<p>You forgot two important data points:</p>
<p>Overall Ranking
Michigan: 24th
USC: 27th</p>
<p>Peer Assessment:
Michigan: 4.5
USC: 3.9</p>
<p>and how well do USC graduates do?</p>
<p>We know that despite the appearance of a "lower-quality" student body as measured by SAT scores, Michigan graduates do pretty well.</p>
<p>Please note that I only included those OBJECTIVE data points that are transparent and are factually supported. PA is opinion-based and thus completely SUBJECTIVE. In addition, we don't even know whose opinions are involved in the calculation of a school's PA score. </p>
<p>You are correct that USC is ranked at # 27 and Michigan is tied for # 24. However, based on the Objective data, USC has a slight advantage. I would argue, however, that some of the Objective data inherently disadvantage large state schools like Michigan (Alumni Giving). </p>
<p>Re Michigan grads, as has been documented elsewhere, we know that some Michigan grads do well. We most definitely do not know that all do well. The numbers that have been quantified range from 500 to 1000 (depending on some "facts" and some poster assumptions) for each class of 6500 students and the quality and quantity of the jobs are not particularly superlative or unique. Perhaps most important and due to a lack of available data from the school, we have very little idea how the large majority of Michigan's overall graduating class does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please note that I only included those OBJECTIVE data points that are transparent and are factually supported. PA is opinion-based and thus completely SUBJECTIVE. In addition, we don't even know whose opinions are involved in the calculation of a school's PA score.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>we have a pretty good idea... and they tend to be rather accomplished individuals in academia</p>
<p>it's subjective... which would imply it's less important/significant than the objective data</p>
<p>however, I'm pretty sure it's those highly accomplished individuals at other universities that you want to hold your school in high-esteem. I also imagine this can be a good indicator of how graduate school admissions will perceive your accomplishments at a particular school...</p>
<p>Sure, it has its downfalls (not everyone responds, it's subjective, etc) but nonetheless, it is very important.</p>
<p>If you ignore the prestige and the school reputation factor, USC and Ann Arbor would be pretty much equal.</p>
<p>Oh, No Not again. Tonight must be a full moon because our black magic woman is displaying her usual trick again ;) - flashing out the USNEWS magazine. Stop boring us with those numbers. Rather, dance with this song, preferably samba</p>
<p>I got a Black Magic Woman.
I got a Black Magic Woman.
Yes, I got a Black Magic Woman,
She's got me so blind I can't see;
But she's a Black Magic Woman and
she's trying to make a devil out of me. </p>
<p>Don't turn your back on me, baby.
Don't turn your back on me, baby.
Yes, don't turn your back on me, baby,
Don't mess around with your tricks;
Don't turn your back on me, baby,
'cause you might just wake up my magic sticks. </p>
<p>You got your spell on me, baby.
You got your spell on me, baby.
Yes, you got your spell on me, baby,
Turnin' my heart into stone;
I need you so bad,
Magic Woman I can't leave you alone.</p>
<p>kazz,
PA may have some importance to those who value research in engineering or medical/science related fields. At least these areas contain some relevant quantifiable data, eg, amount of research grants or dollars, but universities have a much broader academic mandate than this. For example, why should the number of patents held by a school's life sciences department affect the reputation of the religious studies program? </p>
<p>The PA is a collection of judgments from people we don't know writing opinions that we are not able to evaluate. This Peer Assessment score with its lack of observable data reminds me of Lewis Carroll and the idea of verdict first, trial second. In most academic settings, such an idea would be completely rejected.</p>
<p>rabban,
Unlike our last exchange, I'd prefer to keep this one civil and informational. I would appreciate it if you would respond in kind. </p>
<p>I don't know why you don't like raw, objective data. I don't find numbers boring and I suspect neither do many, many readers of this website. No one is forcing you to accept the USNWR weights, but the numbers do illuminate certain strengths and weaknesses of any school. </p>
<p>For example, in this particular comparison, I believe that Michigan has a lot to be proud of in Graduation & Retention rank and USC probably has some explaining to do. Doesn't looking at the numbers provoke these kinds of questions in the minds of people looking at these two schools? That is how I use the numbers-as a starting point and a place to begin the assessment. Different people will weight different factors differently, but that does make the factors unimportant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd prefer to keep this one civil and informational
[/quote]
My sentiment, exact. Bona Dea</p>
<p>Perhaps my objection to your overusage of the average SAT numbers for assessing the quality of school can be more succinctly explained by the following story. </p>
<p>My very close kinsman is a full professor @Harvard. During his academic life, he has taught at many colleges, including top-flight states (including Berkeley and other) and other privates before he finally settled at Cambridge. </p>
<p>According to him, top students at any top state college are as bright as those of Harvard. The only difference in student quality is somewhere between the top 1/3 and the middle 1/3. In a top state school, by and large, there is a drop in student academic quality when you go from the top 1/3 and the next 1/3 pool, and another significant drop from the middle 1/3 to the bottom 1/3. This is quite natural because a state school’s primary customer is its instate-residents and you expect there is a great diversity in student’s background. Also, it is also quite natural that there are many top students (say 2/3) in Harvard. & no doubt that Harvard avg SAT is higher that that of UM</p>
<p>The problem arises when you use SAT numbers when comparing the top state schools (Berkeley, UM, UVa, etc etc) with not-so-hot private schools such as USC, BC stuff like that (I am not bagging these schools, btw). Because of the size of Private School X is small, student body tends to be homogeneous and there are not much diversities in student body in terms of academic qualities. To make it more plain, most of them are mid-size fish.</p>
<p>So you can say roughly Michigan is composed of 1/3 Big , 1/3 Mid-size , and 1/3 small fish, whereas not-so-hot School X is composed of 2/3 mid size fish (majority) and few other sizes.</p>
<p>So, the AVG numbers might be higher for School X than UM. But it is widely known that UM’s big fish tend to do better after graduation as evidenced by the superior graduate placement. This tells me UM is doing a great job of providing quality education and producing top graduates who will go out and achieve great thing in their lives. This is evidenced by UM’s strong alumni network & donation.</p>
<p>Now? Then what can one deduce from this? The avg SAT number is not a meaningful measure to compare two totally different-TYPE schools (like A public vs a PRIVATE).</p>
<p>rabban,
I agree with you and your professor. I have stated repeatedly that the charge that Michigan is not elite or highly selective has nothing to do with the top quartile of its students. I, and nearly all other posters, accept that this is an accomplished group. However, please also recognize that the top quartile at USC (or BC or some other private also has a component of its student body that is highly talented and so on a quartile or some decile basis, comparisons can be made). </p>
<p>The claim that Michigan is not elite or highly selective goes precisely to the "average" Michigan student. You are probably correct that the school's obligations to its state residents (almost 70% of its undergraduates in Michigan's case) forces the selection of a less talented overall or "average" student. As a result of this institutional requirement, the "average" SAT score suffers and the school overall scores at a lower level (1220-1410) than places like USC (1270-1440) or Boston College (1250-1420). Furthermore the scale of the University of Michigan with 26,000 undergraduates comparatively damages the school in its bloated freshman admittance rate (Michigan-47% on 26000+ applications, USC-27% on 30000+ applications, BC-29% on 26000+ applications).</p>
<p>Rabban,</p>
<p>Your analysis is quite accurate, however your conclusion misses the point. Although UM has more "diversity" among academic abilities - and thus a wider SAT range - that does not mean we should ignore its average SAT. </p>
<p>In fact, if we were to use your example and say USC is composed of "2/3 mid size fish (then 1/6 big, 1/6 little)" then overall, the USC average would be equal to the UM average. That should be obvious, as UM's Big and Little fish would effectively cancel themselves out (as do the big/little fish of USC), leaving a fair comparison of mid-size fish between the two schools.</p>
<p>In other words, you're trying to ignore UM's 1/3 of little fish just because they drag UM's averages down. Now how does that make for a fair comparison? </p>
<p>You obviously feel that the big fish at UM are superior to the big fish at USC, however the data doesn't support that conclusion either. For example, the 75th percentile SAT at UM would fall in your big fish category. However, USC's 75th percentile SAT was 1460 for Fall '06, while UM's was only 1420. (hawkette was using '05 #'s above.) USC also leads UM if we were to compare ACT scores.</p>
<p>My point isn't that USC is superior to UM, I don't believe it is. At the graduate level, UM is far ahead. My point is that the undergraduate student body at UM is certainly no more talented than their peers at USC.</p>
<p>It depends on whether you are a Michigan resident or not. The tuition for out of state students at UM is close to 30 k. While USC's tuition is a few thousand more, most students receive some financial aid. Ann Arbor is a great college town, while the surrounding area at USC is run down and crime ridden.</p>
<p>I'd go to USC because I'm only an hour away, the weather is great, the campus is beautiful, and the connections you make at USC are unbelievable (especially through Marshall).</p>
<p>
[quote]
music school, anyone?
[/quote]
phobos,
Are you saying that USC's music school is better than UoM's? How much do you know about UoM's music school? How good is USC's anyway?</p>
<p>worried student,
Can you expand a bit on the connections you refer to that are available to USC students? Some Michigan posters have implied that they have very unique access in postgraduate job opportunities and some of us have challenged that conclusion. Michigan posters insist that they have good opportunities and many "prestigious" "top" companies recruit there, but I believe that that would be true at many schools. Do you have any insight into what USC brings to the table for post grad oppotunities, both locally and further away?</p>
<p>Well I'm not a USC student, but I know many how have graduated with a degree in business from SC and had no trouble finding a job (with a very good salary). USC's network is extremely strong in LA. Going to USC makes it easy to find internships in the area. For more info, address these questions to people on the USC board. USC also has a terrific film school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
phobos,
Are you saying that USC's music school is better than UoM's? How much do you know about UoM's music school? How good is USC's anyway?
[/quote]
i didn't say UM's music school wasn't good or wasn't considered among the best in the nation...it certainly is. but i'd say USC's Thornton school is at least as good as UM, if not better in music. it's usually ranked in the top 1-2% of non-conservatory schools in the nation. </p>
<p>and if the quality of the school can be gauged by the quality of the names who just associate with it (not even counting faculty), USC is certainly up there. during Steve Reich's birthday, Reich himself was present at the birthday concert the Thornton school put on. Eric Whitacre regularly does pre-publishing trials of his pieces with the school. the Thornton Symphony plays at least one concert a year at Walt Disney Concert Hall, and Esa-Pekka Salonen himself came to campus to lead a discussion on creativity in the arts. the Emerson, Mendelssohn, and Takacs Quartets have and will have led coaching sessions of Thornton quartets this semester alone.</p>
<p>as far as past and current faculty...not saying the names are any bigger than those at UM, but they're certainly very notable. Midori (really...enough said haha), Lauridsen, Ticheli (granted he did graduate from UM), Heifitz, Piatigorsky, Primrose...</p>
<p>I have never seen USC ranked ahead of Michigan in Music. Perhaps you can show me a ranking that has USC ranked above Michigan in Music. The only rankings I saw where the USWR which had Michigan ranked at #4 aqnd USC at #8 and the NRC ranking that had Michigan at #9 and USC out of the top 25. I'd say both have good Music schools, and I am sure in some Music specialities, USC is possibly as god as if not better than Michigan, but overall, I'd say Michigan's Music school is a little bit better than USC's.</p>
<p>Michigan vs Harvard... Michigan vs Harvard!!!!!</p>
<p>These arguments get to be very silly. Not quite as bad as the USC-UCLA arguments, which got to be down right stupid.</p>
<p>OK, Ann Arbor is over all a higher ranked school that USC. That doesn't mean that it is a better school for a specific individual. UM's music school is 4 positions higher than USC according to Alexandre. Let's suppose that really makes a difference (clearly it doesn't), but if you're a violin player and the country's best teacher is at USC it may well be a better school for you. If you're interested in film it would seem that USC would be a much better place for you than Michigan, but suppose that Michigan just bought a huge amount of new equipment and made it available to first year students. Perhaps Michigan might be a better place for a film student.</p>
<p>With schools rated in the top 50, "better" is a very relative term. Clearly for Michigan residents Ann Arbor is a fantastic bargain; not so for OOS students, in many cases USC could be cheaper. Further, "better" can relate to a specific teacher or a library collection or a a sub-specialty. </p>
<p>So let's recognize that Michigan is higher ranked college overall; that these are two very good schools; that which school is "best" depends on what interests the student and financial considerations. Incidentally, the latter is true for every student and could lead them to a program at a school which everyone at CC would sneer at if it was mentioned.</p>
<p>tsdad, I agree with you entirely. I don't think there is much of a significant difference in academic excellence between Michigan and USC or any other university ranked among the top 50. With regards to the Music school rankings, I was responding to Phobos. I personally don't see a big difference between #4 and #8 or between #4 and #28 for that matter. It boils down to fit and preference, which is what I have said all along on this thread.</p>