<p>Hello everyone I was just wondering if u guys could give me advice on which school is best for chemical engineering and why, beyond the usnews rankings ( i kno the answers are probably going to be biased since im in the michigan forum) Im a prospective oos student for all of these and have been accepted at georgia tech. (waiting to hear back from the other 2 schools)</p>
<p>here is what ive heard so far from reviews
chemE: texas>gt=michigan
engineering overall: utexas=michigan=gt
social life: utexas>umich>gatech
location: texas>gt>michigan
overall prestige: michigan>gt>texas</p>
<p>please correct me if im wrong about these</p>
<p>Don’t see how Texas is a better location than Michigan, and especially don’t see how GT is. I loved Austin when I visited and I love Ann Arbor. I think you’ll enjoy yourself at either Texas or Michigan. More personal preference than anything. Both are very reputable in chemE. </p>
<p>[PatStansik's</a> Channel - YouTube](<a href=“Pat Stansik - YouTube”>Pat Stansik - YouTube)</p>
<p>Check out some Pregaming with Pat videos to get an idea of Umich social life.</p>
<p>I am not sure I agree with most of those equalities/inequalities:</p>
<p>Michigan, GT and Texas are all ranked between #6 and #13 in Chemical Engineering. There is hardly a difference at that level. </p>
<p>I agree that in overall Engineering, all three are qual.</p>
<p>In the quality of social life depends on your personal preference, but I would say Michigan and Texas are both superior to GT. Whether Michigan slightly edges Texas or vice versa is entirely a matter of preference.</p>
<p>As far as surounding areas, Ann Arbor and Austin are both awesome in their own special in their own special ways. Austin is a much large city than Ann Arbor, so if one prefference “the big city”, Austin is more ideal whole if one likes the college town concept, Ann Arbor may be more ideal, although Ann Arbor is large enough to appeal to most while Austin still retains some of its college town appeal. Again, GT trains in this department.</p>
<p>In terms of overall prestige, Michigan is indeed above the other two, although I do not think GT is more prestigious than Texas. Here, I would say Michigan > GT = Texas.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that Michigan enjoys that much of a reputational advantage of UT-Austin overall. They are both more academically prestigious than Georgia Tech which is nonexistent in the humanities. According to the power ranking that you yourself provided Alexandre, both Texas and Michigan are in that second group of 15-20 universities that follows HYPSM and Berkeley in department strength.</p>
<p>The other major components of prestige are financial strength and selectivity/quality of the student body. According to their most recent CDS’s, UT-Austin has an composite 25th-75th percentile ACT score range of 25-31 while Michigan’s equivalent is 27-31. Michigan’s SAT score ranges are significantly higher though but there is probably selection bias involved here since its mostly the better qualified OOS who enroll at U of M who take the SAT vs. Texas whose student body is drawn primarily from in-staters.</p>
<p>Finally, as far as financial strength goes, both are among the wealthiest public universities in America after UVA with regards to endowment per capita. U of M would be much better off if state appropriations to the school had not dropped from $400 Million or so to $268.5 Million in the last decade or so and that’s saying something since Michigan is already pretty well of with a $7.8 Billion Endowment. I’m not sure what the state of Texas’s allocation is to UT-Austin specifically.</p>
<p>"I’m not sure that Michigan enjoys that much of a reputational advantage of UT-Austin overall</p>
<p>Of course you don’t. You still can’t admit that Michigan is a peer of Duke academically. Btw, why are you trolling the Michigan board? Why don’t you ever post on the Duke board? What is your purpose here?</p>
<p>Hehe! Nice one RJK. But honestly, I do not think Michigan and UT have much in common with Duke. I would compare Duke to Dartmouth and Brown, but with strong professional programs in Law and Medicine.</p>
<p>Goldenboy, I would agree that Michigan does not enjoy a large advantage over UT on the reputational front. UT is a legitimate top 20 research university in the US and along with that comes a well earned reputation. This said, there is a difference between the two. One could say that Michigan’s closest reputational peers are Cornell (my other alma matter), Northwestern and Penn while UT’s reputational peers are UCLA, UIUC and Wisconsin-Madison). </p>
<p>And for the record, according to the USNWR power rankings I provided in an earlier thread, Michigan is #7 in the tradional majors (UT is #14) and #4 if you include Business and Engineering (UT is #12). In both cases, Michigan has the advantage.</p>
<p>^Fair enough.</p>
<p>
I’m not ■■■■■■■■ but rather I am offering an opinion to help the OP with his college search & selection. You, on the other hand, are adding no new information to assist the OP at all. I agree that Michigan and Duke are too different to compare. Michigan’s faculty is of a higher caliber than Duke’s as a whole in the traditional disciplines but their professional programs are of roughly equal quality (Duke is a tad better at Medicine and Michigan is a touch more renowned in Law while Business is about equal). Every other factor favors Duke include the strength of the student body, institutional wealth, financial aid, faculty pay, class sizes, professional/PhD placement, etc. etc. but its up to the individual to decide how important these factors are to him/her. Duke is better all things considered but its a legitimate POV to say Michigan is a peer.</p>
<p>The one place where Michigan beats Duke and most other private schools is the liveliness of its CC forum. Unfortunately, there’s no discussion of football and academic developments in the Duke forum, just a bunch of high schoolers posting a million chance threads.:D</p>
<p>“Every other factor favors Duke include the strength of the student body, institutional wealth, financial aid, faculty pay, class sizes, professional/PhD placement, etc. etc.”</p>
<p>This is a one time post goldenboy, designed to correct many of your errors. We will not proceed with the topic on this thread as it is hors-sujet. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Duke does have a stronger student body than Michigan on average, but Michigan’s student body is gifted enough to provide a student with a similar experience as a student at virtually any university. </p></li>
<li><p>Duke is not wealthier when you consider state appropriations. Michigan’s endowment stood at $7.8 billion in July of 2011, compared to Duke’s $5.7 billion. But Michigan also recives close to $300 million from the state each year. That’s equivallent to an additional $6 billion of endowment. As such, financially, has the financial firepower of a private university with an endowment of close to $14 billion. When you consider economies of scale and the fact that Michigan has done a great job cutting unnecessary costs, I would say that Michigan’s financial situation is bested only by a handful of universities (HYPSM).</p></li>
<li><p>Financial aid. It depends how you look at it. Michigan costs $12,000/year for IS students. IS students make up 60% of the student body. I doubt 60% of the students at any respectable private university pays a mere $12,000 in tuition annually. I do not see why Michigan should provide further financial assistance than that. In terms of student indebtedness, Michigan and Duke graduate students with approximately equal debt.</p></li>
<li><p>Duke pays its professors better than Michigan? Perhaps on average, but that’s because Michigan has more adjunct and associate professors and also large faculty in fields that pay less. However, professors at similar levels and in similar programs/fields earn the same at Michigan as they do at Duke. Again, Duke has no advantage here…if it did, its faculty would be stronger than Michigan’s and as well know full well, that is not the case.</p></li>
<li><p>Class size may be larger at the introduction levels, but at the intermediate and advanced levels, class size will be roughly identical. </p></li>
<li><p>Professional and graduate school placement. That’s what many Duke students contend, but I have not seen any evidence that supports their claims that graduate school adcoms or employers would choose Duke students over Michigan students of similar caliber. I am not going to go into anecdotal evidence since those mean nothing.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Previous Duke posters have been so insecure about their self-worth that they have an uncontrollable need to prove that their university is superior to its peer institutions (which includes Michigan) by stating lies and exaggerated facts. I trust it shall not come to this on my forum. Like I said, I trust this will be the end of this discussion on this thread, which is focused on Michigan, Texas and GT.</p>
<p>thanks for the info everyone. i think ill hav to make a visit to these schools(if im accepted) to decide which one is best for me. And alexandra the only reason y i put texas in front of michigan for cheme was because(corect me if im wrong) there is a better chemcical engineering industry(with semiconductors petroleum etc) in texas than in the state of michigan. In terms of program strength im sure all 3 are equally good.</p>
<p>
You would be right if you were interested in EE or Computer Engineering. Austin is the silicon valley of the south. You will surely have better opportunity in your own backyard.</p>
<p>For ChE, Michigan is very well connected with the oil & gas industry. Michigan was a pioneer in the ChE/petroleum field starting with Prof Donald Katz. I worked for the leading o&g consulting firm in Houston right after Michigan and I found many alum there in the oil patch.</p>