Michigan VS. Illinois

[sefago]

<p>

What in the world are you talking about? Look up the term “mutually exclusive,” because it does not make sense in this context at all.

</p>

<p>True, I made a mistake I admit. I meant to say that undergraduate and graduate reputations are linked in general. But they should really be ideally exclusive especially when considering academics. There is zero proof that research oriented schools provide a better educational experience than non-research schools. I expect you similarly there is no proof that undergraduate education is not impacted upon by research excellence. I admit that is true. But since both are true- it makes sense to view with suspicion anything that incorporates something that has no data to even support it.</p>

<p>Like the PA ranking. I am not interested in flawed perception. I am more interested in a concrete measure of academics.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

I apologize, but I just don’t understand your posts and this line of argument is getting nowhere. Have a lovely evening

</p>

<p>LOL, Ok. Have a nice evening too. Though I think its pretty simplistic.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>I think the problem with most debates on College Confidential is that one side believes that being “academically strong” relates ONLY to department strength, qualifications of faculty and academic facilities/resources on an absolute level while the other side believes being “academically strong” relates ONLY to strength of student body, postgraduate student placement (grad schools, professional schools, jobs, fellowships) and academic/financial resources per capita.</p>

<p>I think we need to take a middle ground approach here when we evaluate universities. According to rjk, Michigan and Cornell are peers with regards to pure academic strength as it relates to quality of departments, faculties, facilities and resources. Fine, I’ll agree with that even though Cornell has a 0.1 higher PA to boot.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT CORNELL IS BETTER. They have a stronger student body, better selectivity, more financial resources per capita, more study abroad/immersion opportunities, better placement (jobs, professional school, graduate school) on a per capita basis at least but often on an absolute level as well, more laymen prestige, etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>So if Michigan and Cornell are equal in a couple of measures but Cornell beats out Michigan in virtually everything else, doesn’t that make Cornell a “better” university? Once you hit the top 50 schools, no university can be “completely” better than another university. Cornell Engineering is far superior than Harvard’s Engineering program for instance. But I think you would agree that Harvard is a better university than Cornell overall, would you not?</p>

<p>The same analysis would apply to any of the top 5 public schools vs. any of the top 15 or so private school. When it comes to resources per capita, the caliber of the student body and professional placement, the publics just don’t compare.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Michigan has a larger library than Cornell for one easy to find indicator. It may have better facilities for engineering. It was also ranked higher by engineering recruiters and in several other areas. And the good publics were often ranked HIGHER for real world jobs recruitment.</p>

<p>[School</a> Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ.com](<a href=“School Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ”>School Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ)</p>

[sefago]

<p>

Michigan has a larger library than Cornell for one easy to find indicator. It may have better facilities for engineering. It was also ranked higher by engineering recruiters and in several other areas. And the good publics were often ranked HIGHER for real world jobs recruitment.

</p>

<p>Apologies but look at one of the comments lol:</p>

<p>

I love seeing Northwestern ranked as the best place for marketing/advertising among recruiters. However, the article seems to refer to undergraduate degrees and NU doesn’t have those majors. The recruiters must be referring to the outstanding graduate school: Kellogg. I wonder how that affects other rankings? This list would not be as helpful if it is mixing graduate programs with undergraduate programs.

</p>

<p>This is one of the reasons I dont trust surveys :)</p>

<p>Rankings by major lol. Taking bets that this contains a large percentage of graduate students.</p>

[barrons]

<p>I don’t trust people making baseless internet claims. Have a source–cite it.</p>

[sefago]

<p>What I even hate more is people too lazy to read the information in all their links:</p>

<p>[School</a> Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ.com](<a href=“School Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ”>School Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ)</p>

<p>you happy- or do you mean something else?</p>

<p>And most cited claims come from the opinions of others which dont even have a basis. Or they come from statistics in newspapers. These newspapers dont bother to tell us the source of their statistics and people post them like crazy on the internet. Then its gets cited again and again. Thats the “basis for some people’s arguments”</p>

<p>Also you did not cite your Michigan and Cornell library comment. Neither did you cite the top engineering firm comment. Please cite your sources next time.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>“HOWEVER, EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT CORNELL IS BETTER. They have a stronger student body, better selectivity, more financial resources per capita, more study abroad/immersion opportunities, better placement (jobs, professional school, graduate school) on a per capita basis at least but often on an absolute level as well, more laymen prestige, etc. etc. etc.”</p>

<p>As an alumnus of both Cornell and Michigan, I can confidently say that most of those statements are incorrect:</p>

<p>1) Cornell does have an every so slightly student body than Michigan.
2) Cornell is indeed more selective.
3) Michigan has as many resources as Cornell, even on a per capita basis. Let us not forget the $300,000,000 Michigan gest from the state on an annual basis.<br>
4) Both have excellent and unbeatable study abroad/immersion programs that meet virtually 100% of student demand.
5) Michigan and Cornell have virtually identical graduate/professional school placement figures. When adjusted for student quality, those two schools place their students into top graduate programs as effectively as practically any other undergraduate institution save HYPSM.
6) Job placement is hard to track, but for Engineering, I would say the two are roughly equal.
7) In terms of layman prestige, Cornell and Michigan are considered peers in most circles that matter.</p>

<p>With the exception of point #2, Cornell and Michigan are actually very similar. In fact, Cornell was co-founded by a University of Michigan administator and 6 of Cornell’s 12 presidents have been hired from the University of Michigan.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

7. In terms of layman prestige, Cornell and Michigan are considered peers in most circles that matter.

</p>

<p>Proof to back this up? Like solid proof not rjknovi proof</p>

<p>

5. Michigan and Cornell have virtually identical graduate/professional school placement figures. When adjusted for student quality, those two schools place their students into top graduate programs as effectively as practically any other undergraduate institution save HYPSM.

</p>

<p>Can you prove this? Do you have a spreadsheet showing graduate school placement?</p>

<p>Is this on a per capita basis?</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“Proof to back this up? Like solid proof not rjknovi proof.”</p>

<p>I used the PA scores to prove my point about academic equality between these two fine schools. What have you used to prove yours other than your worldly 21 years on this planet? You are the one telling everyone that Cornell is better than Michigan. It’s up to you to prove your contentions. Furthermore, Alexandre attended BOTH institutions and is well aware of what goes on in the world of recruiting and perception, based on his job experience. Tell us your qualifications that make you such an expert.</p>

[sefago]

<p>

I used the PA scores to prove my point about academic equality between these two fine schools. What have you used to prove yours other than your worldly 21 years on this planet? You are the one telling everyone that Cornell is better than Michigan. It’s up to you to prove your contentions. Furthermore, Alexandre attended BOTH institutions and is well aware of what goes on in the world of recruiting and perception, based on his job experience. Tell us your qualifications that make you such an expert.

</p>

<p>Oh my here we go again . . . PA scores are not evidence of academic equality.** Its a reputational survey on perceived quality **. Maybe to you they are. However, I have pointed out that they do not measure academic equality. You cannot bring evidence if the evidence is not solid. Just because you gave me some “numbers” does not mean much</p>

<p>How does the PA accurately gauge academic quality? Why pick the most controversial statistic as a source? The title of the first article should help you put things into perspective:</p>

<p>

The form submitted by the provost at the University of Wisconsin at Madison deemed 260 of its 262 peer institutions to be of “adequate” quality. A survey from the University of Vermont’s president listed “don’t know” for about half of the universities. The forms provided by Ohio State University’s president and provost were virtually identical. And the University of Florida’s president, like his highly publicized colleague at Clemson University, rated his own institution well above many of his competitors.

</p>

<p>[News:</a> Reputation Without Rigor - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings) </p>

<p>

The peer assessment survey accounts for 25% of each institution’s total
assessment. Each year, college presidents, academic deans, and senior
admissions officers are asked to rank other colleges according to their
perceived academic quality.

</p>

<p>[Moravian</a> College Withdraws From U.S. News Peer Assessment Survey – re> BETHLEHEM, Pa., May 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --](<a href=“http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moravian-college-withdraws-from-us-news-peer-assessment-survey-58316107.html]Moravian”>http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moravian-college-withdraws-from-us-news-peer-assessment-survey-58316107.html)</p>

<p>the key word here rjknovi is “perceived”</p>

<p>

The peer survey—the most controversial part of the rankings formula—asks presidents, provosts, and admissions deans to rate institutions on a scale of 1 to 5. The response rate has dropped from 68 percent in 1999, amid a steady drumbeat of anti-rankings rhetoric.

</p>

<p>[Atop</a> the Latest ‘U.S. News’ Rankings: the Usual Suspects - Admissions & Student Aid - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Atop-the-Latest-US-News/48084/]Atop”>http://chronicle.com/article/Atop-the-Latest-US-News/48084/)</p>

[sefago]

<p>

You are the one telling everyone that Cornell is better than Michigan. It’s up to you to prove your contentions.

</p>

<p>You started by saying they are peers in engineering . . . then gave a link to a purely PA based ranking. Please refer to the PA ranking criticisms that occur all over CC. It would also be true for engineering rankings. What you are using to support your points are inherently flawed. So you have not really shown how exactly these two schools are peers.</p>

<p>Alexandre gave a better generalized view but I want more data to back it up. I expect you like a goat though to stubbornly repost the PA scores. I tend to ignore goats. </p>

<p>Better is a subjective term. I can easily post data like you. USNEWs would be a start in which Cornell is a good 11 positions ahead of UMich(obviously as flawed as the PA ranking that forms a basis for it). I can post lots of data trust me, but it would be from my point of view. </p>

<p>Also, unlike people here who love posting data without defending why that data is important, I would have to go defend why each data i post here is a good reason for which Cornell is better than Mich. Thats going to take time, and I dont feel like doing that tonite.</p>

<p>

Furthermore, Alexandre attended BOTH institutions and is well aware of what goes on in the world of recruiting and perception, based on his job experience.

</p>

<p>No he doesn’t know what goes on in the world of recruiting. He might have some fair points I admit. But I have also spotted some mistakes which suggest he is not infallible. Some of his views have been significantly divergent from my discussions with real recruiters. I would take real recruiters over faceless internet people anyday anytime.</p>

[sefago]

<p>Good reason why overall Cornell is better undergraduate than Michigan</p>

<p>Cornell- 15th
Michigan 29th</p>

<p>[National</a> Universities Rankings - Best College - Education - US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2]National”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2)</p>

<p>Now I would laugh if you have a problem with this ranking but have no problem with a nebulous PA based ranking.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Sefago, I have several personal reasons to say that Cornell and Michigan have roughly identical prestige which I cannot share on CC. Suffice it to say, as an alumnus of both schools, I am in a position to observe, first hand, the effect both schools have on people. </p>

<p>Beyond my personal reasons, there are many sources one can point to when making the comparison, from Peer Assessment scores and Gallup Polls to other types of reputational rankings; generally speaking, Michigan and Cornell rated equally in terms of reputation.</p>

<p>Although I cannot prove graduate school admissions across the board (the data is not availlable), I can prove it with Law school placement.</p>

<p>[College</a> of Literature, Science, and the Arts : Students](<a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/advisor/prelaw/um_stats]College”>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/advisor/prelaw/um_stats)</p>

<p><a href=“Career Services | Student & Campus Life | Cornell University”>Career Services | Student & Campus Life | Cornell University; (scroll to the bottom)</p>

<p>YALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: Insufficient data
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 33 applied, 3 admitted (3 matriculated), 9% acceptance rate </p>

<p>HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 138 applied, 14 admitted (12 matriculated), 10% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 119 applied, 13 admitted (9 matriculated), 11% acceptance rate </p>

<p>STANFORD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: Insufficient data
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 60 applied, 3 admitted (1 matriculated), 5% acceptance rate </p>

<p>COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 186 applied, 31 admitted (16 matriculated), 17% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 162 applied, 21 admitted (9 matriculated), 13% acceptance rate </p>

<p>UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 98 applied, 23 admitted, 23% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 137 applied, 24 admitted (6 matriculated), 18% acceptance rate </p>

<p>UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 133 applied, 28 admitted (8 matriculated), 21% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 342 applied, 92 admitted (59 matriculated), 27% acceptance rate </p>

<p>NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 185 applied, 40 admitted (7 matriculated), 22% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 148 applied, 34 admitted (12 matriculated), 23% acceptance rate </p>

<p>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL
Cornell University: 125 applied, 18 admitted (4 matriculated), 14% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 142 applied, 10 admitted (2 matriculated), 7% acceptance rate </p>

<p>UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 152 applied, 31 admitted (10 matriculated), 20% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 128 applied, 20 admitted (4 matriculated), 16% acceptance rate </p>

<p>UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 128 applied, 32 admitted (8 matriculated), 25% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 160 applied, 12 admitted (3 matriculated), 8% acceptance rate </p>

<p>NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: Insufficient data
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 128 applied, 20 admitted (10 matriculated), 16% acceptance rate</p>

<p>CORNELL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 229 applied, 70 admitted (16matriculated), 31% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 80 applied, 20 admitted (1 matriculated), 25% acceptance rate </p>

<p>DUKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 147 applied, 50 admitted (5 matriculated), 34% acceptance rate<br>
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 125 applied, 25 admitted (0 matriculated), 20% acceptance rate </p>

<p>GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL:
Cornell University: 245 applied, 66 admitted (11 matriculated), 27% acceptance rate
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 227 applied, 54 admitted (12 matriculated), 24% acceptance rate</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>"Good reason why overall Cornell is better undergraduate than Michigan</p>

<p>Cornell- 15th
Michigan 29th"</p>

<p>Sefago, you do realize that the USNWR rankings are:</p>

<ol>
<li>Very flawed (like all other rankings)</li>
<li>Favorable to private universities by design (does not adjust statistics for reporting styles and size and uses metrics such as alumni donation rates)</li>
<li>Attempting to differentiate between thousands of universities by inventing ways to separate universities of equal quality. How does one truly rank universities with any degree of accuracy when there are so many excellent schools and so many varriables (most of which cannot be measured with any degree of exactitude) to consider.</li>
</ol>

<p>Bottom line, the USNWR rankings are certainly worth a look, but they are not worth quoting. Somebody who blindy quotes the USNWR (such as you, who seems to genuinely believe that Cornell is exactly #15 THIS YEAR while Michigan is clearly #29 THIS YEAR), would also be making the following statements:</p>

<ol>
<li>Columbia > Stanford</li>
<li>Columbia > MIT</li>
<li>Penn = Stanford</li>
<li>Penn > MIT</li>
<li>Northwestern > Brown</li>
<li>Northwestern > Cornell</li>
<li>WUSTL > Brown</li>
<li>WUSTL > Cornell</li>
</ol>

<p>to name just a few. Are you prepared to agree with all of those statements Sefago?</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

In terms of layman prestige, Cornell and Michigan are considered peers in most circles that matter. </p>

<p>Proof to back this up? Like solid proof not rjknovi proof

</p>

<p>Let’s look at a poll of laymen:
[Harvard</a> Number One University in Eyes of Public](<a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public)</p>

<p>

All in all, what would you say is the best college or university in the United States? (open-ended responses)</p>

<p>Best/Second Best, %</p>

<p>Harvard University, 24
Stanford University, 11
Yale University, 11
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 6
University of California at Berkeley, 4
Notre Dame University, 4
Princeton University, 4
University of Michigan, 3
Duke University, 3
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), 3
University of Texas, 2
Texas A&M University, 2
Ohio State University, 2
University of North Carolina, 2
Penn State University, 2
University of Pennsylvania (Penn), 2
University of Minnesota, 1
Brown University, 1
Cornell University, 1
University of Virginia, 1</p>

<p>

</p>

[MrPrince]

<p>^LOL. I’m sorry, but I cannot take any list that puts Notre Dame and Berkeley over UPenn and Brown seriously.
Also don’t kid yourself. UMich and Cornell are probably peers, but Cornell is more desirable and generally viewed more “elitely.” I’m sorry I don’t have some half-assed list to prove myself.</p>

<p>I can tell you as I’ve lived in CA and MA, getting into Cornell gets you claps. UMich isn’t even on radars.
I’ve noticed however how a lot of Michigan natives are obsessed with their existence. They expect us to feel their pride…at least from my experience.</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“I can tell you as I’ve lived in CA and MA, getting into Cornell gets you claps. UMich isn’t even on radars.
I’ve noticed however how a lot of Michigan natives are obsessed with their existence. They expect us to feel their pride…at least from my experiences.”</p>

<p>I can also tell you that 99% of America doesn’t have the slightest clue where Cornell is located. Btw, I would also put Berkeley right up there with Penn and Brown. UCB was talking about layman’s prestige and refuting a point made by another poster.</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>"Also don’t kid yourself. UMich and Cornell are probably peers, but Cornell is more desirable and generally viewed more “elitely.” </p>

<p>Because you say so. I got it. Btw, my whole point was that Michigan was an “academic” peer of Cornell. I never said that it was as elite. Desirabiity is an altogether different factor that is totally subjective.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>MrPrince, there is no doubt that in some circles, Cornell is perceived as more prestigious than Michigan. </p>

<p>As for the Gallup poll provided by UCBChem, it represents what lay people think. The average person probably does not know much about Brown or Penn. At the bottom of the link, there is a separate poll for the college educated segment of the survey.</p>

<p>Harvard 29%</p>

<p>Stanford 27%</p>

<p>Yale 14%</p>

<p>MIT 11%</p>

<p>Berkeley 7%</p>

<p>Princeton 7%</p>

<p>Michigan 7%</p>

<p>Of course, you will disagree with Cal and Michigan, but I am sure you would agree with the remaining 5 schools.</p>