<p>Actually Hoedown, the Michigan operating budget (not including the medical program and hospital) is roughly $2.3 Billion. $350 million is less than 20% of Michigan's total operating budget, even when you do not factor in the Medical school and hospitals. I really think Michigan should remain a state university, but it needs to reduce in-state enrollment yo 20% of its student body. 70% should come from other states and 10% should be international. Fair is fair. If the state of Michigan decides to play fair and give Michigan $1.5 Billion per year, then I can see Michigan sticking to the current 65% in-state commitment.</p>
<p>yea Michigan is good tho.</p>
<p>maybe its population is lagging its rank, there're simply tooo many undergrad students</p>
<p>Michigan is really famous internationally. all my friends in Beijing know UMAA, but none of them knows UVA :(</p>
<p>Alexandre: i think uMich really needs to be more selective. a lot of my friends (smart but not that smart) in my current high school who got rejected by UVA as in-state students got in UMich fairly easily. NOTE: i'm not saying UVA's academics is better than UMAA, I'll choose UMICh over UVA if UMICh is warmer and smaller, i like UMAA's academics very much. but i just have the feeling that UMAA has more "less-qualified' students for its awesome world-class education.</p>
<p>BTW, my liberal step-dad thinks top public schools like UCB, UVA and UMICh will be privatized eventually, is it true?</p>
<p>No, it would be political suicide. Would you vote for someone who was trying to take away the option of a world-class education for 14k a year from you?</p>
<p>...but you can never say never. Michigan and California are cash-strapped.</p>
<p>There are way too many faults with US News:</p>
<ol>
<li>Different method of counting SAT for public and private schools.</li>
<li>Faulty method of overstating endowment for privates. Doesn't count all of public school endowment especially items like patent revenue, etc...</li>
<li>Use of statistics that has zero correlation with student education such as "yield rate" which studies have shown can be managed. </li>
<li>Ignores vital component of Baynesian econometrics, KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid)</li>
</ol>
<p>All in all, in light of the world becoming globalized, I hope students don't mistakenly think that undergraduate prestige automatically means UNIVERSITY PRESTIGE.</p>
<p>University prestige is quite different and much harder to achieve than simple undergraduate prestige.</p>
<p>"No, it would be political suicide. Would you vote for someone who was trying to take away a world-class education for 14k a year from you?</p>
<p>...but you can never say never. Michigan and California are cash-strapped."</p>
<p>i would think it would be more possible in california, since there are multiple good UC's. but that's still a pretty crazy idea.</p>
<p>West Sidee these are UNDERGRADUATE rankings, so this data is relevant. Maybe you should create a US based university ranking system. That would be great. As is, your issues are irrelevant.</p>
<p>slipper, most college students do not go to college with the sole purpose of going to graduate school. if they did, they they would realize that top grades at the community college would help them more in terms of getting into Law and Medical schools because they are all about GPA and thats it.</p>
<p>Students want more, they want teaching, they want top professors, they want friends, they want a social life, they want to grow, etc...</p>
<p>And most of all, they want a prestigious UNIVERSITY, not just an undergraduate. </p>
<p>BTW, my problems with US News is purely on statistical inaccuracy. </p>
<ol>
<li>Different method of counting SAT for public and private schools.</li>
<li>Faulty method of overstating endowment for privates. Doesn't count all of public school endowment especially items like patent revenue, etc...</li>
<li>Use of statistics that has zero correlation with student education such as "yield rate" which studies have shown can be managed. </li>
<li>Ignores vital component of Baynesian econometrics, KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid)</li>
</ol>
<p>ThomYorke, Michigan and UVA have equally good students. The mid 50% SAT scores are identical, as are class ranks. Michigan accepts a higher perecentage of students, but the quality of those students is the same.</p>
<p>West Sidee, now I see where you are coming from. The truth is that a large percentage of graduates from top schools DO go on to graduate school and the top undergraduate focused schools are also the top feeders. I am at a top grad school and I am surrounded by people from top schools, maybe 25%-30% of the people are from places like UC-Davis, but they are often years older than the other people. </p>
<p>Also, yield was dropped as a factor in the rankings.</p>
<p>^ I would also say there is high autocorrelation in the faculty resources, graduation and retention rate, and financial resources. Its like giving a 55% weighting to which schools purely on monetary criteria. This takes the focus away from academic excellence. All schools end up doing with extra money is giving scholarships with it. They aren't using it to get better professors, and they can only do so much with research with a limited amount of top-quality researchers. A saturation point as been reached, now its time to focus on academic excellence. </p>
<p>And even if you disagree with that vision, the pure statistics used for 55% of the ranking weightings are false because of the incorrect method of counting endowments, (you only use 5% a year) vs. a federal grant, and incomplete picture of public schools financing, such as revenue from patents which can be quite significant. </p>
<p>Either, way, the rankings are false on statistical accuracy, and overshooting of intentions to focus on resources. Now we have so much, we have passed the threshold, and world universities are catching up to us because they are focusing more on academic excellence instead of resources.</p>
<p>Top 10:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton
Yale</li>
<li>MIT
Stanford
Duke</li>
<li>Columbia
CIT</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
</ol>
<p>I think the Top Five for undergraduate education at Princeton Review will remain the same: Carleton, Pomona, Smith, Amherst, and Haverford, and, as previously, only Dartmouth among the Ivies will break the top 10.</p>
<p>what about princeton? LOL</p>
<p>lol those arent the top 5 for undegraduate education for princeton review.</p>
<p>shrek,</p>
<p>you are barking up the wrong tree....mini's, that is.</p>
<p>Moreover, Mini is absolutely correct. Check it out yourself.</p>
<p>if i didnt own the book myself, i wouldnt have posted lol.</p>
<p>Well, if you own the book yourself, use addition skills. Add together Princeton Review rankings for academic quality, quality of campus life, selectivity, and financial aid/scholarships and that's the list (Carleton first; Pomona, Amherst, Smith, and Haverford tied for second.) These have been pretty consistent year over year.</p>
<p>Princeton is pretty high, though it ranks below Dartmouth. These rankings are for overall quality of undergraduate education and, unlike USNWR, it provides for head-to-head comparisons between the unis and the LACs.</p>
<p>So princeton and dartmouth should be considered LAC's from what I understand? Why aren't they? I smell conspiracy...</p>
<p>ah ok well if u do it that way. i was only looking at academic quality which uchicago was number one. just wondering where u got those stats</p>
<p>Dartmouth is essentially a semi-LAC. They have 3 professional schools and some programs in the sciences such as computer science. Its a hybrid of sorts.</p>