<p>Michigan is a great school - definitely one of the top research universities in the country. In terms of undergraduate academics, it is obviously huge, and not the same as an LAC or an Ivy. So, when you visit, talk with students and professors and find out exactly how the undergraduate programs work in comparison to your other choices. It will largely be a matter of personal choice - some students will excel at smaller colleges (such as the nearby, excellent Kalamazoo College or any other top LAC) while others can excel in a more competitive, more spread-out, pressured environment like Michigan. In terms of research opportunities and faculty, Michigan is at least as good as any of the other renowned flagship public universities out there - among them Berkeley, UCLA, Wisconsin, UNC-CH, UCSD and UTexas. </p>
<p>In terms of student "success rates", alumni of good (even "unknown"), small LACs like Smith, Wesleyan, Hamilton, Macalester, Kenyon, Kalamazoo, Harvey Mudd etc., almost always do better on a per capita basis than these large schools (but not better than HYP, which I guess you would say are "medium" schools!), and I think that's because they get much more faculty attention. I've heard all the horror stories about huge schools like Wisconsin and Michigan firsthand, i.e., the lectures of 500 people being given by T.A.'s. But the fact that good numbers of students make it through these large universities and do well shows that correctly picking a college is much more important than necessarily picking a one with small classes and a high endowment per student. In counseling students, I would advise most to look at places with more personal attention, but I wouldn't rule out large, prestigious, flagship universities either.</p>
<p>BTW, the Newsweek study named 25 "new Ivies" which were specifically schools that are beyond what's considered the standard "elite" list. The standard "elite" list clearly includes MIT in addition to the Ivies. I'm not sure about Duke and Northwestern, but if I had to guess, they didn't make the cut (I happen to feel they are a bit overrated).</p>
<p>You must be joking. I think Duke is overrated too, but it would more than make the cut for that list. It wasn't included because Duke is already well-known as a destination of top students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've heard all the horror stories about huge schools like Wisconsin and Michigan firsthand, i.e., the lectures of 500 people being given by T.A.'s.
[/quote]
This is a myth and greatly exaggerated. Since you've heard it first hand, please name one of those courses from Wisconsin or Michigan.</p>
<p>Usually, lectures are taught by professors and assistant professors. Discussions are taught by GSIs (Graduate Student Instructors). Only in language classes are the actual classes sometimes taught by GSIs, and that is because these classes don't have more than 25 students. There are too many students, which create too many specific sections for people with professor status to teach. However, that information can also be misleading. Many of the GSIs in the language classes (especially the foreign languages) know just as much or more than actual professors as they are native speakers.</p>
<p>Also, a history class that I took during first semester last year was capped at 50 students. Last summer, I e-mailed the professor asking about books, and I received personal replies. The professor asked me questions such as why I was interested in the class, etc. I also commented on a vision disability that I have, and he said that I could sit up by his desk if I needed. (I didn't take him up on the offer, but I still was glad to receive it.) He even asked me to introduce myself to him before or after class on the first day. Basically, what I'm saying is that it's not difficult to receive personal attention from the staff at Michigan. The student just has to take the initiative to begin contact.</p>
<p>PosterX, according to a very thorough study made in the 1990s, Michigan alumni was the 4th wealthiest in the nation on a per capita basis. And according to a 2004 WSJ study, Michigan's placement ratio into top 5 graduate programs on par with much smaller schools like Caltech, Claremont McKenna, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Middlebury, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, Wesleyan etc... and actually much higher than those at schools like Kalamazoo, Kenyon and Hamilton. So much for Michigan alums not doing as well as others on a per-capita basis. </p>
<p>Finally, the University of Michigan entire campus, with its 400 buildings, 3,200 acres, 5,000 professors and close to 40,000 students, has only 3 lecture halls that sit more than 350 students. So clearly, there cannot be too many classes that have more than 300 students at Michigan. All of them without exception are Freshman level classes taught by full time professors. The material taught in those Freshman classes is usually very straight forward and even then, classes are broken down into discussion groups of 15-25 students led by TAs. But after one's Freshman year, classes tend to be much smaller and taught exclusively by professors.</p>
<p>That is good to know. For what it's worth, Michigan is better for undergraduates (in most departments) than the rest of the big flagship Midwestern state universities, like Wisconsin or Indiana, from what I've heard. Of course, again, it depends what department you study in and if you're in some kind honors program. </p>
<p>Also, you are correct that Michigan does well in the WSJ study, but in other studies (like the % of students getting into top PhD programs) it doesn't fare quite as well, especially when compared to top small LACs and top universities. Yes, Michigan probably fares better than Kalamazoo and Kenyon in most areas - actually, if you read my post, I wasn't saying Michigan does worse than Kalamazoo, I was saying that in general, large public universities do worse than Kalamazoo. Michigan is obviously at the top of the pecking order when it comes to large public universities, so yes, it probably does better than Kalamazoo, but it still does not do better than Wellesley, Williams, Bowdoin, Amherst, etc.</p>
<p>Poster, the reason why not many Michigan students go for PhDs is because most Michigan students given that option end up not taking it. LAC students typically prefer to stay in academe, whereas Michigan students tend to prefer the professional world. PhD production is not an indication or reflection of undergraduate education quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
most Michigan students given that option end up not taking it.
[/quote]
The majority of the engineering students pursuing a career in engineering (or business) have no interest in going for a PhD. You may say the same about the students in Arts and Architecture, Business, Nursing, Pharmacy, Kinesiology, Music, etc. To be fair, you should only compare the statistics of the students in LS&A, which make up of only 55%-60% of the graduating class.</p>
<p>I agree with Alexandre that PhD production is not a good indication of undergraduate education quality.</p>
<p>awn, yawn (viz the Newsweek "new Ivies" article), another beauty contest based on popularity more than fact. Of these 25, why shouldn't Michigan State University not be included? You're telling me that Skidmore, Boston Coll and NYU are better places to get an undergraduate education than MSU!? Pulleeeze. I also don't completely understand why everyone is so knee-jerk in love with UNC -- nice school, yes, but consistently at the top? Esp when one of the biggest things that it most consistently has going for it is it's got a traditional, Hollywood-ready campus. duh? Can you say East Lansing? And then the other 'gem' UNC program most noted is it's journalism program ... I defy anyone to cite a better J-school than MSU's. MSU's simply not as popular b/c it's the land grant school and it's next door to UM, period.</p>