<p>Wow, now isn't that incredibly interesting...</p>
<p>I didn't know the presence of the graduate student TA (or GSI, to be exact) population at Michigan was that big.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congrats on your acceptance to SFSU, xiggi!</p>
<p>hotasice,
I was defending Rice earlier in this discussion (p. 8). Yet barrons, Alex, and keefer believe schools like Cal are better, on average, at the undergraduate level. What do you think?</p>
<p>Xiggi, have you ever taken a class at Michigan? I know you haven't at Berkeley. </p>
<p>You're a bright guy so I know you are aware that there are many different ways to become educated and what works for one person may not work for another. I am sure you are also aware of the fact that different students going to the same universities are getting different educations. </p>
<p>I know people like to categorize and simplify and they do it with education all the time. It's a coping mechanism. </p>
<p>My nephew and niece go to Stanford. One is an engineering student and the other is a computer science major. They are pretty bright ;). These programs are thought of pretty highly, no? </p>
<p>They both have had classes with 250 students. The engineering student has had several. And guess what? Some of the students don't even go to class :eek:.</p>
<p>I'm sure many people would find this troubling. They prefer smaller class sizes. I noticed this hasn't hurt Stanford's reputation any.</p>
<p>Stanford students seem to be doing just fine. :)</p>
<p>Check it out soon :).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Congrats on your acceptance to SFSU, xiggi!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you, UCB. Way to mark your post 3333! Five times the devil!</p>
<p>Isn't SFSU quite a school? However, a better study of my past posts might have revealed an affinity for Jesuit or Catholic schools that have great soccer programs. So, why did you overlook Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley? </p>
<p>After all, I might be more Santana Row than Deadbeat Row. :D</p>
<p>IPBear--Yes, I read your post, actually. I responded on post #111 linked here: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060531225-post111.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060531225-post111.html</a></p>
<p>I sincerely disagree with those posters you mentioned that Michigan and Berkeley are better than Rice at the undergraduate level, because Rice is a smaller school and its graduate schools do not define the university as much as the graduate schools at Michigan and Berkeley do. It is purely undergraduate-oriented. That being said, Michigan and Berkeley are very fine schools for undergrads as well--it's just that I'd prefer Rice and its environment over a big, public one (and others have their own preferences).</p>
<p>The inherent nature of big, public state universities versus small, private universities must also be taken into account--you're bound to get more attention from your professor (and completely avoid having TA's teach your classes) at a small, private university than a big, public one.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I don't understand your post #179. Since my daughter went to Michigan and I know many people that have gone to the school I am hoping that you can explain it to me.</p>
<p>DS, again, you're confusing rethorical debates about certain issues with ... opinions about schools. Are you (or UCB) certain that I hold no esteem for Michigan or Berkeley? After all, didn't my dear friend Alexandre go to Ann Arbor? </p>
<p>Please check the framing of this current discussion: Didn't BClintonK ask what my "point" was? Actually, it was more of a rethorical statement than a question! However, it did challenge my position about TAs (or GSI.) I made no point about class sizes.</p>
<p>So, my point here is simple: there are plenty of GSIs at Michigan and they do TEACH plenty of classes, and DO grade plenty of papers. </p>
<p>By the way, since you have family at Stanford, would you be kind enough to ask them who DID grade their IHUM papers?</p>
<p>^^Post 179?""</p>
<p>Explanation is that the fact that "Graduate student instructors teach about one-quarter of all teaching hours at the university (Michigan.)" seems a tad different from an account of "I never took a single class from a TA in my four years there, though the TAs did lead some of the discussion sections in big intro classes."</p>
<p>As if the author knows the difference between teaching a discussion section or lab (which do carry a credit) and who actually does the main class lectures. Now I'm sure they do carry the majority of intro to eng. comp, basic math and low level foreign language classes--just as they do at any large Ivy. You just bought some union propaganda hook, line and sinker.</p>
<p>"So, my point here is simple: there are plenty of GSIs at Michigan and they do TEACH plenty of classes, and DO grade plenty of papers."</p>
<p>Well my daughter was taught in one class run by a GSI. It was a writing class. It was a great class. She did have a couple of classes where discussion groups were led by GSIs. My daughter wasn't a GSI, but she was a grader, not finals though. It was a great learning experience for my daughter. She had a better relationship with her professors than my nephew has had at Stanford. That's just personality traits though. You can easily go through Stanford and not have relationships with professors. You can do that with Michigan too. Depends on the person. All the professors my daughter had were easily accessible. I don't think they were accessible to my daughter, but not other students. Do you?</p>
<p>"By the way, since you have family at Stanford, would you be kind enough to ask them who DID grade their IHUM papers?"</p>
<p>If I remember, I will ask them. I don't know why it matters though. As long as the professors are available to go over anything you want to ask, what difference does it make who grades the papers? You want the professor to look over your paper. Take it to the professor. It's not that difficult. ;)</p>
<p>"^^Post 179?""</p>
<p>Explanation is that the fact that "Graduate student instructors teach about one-quarter of all teaching hours at the university (Michigan.)" seems a tad different from an account of "I never took a single class from a TA in my four years there, though the TAs did lead some of the discussion sections in big intro classes."</p>
<p>Xiggi, you scare me. I know you are smarter than this. Barrons gets it. I take a class taught by a professor broken up into 9 discussion groups and now the GSIs teach 90% of the classes? </p>
<p>Please.....</p>
<p>"Do you have numbers for FT or SA for a recent year's class at a bulge-bracket firm to back this assertion up perhaps, out of curiosity? I definitely think that Ross is extremely close if not on par with Duke and Dartmouth for IB recruiting. I doubt the same holds true for LSA though."</p>
<p>I agree with you EAD. Most Michigan undergrads recruited by IBanks are students at Ross. That's only natural considering that there is a high concentration of qualified undergrads at Michigan interested in IBanking at Ross. Ross makes up only 6% of the total undergraduate student population at Michigan and yet, roughly 50% of Michigan students interested in careers in IBanking chose to study at Ross. The same can be said of any of the universities with a top 3 or 4 BBA program. </p>
<p>In terms of preference, IBanks do not differentiate between Michigan students, whether they are enrolled into the college of Engineering, LSA or Ross. However, the bulk of IBanking recruitment activity at Michigan takes place at Ross, just as it does at Wharton in the case of Penn, Stern in the Case of NYU, McIntire in the case of UVa, McDonough in the case of Georgetown, Sloan in the case of MIT etc...</p>
<p>In terms of numbers, I have shared Ross figures often. LSA and the CoE do not post placement figures. I don't mind posting Ross' placement stats again, but unless you can share Dartmouth, Duke and Rice numbers, it would be hard to establish a common frame of reference. Last time I checked, Dartmouth, Duke and Rice did not publish placement figures. </p>
<p>Full time Ross undergraduate placement into major IBanks (remember that Ross only graduates 350 students each year):
2007
Citigroup: 10
Goldman Sachs: 9
JP Morgan: 9
Credit Suisse: 8
Deutsche: 7
Bain: 5
Lehman Brothers: 5
UBS: 4
Boston Consulting Group: 2
McKinsey: 2
Morgan Stanley: 2</p>
<p>BNP Paribas, Lazard and Merrill also recruit undergrads at Ross</p>
<p>2006 (again, out of a class of 350 or so undergrads)
Credit Suisse: 14
JP Morgan: 12
UBS: 10
Golman Sachs: 9
Citigroup: 7
Deutsche: 7
McKinsey: 5
Morgan Stanley: 5
Lehman Brothers: 4
Bain: 1
Booz Allen: 1
Boston Consulting Group: 1</p>
<p>Again, BNP Paribas, Lazard and Merrill also recruit undergrads at Ross.</p>
<p>2005
JP Morgan: 12
UBS: 11
Goldman Sachs: 10
Credit Suisse: 10
Deutsche: 6
Bonston Consulting Group: 4
Citigroup: 4
Merrill Lynch: 4
Bain: 3
Lehman Brothers: 3
Morgan Stanley: 3</p>
<p>"I think UMich and Cal are legitimate top 20 schools, but I don't see how they can be top 10 or 15 because I don't see what universities they would replace."</p>
<p>EAD, the reason why we disagree on this one is because you believe there is a distinct difference between #8 and #9 or between #11 and #12 or between #15 and #16. To you, the different criteria that determine the worth of a university can be measured accurately and scientifically and each of those criteria is assigned an exact value. I personally group universities because I believe the criteria cannot be measured accurately and the criteria carry different values depending on the angle. So Cal and Michigan would not "replace" any university. I believe that the top 5 are clear. Luckily we can all agree on those. After those 5, another 12-13 universities of roughly equal quality make up the second group, and that is where we disagree. To me, Cal, Michigan are among those 12-13 schools...to you, they aren't.</p>
<p>IPBear,</p>
<p>"Alex: Do you know what you are taking about? Dartmouth and Duke are in the top ten schools for the number of undergrads getting top NYC IB (GS, MS, Lehman, etc.) positions. Ross is not in the top ten at the undergraduate level. I'm sure there are Michigan undergrads going to top investment banks, but a lot of them are the few who turned down Duke, Dartmouth, Yale, etc. at the beginning for financial reasons."</p>
<p>I know what I am talking about. I was an IBanker for several years. I know the industry well.</p>
<p>Let me ask you, do you have verifiable figures to back all of those claims? </p>
<p>1) That Dartmouth and Duke are more heavily represented at top Wall Street IBanks than?
2) That Michigan is not among the 10 most represented institution among the top IBanks. </p>
<p>I have supplied you with exact numbers. All you do is provide us with claims.</p>
<p>I am not going to ask you to explain this:</p>
<p>"I'm sure there are Michigan undergrads going to top investment banks, but a lot of them are the few who turned down Duke, Dartmouth, Yale, etc. at the beginning for financial reasons."</p>
<p>because such a wild claim cannot possibly be quantified. </p>
<p>"At the undergraduate level, Cal's disadvantage doesn't only come from its geographic location. Look at Stanford, it does very well at linking its undergrads with top NYC IB positions, yet it's in the same geographic location as Cal."</p>
<p>I have looked at Stanford. It too is very poorly represented on Wall Street. Remember, I actually worked as an IBanker for several years. I have industry knoweldge.</p>
<p>i find it amusing that you have resorted to googling UM grad students' CVs to prove a point. LOL.</p>
<p>I'm not going to waste time on this conversation, I've taken classes at both Michigan and another elite private status University, teaching varies greatly by the professor you get. As far as attention is concerned, you'll find that if you crave individual attention, you should try to find small departments within Universities, if you are a biology major, you should expect your intro classes to be big. If you think you get a better education at a private school where the sticker price is higher, then go for it, it's your life, but don't try to tell me your education is better than mine just because you think so based on a few blogs.</p>
<p>Xiggi, you know better than to single out one university. You are better than that.</p>
<p>"Xiggi, you scare me. I know you are smarter than this. Barrons gets it. I take a class taught by a professor broken up into 9 discussion groups and now the GSIs teach 90% of the classes?"</p>
<p>I'm not sure if that was a compliment or an insult. ;-)</p>
<p>lol..............</p>
<p>I love how people who have no experience with a school or a career like ibanking have so many opinions about these schools or careers. But I read stuff on the internet....</p>
<p>Then there are people who like to argue with people who do have experience. Alexandre was an Ibanker and he is arguing with students who have no clue what that career is like. The students are going to be shocked. Ibanking is not that great. :)</p>
<p>"I was defending Rice earlier in this discussion (p. 8). Yet barrons, Alex, and keefer believe schools like Cal are better, on average, at the undergraduate level. What do you think?"</p>
<p>IPBear, I do not believe Cal (or Michigan) is better than Rice at the undergraduate level. I believe Cal and Michigan are better overall (when you factor in graduate schools, curriculum, facilities etc...), but in terms of undergraduate education, I have always maintained that those schools are peers. You can check Michigan vs Rice threads and you will see that I always give Rice equal weight. </p>
<p>I often express my admiration for Rice. I consider it a mini Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's very revealing how U Michigan folks give absolutely no credit to their true peer colleges. Do you really think that graduates of U Michigan are generically seen in the real world as appreciably different than those from BC, NYU, UNC and UT?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no personal dog in the U Mich fight, but in the real business world I live in, U Mich is ABSOLUTELY seen as competitive with the top 20 schools (non-HYP Ivies, NU, Stanford, Duke, Vandy, ND, etc.). No one would sneer at BC, NYU, UNC and UT, but U Mich is widely perceived as being something special, something more competitive with the top 20 range than the BC / NYU / UNC / UT range. I have seen this again and again through my 20 years of work experience; this is not an isolated thing by any means. U Mich grads are easily considered top grads and competitive with top private schools. YMMV of course.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, you scare me. I know you are smarter than this. Barrons gets it. I take a class taught by a professor broken up into 9 discussion groups and now the GSIs teach 90% of the classes?
Please.....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, you know better than to single out one university. You are better than that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You guys are amazing! Is it so darn hard to follow the simple order of a conversation? The singling out of one school only occured when BKClinton decided to post his story from 1970s about ... Michigan. I only debunked that account by quoting DIRECT information from the school graduate union or from people who happen to do the job some want to deny even exist. </p>
<p>Frankly, I do not understand this entire need to deny the role of TAs at large schools by playing all kind of utterly silly mind games about classes and sections. </p>
<p>Indeed ... please!</p>