<p>Ok, maybe for consulting. But there’s no way in hell bulge bracket banks recruit at LSA even close to how they recruit at Ross.</p>
<p>I think the reason LSA does not publish is because it won’t compare to Ross and Engineering. It’s no secret LSA plays third fiddle to the other two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>McKinsey actually took more for internships this year from engineering than from ross</p>
<p>and you can’t really compare placement stats b/t ross and lsa, as there’s a huge selection bias. almost everyone at michigan who wants to go into banking/consulting from michigan goes to ross, and most of the time those that dont do ross just didnt get in and thus are obviously less competitive. of course someone studying, say, anthropology, is going to have worse career options with just that degree, but its not like they dream of being a goldman banker anyway.</p>
<p>equally qualified people at ross and lsa really do have the same career options at bulge bracket banks and top MC’s. i say this as someone who’s very recently been through the internship recruiting process and who is getting degrees in both schools. lsa kids just need to be a little more proactive sometimes.</p>
<p>edit: alexandre’s 50%=ivies comment is probably a little optimistic though. i’d put it more in the 30-40% range. Also, there are some pretty stupid people here, though they are in the minority (and even the ivies have their share of not-so-bright individuals)</p>
<p>“I think the reason LSA does not publish is because it won’t compare to Ross and Engineering.”</p>
<p>I don’t think there is an ulterior motive for LSA not publishing employment statistics, I just think that there are too many students entering too many fields to effectively gather the data. And yes, without properly evaluating the data, Ross and Engineering would have very different placement ratios. About 30% of LSA students are premed and prelaw. Another 10%-15% will go on to other types of graduate school such as Public Health, Puplic Policy, Social Work, Dentistry, Pharmacy or the traditional disciplines such as Math and Political Science etc…In other words, 40% or so of LSA students don’t hit the workplace in major corporations. Engineering and Ross students join corproations at a much higher rate (90%).</p>
<p>“It’s no secret LSA plays third fiddle to the other two.” </p>
<p>giants, that is not at all true. It is a myth among high school students, but not in academe or among corporate recruiters. Not by a long shot. LSA is generally ranked among the very best liberal arts colleges in the nation, up there with the likes of Cornell and Penn. umich2010 is absolutely right. A significant percentage of QUALIFIED Michigan students interested in IBanking and Consulting will chose to transfer into Ross. That is why it appears that IBanks and Management Consulting firms recruit more at Ross. Think about it. There are roughly 5,000 (1,000+ graduating each year) premed and pre-law students enrolled in LSA. Those students aren’t even interested in careers in Banking or Consulting. Anopther 2,000 or so students are typically interested in pursuing further studies in other fields (such as Dentistry, Public Policy, Pharmacy or a PhD in a traditional field such as Chemistry or Economics). At any point in time, there are roughly 3,000 (out of LSA’s 15,000, or 20%) LSA students who have the intention of working in industry straight out of college. That’s less than 800 per graduating class. And not all of those students wish to become consultants or bankers. Many wish to work for manufacturing companies such as P&G, Google, IBM, Pfizer, General Electric etc… The remaining 5,000 or so LSA students are admittedly not that strong. However, I have not known many Econ majors with 3.4+ GPAs who unsuccessfully applied to such companies. Like I said, Goldman Sachs recruited more LSA students than Ross students back in my day. And as umich2010 suggests, McKinsey recruits undergrads more from Engineering than Ross. I would not be surprised if they recruit more from LSA than from Ross either. Ross is awesome, but it is small and many of those exclusive companies prefer students with highly quantitative skills (such as Engineers) and/or with a more liberal arts academic background. </p>
<p>In short, the concentration of qualified LSA students who wish to work in Consulting or IBanking is tiny, but those who do wish to work in those industries are highly recruited on campus.</p>
<p>"University of Michigan- Ann Arbor student body is brilliant, though I wouldn’t say their student body is easily match with University of Pennslyvania.</p>
<p>Coolbrezze, that is true, and nobody I know would claim that pound for pound, Michigan’s undergraduate student body is as strong as Penn’s. Michigan’s faculty, curriculum, resources and facilities are as good. Michigan’s student body is very competitive, but not quite as strong. Like I said above, between 50% and 75% % of Michigan undergrads enrolled in the colleges of Engineering, LSA and Ross are Penn material, which given its size, is pretty amazing. But admittedly, 25% or a little more of Michigan undergrads are not quite as strong. Nobody disputes that. However, that does not mean Michigan as an undergraduate institution is not as strong as Penn (or Cornell and any other elite university).</p>
<p>giants92. Now that you’ve been rebuked in virtually every comment you’ve made, care to rethink your positions a bit? Perhaps you’ve been underestimating the quality of The University of Michigan a little too much. It’s OK to admit that you’ve been mistaken. That’s what learning and growing is all about.</p>
<p>Alexandre, you are comparing class ranking,to tell you the truth, they mean little because different school has different difficulty (my school does not rank because it is extremely difficult to pick out the great students, we have a student that made it to USAMO and MOP but he doesn’t have a 4.0 at all). If you look at the big picture all together (the ACT, SAT and the Class Ranking) Cornell and Brown tops UM. If you are going to argue the super score, then go look at ACT because it is a good 2-3 point higher than UM. Also you are comparing the lower ones of the Ivies. Go look at princton, harvard and yale and you’ll see that they are much higher. I highly doubt that Upenn is hiding because i easily found their admissions stats by just goggling them (I think you didn’t even try to look and instead just said they are hiding them)
<a href=“http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/profile/[/url]”>http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/profile/</a>
<a href=“http://www.upenn.edu/about/facts.php[/url]”>http://www.upenn.edu/about/facts.php</a>
Top Ten percent: 98.9%
SAT: 2000-2300 (I added them up)
ACT:31-34</p>
<p>Columbia was also easy to find (I think you just didn’t try to find them and said that they are hiding things)
[Admission</a> Statistics | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Admission”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php)
From their website:
* Of schools that provided us with a class rank, approximately 93% of accepted students were in the top 10% of their graduating class; 98% were in the top 20% of their class.
* The middle 50% of admitted students scored between a 1400 and a 1540 on the Math and Critical Reading sections of the SAT.
* The middle 50% of admitted students scored between a 2090 and a 2300 on the Math, Critical Reading and Writing sections of the SAT.
* The middle 50% of admitted students scored between a 31 and a 35 on the ACT.</p>
<p>I think it explains volumes that Columbia’s and UPenn’s ACT is a good 4 point higher than UM’s and that their Class Ranks contain more student than UM and their SAT is higher.
So I think Columbia’s and Upenn’s student body is better (when they are admitted, this doesn’t mean that they will graduate better)</p>
<p>I simply just want to say that your post: “That’s roughly equal to the top 75% of the students at Brown, Columbia, Cornell and Penn. 25% of students at those 4 Ivies have lower stats that Michigan’s top 75%.” is wrong.</p>
<p>To post 24</p>
<p>I know University of Michigan-Ann Arbor student body is brilliant, though even without the other 25% ( or more) you claim… University of Pennslyvania is still far in league. </p>
<p>Again, coming from a student who prefers UM-Ann Arbor over Penn.</p>
<p>cdz, the only problem with your argument is that Columbia’s and Penn’s data are for admitted students, not enrolled students. There is a significant difference. Michigan’s mid 50% SAT range for admitted students is 1900-2200 (not superscored). I stand by what I said. And Columbia and Penn superscore. I stand by what I said. I have studied this matter for close to two deaces. I am not a moron you know? I think I have managed to get the facts straight after spending over 5,000 hours researching this very subject. When I said that over 50% of Michigan students are Ivy League (minus HYP) material, I mean it.</p>
<p>“I know University of Michigan-Ann Arbor student body is brilliant, though even without the other 25% ( or more) you claim… University of Pennslyvania is still far in league.”</p>
<p>Coolbrezze, I don’t know since Penn does not openly share its admissions data. They aren’t sharing enrolled statistics for whatever reason. But I know the top 50% of students at Michigan have SAT scores over 1330 and ACT scores over 29. That’s roughly equal to the top 75% of the students at Brown and Cornell.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi, there are biases in every single argument that has been presented. Sure, there have been statistics thrown out by Alexandre. Cdz basically gave my rebuttal for me. Class ranks mean nothing. You could go to a crappy high school, get a 4.0, get into Michigan, and be rejected by Ivies. On the other hand, you could go to a great high school with a lot of competition from great students, not get a 4.0, and get into some Ivies. Alexandre, that SAT range for admitted students at Michigan is still a full 100 points lower on each end of the range. I would call that significant. (I’m not sure what superscoring is, would it account for that?)</p>
<p>Throwing statistics aside, I would like to draw on personal experience. The only way you could possibly convince me that 50% of UMich students are on par with Ivy kids is if Ivy kids were significantly worse than my impression is of them. If we’re talking about the top 50%, that means that roughly the average Michigan student is included in this argument. The fact of the matter is I know several average (GPA-wise) Umich students. I also know several students who attend Ivy league schools, whom I will, for argument’s sake, put somewhere in the middle 50% at their respective colleges as a conservative estimate. If you put these kids up against each other in terms of intelligence, there’s simply no contest. The Ivy kids I know would blow the Michigan kids I know out of the water. It really would be laughable.</p>
<p>If we switch back to my comment about banking recruitment at Ross vs. LSA, I don’t for one second drop my argument. Banks recruit far more heavily at Ross. Many banks have recruitment events exclusively for Ross students. If you browse any thread regarding a list of I-Banking target schools, you will see UMich Ross stated specifically. Not UMich by itself.</p>
<p>If you look at who gets the interviews and offers, it’s almost always mainly the top B-School students. Occasionally you’ll find a Financial Math major with an extremely high GPA who gets an S&T job, but if you look at the vast majority of recruiting events and job offers, Ross takes the cake (even with S&T). And I’m not even talking about raw numbers. I’m talking about the percentage of kids (Ross vs. LSA) who apply for an internship/job. The percentage is much higher at Ross. No, I don’t have statistics to throw at you, but I have a decent sample size of people with whom I’ve spoken, in terms of landing interviews and jobs.</p>
<p>giants92. Superscoring could very well account for the discrepancy in numbers. It simply means applicants can take the test over and over and use the highest scores from each section and submit them to their potential schools. Michigan only takes the highest score from a single sitting. Alexandre can explain the difference in numbers far better than I can. In terms of labeling students by your perception of intelligence, perhaps you are hanging out with the wrong group of students at Michigan. I mean usually brilliant minds seek each other out.</p>
<p>That comment does not make sense. I hang out with kids with wide ranges of intelligence (as measured by GPA, that is). I have friends with near 4.0 GPAs majoring in Honors Math, Honors Econ, Honors PoliSci, etc., and I also have friends that sometimes struggle to pass their classes.</p>
<p>Maybe you didn’t understand my point, but I was trying to say that the kids I hang out with (and don’t hang out with, but are acquainted with) that happen to have average GPAs (and thus fall around the 50% level), do not come close to the intelligence level of kids I know who go to Ivy League schools. The previously stated argument was that the top 50% of students at Michigan can compete with 75% of students at the Ivies. I do not see that being true from my personal experience. If I were to put a percentage on it, I would say closer to 25%.</p>
<p>when you use anecdotal evidence starting with “i know a person…”, it doesn’t mean anything. Michigan’s a huge school, I know people that don’t even know they are so brilliant, and i know people who think they are really smart, but dumb butts. There are all sorts of characters at Michigan, but the brainpower of this university doesn’t lose out to anybody</p>
<p>What? I never said anything about the people’s perception of themselves. I’m talking about Grade Point Averages. I don’t know the IQ scores of everyone I know, so GPA is the best proxy. If you’ve ever taken a statistics class, you would know that a large enough sample size (that is still a fraction of the population) can be used to estimate said population.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>1) no where in my post did I say you were a moron nor did I implied it, please do not attack other people and make false claims just because they disagree. If you read closely, all I said was that I disagree with your statement. </p>
<p>2) I would like to know where did they say that Penn and Columbia’s SAT was superscored, I do not see it on their website. If you have UM’s information in which they said their score is not superscored, could you post that? Because on UM’s website, it doesn’t say any thing about superscored or not. I highly doubt that all colleges superscore their SAT scores, and I highly doubt that top colleges do superscore their application’s score. No where on the Ivies website and UM’s website does it state that they superscore or not superscore the application’s SAT scores. So to tell you the truth, you can’t say that Ivies superscore their scores nor can you say UM doesn’t, and vice versa.</p>
<p>3) Sure you might have researched it over 5,000 hours, but that doesn’t mean that your understanding of the facts is truly that much better than mine. Again please do not look down at others. Especially when they are quoting from the fact. </p>
<p>4) If you look at UM’s website ([Office</a> of Undergraduate Admissions: About Michigan](<a href=“http://www.admissions.umich.edu/about/]Office”>Explore & Visit | University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions)) it also stated that “Middle 50th Percentile of the Admitted Class” not enrolled class.
So, your statement is false, especially because it comes from their website. </p>
<p>5) When you have a stronger acceptance pool, wouldn’t you think you would have a stronger enrolled students? Really when you have a weak acceptance body of students, the students that enroll won’t be any stronger than the accepted students. Also top students that get accepted go else where because most likely they applied to go to other places and got accepted (yes this applies to Ivies too but much less since once you get accepted to the Ivies, I think most people want to go there). I know that many people (especially instate) who are top of their class apply to UM as “safety”. They are have tremendous GPA and SAT/ACT, they go to Ivies or equivalent (Stanford, Duke, Rice, JHU, MIT…). Of course this doesn’t apply to everyone but given that half of the students accepted leave, it makes me wonder how much the enrollment pool shifts. I’m pretty sure that most (again most not all) of the students accepted that are near the bottom 50% enroll but I think that the top half has a good amount that go to other university, I don’t know if they go to better or worse school. But all I’m saying is that when you accept students with a strong academic background, your enrolled pool will be just as strong as your accepted pool of students. So when Ivies have a stronger acceptance pool of students than UM, their enrolled most likely will be stronger too.</p>
<p>As I’m starting to observe, I also notice most if not all universities list stats as admitted students and not enrolled freshmen. I’m now starting to wonder the enrolled students stats, which may be best reflected by USNEWS ranking etc…</p>
<p>Alexandre is a super moderator here. You have to be invited to become one. He is not one to give false information and has a very strong reputation online for his honesty. Since you (cdz512) and giants92 are relatively new posters on CC, you might not be aware of this fact. You reactions however, are so typical of some Michigan residents. We have a tremendous university in our presence, but it’s still not good enough for you. That’s fine and you’re entitled to your opinion. But I can assure you, there are thousands of students at Michigan that are Ivy League quality and gladly have chosen to stay instate or have come here from out of state. To indicate that they are somehow less intelligent because they do so, is the height of belligerence and snobbery. Not everyone thinks the grass is greener elsewhere. I know neither of you said this perse, but this is what your statements imply to me.</p>
<p>Here’s another “you just got owned by Alexandre” thread. Lol :)</p>
<p>I don’t care if he is a moderator or not, it doesn’t mean that your argument is always better than a person who is new. I stated from the facts that was available to me, the university’s website. I also cited the facts so other know where to find them and where I got them and stated along with concluded directly what the university said. I don’t know where Alexandre got his facts but clearly from the UM’s website, his “facts” are wrong. </p>
<p>“To indicate that they are somehow less intelligent because they do so, is the height of belligerence and snobbery. Not everyone thinks the grass is greener elsewhere. I know neither of you said this perse, but this is what your statements imply to me.”
Ok to you my statement implies that. What I intended to say was that a university’s enrollment can’t be stronger than the students it accepted. And like wise, a university’s enrollment can’t be weaker than the students it accepted. What this means is that if your acceptance pool had students with ACT of lets say 25-32 (out of all 100% of the students accepted), you can’t enroll students that have 35 because there are not students accepted with a ACT of 35, this also goes the opposite way: enrolling students with 23 is not possible either. So what I am saying is that UM’s acceptance pool is weaker than Ivies, in this sense, I highly doubt that UM can’t have a stronger enrollment than most Ivies. Yes, there are students that are Ivy qualify that decided to go to UM, but this doesn’t mean they will become more successful nor does it mean that they are always getting a better education than Ivies (yes there might be times you will). Ivies to me are an advantage because the undergraduate body isn’t 25,000+. I mean that is massive and to me a great disadvantage over the about 5,000 at Ivies. </p>
<p>Also I would like to look at the success of the graduates. According to Payscale, the median salary of UM graduates is 84,000. The median for Cornell is 91,700. Median for Duke is 102,000. [PayScale</a> - 2009 March Madness Predictions](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/2009-march-madness-predictions]PayScale”>PayScale - 2009 March Madness Predictions)
In 2008, the median for Stanford is 113,000. Cornell 93,900. Duke 96,800. [PayScale</a> - 2008 March Madness Predictions](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/2008-march-madness-predictions.htm]PayScale”>http://www.payscale.com/2008-march-madness-predictions.htm)
So the truth it seems is that not only does the accepted and enrolled pool of candidates are stronger , the outcome of the university, its graduates, have a higher median salary at Ivies and equivalent when compared to UM(of course there are times were Ivies make less than UM graduates but the median of Ivies is still higher).</p>
<p>to add on, I mean in no ways to offend Alexandre, and I appreciate his insight and opinion. I just hope that he respects other the same and not make false claims (“Do I look like I am a moron…” --again I never stated or said anything close to it). I know he has help tremendously with others but there are times you have to disagree and in this case, I do, especially because I had the facts in front of me and what he said disagreed with the facts. Again I do not have any intention to offend or put down Alexandre</p>