Future Michigan USNews ranking (next 5 years)

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
61

<p>In general I don’t think USNWR is that inaccurate to how Americans at large perceive US undergraduate colleges. </p>

<p>I think Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan are all a little bit under-ranked, but I don’t think any university on USNWR is grossly misplaced. </p>

<p>There are definitely some universities that don’t get the recognition they deserve from people in general though. You never hear much from or about Rochester, and a lot of people haven’t heart of it, despite the fact that it is a great, almost top 30 university. Compare Rochester to equally ranked NYU, or Boston College which get way more attention and recognition.</p>

<p>The thing is, university rankings aren’t an exact science. No matter how the rankings come out, there’s always going to be someone who is dissatisfied and insists the criteria or formulas used are flawed or inaccurate. </p>

<p>USNWR isn’t perfect, but it is the most respected and referenced undergraduate US rankings produced. </p>

<p>I also think grouping universities is probably more representative of college caliber. After all, how can you honestly distinguish that Yale is not as good as princeton? Or that MIT is not as good as Yale?</p>

<p>My opinion is:
Group 1: HYPSM,
Group 2: Chicago, Columbia, Caltech, Duke,
Group 3: Penn, Dartmouth, Northwestern, JHopkins, WUSTL, Brown, Cornell, Cal, Vandy, Rice
Group 4: Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory, UCLA.
Group 5: USC, UVA, CMU, Tufts, UNC, (possibly Boston College, too)</p>

<p>What do you guys think?</p>

62

<p>I think they mean something within certain parameters. If UMich fell to #75 in USNWR there would be an effect, even for adults in the know. And so for an American U at #75 or #77 or whatever, or a Northeastern at #56 or URoc at #33, they unfortunately are forced to care.</p>

<p>Anyone notice that Hamilton moved to #17 or so in the LAC rankings, above Wesleyan LOL? It may be just for a moment but those things do catch your eye. </p>

<p>allcapella, not staying on anyone’s waitlists. Might be wrong, but don’t see the psychological value in holding on unless it is absolute #1 and you think you have some angle (or angel…haha) to have a real shot in the end. My kid choosing between Macalester, Rochester, Bryn Mawr, NYU, GWU, Northeastern, etc.</p>

63

<p>Those are some good options, finalchild. Let us know where your child ends up!</p>

<p>Jakey, I would say overal I agree reasonably with your groupings. I think groupings are a little tough because theres always universities that are borderline between two groups. For example in your groupings, I think Columbia is borderline between group #1 and #2, I think Duke is borderline between group #2 and #3, and I think Michigan is borderline between #3 and #4. But in general I agree with those groupings. </p>

<p>I also agree with Final child in that USNWR is always going to have some effect on everyone. From Adults in the know, to impressionable children, to corporations - If Michigan did drop out of the top 40 or something, it would turn heads and people would start to wonder if Michigan is declining. Just as if Michigan suddenly put in the top 10-15 it would also turn heads and people would start to wonder if Michigan is improving. It isn’t the be all, end all, but it does have a bit of pull in all demographics.</p>

64

<p>“What do you guys think?”</p>

<p>Please explain to me why Duke is in a different group than those in group 3? What areas of academic prowess does it exceed in that separates itself from those others? Duke is an excellent school, but I honestly feel that many here on CC give it too much credit.</p>

65

<p>^I do agree that Duke is the weakest in that group. I think it could be one of the strongest in group 3 or the weakest in group 2. I think it is borderline.</p>

<p>I also agree that Michigan is borderline - It could be one of the strongest in Group 4, or the weakest in group 3, in my opinion.</p>

66

<p>^^^^^Is this NCAA seedings??? Haha! Duke is excellent. It’s just that everybody hates them!</p>

67

<p>“Group 1: HYPSM,
Group 2: Chicago, Columbia, Caltech, Duke,
Group 3: Penn, Dartmouth, Northwestern, JHopkins, WUSTL, Brown, Cornell, Cal, Vandy, Rice
Group 4: Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory, UCLA.
Group 5: USC, UVA, CMU, Tufts, UNC, (possibly Boston College, too)”</p>

<p>Interesting take. I second the notion that there are a lot of “grey area” colleges which fall between two groups.</p>

68

<p>jakey, I think you done good. That’s about exactly where I would put all of those. Not sure about Emory which brings up where elite LACs would fit as most kids apply to a mix and don’t keep then so separated in terms of “university” vs “category.” I for example would personally pick a Davidson over Emory and maybe even Vandy/Rice but probably not above Duke. Williams, Amherst, Swat would easily make the Group 3 list and knock some of those lower. And I’m going to say Midd, Bowdoin, Pomona, Haverford, Wesleyan, Vassar match up nicely with JHU and Northwestern and might be picks over any in Group 4. A ranking based on just best undergrad education would be interesting.</p>

69

<p>Man, I wasn’t even thinking about LACs. It would be interesting if USNWR did a complete undergraduate ranking which included both research universities and LACs. Though I think some respects they’re two different animals - hard to compare. </p>

<p>How would you all organize the groups? Like, in group 1 would stanford be ahead of yale, ect…</p>

70

<p>^Well doesn’t ranking within the group just turn it back into normal rankings?</p>

<p>In any case here’s how I personally think they’d be ranked within the groups:</p>

<p>1: Harvard, then the other 4 are all equally good can’t really distinguish in my opinion.
2: Chicago/Columbia (tied), Caltech, Duke
3: Too many to decipher and all of such equal caliber really. I would say Penn, Northwestern, John Hopkinds nearer the front, and Brown, Cornell, Vandy and Rice nearer the back.
4: Michigan/UCLA (tied), Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory
5: CMU, USC, UVA, Tufts, UNC, Boston College</p>

<p>In most cases I think it’s hard to distinguish between a specific grouping. They’re all very much comparable within each group, in my opinion.</p>

71

<p>^^^^^Why don’t all of you prestige freaks take your act to the main board? This is for discussions about Michigan.</p>

72

<p>“In general I don’t think USNWR is that inaccurate to how Americans at large perceive US undergraduate colleges.”</p>

<p>Too funny! American at large are clueless about most of the undergraduate institutions in your listing.</p>

73

<p>RJ, really??? A few posts where folks are having a little fun is cramping the style of the Michigan folks? Come on, many of these threads are soaked in the prestige of Michigan and where Michigan falls vis-a-vis other highly ranked schools. Will you be a little less sour if we all agree to put UMich at the front end of “Group 3”???</p>

74

<p>Group 1: HYPSM
Group 2: Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Caltech
Group 3: Michigan, Duke, Penn, Dartmouth, Northwestern, JHopkins, WUSTL, Brown, Cornell, Vandy, Rice
Group 4: Others</p>

<p>:)</p>

75

<p>As usual, UCB has it correct. :-)</p>

76

<p>^ Nearly 2,000 academics agree. :p</p>

77

<p>There is no “correct” or “incorrect” in this arena, merely there are opinions; some more popular than others.</p>

<p>There is no need for name calling or bitterness. No one is unfairly bashing schools, nor are they trash talking your beloved alma matter. A few people playfully posting hypothetical rankings in good fun and you refer to them as “prestige freaks” and demand they leave? Come on, lighten up! </p>

<p>Secondly, in all honestly if Umichigan had fared better in those posters’ rankings, its unlikely you would have even complained, evidenced in your following post where you affirm UCBChem’s rankings in which Umich makes a better showing. </p>

<p>Ranking scrutinization is a concept practiced ad nauseam here on CC, but it’s all in good fun. Embrace it! </p>

<p>Please don’t interpret this as accusatory. Having watched the whole thread unfold as an objective bystander, it is much more observational.</p>

78

<p>^Spoken like a true Medill student! Very well put. I agree ; )</p>

79

<p>Yawn…</p>

80

<p>

UCBChemE…not Chem. ;)</p>