If you got into UMich, NYU-Stern, and Indiana (Kelley) ....

College Search & Selection
101

<p>"And you know what the Concus group deals with...? Business and law."</p>

<p>Not so, here are the Consus Group rankings of colleges and universities which puts NYU above UMich, and this is what I was referring to (yes the Consus Group does deal with business and law--and there are totally separate rankings for that).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/colleges/colleges.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/colleges/colleges.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"The RP rankings are based on the decisions of hs kids"</p>

<p>And this is exactly what makes them so strong.....they are market driven and hence put colleges in head to head competition with each other for cross admits. Are they perfect?..no, no ranking ever is, some schools like ND are strong b/c they have a disproportionate strenght among certain groups (Catholics) as state schools tend to do with in-staters. However, this doesn't change the fact that these RP rankings blow US News out of the water...and that peer assessment garbage is WEAK. A ranking that has Notre Dame above Pomona is still way better than one that has UPenn above Stanford.</p>

102

<p>"
Selectivity: Selectivity measures the quality of schools' admitted candidates. Selectivity is based on the percent of applicants admitted, SAT scores, and the percent of admitted applicants in the top 10% of their high school classes. An institution's composite selectivity comprises 45% of its overall score. "</p>

<p>Since Michigan is ranked higher than NYU in US News and Gourman, this has to be the deciding factor. And since the median SATs are close, Michigan has over 25% more people in the top 10%, the disparity in % admitted is pretty much what is driving NYU over Michigan, which is ranked so low compared to other ratings.</p>

<p>And actually, the peer assessment part of USNews is more accurate than the entire ranking. While many people would rather go to a smaller school than Berkeley, for instance, for undergrad, the peer assesment as a whole seems to fall more in line with the actual reputation and quality of the school than anything else. NYU is 32nd in the actual ranking, and T-34th (I think) in the peer assessment, so it doesn't have a huge amount of variation. This ranks schools as viewed by staff of other schools, which is what matters when applying for grad school. Of course Stern is a top choice for undergrad business, as it is already well-known around NYC and you can land an internship fairly easily. Most of NYU's other undergrad departments have a way to go to catch up, however.</p>

103

<p>SAT scores: Its 1352 NYU vs. 1310 UMich. NYU's mid 50% range is 1300-1450, UMich's is 1230-1390 (latest numbers from the website of both schools). </p>

<p>Yes, I agree with you that the selectivity measure is what puts NYU above UMich in that ranking. However, I consider an objective measure like selectivity as much more telling than a subjective measure like "peer assessment"...especially in this case where UMich does not have a self selective applicant pool like University of Chicago...so the % accepted is not more than meets the eye.</p>

104

<p>JW, the Consus group is a joke. UCLA and Michigan are pretty much identical in most respects. Michigan has slightly higher ranked departments in most fields of study and its students are roughly equal to UCLA's. And yet, according to the consus group, UCLA is ranked #10 and Michigan #61? And dig this, UC-Riverside and UC-Santa Cruz are ranked among the top 25 but Johns Hopkins is not ranked in the top 30...and, the crowning achievement of this ranking, Chicago is #48! LOL Come on. That's is a beauty contest, not a ranking of universities. If you want to believe that NYU is better than Michigan, that's one thing, attempting to support it with the consus group or revealed preferences is weak.</p>

105

<p>There you go again Alexandre...you attack the results instead of the metodology. Why do you keep bringing up Johns Hopkins and U of Chicago....unlike UMich, their rankings can be explained by the fact that they have far more self selective applicant pools, and hence a high acceptance rate for schools of that caliber. </p>

<p>Also, UCLA and UMich are most certainly not equal in selectivity...UCLA is without a doubt harder to get into.</p>

106

<p>JW, I did not say Michigan was tougher to get into. I said the students at Michigan are roughly equal to UCLA's student. Mean GPA (unweighed) are about the same, both have over 90% of theor students graduate in the top 10% of their class and the mid 50% SAT range is 1160-1410 at UCLA and 1200-1410 at Michigan. </p>

<p>Secondly, what does selectivity have to do with academic ranking? Are you telling me that a ranking that has Chicago at #48 is acceptable because Chicago is not selective?</p>

107

<p>U-Michigan, NYU, and IU will all get you into a top school, saying that you do well in undergraduate. My only thing is that if you go to IU, you'll experience grade inflation more so then the other schools, which will make you appear a better student, thus getting you in over another student, despite not really knowing much more. And at the same time you can save a ton of money.</p>

108

<p>Al: "I said the students at Michigan are roughly equal to UCLA's student" </p>

<p>Again, you cite inaccurate SAT scores. UCLA's avg. SAT is a 1350, compared with 1310 at UMich (from UCLA's website). This, along with the fact that UCLA has a much lower acceptance rate, makes UCLA tougher to get into than UMich.</p>

<p>Al: "Are you telling me that a ranking that has Chicago at #48 is acceptable because Chicago is not selective?"</p>

<p>You missed my entire point. Read my post again. I never said U of Chicago is not selective, because it clearly is. Again, my point is simply this: the reason U of C places low in the Consus Group ranking is because it has a high acceptance rate for a school of that level due to the fact that its application pool is VERY SELF SELECTIVE (same holds true for Johns Hopkins and many small LAC's). UMich however does not have the type of self selcetive applicant pool that U of C does...therefore you cannot make the same excuse for its Consus Group ranking.</p>

109

<p>Classic rookie mistake. UCLA's number is clearly the admitted number, not the enrolled number. The actual enrolled number for 2004 is approximately 1295. Go to the UCLA Common Data Set.</p>

110

<p>JW, #1, UCLA's mean SAT score is 1280-1300, depending on the year. At Michigan, it is between 1300 and 1330, depending on the year. In short, they are identical. The 1350 SAT score UCLA is posting is the mean SAT score of the admitted pool...NOT of the actual Freshman class. </p>

<p>Here's what you are refering top, taken straight from the UCLA website:</p>

<p>"The average admitted freshman has: 4.25 (weighted) GPA, 1352 on the SAT Reasoning Test, 680 on the SAT Writing subject test, 692 on the SAT Math subject tests, 19.0 honors/AP/IB/CL courses and over 48 semester units in college preparatory courses (50% more than the 30 required courses). "</p>

<p>I can tell you right now that the mean SAT score of students admitted into Michigan is actually higher than 1350. But in terms of their Freshmen classes, Michigan and UCLA are pretty much equal. And Michigan has higher ranked departments in most fields, from Engineering, to Business (UCLA doesn't even have undergraduate Busines offerings) to most of the Social Sciences and Humanities. Any ranking that places UCLA in the top 10 and Michigan at #61 is seriously flawed. </p>

<p>Secondly, even if you were right, which you aren't, how do you explain UC Riverside and UC Santa Cruz? They both have acceptance rates of roughly 80% and mid 50% SAT ranges of 1000-1200. And yet, they are ranked #24 and #25. </p>

<p>Let us face it JW, the consus group is a joke. Ranking Cal and UCLA in the top 10 is the ranking's only saving grace. Those two schools certainly deserve the recognition. But otherwise, the ranking excrement. Let us examine the facts shall we?</p>

<p>It makes the first major error any good ranking does not do. It lumps speciality schools (Cooper Union, US academies etc...) with LACs and the latter two with research universities. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.</p>

<p>Furthermore, and I grow tired of saying this, it ranks schools that are mediocre, like UCRS and UCSC among the top 25, but then, it completely ignores schools that belong among the top 15, like Johns Hopkins, Chicago and Michigan. Finally, where is Wisconsin-Madison? Wisconsin is one of the top 25-30 universities in the country. And yet, it does not even make the top 80 of the Consus group. The entire ranking is a beauty contest. It does not measure academic quality or reputation.</p>

111

<p>I stand corrected about UCLA's SAT score, but my point remains the same. UCLA's acceptance rate is in the 20's or 30's year after year, whereas UMich's acceptance rate is 62% as of last year....this difference in selectivity is a reason for the difference in the Consus Group rankings. The point is there is a methodology to those rankings, and its not something randomly generated or done with inconsistency (ie a beauty contest) as you imply Alexandre.</p>

<p>I don't see UC Riverside anywhere in the top 25. Some of the other UC's there do have fairly low acceptance rates, hence their high rankings. FYI, some of the better UC's have been getting much more selective ever since they abolished racial preferences. Look, I never said the Consus Group ranking was perfect (no ranking ever is), but it has a sound methodology. Unlike you, I care for a ranking's methodology, not its results. If you already have a preconcieved notion as to where schools belong on a list, there is no point for you to ever look at a ranking...right? </p>

<p>"it completely ignores schools that belong among the top 15, like Johns Hopkins, Chicago and Michigan."</p>

<p>Again, why do you keep trying to lump Michigan with Hopkins and Chicago. I lost count about how many times I've had to say this: Hopkins and Chicago don't fare well in that ranking because they have self selective applicant pools, UMich does not, but it still has a high acceptance rate....so it cannot use the same explanation. Also, I don't think anyone would put UMich in the top 15, its a great school..but c'mon now....thats way overzealous. </p>

<p>"Finally, where is Wisconsin-Madison? Wisconsin is one of the top 25-30 universities in the country. And yet, it does not even make the top 80 of the Consus group."</p>

<p>Sorry, Wisconsin-Madison is not top 25 overall, though of course it would be among the top 25 state schools, but thats not what the ranking was about.</p>

112

<p>The average starting salary for top 25 MBA programs (US NEWS)
U. of Pennsylvania(Wharton) $101,500
MIT(Sloan) $ 99,500
U. of Michigan(Ross) $ 97,000
NYU(Stern) $ 96,000
Duke U.(Fugua) $ 92,500
UC-Berkely(Hass) $ 92,000
UCLA(Anderson) $ 91,000
USC(Marshall) $ 76,500</p>

<p>People do pay more for higher quality, right?</p>

113

<p>Umm...we are talking about undergrad here, not MBA programs. I also doubt those US News figures are accurate, they are too low if they include bonuses.</p>

114

<p>Ok, so now you say that ranking UCLA #10 and Michigan #61 is perfectly justified, not because UCLA has better academics or more talented students, but simply because UCLA has a lower acceptance rate? Great! Let us rank universities according to acceptance rates. That is a very telling measure! Perhaps you can explain how UC Santa Cruz with its 80% acceptance rate managed to make the top 25! LOL</p>

<p>And you say ..."Also, I don't think anyone would put UMich in the top 15, its a great school..but c'mon now....thats way overzealous"</p>

<p>I guess the thousands of university deans and professors who rank Michigan #9 in the nation according to the USNWR survey seem to disagree with you. I realize you do not believe in that survey, but Michigan is often considered a top 15 university, according to a variety of legitimate and reliable sources, including Fiske, Barrons and Gourman. You may not like it, but not liking it does not NOT make it so. </p>

<p>Let us examine the facts:</p>

<p>1) Endowment: At $4.2 Billion, Michigan has the 9th largest endowment of any single university. And Michigan, like most state universities, got into the Endowment game late. In 1990, Michigan's endowment stood at $500 million, good for 25th place. In the last 15 years, Michigan's endowment has experienced an 800%+ increase. No other highly ranked university has had more than a 500% increase in that same time period. Once Michigan got the ball rolling, it was inevitable that Michigan wouldbecome one of the wealthiest universities in the nation. At the current pace, Michigan will be one of the 5 wealthiest universities in the nation before 2010.</p>

<p>2) Budget: With an annual budget of $2.3 Billion (not including the hospital), Michigan has the largest operating budget in the country...spending roughly $60,000 per student, good for 18th place among research universities. For a large university, that is PHENOMENAL!!! Michigan spends almost as much on its students as do the most exclusive and prestigious private universities in the country. Brown, a tiny Ivy League, spends roughly $70,000/student. </p>

<p>3) Quality of academic programs: This is where Michigan shines. Michigan is ranked in the top 15 in the following fields of study, at the undergraduate level (* denotes top 5 department):</p>

<p>Accounting *
Aerospace Engineering *
Anthropology *
Arabic *
Archaelogy *
Architecture
Art History
Biology
Biomedical Engineering
Biophysics *
Business *
Chemical Engineering
Chinese
Civil Engineering
Classics *
Computer Engineering *
Computer Science
East Asian Studies
Economics
Education
Electrical Engineering *
Engineering *
Environmental Engineering *
English
Finance *
French
Geology *
History *
Industrial engineering *
Italian
Japanese
Management *
Mathematics
Marketing *
Materials Sciences *
Mechanical engineering *
Music *
Near and Middle Eastern Studies *
Nursing *
Philosophy *
Physics
Political Science *
Psychology *
Russian
Russian and Slavic Studies
Scandinavian Languages
Slavic Languages
Sociology *
Southeast Asian Studies
Spanish</p>

<p>From a purely academic point of view, Michigan is actually a top 3 or 4 university. Michigan's faculty is generally considered one of the top 5 in the nation according to Fiske and Barrons, and the rankings above seem to support such a statement. I admit that in other ways, Michigan is not quite as worthy of such a lofty position...which explains why most academics and corporate recruiters rate Michigan somewhere between #8 and #17 as an undergraduate institution.</p>

<p>4) Resources:
- 3,100 acres
- 8 million Volume-library (7th largest in the country)
- Top 10 hopsital in the nation (top 5 university owned)
- Largest football stadium in America</p>

<p>5) Research: Michigan spends $750 million on research, 2nd only to Johns Hopkins. Through the UROP (undergraduate research oportunity) program, roughly 10,000 undergrads (40%) are involved in over 1,000 research projects at any given time. Michigan is almost unrivaled in giving its undergrads research opportunities.</p>

<p>6) Placement: Michigan sends more students to Law school and Medical school than any other university in the country. And not to just any programs mind you. Last year alone, over 60 students enrolled in Michigan's Law school (one of the top 7 law schools in the nation). Another 25 enrolled at Columbia and NYU Law schools. Another 20 enrolled at Harvard, Yale, Chicago and Stanford Law schools. That's over 110 students enrolling in the top 7 Law schools in the nation. An additional 40 or so enrolled into Northwestern, Penn, Duke, Cal, Cornell, Georgetown and UVA. Also, last year, 15 Michigan students enrolled into Wharton's MBA program. Only the Ivies, Cal, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern and Duke came close. The WSJ conducted a study last year as to which schools sent the most students per capita to top 5 Medical schools, top 5 Law School and top 5 MBA programs. Michigan was ranked 30th among all colleges and universities (#18 among research universities and #1 among state universities). Admittedly, the study is limited to just the top 5 programs, but Michigan would probably have fairedeven better had it covered the top 15 programs instead, since most of the top 5 programs listed in the WSJ study arelocated in the East coast and a large portion of Michigan students chose to stay in the Midwest (Chicago, Michigan and Northwestern) for their graduate studies.</p>

<p>In terms of professional placement, Michigan undergrads as a whole have similar starting packages to Cornell and Penn undergrads. I am not talking about Business majors, but the entire student body. Engineers start at about $52,000, Business majors at about $48,000 and the rest of the student body at about $44,000. And Michigan students are evenly scratered accross the industries and geographic area, so the demand is not local or industry specific.</p>

<p>As you can see, Michigan is not merely a good university. It is one of the best universities in the country...PERIOD!</p>

<p>And another thing JW, Wisconsin is not merely a top 25 state university as you suggest. It is a top 5 or 6 state university. And a top 5 or 6 state university is naturally ranked among the top 25-30 universities in the nation. I suggest you learn more about a university before giving your New York-centric point of view.</p>

<p>At any rate, the Consus group is excrement. UC Santa Cruz is ranked #25 and Chicago is ranked #48? LOL That alone disqualifies anothing that Consus ranking is trying to say.</p>

115

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>That brochure you posted for UMich was nice, perhaps you can get a job in the school's marketing division, but it doesn't address the issues. Again, U of C is low in that ranking because it has high accceptance rate yet has a very self selected applicant pool while UMich clearly does not...you never address why this is. Again, I never said the ranking was perfect, and clearly there are some schools ranked too high, and some too low, but I can point out a "how the f*** is school X ranked above school Y" in any ranking you give me...that does nothing to address the actual methodology of the ranking (I think a methodology is far more important than the result of a ranking...you seem to think vice versa). Also, everyone knows the Gourman methodology is not published yet the ranking somehow seems to blatantly favor large state schools. </p>

<p>Al: "UC Santa Cruz with its 80% acceptance rate managed to make the top 25! LOL"</p>

<p>Yet you can somehow say with a straight face that UMich with a 62.4% acceptance rate belongs in the top 15. Show me any other school in the top 15 that has this high of an acceptance rate AND UMich's SAT average. </p>

<p>Al will say: "Selectivity isn't everything."</p>

<p>Yes I know that, but its clearly a major factor. Nobody is saying a ranking should be based only on selectivity, but do you think its merely coincidence that all of the top ranked schools are basically the most selective ones as well? Its all about supply and demand to me. Top students who are applying and willing to pay money for these schools have done the selecting already, and these days, I would not consider a school with an acceptance rate over 50%, that does not have a U of Chicago like applicant pool to be top 15 by any means. The Revealed Preferences ranking shows that top high school students in the US clearly do not think of UMich as a top 15 school. </p>

<p>Al: "I guess the thousands of university deans and professors who rank Michigan #9 in the nation according to the USNWR survey seem to disagree with you."</p>

<p>Umm, Umich is ranked in the 20's by US News...and the only reason for this is that UMich is clearly helped by its peer assessment score (which is subjective). </p>

<p>"corporate recruiters rate Michigan somewhere between #8 and #17 as an undergraduate institution."</p>

<p>Evidence ? What are you citing? What coporate recruiter is ranking UMich undergrad #8? Don't give me some Businessweek rankings of the MBA programs, because we are talking undergrad here. Don't give me some US News peer assessment score either, I want a corporate recruiter ranking if you have one.</p>

116

<p>personally, I don't think it's fair to compare the SAT scores between a public and private school. A public school's score is generally lower b/c a) state schools have a huge range of SAT scores b/c there are so many kids that go there and b) a state school favors in state residents thus allowing in state kids with lower SAT scores to be admitted. (ie. see north carolina in state vs. out of state). also the percent admitted is dependent on the percent yield a particular school has. in the case of michigan or any top public school for that matter, a lot of stellar students apply there and get in but choose to not go b/c they probably got into an ivy, top LAC, etc. that forces the school to admit more students in order to ensure a full freshmen class. BTW i applied to both umich (accepted) and nyu stern (still waiting) so i hope i am providing an unbiased comparison of the two schools.</p>

117

<p>"On September 21, 2004, The Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan was named the No. 1 business school in the nation by the Wall Street Journal and Harris Interactive survey. "</p>

<p>The WSJ ranking relies heavily on recruiter's evaluations of the schools.</p>

118

<p>You are quite a sharp one Barrons...after I specifically ask for undergrad rankings of corporate recruiters, and not MBA ones...you give me an MBA one.</p>

<p>This is the WSJ ranking you were talking about, and it is clearly about MBA programs, not undergrad:
<a href="http://www.wsjbooks.com/schools2004-intro.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wsjbooks.com/schools2004-intro.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hmm, I wonder if Alexandre will automatically dismiss this ranking since it doesn't have Harvard Business School in the top 10...after all, this to me seems much more extreme than than not having UMich undergrad in the top 15.</p>

119

<p>At UM the same faculty teaches undergrad and grad business classes so if it's good enough for a high ranking for MBA's it's pretty likely the undergrad program which is small and highly competitve would be similarly ranked. Sometimes you just gotta use your head.</p>

<p>22% of the last class were hired by the investment banks, 18% by consulting firms, and another 9% were hired by investment mgt firms and traders.</p>

120

<p>JW, I never said that percent accepted meant anything. I was pointing out that the Consus group is full of doodoo. It makes ZERO sense as a ranking. If UCLA is ranked 51 spots ahead of Michigan and UCSC is ranked #25, then it is clear that it is a popularity contest and has nothing to do with academic quality. </p>

<p>As for recruiters giving Michigan a top 15 ranking...that's pretty obvious by the sheer number of companies that recruit at Michigan. 1,500 companies recruit at Michigan. That's more than Harvard, Yale, Cornell and Darmouth combined. And starting salaries for Michigan undergrads is only exceeded by Havard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Yale and CalTech. I would say that starting salaries and the number of companies (accross all regions, nations and industries) recruiting on campus are a good indication of what the Corporate world thinks.</p>

<p>And Michigan is ranked #9 according deans, research and academics. And no, the peer assessment is not "subjective". Your opinion, on the other hand, is. The opinion of 1000s of researchers, deans and professors is not "subjective"...it is reality on the ground. As are the dozens of top ranked departments at Michigan. And graduate school adcoms obviously think very highly of Michigan too. Only 17 research universities have a better ratio of students enrolling in top Medical, Law and MBA programs.</p>