<p>From wikipedia:</p>
<p>"In 2002, Webber was convicted of perjury. During the trial, he admitted to accepting large amounts of cash from a Michigan booster, Ed Martin, during his college career. This caused the NCAA to strike all of the Wolverines accomplishments from his two seasons (1991-92 and 1992-93) from their official records."</p>
<p>atomicfusion, believe it. Your analysis of Michigan's student body strength is way off. Last year, the mean SAT score of Michigan's Freshman class was merely 20 points below the mean of Northwestern's and Cornell's Freshman class. Historically, it was generally 40-60 points lower than any non HYPSM class. Only in the last decade did the private elites increase the gap from 50 points to roughly 80 or 90 points. However, the gap is once again in the 40-60 points range and closing. A 50 point hidtoric gap doesn't mean much. Also, according to a recent Wall Street Journal study, Michigan, Cornell, Penn and NU all sent roughly the same percentage of their students (3%-5%) to top graduate professional programs. Finally, wealth generates wealth and roughly 60% of Michigan students come from 6 figure income families. Michigan students are connected...not that they need those family connections given the strength and loyalty of the Michigan alumni association. </p>
<p>Although I have never been able to find it online, Fortune magazine did rank the wealthiest alumni bodies (on a per capita basis) back in the mid 90s and Michigan was one of the 10 wealthiest.</p>
<p>The SAT scores may be misleading. Most people in Michigan take ACTs, not SATs. The SAT scores that MI reports generally reflect the scores of out of state students who are required to have better stats for admission. For this reason I think the SAT scores are inflated.</p>
<p>MI reports their median ACT scores as 26-31. Using the conversion table this would be app 1170-1400. This is significantly below the scores of the top colleges </p>
<p>Also using ACT rationale --<br>
Duke 29-34
Amherst 29 -33
CMU 28-32
Vanderbilt 28-33
Chicago 29-33</p>
<p>One of the reasons UM has been so successful is because of the overachievers that it attracts. The ACT average is 26-31, GPA 3.72. Most would be successful anywhere. It is not because UM is such a great academic bargain</p>
<p>That's an interesting thing to think about for about 5 minutes. Most states in the South and Midwest take the ACT. In Alabama, I think about 4% of the state takes the SAT and 50% take the ACT. Thus, you could say that ACT scores at most schools represent students from certain states.
Anyways, remember that Michigan takes scores in a one-time sitting, while most schools report by section.</p>
<p>Enough about test scores. I'm in college now. And not taking the GRE yet. They indicate nothing beyond how well you can fill in bubbles. But bubbles are nice.</p>
<p>The point of going to Michigan for a lot of people is that, by numbers, there are equal amounts of people at the tops of the classes as most the entire classes of most top universities. However, it's big and famous enough to have well-known professors and more resources than most all universities and it has room for people with other talents, whether they be overachieving, athletics, or the arts. Woo hoo for diversity...</p>
<p>And I'd hope that most UM students would be successful anywhere. I'd just rather be successful at UM. It's awesome for a math and poli sci double major.</p>
<p>Mnozzi, the ACT range is 27-32, not 26-31. And 60% of Michigan students have taken the SAT, so I would exactly say that a low percentage of Michigan applicants take the SAT.</p>
<p>Alexandre, first of all, your facts are incorrect. Mnozzi was accurate; the ACT range is 26-31. Mnozzi was also right in that 56% of students submitted the SAT, while 72% submitted the ACT. </p>
<p>It’s time to cut through the BS here and show everyone objectively what UMich’s SAT and ACT ranges actually are. This comes straight from their common data set pdf, and, for some reason, disagrees with what their “fast facts” on the website says:</p>
<p>From website:
Middle 50th percentile of the class
ACT Composite of 27–31 </p>
<p>SAT Total of 1900–2160
SAT Critical Reading 610–720
SAT Math 650–760
SAT SAT Writing 610–720 </p>
<p>From Total Data Set:
SAT Verbal: 580-690
SAT Math: 630-730
ACT composite: 27-31</p>
<p>You can go to <a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_freshprof.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_freshprof.pdf</a> to read the rest. It’s actually quite illuminating (the general quality of the student body has certainly not improved over the last five years). UMich only has 59 National Merit Semifinalists in this year’s freshman class! That’s 1/3 of “comparable” schools like Vanderbilt, UNC Chapel Hill, and others (and UMich’s freshman class is much, much larger than these schools). The fact that Michigan’s stated SAT range is so far below its competitors merely accentuates the fact that most stats we see from CC posters are DEAD WRONG.</p>
<p>Not so impressive, huh?</p>
<p>Although these stats disagree, let’s give the general website the benefit of the doubt and say that that set of data is correct (although the common data set would probably be more accurate, since it is the baseline set for all of the university’s figures). If anyone has read my previous thread in this forum, you know that stating that UMich's SAT range as being 1260-1480 is not accurate. To repeat myself: Those applicants who scored a 760 on the Math did not necessarily (and probably did not) score 720 on the Reading. Thus it is inaccurate to base the SAT range for Michigan (or any other school, for that matter) on these numbers. As proof, we will look at the SAT total for the class of 2010, which UMich states is 1900–2160 {This does not equal 720+760+720, which equals 2200, nor does the bottom of the above ranges equate to 1900 (610+650+610= 1870). When UMich jihadists rave that their school has a SAT range comparable to that of Emory and UC Berkeley, they are misinformed.</p>
<p>And Alexandre, if the facts you present posters with are wrong, what else are you telling us that is similarly erroneous?
You shouldn't pick and choose stats that best agree with your point of view. Just because a 27-31 ACT range is lackluster doesn’t mean you have to screen the stats that you find and use the ones that cast UMich in the best light. I don't think the Michigan data-set (or the website, for that mater) would under represent their student body's stats. </p>
<p>While I am not trying to detract from the excellence of Michigan’s graduate program in any way, I am trying to question the legitimacy and authority of our OP and most other CCers on this thread. </p>
<p>By the way, it's also pointless to ask for others' opinion on your subject, Alexandre, if you won't consider their thoughts or contributions. All you do to anyone who presents a point of view that differs from your own is blindly refute their legitimacy.</p>
<p>Gchris, I was not asked to become a moderator because of my biased approach to this forum. I am always ojective. Constructive and accurate criticism is always welcome on this forum. I will never censor people's posts, even when they are insulting or deliberately misleading. I will, however, correct people who make sweeping comments or innaccurate statements. </p>
<p>You say that UNC, Vanderbilt, Cal and Emory have better students than Michigan. If that were indeed true, why is it that they enroll a smaller percentage of their students into top graduate programs?</p>
<p>Looking at it from the perspective of the individual, if you're truly a hardcore academic, why would you EVER go to Vanderbilt or Emory over Michigan?</p>
<p>Undergraduate experience, perhaps? Not wanting to be part of a 6000+ freshman class? Or maybe it's just the fact that you want to attend a university focused on intellectual pursuits rather than athletic ones....</p>
<p>gchris, you obviously have issues with Michigan. Your tone from the start has been negative. The primary and dominant aspect of Michigan life is academics. Athletics are obviously very popular and add to school spirit, but it is hardly a priority.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This comes straight from their common data set pdf, and, for some reason, disagrees with what their “fast facts” on the website
[/quote]
You are comparing data from different years. The "Fast Facts" on the U-M web page clearly states that it is the profile of the "freshman class for 2006"; whereas the most recent Common Data Set released is for the freshman class of 2005 (Common Data Set 2005-06).</p>
<p>The article you referenced (<a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_freshprof.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_freshprof.pdf</a>) is also for the class of 2005 as the article was prepared on 10/31/2005 (see the bottom of each page).</p>
<p>
[quote]
stating that UMich's SAT range as being 1260-1480 is not accurate. To repeat myself: Those applicants who scored a 760 on the Math did not necessarily (and probably did not) score 720 on the Reading. Thus it is inaccurate to base the SAT range for Michigan (or any other school, for that matter) on these numbers.
[/quote]
You have a point here. However, this is the way most universities report their mid-50% SAT range. Thus it is a convenient way to compare them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that Michigan’s stated SAT range is so far below its competitors ...
[/quote]
and you mentioned Vanderbilt, UNC, Berkeley and Emory. So let's compare the real numbers as published by these universities.</p>
<p>Michigan: <a href="http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html</a>
UC-Berkeley: <a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp%5B/url%5D">http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp</a>
Emory: <a href="http://www.emory.edu/ADMISSIONS/about/class-profile.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.emory.edu/ADMISSIONS/about/class-profile.htm</a>
Vanderbilt: <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/admissions/07VUFromHere.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.vanderbilt.edu/admissions/07VUFromHere.pdf</a>
UNC: <a href="http://www.admissions.unc.edu/academics/factsandfigures.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.unc.edu/academics/factsandfigures.htm</a></p>
<p>For the 2006 freshman class:</p>
<p>School ..... Michigan .... Berkeley .... Vanderbilt ... Emory
SAT CR .... 610-720 ..... 580-710 ..... 640-730 .... 640-730
SAT M ..... 650-760 ..... 620-740 ..... 660-740 .... 660-740
SAT WR ... 610-720 ..... 590-710 ..... 630-720</p>
<p>UNC:
SAT mid-50%: 1210-1380
ACT mid-50%: 25-30</p>
<p>Michigan's numbers are clearly on a par or better than Berkeley, Vanderbilt and UNC. While Emory's numbers are slightly better, you have to consider that Michigan and Berkeley take the best score from single sitting. How many points are you going to allow for that difference?</p>
<p>Also, if Michigan's student were truly not academically inclined, it would not place a higher percentage of its students into top graduate programs than Cal, Vanderbilt or UNC. However, according to a WSJ survey conducted in 2004, Michigan did better (albeit marginally) than all those schools Gchris mentions above. </p>
<h1>1 Harvard University (20% of graduating class enrolled)</h1>
<h1>2 Yale University (18%)</h1>
<h1>3 Princeton University (16%)</h1>
<h1>4 Stanford University (11%)</h1>
<h1>5 Duke University (9%)</h1>
<h1>6 Dartmouth College (8%)</h1>
<h1>7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (8%)</h1>
<h1>8 Columbia University (7%)</h1>
<h1>9 Brown University (7%)</h1>
<h1>10 University of Chicago (6%)</h1>
<h1>11 University of Pennsylvania (5%)</h1>
<h1>12 Georgetown University (5%)</h1>
<h1>13 Rice University (4%)</h1>
<h1>14 Northwestern University (4%)</h1>
<h1>15 Johns Hopkins University (4%)</h1>
<h1>16 Cornell University (3%)</h1>
<h1>17 California Institute of Technology (3%)</h1>
<h1>18 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (3%)</h1>
<h1>19 University of Virginia (3%)</h1>
<h1>20 University of Notre Dame (2%)</h1>
<h1>21 Emory University (2%)</h1>
<h1>22 Brandeis University (2%)</h1>
<h1>23 University of California-Berkeley (2%)</h1>
<h1>24 Tufts University (2%)</h1>
<h1>25 Washington University (2%)</h1>
<p>One must keep in mind that since 75% of the graduate programs in the survey are in the East Coast, the results unfairly favors East Coast schools like the Ivies, MIT, UVA, Georgetown and Tufts. </p>
<p>UNC is 9th among state schools, behind Georgia Tech and SUNY-Stony Brook!</p>
<p>Undergraduate experience? Let's see: Vandy and Emory have a homogeneous student population (come on, over Thanksgiving, they were arguing about how Vanderbilt is diverse because it's more than 6% Asian...and I'm big on affirmative action or anything, in fact, I'm pretty conservative and an evangelical Christian, but what's the point if the campus doesn't stretch your mind into all views? You need student activism from all crazy sides to really experience the whole college experience) and much less of a college town (I mean, just about every school does, it's not their fault). I'm proud of Michigan because it excels these schools at both academics and athletics...how many schools can claim that?</p>
<p>I can already tell the differences in experiences when I come home. One of my nerdier friends at Vanderbilt (she ended up there after being rejected from MIT and Olin) is having a hard time finding any group to fit in with because the population is very homogeneous, lacking people to make math jokes and such with. My high school boyfriend had a better social experience, but I still feel as if he struggled a lot with a certain social hierarchy: He spent the whole first semester trying to make a certain image with the frats and girls on campus. You almost have to conform to fit in.
On a more academic perspective...my high school boyfriend and I were at about the same academic level in high school, ranked in the top 15 or so in state competitions and such (shhh...I promised I wouldn't tell the Vandy people that he's a closet nerd...). I feel like he went to Vanderbilt and still doesn't realize how much he can do...he's hitting a brick wall with A's in his classes and always being ranked first. At Michigan, believe me, this is the first time in my life that I will willingly admit I go to school with people much smarter than me and I love it. It's fun and interesting meeting different types of people.</p>
<p>I chose Michigan over schools like Vanderbilt and Emory despite substantial financial differences (I could have gone to Vanderbilt for $10,000 less) because I knew that at Vanderbilt I couldn't take anything that even brushed the level of math classes at Michigan or enjoy the resources of the top political science department in American politics and quantitative analysis in the country; and don't think I'm just a number, either, I really can access these resources. Every single one of my professors are incredibly helpful and there are research opportunities and internships poli sci avaliable all over campus. My classes are all the same sizes or smaller than my friends at other schools.</p>
<p>Look at it this way: Maybe you can claim that neither are the best at recruiting the very, very, very top students in the country. That's the common complaint among friends about Michigan: The resources are as good as the best, but it has a very hard time recruiting the top 20 or 30 students in the country. I only have a handful, maybe 3, of 250 USAMO qualifiers in my math class of about 25. However, I'm willing to bet Vanderbilt has none. If you're nationally or internationally ranked at the top of an academic field, which one are you more likely to go to, assuming you can go to both for free?</p>
<p>My objective, unlike most in this forum (which just so happens to be on the Michigan sub-forum), has been to present unbiased facts straight from reliable sources to ANSWER ALEXANDRE'S QUESTION "Is UMich weak in any way?" Stating the weaknesses of a school will never be "positive," Alexandre, and despite you and your cohorts' attempts to explain away Michigan's discrepancies.</p>
<p>And GoBlue, the pdf says "Fall 2006." I'm pretty sure that the data set is for the class of 2010, the same group the Michigan website claims to represent.</p>
<p>And Christine123, you must have received finaid at Vandy to make it more affordable than UMich, because a 1430 on the SAT will all but disqualify an applicant from getting a merit scholarship there. As a general rule, Vandy does not give out much merit money to students unless they have 1500 or higher on the SAT, were in top 2 or 3% of one's h.s. class, and fulfill various other criteria that, from reading an old chances thread or two of yours, you do not meet.</p>
<p>I think Adelphia said it right -- </p>
<p>Michigan doesn't have the same intellectual density (no pun intended) as U of Chicago or the Claremont colleges.</p>
<p>What you have at Michigan is an Ivy College-level coterie of students (say, 30% of the U-M student body) subsumed in a Big Ten U. That's a fairly unique chemistry, and that's what makes Michigan Michigan, not Ohio State, not Princeton either.</p>
<p>I'd guess that in-state Michigan students, by and large, are attracted by a quality education at a good price. And reasonably good chances of getting in. The in-state students are not, generally, party to the can-i-get-into-harvard hunt. Maybe a handful, mostly from the wealthier Metro Detroit suburbs. </p>
<p>At Michigan, there are plenty students who don't know Penn from Penn State, and don't care. On the other hand, there are muchos UM intellectuals who know Tufts is a college and not a facial tissue. </p>
<p>Christine123 -- </p>
<p>Most schools do not superscore the ACT. </p>
<p>Alexandre -- </p>
<p>I think gchrist is right--sometimes you do not appear very objective when talking about UM. You asked "Does MI have any weaknesses?" Someone throws out their negative opinion and then you begin to argue. This topic is very subjective. What you may call a weakness someone else may call a strength and vice versa. </p>
<p>You are often insightful however to be honest -- you have a habit of embellishing. </p>
<p>And referring to one of your statements -- I took a poetry class with Dhani Jones (LB) and a German class with Rob Renes (Nose Guard). Aren't you a bit older then these guys? And if there was some overlap wouldn't it be unusual for a freshman and upperclassman to take the same classes -- especially twice (poetry and German)? What years were you at MI? at Cornell?</p>
<p>gchris07 I got a 34 on the ACT, but the point was that I chose Michigan above Vanderbilt despite financial differences, not that Vanderbilt offered me financial aid or scholarship. If you stalked me well enough, you will note that Vanderbilt gave minorities with scores way below the average at my school full scholarships.</p>
<p>Alexandre, you do realize that you are arguing with HIGH SCHOOL students?</p>
<p>I am currently considering Cornell and UMich. Does anyone know the strengths and weaknesses of each regarding campus life, student life, academics, netoworking, job placement, etc? Especially Alexandre, who said that he attended both Cornell and UMich. Thanks.</p>