<p>Forgiven, Chicago and Cornell aren't better than Michigan overall. In fact, Michigan is a more well rounded university than either of those two. </p>
<p>EAD, you are quite right, Harvard, Yale, Princeton (along with MIT and Stanford) are the only universities that are better than Michigan.</p>
<p>You are both only 17 or 18 years old. You guys should wait until you have some real-world experience and get real exposure to other universities before downgrading Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are in business and not going to grad, I could see it...
[/quote]
Why would Cornell has better grad school placement than Michigan? Could you cite any solid data supporting your statement?</p>
<p>If you are talking about graduate school in the broad sense, Michigan is rated in top 10-15 and outranks Cornell in almost all disciplines except basic sciences. If you are talking about MBA/medicine/law, Michigan outranks Cornell in all three too.</p>
<p>I am an engineer (chem and computer). Convince me that Cornell has a better engineering school.</p>
<p>Goblue81 - WSJ Grad placement rankings: Cornell is #25 and UM is #30 w/ UM having their law school included. That is only a ranking of med, law, and MBA, so yeah, I think Cornell wins. Also, BusinessWeek ranks Cornell as the #1 feeder school.</p>
<p>And if you are in denial that Cornell is better than UM(in the general, not necessarily personal, sense) I think you need to take a look around. UM is one of the top 5 public schools in the nation, UCB, UM, W&M, UCLA, and UNC would be my list.</p>
<p>But the thing that is most vivid to me is the comparison of available resources and surrounding students, nothing against UM, but Cornell and UChicago can do more. If I am studying I want to be around the best, and the student bodies of those school are clearly more competitive than UM's.</p>
<p>UM is good, and should be recognized for that. And I shouldn't have started this argument on this board, which obviously will have a heavy UM lean, intended or not. UM offers many very good things, and also things which many people will not like.</p>
<p>DSC, there is no difference between #25 and #30 on the feeder poll. There is almost no difference between #15 and #40. We're talking about the top 25 research universities and the top 15 LACs at that level. All those colleges and universities are amazing. There are many reasons why one university places a slightly higher percentage of its students than another into top graduate programs. The WSJ feeder poll is interesting, but you must realize that it has a heavy East Coast bias. Obviously, a university that places 50% of its students into top 10 graduate programs is better than a school that places 1% of its students into top 10 graduate programs. But if you think there is a difference between 3% and 5% without even considering the dozens of specifics and multitude of possible circumstances, then you have tunnel vision. </p>
<p>And you still haven't explained why you think Cornell is better than Michigan in the general sense. I spent 4 years studying at Michigan and 2 years studying at Cornell, and I haven't seen anything that would lead me to conclude that one is better than the other. Cornell was co-founded by a Michigan man, designed to resemble the University of Michigan and 6 of Cornell's 12 presidents have been either alums or employees of the University of Michigan prior to joining Cornell.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, Cornell is stronger than Michigan in the Science (except for Mathematics and Geology). Michigan is stronger than Cornell in Business, the Social Sciences and Humanities. They are roughly equal in Engineering. Reputationally, Michigan has a peer assessement score of 4.5 compared to Cornell's 4.6. Exclusive companies flock to both campuses with equal force and recruit a high number of students from both universities. You still haven't explained how Cornell is better than Michigan.</p>
<p>By the way, Michigan is not merely one of the top 5 public universities. It is generally considered one of the top 2 or top 3 (along with Cal and UVa) public universities.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I understand your pation for UM, and I hope that everyone gets that out of their college. However, what you say is true, #25 is barely separate from #30, however, my point was that UM had one of their own schools included, while Cornell didn't. This speaks to the strength of UM law, but also points out that UM's ranking on that list is inflated(from an outside the university perspective), as if you replaced UM law with any other comparable law school, UM's ranking would plumet, as a fairly large portion is self feeding.</p>
<p>UM is also at an advantage in that list as their 4 strongest programs IMO are Med, business, law, and engineering, which correlates heavily to MBA, MD, and Law programs.</p>
<p>And yes, UVa should be on my top 5 list rather than UNC. But, Berkeley is extremely similar to UCLA, the difference existing at the grad level(and the amount of homeless people on campus :) ). And UCLA offers as much as most any school at the UG level, and same as UM, UCB, and UVa.</p>
<p>Those 4 schools are in the premier bundle of public schools, and I think that trying to differentiate between them is nearly impossible unless you break it down to one attribute or program.</p>
<p>And comparing UM and Cornell, you have a major flaw, that is - you were in grad school at Cornell. Not that you can't be right, but more that comparing a 2 programs that you didn't go through obviously leads to some flaws. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe you went through one of Michigan's magnet programs, and not, say, their journalism school, where you might have a bit more doubts about UM's strength.</p>
<p>One of the things that UM does do exceptionally well is diversifying their student body, both IS/OOS and by race/socioeconomic status. They do that better than about any other public, in fact way too well from the perspective of a Michigan resident who thinks that state funded publics should focus on their state. But that is beside the point.</p>
<p>DSC, going to the undergrad school does not help in law school or med school or even MBA admissions</p>
<p>So if you replaced UM Law with say Northwestern Law(or some other high end law program) UM's position on that WSJ list would be the same?!??! Yeah right. Maybe it is just the fact that more people apply to their home school, so naturally they would enroll more people from that UG set, but every school on that list of premier grad school shows inflation on the WSJ list.</p>
<p>You have lost me. Are you insinuating that I am passionate about Michigan because I am an alum? I am also a Cornell alum, which should make me passionate about Cornell too right? </p>
<p>And so what if Michigan Law was included in the survey? Yale, Columbia and Penn benefit from having two of their programs in the survey. Hell, all three of Harvard's professional programs were included in the survey. But even if you replace Michigan Law with NYU, Michigan's placement rate wouldn't drop hat much (probably from 2.75% to 2.25%). But I am willing to bet that if you were to look into placement rates into top 10 graduate professional programs, Michigan and Cornell would still be neck and neck. But Michigan Law is a legitimate top 5 Law school, Cornell's Law school isn't, so why punish Michigan? </p>
<p>I still don't understand how Cornell is a much better university than Michigan. Eveything points to those two schools being equal. Employers and academics alike rate them the same. Their individual departments are ranked roughly the same. Resource availlability at both schools is roughly the same. I just don't get it. Please explain how you came up with the notion that Cornell is superior to Michigan. </p>
<p>I am also not sure I understand what you mean by "one of Michigan's magnet programs". All of Michigan's departments are ranked among the top 15 in the nation. </p>
<p>By the way, I took several (including Physics and History classes) undergraduate classes at Cornell and I was a TA too. I definitely</p>
<p>First of all. I have a bit of experience with Michigan, Cornell, and Northwestern.</p>
<p>I am a grad of NU, my sister is a grad of Cornell (and i got accepted to Cornell), and my brother attends Michigan. There is no question in my house that everyone considers NU and Cornell to be superior to Michigan simply for one reason (factually indisputable). Cornell and NU are harder to get into than Michigan. They enroll on average smarter kids and are more selective. It is hard to say that Michigan is equal to either of these schools.</p>
<p>I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The different (at most) in SAT average between Cornell and Michigan is probably 50 points (3-4 questions maybe). So you're telling me that because someone answered 3 more questions correctly that makes them smarter? </p>
<p>I don't see why so many people feel the need to come onto this board and talk crap. I love Michigan. My freshman year was the MOST amazing time I have ever had in my life (I mean it). Nowhere else have I met so many amazing, intelligent, and awesome people and have felt so accepted in my life. For me, Michigan is both the best school academically and socially for me.</p>
<p>NUGrad, your family is entitled to its opinion of what makes a university "superior". Each family has its own definition of what qualifies a university as "superior". And for your information, NU and Cornell students aren't smarter than Michigan students. Michigan does not fudge SAT reporting like NU and Cornell do. If Michigan did what NU and Cornell did, its mean SAT score would also be in the 1380-1400 range. At the end of the day, no matter how much smarter you think the average NU or Cornell student is, the average Michigan student is concidered as talented, recruited as heavily by top companies and placed into similar type graduate programs as the average Cornell or NU student. Either Michigan students are roughly as talented...or Michigan is just more highly regarded!</p>
<p>But even if NU and Cornell students were indeed smarter, how does that make the universities better? Wahsington U students are smarter than NU students. Is Washington U better than NU? Caltech students have average SAT scores 60-80 points higher than Princeton or Stanford students (and those three schools report SATs the same way). Is Caltech better than Princeton or Stanford? Please tell me, now that you have figured out a way to measure the collective intelligence of thousands of students, how does one university having "smarter students" make it "superior"? And maybe you can explain why thousands, of leading intellectuals in the US seem to think that on average, Michigan, Cornell and NU are peers or why the most exclusive of companies recruit just as heavily at Michigan as they do at Cornell or NU...or why all three of those universities place roughly the same percentage of their students into top graduate schools.</p>
<p>NUgrad if thats the way you determine quality of a school, Columbia had the lowest admit rate this year. Is it now better than or perceived to be better than Harvard and Princeton ? Cuz technically, its harder to get into right so it must be better ?</p>
<p>alexandre, the grad placement survey you are implicitly citing has 2 or 3 Mich programs in it, which inflates Michigan's placement score. Michigan naturally takes in a lot of mich undergrads. Northwestern didn't have 1 program used in that ranking and it still outperformed Michigan.</p>
<p>and according to collegeboard</p>
<p>Cornell: 1280-1490
Michigan: 1210-1420
Northwestern: 1320-1500</p>
<p>I think there is quite a difference here......</p>
<p>ACTs
Northwestern 29-33
Michigan, 27-31</p>
<p>Alexandre, Stanford has a 1340-1540 range, 30 points higher than Northwestern. Northwestern is around a 100 points higher than Michigan. I think Stanford and Northwestern are closer together than are Northwestern and Michigan.</p>
<p>Did I compare NU to Stanford? I was comparing Stanford and Princeton to Caltech. According to you, Caltech is superior top Princeton and Stanford.</p>
<p>And NU grad, the survey only has one Michigan program in it, not two or three. And if you think placing 4% is significantly better than placing 3%, I'd hate to think what you would say ofDartmouth or Duke, both of of which place over 8% of their students into those top graduate programs. Do you believe Dartmouth and Duke are twice better than NU? That's how yuou interpret data afterall! Fact is, whether a school places 3% or 10% of its students into top graduate programs doesn't matter. Schools lilke HYPS, who place more than 10% of their students into those elite programs are in a different league. Claiming superiority because a school places 4% rather than 3% is ridiculous.</p>
<p>As for those SAT ranges, like I said, NU and Cornell fudge their numbers. Michigan does not. If Michigan did what Cornell and NU did, Michigan range would be closer to 1300-1500.</p>
<p>This is silly, i would not have chose Michigan over Cornell and U chicago if i did not think it was an equal caliber school. But more importantly the Honors Program at michigan has an SAT range of 1390-1490 ( higher than stanfords even) so i dont doubt i will be of the brighest of the country. It is simply idiotic for all of you to indict my decision without knowing what the hell you are talking about, DSC you especially come across as a complete dumbass</p>
<p>Alexandre, I am not surprised by Duke and Dartmouth in that ranking. First, Dartmouth is just one college of arts/sciences. It is not surprising that a school with just arts/sci kids with have a higher proportion of students going onto grad school. NU not only has a decently large engineering program but it has a journalism, communications, and music school with kids that have no interest in going to grad school right away. The same thing applies to Duke with a very tiny engineering school.</p>
<p>I grasped my first breath of existence in talk.collegeconfidential forum and people are just smashing one school's reputation in favor of another; I don't get it especially when most of the comparisons "NU" does are of highly rated universities in the country.
NUGrad5555 I believe you hit with a brick wall after several frustrated attempts to put Michigan down. I am a transferred student to Michigan and taking my bias out of the picture. Defining NU or Cornell universities over Michigan being more regarded or as you claim, "They enroll on average smarter kids and are more selective" is illusion. You are the person of false authority to measure quality and intelligence of all students collectively with respect to other schools. Fast facts like SAT, and placement score are sometimes misleading from what's actually happening in reality land. I agree with all Alexandres points not because hes an alum of Michigan yet he is a thinker and uses common sense. One thing to remember NUGrad5555 that if you put Michigan down in this electronic forum, you definitely cannot put down Michigan's excellence, reputation, quality, rank and the voices of hundreds of thousands if not millions alumni who are making the difference in virtually all fields.
Solid fact that Michigan is as superior as Cornell or NU and keeping yourself in this indefinite looped marathon won't take you(NU) far in your reasoning.</p>
<p>NUgrad, 15% of Dartmouth and Duke students are Engineers, compared to 18% at NU. I agree that Dartmouth and Duke are slightly more pre-professional than NU, but then again, NU is a bit more pre-professional than Michigan. Either way, if you truly believe in numbers without looking at reason, then Dartmouth and Duke are way better than NU. I think we both know better. Somehow, you seem to lose that reasoning when it comes to Michigan. Your bias is rooted in ignorance, not reason.</p>