<p>Cornell and Michgan in the sme State?</p>
<p>I can't believe EAD got waitlisted or rejected from Cornell. </p>
<p>For all the endless attacks he's leveled against the school, that would be quite an intriguing psychological revelation if it is true.</p>
<p>I got accepted to Cornell by the way but it would be a stupid personal attack to launch against me regardless. A lot of colleges today engage in yield protection and don't admit students who they feel are "overqualified" and "unlikely to attend". Penn, for instance, is one of these schools. My friend was waitlisted at the College of Arts and Sciences at Penn but was admitted to Harvard.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi, for the 5 billionth time, Michigan has higher rated departments than Duke because of the superior strength of its graduate schools. At the undergraduate level, Duke is better than Michigan because of smaller class sizes, higher selectivity, stronger student body, more academic resources available per student, stronger undergraduate focus, better job placement and better grad school placement. It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you refer to people who have a different opinion than you as "elitist" and refuse to directly respond to criticisms. You're being very stubborn.</p>
<p>He is not only stubborn but biased and the logic of his arguments are nebulous at best.</p>
<p>"This may come as a newsflash but there is more to the corporate world than investment banking."</p>
<p>I certainly agree, but investment banking is certainly part of the corporate world where many grads join directly out of UG and Alexandre has tried to use it as a proxy for the corporate world himself. Plus, I find it hard to believe that investment banks are going to have a different top 10 school list than Fortune 500 companies.</p>
<p>EAD, Ifecollegeguy, I must admit that Novi is stubborn and his arguments are not always very well developped. That is to be expected given his youth. Unfortunately, you two are equally as stubborn and your arguments are just as flawed. </p>
<p>I am sure that in a few years, you will look back on this debate and realize how none of you were wrong (or right), but that you each saw different facets of a very complex issue. For now, you can rest assured that you will be receiving the best educations imaginable...so enjoy and make the most of it.</p>
<p>I am quite certain I will look back on this as a debate between those that attend/will attend/or attended Umich (Alexandre I am aware you are an alumnus of Umich?) vs. the people unfortunate enough to have clicked on a Duke vs. Umich thread and have offered their opinions based off a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative data at the ugrad level.</p>
<p>There is no real point to arguing anymore as those that read the thread can make their own decisions (which they do already as apparent from the cross-admit numbers).</p>
<p>Gellino, I have already shown how many undergraduate students from the University of Michigan are recruited into Analyst jobs by Wall Street BB IBanks annually. Between 100 and 200. Citigroup, CS, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Moran, Lazard, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, UBS all recruit undergrads heavily at all three main colleges (CoE, LSA and Ross). They each have official visits, conduct information sessions and on-campus interviews.</p>
<p>Placement stats and recruiting companies at the Ross school:
Page 7 lists the most active recruiters and pages 13-19 lists all the companies recruiting Ross students on campus.</p>
<p>Companies conducting on-campus recruitment activities at the Michigan college of Engineering (Pages 11-14)</p>
<p>The college of LSA does not have any detailed account of recruitment activity, but from my personal experience as an Econ major, I would say that IBanking recruitment activity at the college of LSA is not quite as heavy it is at Ross but it is heavier than it is at the CoE.</p>
<p>Although I admit that there isn't an official industry rating of undergraduate institutions, and I am well aware that you claim that from your experience, Michigan is not a target school for the major IBanks, I have actually provided hard numbers that prove otherwise. Like I said before, if you have concrete evidence that IBanks recruit more undergrads from other schools, feel free to share them with us. But I am pretty sure you will find it hard to come up with more than 10-15 universities that are more heavily recruited than Michigan. And the same goes for all industries, be it Biotech, Aerospace, IT, Manufacturing, Pharma etc...</p>
<p>I already came up with 15 schools that are more represented than UMichigan. I can't imagine that there are 100-200 UMichigan grads going in as corporate finance analysts (as opposed to some other role, which you can't tell from that data) because (as I stated before) that would mean that 10-20% of investment banking analysts come from UMichigan alone and I doubt any school aside from maybe Harvard and UPenn (Wharton) have numbers this high. I was actually in an IB analyst class at one of the firms you listed and saw where everyone went to school. I'm not saying that some UMichigan grads don't get these jobs, but just that it's not among the top 10 schools; certainly not on a percentage basis.</p>
<p>PA for Michigan 4.5
PA for Duke 4.4</p>
<p>For the 5 billionth time according to USNWR, the same report that you use for your other statistical data, Michigan and Duke are PEERS. They are peers by definition using the words "peer assessment." If you disagree sobeit. I guess we have a difference in opinion of what peer means.</p>
<p>Gelino, if you don't have data, I am going to have to assume that Michigan is one of the top 10. I know it was among the top 5 at Goldman Sachs and among the top 10 at Lehman Brothers back in my day (1996-1999). Yes, I also checked. And Michigan has even closer ties to Citigroup and JP Morgran. </p>
<p>And Gellino, although it is not possible to tell whether or not a large percentage of those hires are corporate finance analysts, generally speaking, when you see guaranteed year-end bonuses of $40,000 for an entry-level employee, you can safely assume an analyst position. It would seem that roughly 70% of IBanking-bound undergrads from Michigan take jobs as analysts, which is pretty amazing. Look closely at the numbers in the link below. Under Finance jobs, you can see the breakdown pretty well laid out, including average salaries and bonuses.</p>
<p>Employment</a> Profile - University of Michigan Business School</p>
<p>By the way Gellino, you do realize that IBanks do not typically travel by plane several times a year at extremely high costs to the company to hire backoffice staff from undergraduate instititions and pay them average first year packages of $110,000. Are you telling me that those 100 or so Ross undergrads who take up jobs in IBanking at an average starting package of $110,000 are being hired as back-office staff? Are you honestly telling me that those major IBanks actually spend hundreds of thousands of dollars travelling by plane from NYC to Detroit just to recruit back-office staff? Are you seriously contending that senior IBankers take days off of their busy schedules to fly all the way to Michigan to recruit backoffice staff when they could otherwise take half a day and drive down to the street to a regional school/ Why not recruit those employees locally? I am sure there are dozens of decent universities within driving distance of NYC. </p>
<p>So Gellino, do you have data supporting your claims that Michigan is not among the top 10 IB hunting grounds? I mean concrete evidence.</p>
<p>There's another "The World vs Michigan" thread I see.</p>
<p>Gellino, UMich Ross might be in the top 10 at most I-banking analyst classes BUT NOT LSA OR ENGINEERING. Based on sources I have seen, here's how I would separate undergraduate schools in tiers for NYC Banking.</p>
<p>TIER I
Harvard
UPenn Wharton</p>
<p>TIER 2
Princeton
Dartmouth
Duke
Columbia
MIT</p>
<p>TIER 3
Stanford
Yale
Williams</p>
<p>TIER 4
UMich Ross
Berkeley Haas
Cornell</p>
<p>DISCLAIMER: Stanford and Yale could easily get mor kids into banking if they wanted to but Stanford kids are more interested in job opportunities in the West Coast and Yale's student body quite simply isn't very pre-professional.</p>
<p>"By the way Gellino, you do realize that IBanks do not typically travel by plane several times a year at extremely high costs to the company to hire backoffice staff from undergraduate instititions and pay them average first year packages of $110,000."</p>
<p>You can't tell how many of the hired grads went into corporate finance through on campus interviews vs how many grads approached the companies for other roles from that data. From one of the pages on that attachment, it shows that 54 grads (not 100-200) went to those ten BB firms you listed, although not necessarily all in corporate finance.</p>
<p>"So Gellino, do you have data supporting your claims that Michigan is not among the top 10 IB hunting grounds? I mean concrete evidence."</p>
<p>Yes, the analyst resume books of my firms, which I'm certainly not going to share with you. I had never even heard of the name of the business school at UMichigan until viewing this site. You can keep going on deluding yourself that UMichigan grads are more highly regarded than at least one of the eight Ivys, Stanford, Duke; not to mention Northwestern, UChicago, UVA, Georgetown and at least half a dozen LACs. You are also ignoring that UMichigan is much larger than any of these 20 schools, so on a percentage basis (or chances basis once students are at the school) the numbers are even less for UMichigan vs these other schools. It's unfortunate that Bloomberg profiles don't allow you to separate UG from grad schools because that would be another way to determine % representation. Also, the Facebook, LinkedIn, ******** sites of the world would be another way to look at it, but that is certainly more effort than I care to put forth, although I think some on here have done that kind of scrutiny.</p>
<p>EAD, I would partially agree with you except UVA, Georgetown are at least in that Tier 4, don't think Amherst is any less than Williams and have not really seen the evidence that so many others seem to claim that Stanford and Yale are less represented.</p>
<p>Michigan's business school was only named "Ross" a few years ago after Stephen Ross donated the money, so it makes sense that you haven't heard of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford kids are more interested in job opportunities in the West Coast
[/quote]
You could say the same for Haas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I got accepted to Cornell by the way but it would be a stupid personal attack to launch against me regardless. A lot of colleges today engage in yield protection and don't admit students who they feel are "overqualified" and "unlikely to attend". Penn, for instance, is one of these schools. My friend was waitlisted at the College of Arts and Sciences at Penn but was admitted to Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A while ago, you wrote this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
04-01-2007, 01:40 AM #76
evil<em>asian</em>dictator
Senior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Duke
Threads: 135
Posts: 1,736
"Accepted: NONE!!
Waitlisted: Penn(Wharton), Columbia, Cornell
Rejected, HYP</p>
<p>Screw the Ivy League! I'm going to Duke!!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You were waitlisted at Cornell. Maybe you were accepted off waitlist, but that is different from saying "I got accepted to Cornell, not waitlisted." Plus, not getting into every single Ivy you applied to should have taught you that you are not the kind of student who Cornell would reject because they felt that you were "too qualified" and would attend elsewhere. I think that you are greatly overrating youself and your school. And, speaking from personal experience, the people who tend to talk trash about schools like Cornell, Brown, etc in particular were bitter rejects themselves.</p>
<p>"Michigan's business school was only named "Ross" a few years ago after Stephen Ross donated the money, so it makes sense that you haven't heard of it."</p>
<p>Ah, got it, thanks. People seem to throw it around on here as if it's some common household name like Wharton or even Kellogg, Tuck, Sloan. Even the people I know who went there (mostly for MBA), have just referred to the business school as UMichigan.</p>
<p>I think this whole Michigan-in-general v. Duke-in-general, public v. private argument is just downright silly. You're comparing apples and oranges. I say this as someone who attended Michigan as an undergrad and two Ivies at the graduate level, and has subsequently served on faculties at one Ivy and two top publics. Which is "better" depends on your field, where you stack up, and your personal preferences. </p>
<p>It's true that the top publics, even Michigan and Berkeley, serve a dual function at the undergraduate level, operating simultaneously as "elite" schools while also serving a broader mass market. As a conseuqence, they need to go deeper into the student talent pool to fill up their entering class. But the top 10% to 25% of their entering class can compete with anyone. Michigan also offers a number of "small school" options within the larger university (e.g., the honors program), in which you're in small classes taught by leading professors from day one. And as you move into your major, you'll have the opportunity to work with some of the world's leading academics in almost any field imaginable. </p>
<p>I went from Michigan's honors program into an undergraduate philosophy major. At the time there were maybe 20 to 30 philosophy majors total, and roughly that many tenured and tenure-track professors on a philosophy faculty that was at the time ranked #4 in the country---a pretty phenomenal student/faculty ratio. I took small classes all the way through, and by my junior and senior years most of them were graduate-level courses and seminars. As a result, I developed close relationships with some of the leading lights in the field---close enough to get me into top graduate programs at those two Ivies. I could have replicated an educational experience of that depth, breadth, and quality in my chosen field at maybe 3 or 4 other schools total---and quite frankly, Duke wasn't one of them. On the other hand, it's certainly true that many students in my class didn't get into the honors program or one of the other "small school" options at Michigan, and those who ended up in big, popular majors had to endure a lot of big lecture courses and a "factory"-type undergraduate education. </p>
<p>The point is, the educational experience at Michigan is highly varied, ranging from just-better-than-average to truly outstanding. On average, Duke and other top private schools may be somewhat better, but at the high end a Michigan education is at least comparable and in many fields actually superior because of the size, strength, and breadth of its faculty, which accounts for its marginally better peer assessment. If you're in that outstanding range you'll likely get a lot out of either school, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss Michigan because depending on your field it may be even better. More particularly, if your credentials are good enough to get you into Duke, they may be good enough to get you into Michigan's honors program. If so, compare Michigan's honors program to Duke's overall undergraduate profile, and investigate the respective schools' faculty strengths in the particular field (or fields) you might want to study; it's by no means clear Duke will come out on top. But if you're in the middling range at either school, Duke may be a better bet.</p>
<p>Finally, I will say as a faculty member that in evaluating graduate school applicants, we'd make absolutely no distinction between a school like Michigan and a school like Duke. Both fall squarely within the category of "elite" schools from which candidates with strong undergradiate records and strong test scores are likely to receive favorable consideration. Michigan, Duke, Berkeley, UVA, Columbia, Brown, Chicago: those schools are pretty much indistinguishable for our purposes. I do think there's some tendency on the part of the "private" partisans to put down the top publics, in part to justify the high tuitions the privates charge. But academics look at academic quality. That's not at all a public v. private thing, it's a school by school thing, and in almost every academic field imaginable, Michigan ranks at or very near the top. Smart, self-motivated students there will take full advantage of those academic riches, and go on to great success whatever they do, notwithstanding the barbs and put-downs from the "private's always better" crowd.</p>
<p>Beautifully stated bclintonk. Now can we end this thread?</p>