<p>Well I personally disagree. I think Michigan is excellent but I think at the undergraduate level there’s a lot of great universities and Michigan belongs in the 17-22 range. To each his own, though. Opinions make the world go 'round. ;)</p>
<p>jakey, IMHO NYU may be the most wildly OVERRATED school in the country. Reminds me of Six Flags with a new amusement park every 2 years with the newest world record roller coaster.</p>
<p>NYU has a huge reputation, I mean pretty much everyone knows NYU. So you could argue that it is underrated. But you could also argue that it’s reputation is undeservingly large and that it is overrated. Personally I think it is about right where it is now. #32, around schools like Boston College and Rochester. </p>
<p>Alexandre, I agree Michigan is underrated, but I don’t think it could rightfully fall in the 6-9 range, no matter how you slice it. I think saying it should be in the 10-17 range is a valid opinion, though I personally think 15-20 is most accurate.</p>
<p>Overal I think USNWR gets a bad rap. Of course, it isn’t perfect but in general I think it does a reasonably good job of rating the colleges. I think most people would agree that all the colleges on there are within 10 places at most of their rightful spot.</p>
<p>I agree I overstated on NYU. My D got in but “offering” more than 60K a year in federal loans is just laughable. Be honest and “offer” nothing if that is the assessment. I find the overall attitude and some of the policies/strategies appalling. The cost is just obscene.</p>
<p>^That’s the one thing about NYU, it is shamelessly expensive, and is notoriously bad for financial aid. It’s also known as being run much more like a business than a university, and there is a lot of red tape. Maybe that’s part of NYC…</p>
<p>allcapella, I do not think 6-9 is a stretch at all, although I agree that 10-17 is most accurate art the undergraduate level. It really depends what one values. IF one seeks academic prowess, faculty strength, world class facilities, research opportunities and reputation in academia and corporate America, you will not find more than a handful of universities that can beat Michigan. On the other hand, for those who value institutional wealth (on a per/student basis), student body quality and personal touch, above all else, Michigan would likely be somewhere between #10 and #17. I do not see a scenario where Michigan is worse than #17.</p>
<p>What would the exact methodology be that would place Michigan between #10 and #17? That would mean that Hopkins, Rice, Brown, Cornell, WUSTL, and/or Rice would have to drop below UMich which is impossible given the USNWR undergraduate methodology.</p>
<p>I suppose if S:F ratios, Financial Resources, Class Sizes, Student Body Strength, and Alumni Giving were completely eliminated and only Peer Assessment by Academics were retained, then Michigan would be top 17. That would no longer be considered a ranking and wouldn’t really make any sense though.</p>
<p>Overall, there has has to be a rationale for one university to rank above the other for undergraduate education; I just don’t see how Rice can slide below Michigan given its undergraduate focus, incredible wealth, and highly accomplished student body.</p>
<p>Goldenboy, I’m curious - Where would you personally put Michigan on a US undergraduate ranking? Do you think USNWR has it right at #29 or would you move it elsewhere?</p>
<p>You didn’t ask me but I would say just below WUSTL, Rice, and Vandy and above Notre Dame, Georgetown, CMU, UVA, etc.</p>
<p>finalchild drinking the kool-aid. Good for you.</p>
<p>I would say Michigan belongs with Emory, CMU, Georgetown, UVA, and UCLA in terms of reputation among educated middle class families and qualiity of undergraduate education. I don’t think Wake Forest should be ranked ahead of UMich though. I suppose I would put it somewhere between #20 and #25</p>
<p>I would put Berkeley somewhere between #18 and #20. I would rank only the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, CalTech, and WashU ahead of Cal in no specific order.</p>
<p>Bigdog, which kool-aid? You think I have Mich too high or too low? Nothing in it for me really. My kid got waitlisted.</p>
<p>Just kidding - probably about right ranking. I’ve learned over the past few months as I’m sure you have that no board is as pro their school as Michigan. Not a bad thing.</p>
<p>I mostly get a kick out of all this - I’m not a big ranking guy. I think their should be a best category (ivies, Stanford, MIT) then a very very good (11 -30 with Michigan in this). Its impossible IMHO to try to be as precise as people try to get.</p>
<p>Bigdog, I think the truth is that the rankings don’t matter for some schools that already have a fantastic and broad reputation/appeal already. Duke won’t suffer whether it is #8 or #17. Michigan won’t suffer whether it is #15 or #35. Look at even a Reed that maybe has still suffered a little but nowhere near what one might guess from its USNWR ranking. It may, however, matter for schools trying to catch up in reputation to relative quality (IMHO…such as a Rochester, maybe a Case, Northeastern, maybe a Union on the LAC side, etc).</p>
<p>I agree finalchild. I can see Duke at #17 and Michigan at #15. :-)</p>
<p>finalchild.
I absolutely realize it matters for a school “climbing the ladder”. People love to grab hold of such things and that will never change. My older D is almost done at GW and that is now unranked thanks to “cheating” or whatever they did. She got in way higher ranked schools but it was such a perfect fit for her and what she wanted to study that we didn’t balk one bit about sending her there.</p>
<p>As an aside Northeastern is amazing now compared to what it was years ago. That is the most improved college in the country.</p>
<p>RJ, that’s fine with me. Originally from NC but I hate Duke. I’m a UK fan who was in the Spectrum in Philly with my Dad when “The Shot” happened. But of course don’t love Mich either on that score as they lucked out in Final Four semis in '93.</p>
<p>BTW, I know Duke is a great school but I find the vibe arrogant and obnoxious in a way I want nothing to do with.</p>
<p>I never really thought about that finalchild, and it makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>You are right, USNWR rankings don’t really affect universities that already have broad, well established reputations. Sure, an improved ranking might encourage more or higher caliber applicants to apply, or might get a university more respect locally, but in the grand scheme of things USNWRs yearly adjustments wont have a lot of changes on vastly and internationally known universities. </p>
<p>Schools like Berkeley, Duke, and Michigan, aren’t really going to be regarded much differently no matter how they fluctuate from one year to the next. They already have a huge presence. Though I do think USNWR can begin to alter a universities reputation after several years of improved or declining rankings. </p>
<p>Also, I think there are certain universities where an improved rank can start to improve the universities caliber and reputation. This is particularly true for schools in the 30-40 range. If some of those universities cracked the top 30 I think people would start to regard them differently.</p>
<p>Pretty interesting.</p>
<p>Final child - Do you know where your kid is going to school yet? Are you trying to get off the Umich waitlist?</p>
<p>In my opinion, both Michigan and Berkeley are extremely well placed in the minds of prospective students, who consider the following parameters: </p>
<p>1.Success in admission to Medical, Law, Business schools.
2.Access to Campus recruitment from the top companies in all sectors.
3.Name recognition beyond the USA.</p>
<p>At the stage of selection of colleges/universities, prior to application, more than the prospective students, the parents tend to give extra emphasis on the “ranking” as published by the US News. I don’t think, one can ignore it as a part of the filtration process. However, the methodology, as followed by the US News, will always push the likes of Berkeley and Michigan between #20 and #30. </p>
<p>However, once out of the college, very few talk about the prestige factor associated with their colleges. It is a good fun, before you enter the college:)</p>
<p>allcapella, rankings do not usually alter the perception of universities among adults. They matter to a degree to high school students because they take them seriously, but very few adults take rankings seriously. </p>
<p>Rintu’s post speaks to that. Very few members of graduate school admissions committees, corporate recruiters or of the intellectual elite will agree that Cal or Michigan are ranked #21 and #29 in the US respectively. The USNWR ranking is interesting but very flawed, not just in its methodology, but also in its tabulation of data. Stanford President Gerhard Casper wrote a critique of the USNWR ranking years ago that pretty much encapsulates the reason why rankings are not accepted by the educated elite. </p>
<p>[Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html]Criticism”>Criticism of College Rankings - September 23, 1996)</p>