Michigan-AA or UC-Irvine??...they look same!

golubb_u · March 4, 2005, 7:41pm

Looking through the stats of these schools, they seem very similar. In fact, UC-Irvine has more students in the top 10% than UMAA, so UCI may in fact be more competitive!!!

<h1>............................UMAA / UC-Irvine</h1>

Status............Public / Public
Admit rate.......55% / 57%
SAT range.......1130-1320 / 1070-1275 (converted ACT to SAT)

Students in
top 10%........67% / 95% (UCI is way competitive)

Alumni Giving....13% / 9%

Body Count......40K / 35k?

%classes
under 20..........50% / 45%

(sorry spaces out of alignment)

UMAA and UCI look so alike on paper! Has anybody seen both the campuses to see what the differences are?? (Of course, UCI's going to have better weather)

liek0806 · March 4, 2005, 7:51pm

University of Michigan is way more prestigious.

barrons · March 4, 2005, 8:04pm

Top 10% in California equals top 50% in the midwest. Check the SAT's. Also check the amount of money in that fundraising. UM around $300 Million. UCI far less.

golubb_u · March 4, 2005, 8:17pm

"Top 10% in California equals top 50% in the midwest. Check the SAT's."

Nooo...the SATs are very similar! Also, top 10% in cali means top 10% in michigan.

Regarding presitige, UC-Irvine and UMAA have the same prestige on west coast! UCI is not a throw-away school....it's quite a good school

zagat · March 4, 2005, 8:21pm

barrons is right. The top 10 looks high because it's all Cali public school kids. Midwest schools are much better. Hands down go to Mich. I don't know any kids at Irvine who love it much less like it much. It is a commuter school. Mich is the much better college experience.

asleeacn · March 4, 2005, 8:50pm

"Michigan-AA or UC-Irvine??...they look same!"
Except in future earnings potential.

ohnoes · March 4, 2005, 8:55pm

But if you use Michigan's average SAT score (which is more reflective of the entire body, because many OOSers don't take the ACT), the range is quite different: 1210-1400.

Oh, and the fact that Michigan is highly ranked in virtually everything, while UCI is not. Not that it isn't a good school, but it can't approach Michigan.

golubb_u · March 4, 2005, 9:11pm

"But if you use Michigan's average SAT score (which is more reflective of the entire body, because many OOSers don't take the ACT), the range is quite different: 1210-1400"

nooo...the SAT is 1070-1275 if you convert the ACT to SAT equivalent. You're off by 100 points.

One valid point you have is in the ranking of grad schools. Yes, the grad schools are quite a bit better than UCI, but most people on this board are undergrad students.

zagat · March 4, 2005, 9:16pm

Actually, this is silly. Michigan is well respected all over and Irvine is unheard of outside Cali.

ohnoes · March 4, 2005, 9:22pm

Quality of grad schools typically filters down into undergrad as well - its no coincidence most schools good in graduate engineering are the ones highest ranked in undergrad as well.

As for the SAT scores - huh? If you compare Irvine and Michigan's SAT scores directly (not using ACT scores or whatever), Michigan has an average score 100 points higher. As for acceptance %, all you have to do to apply to more than one UC is check off a box and pay some more $$, so Irvine gets far more unqualified applicants.

kfc4u · March 4, 2005, 9:29pm

michigan is really cold right now, and irvine is right next to newport beach a.k.a. "the OC"... i dont see how they look the same. the only thing that looks the same is blue and gold.

howardt1 · March 4, 2005, 11:32pm

Consider Michigan has better education system than California(CA ranks in the 40's among all 50 states) So, the top 10% in California is good but is not that great either. Also consider Michigan only has 2 major public Universities compare California has 9 UC campuses.

UMich-ANN ARBOR students are the combination of Top 3 UC's + some Ivy material kids.

Michigan State U. students are the combination of all other UC kids.

So, UCI should be compared to MSU, NOT the UMich-ANN ARBOR

Alexandre · March 5, 2005, 12:44am

Golubb, I don't know where you got your information. For one thing, 90% of Michigan students graduated in the top 10% of their HS class (not 67% as you claim)...and like many here have already mentioned...it is far tougher to be ranked in the top 10% of your class in Michigan than it is in California. Secondly, since roughly two thirds of Michigan students submit their SATs, I would say the SAT range provided by Michigan is a good indicator...although I personally think the SAT (as well as other standardized tests) does not measure anything...and that's coming from someone who aced the SAT and the GMAT. In terms of SATs, Michigan's mean is 1310 compared to Irvine's 1190. That is not a big difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. But when you look at the rest, Michigan is actually significantly better than Irvine. Michigan has far better ranked departments, much more money to spend on research and students, surperior job and graduate school placement etc...In short, you are comparing a good but not great university (UCI) to one of the nation's top 10 or top 15 universities.

golubb_u · March 5, 2005, 2:16am

"Golubb, I don't know where you got your information. For one thing, 90% of Michigan students graduated in the top 10% of their HS class (not 67% as you claim)..."

Dude, 67% is in plain print in USNews 2002 edition , and in 2005 it was 90%.....which is a total record for UMAA! It's typically in the 70% range. Also, the ACT-to-SAT conversion puts UC-Irvines students in head-to-head competition with UMAA students.

Yes, the grad rankings are better for UMAA, but in terms of undergrad the students for UCI are a dead match with UMAA, wouldn't you say?

Also, top 10% in CA is EXACTLY top 10% in Michigan (within a small margin of error)....unless the human species in Michigan is different from the species in CA!! If anything it's harder to be top 10% in Cali than michigan, due to more competition in bigger cities (SF, LA etc.)

"UMich-ANN ARBOR students are the combination of Top 3 UC's + some Ivy material kids"

....heck no! Everyone knows the UC-Berkeley and UCLA are the top two public universities!!

Anyways, I'm just saying that on paper, UC-Irvine and UMAA are a dead match!

Alexandre · March 5, 2005, 3:21am

Golubb, all universities have become more selective in recent years. The 2002 USNWR is reporting information that is 4 years old since it is posting information of the class that entered in 2001. Let us stick to the current shall we? In 2003, 80% of Michigan's freshman class were top 10% students, in 2004, it was 90% and this year, I believe it was 80%. So it is fair to say that the current trend is in the 80% to 90% ranked in the top 10% of their high school. class.

Michigan students, are on average, equal to students at UC-Berkeley, UCLA and UVA. Same SAT scores (give or take 20 points), same class ranks and same unweighed GPAs.

Also, according to national scores, the average Michigan high school student scores significantly higher than the average California high school student in all subjects. So no, being ranked in the top 10% in the Midwest or East Coast weighs a lot more than it does in California. All the UCs have over 90% of their students graduate in the top 10% of their high school class...andyet, the mean SAT score at the UCs (not including Cal and UCLA) is around 1150. Again, there isn't a big difference between 1150 and 1310, but it is still significant...as is the difference between a top 10% student in the Midwest and a top 10% student in California.

As far as the top 2 state universities...if there is such a thing, they are Cal and Michigan...not UCLA. UCLA and UVA are almost as good though.The rankings I was referring to were undergraduate rankings. Michigan is ranked among the top 10 or top 15 overall at the undergraduate level, academically speaking. Even the very pro-private universities USNWR ranks Michigan #9 academically, tied with Chicago, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins and Penn. And its Engineering and Business programs are ranked among the top 5 nationally at the undergraduate level.

I will repeat, academically, you are comparing a good school (Irvine) to a top 10-15 university in the nation (Michigan). Its like comparing UCSD to Stanford. Afterall, UCSD has more top 10% students than Stanford and the mean SAT score at UCSD is only 150 points lower than the mean SAT score at Stanford. So what the hell, UCSD and Stanford must be equal! LOL See, the logic doesn't work. Everybody knows Stanford is one of the nation's top 4 or 5 universities...and everybody knows UCD is not a top 25 university.

rtkysg · March 5, 2005, 5:40am

golub_u,

Is this another crazy post of yours? Comparing Umich and UCI is simply ridiculous! Only Berkeley and to a slighter extent UCLA are to be compared with Umich. Why do you always post wrong stuffs ??

golubb_u · March 5, 2005, 2:04pm

"Comparing Umich and UCI is simply ridiculous!'

Well, I pulled the stats from USNews and reputable sources. The 55%-60% acceptance rate at UMAA, plus SAT scores etc. definitely makes it LOOK like UMAA is similar on paper to UCI.

Certainly UC-Berkeley and UCLA are much harder to get into (non CC-transferwise) than UMAA, do you agree? Generally speaking UC-Berkeley takes #1 public school spot and UCLA takes #2. Again, most people would agree there as well.

That just leaves UCSD, UCI, UCD etc. I just picked the one that most closely resembled UMAA based on sheer student stats. Yes, UMAA does better than UCI in grad school rankings, but not as good as UC-Berkeley and UCLA.

bluebayou · March 5, 2005, 2:46pm

Alexandre:

while I definitely concur that the OP is dubious at best, and that Cal and Mich are THE two best public universities in the country, I would caution comparing stats between the two states.

1) Mich is in ACT country, whereas few kids take the ACT in Cal.

2) HS standardized testing is all but standardized across the country. Each state uses a different test, and the national norms for NCLB are just that, national norms. In California, current HS testing is based on the Calif HS curriculum as approved by the state. Of course, every state has different curriculum and teaches in different sequences. But, more importantly, the national normed section of California's testing is only a few questions -- the bare minimum to meet NCLB.

3) The demographics of the states differ signficantly, so comparisons are difficult. The closest to Calif in terms of demographics is TX.

4) While in total the UC's do accept 12.5% of the state pop, Berkeley and LA clearly do not (ignoring hooked kids, like athletes, low income, first generation, etc.). For non-hooked kids o be accepted at either school really requires kids in the top 5% or better.

jwblue · March 5, 2005, 3:07pm

I don't understand how people are saying Michigan's high school system is far better than California's. I would imagine CA has a much broader range than Mich (ie, more bad, but also more good schools), but I don't think the average is all that different.

The ACT scores for the 2 states are similar (21.6 in CA vs. 21.4 in Mich):

<a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html</a>

Also, the overwhelming majority of applicants to the country's most selective colleges are far more likely to take the SAT than the ACT.

Alexandre · March 5, 2005, 3:17pm

Bluebayou, I was not referring to the ACT. I was referring to the Math, Reading and Science Achiement scores of students in California and Michigan. The average score for California students was 52 for math, 61 for reading and 40 for science. The average score for Michigan students was 70 for math, 77 for reading and 69 for science. It isn't even close. The Michigan high school system is seriously more effective.

And GoLubb, perecentage accepted means nothing. Mean SAT/ACT mean little too (although Michigan is equal to Cal and UCLA in this regard). By and large the student body at Michigan is pretty similar to the student body at UCLA and Cal. However, Michigan has more resources and higher ranked departments than UCLA...both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Michigan is comparable to Cornell and Penn. Not quite as good as Cal but slightly better than UCLA. You need to study universities a lot more before passing judgement.

Here is a lesson in humility for you. You claim that UCLA is ranked higher than Michigan at the undergraduate level and at the graduate level. As a matter of fact, over the last 20 years, the only state university that has been ranked ahead of Michigan (never by more than 3 or 4 spots) has been Cal-Berkeley. Sometimes, UVA is ranked ahead of Michigan too, but M<ichigan has been ranked ahead of UVA several times too. UCLA has never been ranked ahead of Michigan. In the current USNWR best colleges rankings:

<ul>
<li>Michigan is ranked #22, tied with UVA and ahead of UCLA, which is ranked #25. </li>
<li>Michigan's peer assessment score (academic ranking) is 4.6 (#9 in the nation and tied with Chicago, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins and Penn) and UCLA and UVA have assessment scores of 4.3 (#18 and tied Carnegie Mellon). </li>
<li>Michigan's mean SAT score is 1310, UVA's is 1330 and UCLA's is 1290.</li>
<li>Michigan is ranked #3 in Business. UVA is ranked #7 in Business. UCLA does not have an undergraduate Business program.</li>
<li>Michigan was ranked #7 in Engineering. UCLA was ranked #22 in Engineering. UVA is ranked #33 in Engineering.</li>
</ul>

In short, Michigan is clearly ranked higher than UVA and UCLA.

Now let us look at graduate school rankings:

BUSINESS:
Michigan #10
UCLA #12
UVA #12

ENGINEERING:
Michigan #8
UCLA #16
UVA #42

LAW:
Michigan #7
UVA #9
UCLA #16

MEDICINE:
Michigan #7
UCLA #14
UVA #25

BIOLOGY:
Michigan #14
UCLA #20
UVA #36

CHEMISTRY:
UCLA #11
Michigan #21
UVA #47

COMPUTER SCIENCE:
Michigan #14
UCLA #14
UVA #27

GEOLOGY:
Michigan #5
UCLA #11
UVA N/A

MATHEMATICS:
Michigan #8
UCLA #10
UVA N/A

PHYSICS:
Michigan #13
UCLA #16
UVA #38

ECONOMICS:
Michigan #11
UCLA #11
UVA N/A

English
Michigan #11
UCLA #11
UVA #11

History:
Michigan #5
UCLA #9
UVA #15

Political Science:
Michigan #2
UCLA #8
UVA N/A

Psychology
Michigan #2
UCLA #6
UVA #17

Sociology:
Michigan #3
UCLA #7
UVA N/A

Michigan is better than UCLA is most fields and UCLA is only better than Michigan in Chemistry. Michigan is ranked higher than UVA in all but one of the fields above...and that was a tie in English.

So I do not know where you are getting your information that UCLA is ranked ahead of Michigan, but it is obviously not the case. So stop feeing wrong information to serious posters on this forum.

Thread		Replies	Views
How good is Michigan, really? University of Michigan	31	325	April 18, 2021
Virginia, Michigan vs UCLA College Search & Selection	112	544	April 15, 2021
UCLA vs Michigan University of Michigan	24	2786	April 16, 2021
Battle of the Top Publics College Search & Selection	125	283	April 15, 2021
Umichigan? College Search & Selection	101	281	April 15, 2021

Michigan-AA or UC-Irvine??...they look same!

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US