Interesting Comparisons Involving USNWR Top 30

<p>Uh, yeah, no one disagrees Michigan is great for graduate school and for professor research - after all, Michigan has several times as many professors as Dartmouth, Brown, or Duke does, no wonder its faculty is cited more times in academic journals. Good for Michigan grad students though.</p>

<p>However, I don't think you can ever compare Michigan to Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn, Duke, Chicago, etc. for undergrad. Just look at the higher caliber of the students they attract, how many of these students go on to top professional schools, and how many academic superstars are in their undergraduate entering classes.</p>

<p>More comparable schools to Michigan undergrad are Vanderbilt, Emory, Lehigh, BC, etc. I realize many will disagree with me, because for some reason people think its OK to pretend Michigan undergrad is much better than private schools like Lehigh, Vanderbilt, Emory, and BC, which attract exactly the same types of students. This does a disservice to high schoolers looking for prospective colleges - and also does a disservice to private schools such as Emory or Lehigh that don't have vehement backers on this website.</p>

<p>Again, I am not talking about graduate programs, so please don't talk about quality of scientific research at the graduate level, or how many top 10 grad programs a school has.</p>

<p>Emory, Lehigh, BC, Vandy - These are schools that have similarly strong under grad student bodies, and probably just as many research opportunities because they are smaller schools with smaller classs sizes, etc. These are great schools and Michigan is definetely as good and is as prestigious (or even more, arguably) as they are for undergrad.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not 100% sure where collegeboard.com gets it numbers, but others have stated that they come from the latest CDS of each school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At the bottom of every college profile, the College Board site notes that numbers are provided by the colleges themselves. The College Board sends its own survey, just like USNews does. However, College Board's survey comes pretty early and they have a quick turnaround, so their information is up to date. For example, for what I am seeing the numbers appear to be Fall 2006, whereas at this moment USNews' publicly available numbers are for Fall 2005.</p>

<p>I think Collegeboard is a year ahead (Class of 2010) whereas last years US News uses the previous years (Class of 2009). Its confusing because the numbers really don't change that much.</p>

<p>Stats I would like to see:
A table of the top 50 ranked colleges comparing age to # of alumni to endowments. The older the college, obviously the more alumni, and most likely the more money. What would be interesting to see is what young colleges (founded in the last 50 years) are ranked highly.<br>
Another measure I would like to see is the % of classes regularly taught my graduate students and not by full professors. This would perhaps show why graduate rankings should not be used when looking for an undergraduate program.</p>

<p>miriam,
The listings that I included in the OP were for the USNWR Top 30 schools. These are the most competitive schools in the US. It's a pretty great collection of schools and I don't understand why you feel a need to diss many of the most talented students and faculty in the country. As an alum, I would think you would be honored that U Michigan would be included in that group. </p>

<p>Students and alumni of U Michigan have great passion and conviction about their school and lobby hard for an elevated view of the school. My experience is that the facts often don't support their claims and this is particularly true when comparing U Michigan to the most outstanding schools in the country, eg the USNWR Top 30-40. </p>

<p>Are you saying that the quality of the education at U Michigan is superior to the other top schools? Or are you saying that because U Michigan gets more research grants, it is therefore a better school than these other schools? </p>

<p>Re the multiple links you provided, they are all variations on the same theme-U Michigan does a lot of research in life sciences and engineering, especially for graduate school activity. In order, the links that you provided were:</p>

<ol>
<li> Philosophical Gourment (Brian Leiter) ranks GRADUATE programs and their research activity in 2002-03.</li>
<li> The Center for Measuring University Performance (The 2006 Top American Research Universities) includes GRADUATE and undergraduate research.</li>
<li> Another ranking by Brian Leiter (this time for 2004) that explicitly cites faculty research as its measuring stick, makes no distinction between GRADUATE and undergraduate research and also acknowledges that the ranking favors large schools, particularly those schools with medical schools, and also does not include the entire humanities area.<br></li>
<li> Science Watch ranks the schools that are the most heavily federally funded by number of research citations for the time period 1993-97 and almost certainly is oriented around GRADUATE activity.</li>
</ol>

<p>I accept that U Michigan gets a lot of federal grants and performs a lot of research (and its faculty publishes a lot of papers). But what does that mean to the average undergraduate student and especially for the 75% of U Michigan students who are not involved in the life sciences and engineering? </p>

<p>Your fifth link published was for endowment size. U Michigan has a nice endowment (10th largest at end of 2005 according to your source), but on a per capita basis, it falls out of the top 50 (how far I'm not sure because the information that I have stops at 50). My source is Questbridge for 2004. </p>

<p>You reference a few other items (1995 NRC ranking which focuses on sciences, medicine and engineering) and another letter from another academic. I believe that your claims of U Michigan's broad strength would be better supported by more recent comparisons, focus on undergraduate education, and make evaluations beyond the technical study areas. </p>

<p>You espouse the opinion that U Michigan is an elite school. It may be (particularly so for Michigan residents), but the comparison pool that I have presented is quite strong. The students at these other schools are statistically stronger, they usually enjoy class sizes that are considerably smaller than those at U Michigan and virtually all have very strong, well regarded faculty. Feel free to compare U Michigan with any of the USNWR Top 30-40 schools. I think that the discovery process will produce facts and comparisons that will speak for themselves.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I accept that U Michigan gets a lot of federal grants and performs a lot of research (and its faculty publishes a lot of papers). But what does that mean to the average undergraduate student and especially for the 75% of U Michigan students who are not involved in the life sciences and engineering?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think most of your points in the post above are very sound, but a couple of follow-ups to this particular quoted piece. </p>

<p>Michigan is behind only Johns Hopkins in R&D expenditure, so yeah, it's a research-heavy place. It does not all happen in life sciences and engineering. Furthermore, UROP and other research programs are open to all students, not just students in the fields you mention. I think one could argue that to the extent that undergrads benefit from research, those benefits aren't just flowing to that small number.</p>

<p>The social sciences do lots of research. Education schools do lots of it. The liberal arts such as history, languages and such don't do much experimental research but they do analysis and examine history with new perspectives and information.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Universities with Highest Number of Programs in the Top 10 according to the NRC Report:</p>

<ol>
<li>Cal-Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell & Yale</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Cal-San Diego</li>
<li>Columbia, Michigan, & Wisconsin</li>
</ol>

<p>Universities with Highest Number of Distinguished Programs according to the NRC Report:</p>

<ol>
<li>Cal-Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell & Yale</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Cal Tech, UC-San Diego, Penn, & UCLA

[/quote]
</li>
</ol>

<p>Grrr... People are pretty ignorant. They fail to see that the magazine is titled: "Undergraduate Rankings". Not graduate rankings. For undergraduate school, people generally do not pick based upon department, because most people don't know what their major will be. Perhaps if you are planning on doing engineering you would, but that is about it. When you give these department rankings, they are heavily based on what the graduate school does. As you will notice, all of the schools that were listed in the top-10 lists were large research-orientated instiutions. There is obviously something wrong here, because you are fooling yourself if you believe these large (and often impersonal schools) offer a better undergraduate experience than a small, LAC-type school.</p>

<p>Personally, I just found Hawkette's post to further reinforce the notion that public schools ranks are inflated in the USNWR....</p>

<p>
[quote]
For undergraduate school, people generally do not pick based upon department, because most people don't know what their major will be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Normally, I'd agree with you. I'm a big fan of the "wait and see what interests you camp" myself, which fuels my desire to believe that students don't focus in on major when they're looking for a college. However, in the last few months several reports have been released (one by Monster.com, another by a company called Eduventures) which found otherwise. I don't know all the details on their survey population, but both found that a majority of students claimed that their intended major played a big role in the college choice process.</p>

<p>thethoughtprocess,
In your post #24, I think your lumping together of Vanderbilt, Emory, Lehigh, BC with U Michigan is a historical, and not a current, perspective. Vanderbilt, Emory, Lehigh and BC have all been major beneficiaries of the great increase of high school students applying to college and the broader matriculation of top high school students. Increasingly students who would have been accepted by all of these schools are being rejected by all except for U Michigan. Their selectivity is much higher and their average student has a stronger profile. Consider the following from collegeboard.com:</p>

<p>ACCEPTANCE RATE
29% Boston College
32% Emory
34% Vanderbilt
39% Lehigh</p>

<p>47% U Michigan </p>

<p>CRITICAL READING 25/75 SAT SCORE
670-770 Dartmouth
660-760 Columbia
650-740 U Penn</p>

<p>630-720 Vanderbilt
620-700 Emory
610-700 BC
580-670 Lehigh</p>

<p>580-690 U Michigan</p>

<p>MATH 25/75 SAT SCORE
680-780 Dartmouth
680-770 U Penn
660-760 Columbia</p>

<p>650-740 Vanderbilt
650-730 Emory
640-720 BC
640-720 Lehigh</p>

<p>630-730 U Michigan</p>

<p>U Michigan is more competitive on the Math component, but for Critical Reading U Michigan is as far or further behind Vandy and Emory as Vandy/Emory are behind U Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth. I would say that for many non-Michigan applicants, U Michigan would be a back-up application for all of these schools. </p>

<p>As far as prestige goes, I believe that that strongly depends on where you're asking the question. In Boston and New England, Boston College would compare very well as would Lehigh, particularly in engineering circles. In the South, where there are fewer nationally prominent schools, Emory and Vanderbilt (along with Duke, Rice, U Virginia, U North Carolina, Wake Forest and Georgia Tech) would be heavily preferred to U Michigan. In the Midwest, U Michigan would carry high prestige.</p>

<p>Finally, a word about fit. U Michigan and many state universities offer a very good overall undergraduate experience that might make their campus a more attractive destination than any of their statistically stronger competitors. The undergraduate experience at a school like U Michigan is likely much different than at an Emory or a Lehigh and students will rightly choose which school suits them best. However, that does not change/excuse the academic profile of the student body if that were a primary factor in choosing a college.</p>

<p>Averages only tell half the story. I believe you did some estimates of the absolute numbers of high scores at various schools and UM has as many as many more "elite" schools in total number and far more than a Lehigh or BC.</p>

<p>hawkette,</p>

<p>its funny that regardless of how many times people tell you certain facts, you seem to make a new post and ignore them.</p>

<p>For Example:</p>

<p>UC berkeley and UCLA have extremely high percetage of transfer students. At Berkeley, nearly 1/3 of its ugrad population are transfer students--the vast majority from community colleges. I highly highly doubt that any significant proportion of these CC students were in the top 10% of their class in high school with 1300+ or 1400+ on their SATs. </p>

<p>also, where did you get 22% difference between UVa and Berkeley? UVa has 88% of first year attending students in the top 10% and berkeley has 99% of first year attending students in the top 10%--thats 11%.</p>

<p>on another note,</p>

<p>to clarify something about class size. the reason why average class size is not a great indicator for the size of classes is because after a class has reached a certain size, it no longer matters how big it is. Surely a class with 20 students is better off than a class with 100 students. But is a class with a 100 students taught any differently than a class with 500 or 1000 students? The answer is no.</p>

<p>From personal experience, I have found there is little difference in instruction for classes between 20 and 50 students. Now if you took average class size of classes with less than 100 students, I think that might be a better indicator of the classes you'll be in. Just because Harvard may have an intro econ class with 100 students and berkeley has one with 1000, doesn't make harvards class any better or more personal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would say that for many non-Michigan applicants, U Michigan would be a back-up application for all of these schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Out-of-state at the very top publics, like UMich, is a horrible "backup strategy". If you look at the stats for out-of-state admissions at these schools, you will see that they are every bit as selective as the Vandys, Emorys, etc. </p>

<p>Looking at the overall median stats for the top publics is VERY misleading for out-of-state applicants. Thinking of schools like Mich, UNC-CH, UVa, or the UCs as out-of-state "backups" is a big, big mistake.</p>

<p>I searched for any studies that actually proved smaller classes were better educationally for college. Most were not conclusive one way or the other. The only finding that was conclusive was that students rated the prof higher in smaller classes.</p>

<p>barrons,
In absolute numbers there are far more 1500 SAT scorers at U Michigan (1646 students) than Lehigh (231) and Boston College (893). As a % of the student body, these numbers are 6% for U Michigan, 6% also for Lehigh, and 10% for Boston College. </p>

<p>You are right about averages only telling half of the story, but that also cuts both ways. In the case of U Michigan, they also have about one thousand students that scored at the 1000 level or below. Lehigh has about 100 at this level. </p>

<p>As for your comments about class size, there has been literally tons of literature published on this topic and I'm sure you know that it has been a major political issue in the secondary school education wars for years. Is your argument that class size matters in high school but not in college or that it does not matter much at all regardless of the stage? Either way, I think you'd have a hard time convincing me (and probably others) that this is not an important factor in determining the quality of the educational experience of an undergraduate. </p>

<p>jags861,
The data that I have posted is from another source (usually USNWR, collegeboard.com, colledata.com) and I am just reposting the numbers. I think you make a good point about the transfers and how that impacts the numbers, eg, UC Berkeley. However, from a practical standpoint, short of personally going to every CDS and extracting every last piece of data personally, then there will be these kinds of data problems. USNWR and the others are at least consistent in how they are presenting their data, even though at times, it does not tell the whole story. </p>

<p>I rechecked the numbers for Top 10% and you are correct. I read the number for % of students from public schools (77%) instead of the number for Top 10% students (88%). Sorry for the error which I should have picked up when writing the post. </p>

<p>interesteddad,
I think that you incorrectly bunch the most prestigious state universities when it comes to their OOS admit rates. Admittance to U Michigan is considerably less difficult for OOS applicants than U Virginia, U North Carolina, UCLA, and UC Berkeley (although UCLA and UC Berkeley are less good comps because of the low % of OOS students). </p>

<p>We estimated recently that the admit rate for U Michigan OOS was in the neighborhood of 50% last year when the overall admit rate was 57%. Now, with the overall U Michigan admit rate at 47%, I would guess that the OOS admit rate is down closer to 40%. Tougher, but no where near as difficult as U Virginia and U North Carolina for OOS (which I believe is around 30% for U Virginia and even lower for U North Carolina). Also, the problem for U Michigan is not just the higher admit rate, but their OOS yield as they likely get only about 30% of their OOS admits to enroll. Whether it is wise or not in your view, many very qualified high school applicants are applying there as a secondary or lower choice.</p>

<p>I wouldn't look at acceptance rates in a vacuum. UVa and UNC-CH are more desireable locations to the prime northeast corridor customer base than is Ann Arbor, Michigan and therefore generate more applications.</p>

<p>I know from using the old Michgian points-based admissions calculator that my daughter, who was accepted ED at Swarthmore, would have been borderline "auto-admit" at Michigan, depending on points awarded for her ECs. I think she would have been accepted to Michigan, but it was by no means a "backup" for out-of-state. If we had just blindly assumed that Michigan was a sure bet because her stats were high compared to the overall student body, that would have been a big mistake. You always have to evaluate chances based on your specific pool and the out-of-state pools at top publics have unfavorable chances.</p>

<p>Purely from an admissions standpoint, the top publics are poor values for out-of-state applicants -- harder to get into than the overall admissions profiles suggest they should be. Good "backups" should, ideally, be schools that offer favorable admissions values, for example, the womens colleges.</p>

<p>Hawk--try reading up on it before making assumptions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/%7Epjkuhn/Research%20Papers/Ucsb.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~pjkuhn/Research%20Papers/Ucsb.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>interesteddad,
I love the Southern location of U Virginia and U North Carolina and agree that these are more desirable than Michigan, but I'm not sure about your statement re their location giving them an advantage to generate more applications. I would wager that, in absolute numbers, U Michigan gets a lot more OOS applications (maybe 5000 or more) than either U Virginia or U North Carolina.</p>

<p>barrons,
Thanks for the link, but have you read the article? The article was not about whether students learning improved in a small class size, but rather how their professors were evaluated depending on the class size. Interesting analysis, but a different measurement than whether teachers teach better and students learn more in a smaller class setting.</p>

<p>For the part of the analysis that did examine large class sizes and how this affects current and subsequent learning, there were some findings that "introductory class size may have a differential impact on immediate performance at the end of the introductory course of interest compared to the longer run impact on intermediate, or even advanced, level performance." This was shown in the macroeconomics class analysis done by Raimondo, Esposito and Gershenberg (1990) which established a negative relationship for this class (although it also found no relationship existed in its study of a microeconomics course). </p>

<p>The article also contained an evaluation on how class size affects grading. BTW, according to the article, there was not a consensus on this. </p>

<p>It sounds like you are defending large class sizes over small class sizes. Please correct me if I have that wrong. For the record, I prefer environments (regardless of total college size) that favor small class size over large class size.</p>

<p>hawkette: I don't know about UMichigan, except that it's larger than UNC-CH. But UNC typically gets 19,000+ applications every year, and I believe ~11,000 of those are from out-of-state. To get accepted from OOS is just extremely tough, since they just don't take that many. And it's getting tougher to get in from in-state as well, because every year more and more top in-state students are choosing to go there. (Superb academics, top notch education, located in the perfect college town, beautiful campus, happy students, and relatively inexpensive--most especially for in-staters.)</p>