“By that logic, Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore must be garbage.”
Not necessarily. The absence of a strong graduate program does not necessarily signify weak undergraduate education. However, the presence of a strong graduate program often means strong undergraduate education. Along with strong graduate programs usually comes state of the art facilities, worldclass faculty and cutting edge research, all of which are open to driven and resourcefull undergraduate students.
“Distinguished research professors do NOT necessarily equate to better undergraduate teaching and curriculum.”
Like I said above, actually, it does, assuming the university has the resources and undergraduate students who actually care about learning. Michigan has the facilities (they purchased and now operate Pfizer’s global research headquarters in addition to several other labs and facilities) and resources (top 10 medical school and hospital, $10 billion endowment etc…) that few universities can match.
And why assume that a faculty that is at the cutting edge of research cannot teach?
To JJDad3, what sort of child is your son? Is he proactive and driven? Will he actively seek out the virtually unlimited opportunities available to undergraduate students at a university like Michigan? If so, then I do not think that BC or even UVa can match Michigan in the sciences. On the other hand, if your son is looking for a standard undergraduate education and is not overly concerned with research and getting published, then it really does notmatter which of those three universities he attends. They are all exceptional academically.