivy privates and then the top state schools. Also, like I have said, it is a subjective survey which functions as an approximation at best since no college presidents have a thorough understanding of the academic resources/faculty reputations of more than several institutions. Beyond that, these senior college officials rely primarily on guesswork and common perceptions of prestige. It's kind of surprising to you that you and Alexandre place so much stock in this flawed study. However, I guess it should be expected since this is the only statistic that corrborates your claims that Michigan is in the same league as Duke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley may have dozens of Nobel Laureates and Fields Medal winners on its faculty but if they aren't dedicated to undergraduate classroom instruction
[/quote]
Do profs win prestigious awards like Nobel prizes and Fields Medals because they are great teachers? It is these prestigious, visible awards that bring prestige and respect to a university's academic programs...I bet Duke is clammoring for its profs to win Nobel prizes as well to increase its prestige among academics not some obscure "Teacher of the Year" award.</p>
<p>Let's face it, all research universities strive for these achievements. Undergrad is secondary because undergrad is constant and hardly indistinguishable...there are hundreds of thousands of top students all over the country...so what sets universities apart? Sure they can point to their high scoring SAT undergrads, but they're a dime a dozen at all top colleges...show me something that distinguishes a university.</p>
<p>It's truly sad that you feel that way UCBChemEGrad but I suppose you are entitled to your own opinion. I don't consider these prize-winning faculty relevant to the prestige of an undergraduate education at all in comparison to other parameters like selectivity, student body strength, job placement and especially teaching quality. The primary mission of a college is to educate its students and prepare them to be self-sufficient in the real world. If a Nobel Laureate can help an institution accomplish this mission, then the school should "clamor" to hire him/her. It shouldn't be just because he/she is a leader in his field and supposedly this well help the image of the school. At the graduate level yes, the quality of research/innovation will be improved with the hiring of more Nobel Laureates and this will make the school more highly-regarded. However, if this happens at the expense of undergraduate teaching quality, then I would say that the presence of famous faculty is a bad thing for the school</p>
<p>LOL. EAD. Why do i get the feeling that there are no Nobel Laureates or Fields Medal winners at Duke? I am positive that if Duke had a higher PA or more famous people on its faculty you'd be bragging about that too. Duke is a great school. I never said it wasn't. But it seems that you and hawkette enjoy denigrating other schools because they can't possibly compare to Duke or other "private" universities. That's your right. It's also my right to disagree with you. This ends the discussion for me. Of course you can get in the last word if you'd like. I'm sure you will. :-)</p>
<p>It's truly sad that I feel that way? Haha...I could care less...but I'd be very surprised if Duke is pushing its profs to be better teachers...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do those colleges not have high PA scores? Are they not primarily research institutions, with big-time, world class grad programs? Don't they solicit Nobels, Fields, etc? Has anyone every accused Harvard of oustanding 'teaching quality'? Do their high scores contradict your "familiar notion" of whatever? Incidentlly, how can we measure "undergraduate teaching quality"?</p>
<p>fwiw: IMO, Alumni Giving is biased towards wealth of the incoming students -- the more money left by daddy in the trust fund means more ability to give back, even if it's only $100/yr. which gets counted bu USNews. Schools like the UCs which, for state political reasons, accept 33% Pell Grantees are at a decided disadvantage.</p>
<p>Lol, research universities, that includes Duke, hire faculty based on their ability to do research, some of these individuals will turn out to be great teachers ,but a much heavier weight is placed on their ability to publish in peer-reviewed journals.</p>
<p>Uh Duke is not known as much for its Grad unlike Umich.</p>
<p>Umich for ugrad = UNC for ugrad
Duke for Ugrad > Umich for Ugrad</p>
<p>A look at the cross-admits says it all.</p>
<p>"A look at the cross-admits says it all."</p>
<p>That people who wanted to go to Duke thought Michigan was still worth applying to, but not necessarily the other way around? Or to put it slightly differently, Michigan is at least comparable in the fields that Duke is known for, but Duke trails far behind in areas that Michigan is good at? Cross-admit statistics tells you nothing about the vast majority of students who only apply to one of the two schools, and I don't really see what it has to do with educational quality.</p>
<p>People shouldn't use statistics if they're not capable of understanding the inherent biases in them, or why they are particularly relevant.</p>
<p>"However, if this happens at the expense of undergraduate teaching quality, then I would say that the presence of famous faculty is a bad thing for the school"</p>
<p>By your logic, then, Harvard, Stanford, MIT wouldn't be good for undergrads, either. Your logic is really flawed in that you fail to apply consistent view points and arguments to a broad sample of schools. Rather, you seem intent on just improving Duke's image and coming up with controversial and inconsistent statements.</p>
<p>patlees88. It's quite obvious that people like EAD and lfecollegeguy feel that Duke is up there with HYPSM. To them for anyone to consider that a school like Michigan could be a peer to Duke is unconscionable. They just can't accept the fact that Duke is a great university, as is Michigan, but not quite up there overall with the Big 5. So to make themselves feel better, they routinely trash a university that is really more their peer than the above mentioned.</p>
<p>
What are you talking about? Harvard, Stanford and MIT have much more undergraduate focus than Michigan or Berkeley. I think these schools are known more for their graduate programs in comparison to Yale, Dartmouth or Duke but still have smaller class sizes and better retention rates than Berkeley or Michigan. I don't need to improve Duke's image through my statements because the numbers speak for themselves.</p>
<p>
People who wanted to go to Duke but still thought Michigan was worth applying to were using Michigan as a safety school in case Duke, or whatever other prestigious school they wanted to go to, didn't work out. The strength of the overall academic departments in Michigan and Duke is roughly similar. Duke doesn't "trail far behind" Michigan in any area and the same can be said when you look at it the other way around. The difference here is that Michigan is a big public research university whose faculty is more dedicated to publishing research that will be featured in educational journals rather than teaching their undergrads, at least in comparison to Duke. Duke has smarter students, smaller class sizes, more academic resources available per student and more professors who are dedicated to educating their undergrads. This translates to more "educational quality" in my opinion. The fact that a vast amount of cross admits choose Duke over Michigan if finances aren't an issue is a testament to Duke's reputation as an academic institution since UM is such a wonderful university.</p>
<p>
Yes, HYPSM are all which you accuse them to be yet they don't solicit prize-winning profs, do amazing research, have high PA scores, etc. at the EXPENSE OF UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING. PA is a flawed statistic since it's a subjective survey because most college provosts don't have insider info into more than a handful of schools. Undergraduate teaching quality can be measured by 3 factors: class sizes, strength of the students and the dedication of the teachers. All of these factors are conducive to a better learning environment.</p>
<p>
I don't believe hawkette or I have ever done this. We both have maintained that Michigan is an amazing academic institution. However, just like you find it appropriate to separate HYPSM and Michigan, we find the need to point out the clear differences between Michigan and Duke. The difference between Harvard and Duke is just as significant as the difference between Duke and Michigan.</p>