<p>So, where does UM belong in a college ranking? We all know that it is not a top five (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Caltech are at the top). Alex tends to think that it is a top ten University. Agree/Disagree? In another thread, we also got talking about which one is better, Wash U (st. Louis) or UM (alex thinks UM is much better). What are UM's peer institutions?</p>
<p>I think Wash U is academically better, but I would prefer to go to Umich to recieve the full college experience. I didnt apply to those schools, but I did apply to UVA, and thats exactly like Umich, except better:) lol, no rivalries aside, Umich provides the student with excellent acadmeic opportunites and on top of that has a great social life. If you want hardcore academics I would say go to WashU, if you want great academics, great social life, go to Umich. Thats not to say WashU doesnt have a social life, its just it misses out on the atheletics and other good stuff. I mean Umich has the largest football stadium in the nation, like 109,000 seats!!! Those games must be CRAZY! Its your choice, but I suggest you post this thread in the WashU board also!</p>
<p>Maguo, if you ask CC students, they will probably tell you Michigan is definitely top 50, maybe top 30 but not top 20. Thyy would probably site schools like USC and NYU as its peers. If you ask university professors, graduate school adcoms and corporate recruiters, they will probably tell you Michigan is definitely top 20, maybe top 10. </p>
<p>You ask what are Michigan's peer institutions? According to whom? According to the USNWR, deans, presidents and professors think that Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn are Michigan peers.</p>
<p>If you want to compare Michigan to Wash U., I'd say they are about the same. Michigan has a significantly higher peer assessment score (4.5/5.0 compared to 4.0/5.0), much better academic offerings, a significantly broader curriculum, a more recognized faculty and slightly better graduate school and career placement. </p>
<p>However, Wash U. is probably more attentive to Freshmen needs and is probably easier to navigate at the intro levels. Most freshmen need to be hand-held, and that's where Michigan, and most large research universities like Cornell and Penn, are seriously lacking.</p>
<p>Alexandre's "according to whom?" question is dead on.</p>
<p>Our peer group really differs according to what you're looking at. If you're looking for our peers when it comes to having a similar undergraduate student body, that's a different list than peers for research, faculty, and so on. And even then it varies by field. For example, GA Tech isn't really one of our "peers" overall -- except that some number of undergrad engineering applicants consider it, too. </p>
<p>We have public peers, private peers, AAU peers, Big Ten peers...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Wash U is academically better...If you want hardcore academics I would say go to WashU
[/quote]
For engineering, Michigan >> WashU. It's not even close. And that's one fifth of the university population.</p>
<p>Not to mention, as far as "hardcore academics" go, if you actually mean hardcore, then we're talking about the very tops of these institutions, and Michigan traditionally crushes WashU when it comes to stellar students (Putnam fellows, Morgan Prize winners, Rhodes Scholars, etc.). I know math majors at WashU in their "hardcore" sequence and it does not compare to Michigan's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to the USNWR, deans, presidents and professors think that Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn are Michigan peers.
[/quote]
I would disagree with Alex here. In USNWR, all of the schools you listed are significantly above UM. I think the lowest is JHU at #15 and the highest is Penn at #4. Alex, I think you are placing too much emphasis on the one thing that makes UM a peer to the other institutions, the peer assessment. As far as student body strength, UM's average SAT scores cannot compare.<br>
Another thing that I think sets UM below those other institutions is UM high acceptance rate. I know that it is a very large state school. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that UM's general student body is not that strong.</p>
<p>apparently WashU is an extremely underrated school as well. It deserves a higher ranking than it actually has. I don't know if this is the case with Michigan, though.</p>
<p>goblue, ofcourse. Ross leaves Olin in the dust. My "hardcore academics" statement was somewhat embellished. I meant that WashU is more acadmeically oriented, I mean if you wanna go into Med school, then WashU has it all. Alex is right, Umich is pretty well known. People who apply and consider Ann Arbor also, according to Collegeboard apply to the following places : BC, BU, Brown, CMU, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Gtown, Harvard, Mich State, PSU, Berkely, Penn, and UVA. My vote goes to Ann Arbor. If you look at USNWR's grad school rankings, Umich is 99% of the time in the top 10. For a public school, thats fantastic. Just because Umich has a 62% admission rate doesnt weaken the general student body. Look at Uchicago, it has 40% admission rate; however its a great university.</p>
<p>"Ross leaves Olin in the dust. "</p>
<p>This will not be true in a few years. Olin already got better quality students now. It has money and can pay its professors better. The former finance department chairman at Ross got recruited to Olin a couple of years ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
according to Collegeboard apply to the following places : BC, BU, Brown, CMU, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Gtown, Harvard, Mich State, PSU, Berkely, Penn, and UVA.
[/quote]
Harvard, Brown, CMU, Columbia Duke Gtwon, Cornell, Penn people apply to Umich as a safety that's why. It's a common safety for those applying to those schools. It's not because their peer-institutions.</p>
<p>The only thing that matters is how much YOU, the student, get out of your U of M education. One of the top students in my high school class of 600 went to Michigan; a brilliant and gifted student of literature and classics, he was even better in math and science. He did, however, have a bend for the wild side. Last I heard, he was working in an adult book/video store in Ann Arbor, and never got his degree. On the other hand, Chicagoan(like my hometown) Sam Zell went to Michigan to study engineering. He made his fortune not from engineering, but by buying depressed pieces of real estate, starting with apartment buildings in Ann Arbor as an undergrad. Mr. Zell's net worth is in excess of $2 billion and is a member of Forbes 400 wealthies Americans.</p>
<p>Both people went to Michigan. Each took a very different path. The name of the school really matters very little. It is all what YOU do with it.</p>
<p>Very true. I think we should compare apples with apples. Michigan as a public school is one of the best, without a doubt. In the top 5 public schools in the nation. But, private schools tend to have more money and fewer students so they are able to accommodate students who like a caring atmosphere. I'm not going to say Michigan doesn't have its own issues, which it does, but it is still a good school. For undergrad, it is not a Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford. But for grad school, it could easily compete with those schools and perhaps even outrank them. </p>
<p>I've had a mixture of positive and negative opinions about Michigan. What I can say from this experience is that going to Michigan is truly what you want to make of it, alfan44 is right. But, then you could say that about any university. What makes Michigan unique? What makes it special? Great alumni network, overall great reputation/academics/sports/activities/town, and for in state residents a great price. </p>
<p>I find it somewhat hypocritical, though, that the President of U-M is one of the highest paid in the nation, yet Michigan's financial aid is pretty poor. Even people I know that were dirt poor got loans and work study. Maybe a few grants here and there. Michigan's financial aid, cutthroat, impersonal environment, etc. are the main things it needs to work on if it wants to be a more attractive school.</p>
<p>Alexandre knows and agrees with me on this: Michigan must restrict its population. Make it smaller, say 4,000 per class. That would make the undergrad population 16,000, much more manageable. Plus, you would increase selectivity which starts a great feedback loop. Greater selectivity means better quality students, which means more people will want to apply to this strong school which means more selectivity, etc etc. Plus, smaller population would mean more money for fewer people, which is always a good thing. Michigan could increase its yield rate by giving better aid and more merit aid. As if that weren't enough, smaller population would mean fewer HUGE classes and impersonal interaction. More contact with professors and more interaction would help students succeed in school and not fail out. </p>
<p>As you can see, there are only positives for Michigan to reduce its student population. To be honest, the lower 25 percent of Michigan isn't competitive with the top schools Michigan counts as its peers. If Michigan were to cut down admissions, a better student body would result.</p>
<p>well not sure if the state legislature would like less constituents/constituents' children going to a michigan state schoo.</p>
<p>yea i guess ur right about people applying to mich as safety. Its still a great school though. Like stanford dude said, just compare public institutions with other public ones.</p>
<p>I'm likely going to LSA to study political science, and appearently U-M has a very reputation graduate political science PhD program [according to US News (ranked #3)], so I'm hoping for a trickle down effect. lol. </p>
<p>I certainly hope that U-M's high admissions rate will not eventually develop the school into another CUNY where anyone can get in. lol. Then will AB degree will worth less than the paper its on. LOL</p>
<p>But the part I don't get is, what makes the PhD program so great? Are the professors actually former statesmen? To my surprise, Georgetown's grad Phd political science is ranked much lower. hmmmmmmmmm</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it somewhat hypocritical, though, that the President of U-M is one of the highest paid in the nation, yet Michigan's financial aid is pretty poor. Even people I know that were dirt poor got loans and work study.
[/quote]
She is highly paid (thanks to the Regents, who made this their priority). FWIW, she is giving back a hefty portion of her salary. Michigan's aid is poor compared to whom? To other similarly-funded universities? I don't believe it, not for a minute. It is true that even the poorest students have self-help in their packages. I know VA and NC have been very splashy about their "no loans" programs for the poorest students, but honestly I believe they are quite unique among publics. Michigan looks at this stuff fairly carefully. It gives out a lot of aid--perhaps not as much as students would like, obviously. We have done a head-to-head comparison with all the other Big Tens (who are probably not a bad yardstick for typical publics flagships) and the packages Michigan offers are significantly better than the others (Northwestern excepted, for obvious reasons).</p>
<p>imiracle911 is right about--there are, in fact, some significant government relations and public relations downsides to altering the class as described. Perhaps it might still be a worthy path to take, but no one can say there are "only positives." That would be true in any year, but in the current climate (with the Cherry Commission and the emphasis on MORE MICHIGAN COLLEGE GRADUATES) it would be a very odd move for a public university to make. </p>
<p>maguo writes:
[quote]
I would disagree with Alex here. In USNWR, all of the schools you listed are significantly above UM.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alexandre is talking about the reputation, and I think JHU is quite close to Michigan in that, not "significantly above" it. For some reason my internet won't let me open more than one window so I can't go to the US News site and see them all. I'll check back. Alexandre isn't saying US News ranked them similarly--obviously they didn't. He's saying that the presidents, provosts, et al ranked them similarly. US News publishes those ratings; we can see exactly how all those schools rank on reputation alone.</p>
<p>"I would disagree with Alex here. In USNWR, all of the schools you listed are significantly above UM. I think the lowest is JHU at #15 and the highest is Penn at #4. Alex, I think you are placing too much emphasis on the one thing that makes UM a peer to the other institutions, the peer assessment. As far as student body strength, UM's average SAT scores cannot compare."</p>
<p>Maguo, I was talking about Michigan's peers in the eyes of the academic world...not in the eyes of the UNWR. I used the USNWR peer assessment score as a gauge of what the academic world thinks of Michigan and it turns out that its peers are schools with Peer assessment scores of 4.4 and 4.6 since Michigan's peer assessment score is 4.5. Those schools are: Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn.</p>
<p>As far as SAT scores go, always remember that Michigan's SAT range and SAT mean is dropped by 40 or 50 points because of the way it reports it. In other words, although Michigan reports a mid 50% SAT score of 1250-1400 and a mean SAT of 1330, if Michigan were to report its SAT range and mean the way the Ivies and other privates do, Michigan mid 50% SAT range would be 1280-1450 and Michigan's mean would be 1370. Most of the schools in Michigan peer group have mean SAT scores that hover in the 1390-1430 range. So yes, Michigan SAT scores are lower...but not to the point that it "cannot compare". And that's proven by the fact that Michigan places as high a ratio of its students as Penn, Chicago, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Northwestern into top graduate programs and top companies.</p>
<p>Let me put it another way:</p>
<p>USNWR PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE:
Brown: 4.4
Chicago: 4.6
Cornell: 4.6
Johns Hopkins 4.6
Michigan: 4.5
Northwestern: 4.4
Penn: 4.5
Wash U: 4.0</p>
<p>WALL STREET JOURNAL GRADUATE SCHOOL FEEDER SCORE:
This is a little tricky for several reasons. First of all, schools with large Engineering and undergraduate business programs will usually have fewer students going to graduate professional programs because their undergraduate degrees will get them high paying jobs upon graduation. That's why schools like MIT, Caltech, Michigan, Cal and Cornell have relatively low "feerder scores" compared to some LACs, Wash U., Dartmouth and Brown, where 90%+ of the students major in a traditional major, which often will not land them a high paying job, if at all. Secondly, since most (11 out 15) of the professional schools used in the WSJ survey are in East Coast and most (9 out of 11) of those are Ivy League schools, East Coast schools, especially the Ivies, have an unfair advantage, not because their students have a better chance of getting into top programs, but rather, because most students would rather stay in their area. Most Stanford and Cal students would rather go to grad school in the West Coast. Most Michigan, Chicago and Northwestern undergrads would rather go to graduate school in the Midwest. Most Ivy League and East Coast undergrads would rather go to grad school in the East Coast, where the majority of the WSJ surveyd programs are located. That explains why schools like Stanford, MIT, Cal, Chicago, Northwestern, Michigan, Caltech etc... do not do as well as East Coast schools like the Ivies, Amherst, Williams, Duke etc...</p>
<p>Brown: 98 students attending top 5 professional programs, 7% feeder score.
Chicago: 59 students attending top 5 professional programs, 6% feeder score.
Cornell: 115 students attending top 5 professional programs, 3% feeder score.
Johns Hopkins: 45 students attending top 5 professional programs, 3% feeder score.
Michigan: 156 students attending top 5 professional programs, 3% feeder score
Northwestern: 73 students attending top 5 professional programs, 4% feeder score
Penn: 153 students attending top 5 professional programs, 5% feeder score.
Wash U.: 29 students attending top 5 professional programs, 2% feeder score.</p>
<p>ACADEMIC STRENGTHS:
Brown: The Humanities, Social Sciences, Math
Chicago: Humanities, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Math
Cornell: EVERYTHING
Johns Hopkins: Humanities, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Engineering
Michigan: Top 10 in every field of study!
Northwestern: Engineering, Chemistry, Social Sciences, Math, Physical Sciences.
Penn: Business, Social Sciences, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Math, Humanities
Wash U: Life Sciences</p>
<p>yoo just throwin this in, im not gonna lie, biggest football stadium definitely doesnt mean best fans...</p>