How do people view University of Michigan??? against other universities

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Imaparasite wrote: "It's ridiculous to put Michigan on the same level as NYU. USNews is not the be all end all but it ranks Michigan in the top 25 and NYU in the 50s. This along with the fact that Michigan is underranked."</p>

<p>Is it really so ridiculous?! An very good measure of the academic and research strengths, excellence, and reputation of a university, in the natural sciences and mathematics at least, is the number of members of the National Academy of Sciences that it has among its faculty. To find that, go to the NAS web site National</a> Academy of Sciences:
and enter the name of the institution.</p>

<p>NYU has 26 members of the NAS, while U. of Michigan has only 16. So, who is being ridiculous here?</p>

<p>In fact, U. of Michigan has remarkably FEW members of the NAS for a very large public research university. For comparison, here are the NAS membership numbers for several other leading public universities:</p>

<p>UC-Berkeley 127 (!), UC-San Diego 65, U. of Wisconsin-Madison 44, U. of Washington (Seattle) 42, UCLA 28, U. of Illinois at Urbana 27, UNC-Chapel Hill 11, U. of Virginia 4.</p>

<p>It helps to know relevant facts before making strong statements.</p>

42

<p>atnyu, the number of NAS faculty teaching at an institution is more a function of location than academic excellence. Even with relatively few NAS members, Michigan's departments are among the top ranked in academe. NUY and Michigan are tied in Math and Economics, but in most other traditional academic disciplines, Michigan is ranked significantly higher than NYU. </p>

<p>Biology:</p>

<h1>15 Michigan (tied with Columbia and Wisconsin)</h1>

<h1>58 NYU</h1>

<p>Chemistry:</p>

<h1>16 Michigan (tied with PSU, Princeton and UNC)</h1>

<p>NYU not ranked among the top 50</p>

<p>Computer Science:</p>

<h1>13 Michigan (tied with UCLA and Maryland)</h1>

<h1>31 NYU</h1>

<p>Economics:</p>

<h1>11 Michigan (tied with Columbia, UCLA and Wisconsin)</h1>

<h1>15 NYU</h1>

<p>English:</p>

<h1>12 English (tied with Duke and UVa)</h1>

<h1>23 NYU</h1>

<p>Geology:</p>

<h1>5 Michigan (Columbia)</h1>

<p>NYU not ranked among the top 25</p>

<p>History:</p>

<h1>7 Michigan (tied with Columbia)</h1>

<h1>22 NYU</h1>

<p>Mathematics:</p>

<h1>9 Michigan (tied with Columba...again and NYU)</h1>

<p>Physics:</p>

<h1>13 Michigan (tied with Maryland and Penn)</h1>

<h1>42 NYU</h1>

<p>Political Science:</p>

<h1>3 Michigan</h1>

<h1>18 NYU</h1>

<p>Psychology</p>

<h1>2 Michigan (tied with Cal)</h1>

<h1>36 NYU</h1>

<p>Sociology</p>

<h1>3 Michigan</h1>

<h1>22 NYU</h1>

<p>At the end of the day, a university's faculty numbers in the thousands. Most universities have fewer than 100 members of the NAS. So, how many of those thousands are members of the NAS is an interesting statistic to be sure, but I would be more concerned with the quality of the faculty that aren't members members of the NAS!</p>

43

<p>Boy, I love a great debate! However as a die hard Buckeye fan, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be objective about *ichgan! Thus, I shall refrain from posting either pro or con about the TSUN. OP, follow your heart. (And the good advice being presented here)</p>

44

<p>In my previous post today, I gave the numbers of the members of the National Academy of Sciences for NYU (26) and U. of Michigan (19, not 16, sorry), as well as for the leading public research universities. </p>

<p>To put them in perspective, here are the NAS membership numbers for the leading private universities:</p>

<p>Harvard 162
Stanford 126
MIT 103
Caltech 74
Princeton 73
Yale 60
Columbia 43
U. of Chicago 41
Cornell 39
U. of Pennsylvania 33
Duke 18
Northwestern 17
USC 10
Vanderbilt 4
Dartmouth 2
Georgetown 0
Notre Dame 0</p>

<p>Everyone can draw their own conclusions.</p>

45

<p>rjno,
I think you are mistaking a different opinion on U Michigan as a biased opinion. </p>

<p>In looking at any college, I try to use objective data to make judgments rather than relying on subjective assessments or passionate and/or anecdotal posts by current students/alumni of a college. My process for evaluating undergraduate colleges relates to four key factors that I see as determining the nature and quality of the undergraduate academic experience that a student will encounter. Those are:</p>

<ol>
<li>Strength of student body-I prefer stronger students</li>
<li>Size and nature of the classroom-I prefer smaller class sizes with classes taught by professors, rather than TAs</li>
<li>Faculty-I prefer colleges known for their excellence in classroom instruction and see research reputations as mostly unrelated to the average undergraduate experience</li>
<li>Institutional resources and the willingness of the institution to use these resources to assist undergraduate education-I prefer colleges that have a lot of resources that are growing and which are being dedicated to improve the undergraduate experience.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>I think that fit issues supersede these factors when the differences are relatively close.</p>

<p>Using this approach, I conclude that U Michigan is an excellent state university that can provide a very good undergraduate academic experience, but I don't believe that it is as strong as the top privates. And in the post-graduate real world, I definitely don't think it is nearly as strong as Michigan partisans regularly posit. I would describe U Michigan graduates as very good (similar on average to BC, Lehigh, NYU). Can some be received in some postgraduate circles at a higher level? Of course (and the same would be true for BC et al and any college), but I am looking at the institution as a whole and not taking the reputation of a subset of students, eg. engineering, business, etc. as automatically representative of the entire university. </p>

<p>If you want to call my approach biased, then I"m sure you will, but this is how I evaluate colleges. This has nothing to do with U Michigan as I apply similar metrics to all colleges. I would be interested to know your methodology in how you evaluate colleges.</p>

46

<p>Hawkette, so which were schools A,B,C,D? </p>

<p>Acceptance rate and SAT-average wise, UMichigan, BC, Lehigh and NYU are all pretty closely stacked. Actually, BC is probably a little above by these measures.</p>

<p>Are you implying that schools like UChicago, Northwestern, WUSTL, Stanford, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Carleton, Oberlin, Emory, Duke, Rice all have less than 14% of their student bodies coming from the northeastern states? That seems improbable to me.</p>

47

<p>gellino,</p>

<p>imaparasite mentioned several colleges and I chose four for my comparison in post #36. The colleges were:</p>

<p>College A: U Michigan</p>

<p>College B: Northwestern</p>

<p>College C: Lehigh</p>

<p>College D: Boston College</p>

<p>If you look at the numbers dispassionately, it is clear that Lehigh and Boston College are much more representative of the private peer universe than Northwestern. </p>

<p>As for the student distribution numbers, I don't have the data on hand for most of the colleges that you mention and not all schools disclose the same way. Here are a few comparisons, eg, </p>

<p>Notre Dame</p>

<p>37% Midwest
24% Northeast
12% South
12% Southwest
11% West</p>

<p>Duke</p>

<p>14% Northeast
19% Mid-Atlantic
24% South
10% Midwest
11% West</p>

<p>Vanderbilt</p>

<p>17% Northeast
46% South
14% Midwest
8% Southwest
6% West</p>

<p>Northwestern</p>

<p>6% Northeast
42% Midwest
16% Mid-Atlantic
10% South
5% Southwest
14% West</p>

<p>By comparison, U Michigan would be:</p>

<p>74% Midwest
14% Northeast</p>

48

<p>But it is 65% in state, so nearly the same amount of students who come from non-MI Midwest states come from Northeast states.</p>

49

<p>Michigan is a quality institution with a substantial endowment.
However, I've been wondering about Michigan's status vis a vis other universities over the next 20 years or so.<br>
Specifically, Michigan (the state) is in economic decline with a strapped budget. I'm not sure if the state's population will actually decrease, but both wealth and population growth are moving elsewhere. The demographics of the Northeast and Midwest mean a declining number of high school graduates, particularly middle and upper middle class white graduates, who provide much of the high functioning student base of the institution.
Of course a high school student is and should be interested in the education here and now. However, is it possible that the University of Michigan could go through a long, slow decline relative to its peers?</p>

50

<p>According to the most recently released CDS for U Michigan, 32% of the undergraduates are from OOS, so 68% are from Michigan. It does not provide the breakdown beyond this. Regardless, these are very good numbers for a public university, but in nearly all cases, they will lag the geographic diversity found at the top privates. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone given their institutional mandate as a public university.</p>

51

<p>"If you look at the numbers dispassionately, it is clear that Lehigh and Boston College are much more representative of the private peer universe than Northwestern. "</p>

<p>I laughed out loud at this at the office. Boston college is at least within the ballpark, but Lehigh?</p>

52

<p>keefer,
Maybe we interpret the data differently, but I think that College A is a lot closer to College C than it is to College B.</p>

<p>Key:<br>
College A = U Michigan
College B = Northwestern
College C = Lehigh</p>

<p>STUDENT SELECTIVITY
-% ACCEPTANCE RATE
College A 47% College B 30% College C 39%
-SAT/ACT RANGE (Middle 50%)
College A 1210-1420/ 27-31 College B 1320-1500/ 30-34 College C 1220-1400/ na
-% OF STUDENTS RANKING IN TOP 10% IN HS CLASS
College A 90% College B 83% College C 90% </p>

<p>% OF STUDENTS SCORING 700+ ON SAT CRITICAL READING
College A 23% College B 53% College C 13%
% OF STUDENTS SCORING 700+ ON SAT MATH
College A 43% College B 63% College C 39%
% OF STUDENTS SCORING 30+ ON ACT
College A 43% College B 69% College C na </p>

<p>FACULTY RESOURCES
-% OF CLASSES WITH <20 STUDENTS
College A 45% College B 74% College C 66%
-% OF CLASSES WITH 50+ STUDENTS
College A 17% College B 8% College C 4%
-FACULTY/STUDENT RATIO
College A 15/1 College B 7/1 College C 9/1
USNWR FACULTY RESOURCES RANK
College A 69th College B 7th College C 19th </p>

<p>GRADUATION RATES
-% OF STUDENTS EXPECTED TO GRADUATE IN 6 YEARS:
College A 83% College B 93% College C 82%
-% OF STUDENTS WHO DO GRADUATE IN 6 YEARS:
College A 87% College B 93% College C 86%
-% OF STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE IN 4 YEARS:
College A 70% College B 85% College C 75%
FRESHMAN RETENTION RATE
College A 96% College B 97% College C 94%
USNWR GRADUATION & RETENTION RANK:
College A 26th College B 13th College C 31st </p>

<p>ALUMNI GIVING %
College A 17% College B 29% College C 36%
USNWR ALUMNI GIVING RANK
College A 83rd College B 27th College C 13th </p>

<p>% OF WHITE/NON-HISPANIC STUDENTS
College A 66% College B 59% College C 72% </p>

<p>% FROM PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS
College A 80% College B 73% College C na</p>

53

<p>Yes, we know you love posting "objective data" and that's all that matters to you. Just because the data is "objective" doesn't mean it's not "highly biased" (against larger/public schools) or "particularly relevant" to quality of undergraduate education.</p>

54

<p>I'll bet you anything that when Michigan does private peers benchmarking, it doesn't include Lehigh, and frankly I don't think Boston College is in the discussion either.</p>

55

<p><3 Michigan.</p>

56

<p>Danas, Michigan's state population and economy have been steadily declining since the early 70s. And yet, Michigan has far out-paced all other universities in growth of endowment over the last 20 years.</p>

<p>"Are you implying that schools like UChicago, Northwestern, WUSTL, Stanford, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Carleton, Oberlin, Emory, Duke, Rice all have less than 14% of their student bodies coming from the northeastern states? That seems improbable to me."</p>

<p>No Gellino, I am implying that the percentage of undergrads from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic at most small private elites outside of the Noprtheast and Mid Atlantic does not exceed 25%. And Michigan, a huge state university with obligations to maintain a large in-state population still managed to hang with the private elites. That is pretty impresive. Even schools like Northwestern, Chicago, Stanford and Notre Dame only have 20%-25% coming from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Michigan's 14% is definitely impressive considering its size.</p>

57

<p>Not sure what the point is in these comparisons. How much would you expect a place like ND to have from the northeast and mid-Atlantic? They're drawing from a national applicant pool and enrolling students from all over the country. </p>

<p>I think it's great that U Michigan has 33% OOS students (and wish that more state universities had this approach), but this is a far cry from ALL of the private elites. Nothing wrong with that as they have different requirements in their operating missions, but I don't see how you can conclude that U Michigan is not much more regional in its enrollment. For example, ND has only 37% from its home region in the Midwest. U Michigan has 68% from Michigan and 74% from the Midwest.</p>

58

<p>UM is home to a startlingly large number of morons (47% acceptance rate). One can quite easily go, or so I've heard, four years without ever speaking to a professor. </p>

<p>I suppose its OK... if you don't mind (1) being educated by the government, (2) or that the number one program is <em>ahem</em> FOOTBALL.</p>

59

<p>I get the feeling that UMich is vastly underrated both in CC and real life. The high school I attended sent a bulk of graduating seniors to UMich (Chicago suburb), and generally, people thought that it was a pretty good school, but no one believed that it is a top 20 caliber university. I believe that given Umich's vast academic resources as well as outstanding academic programs, it offers a top-notch education to anyone.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
UM is home to a startlingly large number of morons (47% acceptance rate). One can quite easily go, or so I've heard, four years without ever speaking to a professor.</p>

<p>I suppose its OK... if you don't mind (1) being educated by the government, (2) or that the number one program is <em>ahem</em> FOOTBALL.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're an idiot. No offense intended.</p>

<p>Getting into UM as an OOS is extremely competitive - 47% is the overall acceptance rate. For OOS, I bet the acceptance rate is more like 25%. </p>

<p>You can chose to go the entire four years without talking to your professors. It's up to the student. But you're making generalizations that show how uneducated you are.</p>