<p>and is now the third most active forum on CC! Cal and UCLA are clearly the top 2 and will remain so for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>^^^^That’s third most active forum at CC top universities listing Alexandre. Six of the eight Ivy League schools have more active forum sites in their section.</p>
<p>Are we all missing the part where UMich’s sheer volumes are greater than Stanford’s?</p>
<p>Of’course Michigan is more active, it’s a better college.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/797795-finally-college-rankings-based-something-important.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/797795-finally-college-rankings-based-something-important.html</a></p>
<p>UMich #7 Stanford #16</p>
<p>And no… I’m not serious.</p>
<p>“Are we all missing the part where UMich’s sheer volumes are greater than Stanford’s?”</p>
<p>^^^I have no idea what this means.</p>
<p>It wasn’t put very well, but I think he’s trying to say that the result is expected due to the fact that UM has more students and alumni than Stanford.</p>
<p>^^^^So? Michigan has more students and alumni that Berkeley and UCLA, yet they have many more posts. If you look at the Ivy League boards, you’ll see all but two schools have far more posts than Michigan. So that is not a valid point.</p>
<p>MIT is smaller than Duke, Northwestern or Notre Dame and has more posts than any one of them.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you’re arguing with me; I’m just explaining what I thought he/she meant to say.</p>
<p>“MIT is smaller than Duke, Northwestern or Notre Dame and has more posts than any one of them.”</p>
<p>“^^^^So? Michigan has more students and alumni that Berkeley and UCLA, yet they have many more posts. If you look at the Ivy League boards, you’ll see all but two schools have far more posts than Michigan. So that is not a valid point.”</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Srrinath was saying that Stanford would still be more desirable than Michigan because it has almost as many posts as Michigan, yet is much smaller. If two universities were equal in desirability (or whatever the number of posts is supposed to measure), than the number of posts should be proportional to the number of students or students+alumni or something.</p>
<p>well of course the Michigan sub-forum is going to have more posts. Michigan has a larger applicant pool. This doesn’t mean it’s better. Which it’s not. Michigan is amazing, but Standford is on another level.</p>
<p>I think many of you are taking this post way too seriously. I was merely pointing out an amusing fact, nothing more.</p>
<p>Stopit, very few people on the Michigan forum would claim that Michigan is better than (or even equal to) Stanford. Clearly, Stanford is a better university than Michigan. </p>
<p>That said, I would not go so far as to say that Stanford is “on another level”. In fact, I would say they are both at the same level. Stanford is one of five universities that is legitimately considered the best in the nation. The University of Michigan is one of 15-20 or so universities (that immediately follow those five) that can legitimately considered among the top 20 in the nation. Those 20-25 universities are all at the same level and form the nation’s elite research universities. That includes small research universities like Brown, Caltech, Dartmouth and Rice to that group, as well as public universities such as Cal and UVa.</p>