<p>Forgive me for chiming in sooo late … but if Michigan is such an overrated joke of an institution, then how come MIT has been hiring mostly UM grads to be their presidents these past 30 or so years? Also, might it be possible that MIT is “way overrated” in view of how they fare so poorly in the head-to-head solar car compitition that’s been going on for a while now? (Or isn’t truth in the results?) FWIW, a while back there was this MIT author on a certain nationally broadcasted radio show and he came off as one, big MORON. Honestly, people need to drop this nonsensical notion that only geniuses come out of fine places like MIT, 'cause such simply isn’t the case. And Go Blue!!;-)</p>
<p>This thread is older than several of my siblings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You got some young siblings. They’d be in what, Kindergarten? First Grade?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of them is, the other’s in third. This thread is eight and half years old. </p>
<p>My family’s got some big age gaps… </p>
<p>or maybe I’m a child prodigy who’s going to Michigan out of elementary school.</p>
<p>Sad to say that public colleges are now pretty overrated compared to 2005. I do not agree with how MITgrad trashed U of M (seems like this was the only reason this thread turned into a flame-fest), but I also don’t agree that you should under any circumstance choose U of M over MIT. Heck, most people wouldn’t choose Berkeley engineering over MIT/Stanford.</p>
<p>“Sad to say that public colleges are now pretty overrated compared to 2005.”</p>
<p>…because you are such an expert on the subject? </p>
<p>“but I also don’t agree that you should under any circumstance choose U of M over MIT.”</p>
<p>Complete and total nonsense. Your comments are no better than MITgrad/Collegeconfused. You’re acting as if Michigan were some community college and MIT was on an entirely different level. There is no question that MIT is excellent in engineering, probably the best in the world, but Michigan isn’t exactly chopped liver either. There are many reasonable instances why a student might choose Michigan over MIT, especially if costs were significantly different.</p>
<p>TheBanker, I am not sure I agree that public universities are more overrated compared to 2005. Most public universities have dropped in the eyes of high school students in recent years as a result of the USNWR rankings. Michigan was a top 25 university in 2005, it has since dropped to #28 or #29. Cal, UNC and UVa have not improved in the rankings. Most other public universities have dropped in the rankings. If anything, public universities are now underrated compared to 2005, at least as far as high school students are concerned. According to academe and industry, I would say that nothing has changed; the top public universities are extremely respected…certainly far more than the USNWR would lead us to believe. Suggesting that Cal is not a top 20 university or that Michigan is not a top 25 university to a group of leading professors (regardless of their field) would likely get you a chuckle of ridicule. As far as they are concerned, the USNWR grossly underrates public universities. </p>
<p>“but I also don’t agree that you should under any circumstance choose U of M over MIT.”</p>
<p>That is a very absolute statement. What if the cost of attendance at MIT is prohibitive? There are instances where an applicant’s family’s financial circumstances will not warrant any need-based aid from MIT, but spending $250k on MIT would deplete the family’s retirement fund. On the other hand, Michigan gives that student a full ride, which would cost that student’s family less than $50k over four years. There are many such cases. Would you still not agree with attending Michigan then? </p>
<p>I have in fact known several people who chose Michigan over MIT, even when cost of attendance was not a factor. Those students really did not like the feel of MIT and felt that Michigan was a much better fit. In none of their cases did they regret their decision. They all graduated from Michigan and went on to the types of high-flying careers and graduate schools (most of them HBS, Wharton, MIT Engineering or Stanford Engineering) they had envisioned going to had they chosen to enrol at MIT.</p>
<p>Are you two recent college graduates or no? A lot has changed in the past 15 years that have really soured people’s outlook on public colleges. Kids nowadays think that top public schools are overrated because of all the horrible experiences people have had with them (large classes, large tuition increases YoY, ect.) Whether or not this is actually TRUE is another story, but that’s the general perception for Berkeley/UCLA in my experience. We send tons of kids to these two schools, and most were turned off by what they had heard from others. Fantastic graduate schools don’t translate tit-for-tat to fantastic undergraduate programs, which is a defining characteristic of public colleges - their graduate programs tend to be better than their undergraduate programs. The international rankings contradict this because graduate school activity is taken into consideration. </p>
<p>In hindsight, Alexandre, you’re right about costs being a factor. I thought MIT had a larger endowment, but at 1/3 the size of Harvard’s, I guess MIT really can’t afford to offer full rides to anyone who needs/wants it. (OTOH I have heard Harvard/Stanford kids getting full rides when they told admissions they were seriously considering another school, family income aside). </p>
<p>So - let me rephrase what I said - if money isn’t a factor, then MIT is the better option.</p>
<p>You make a lot of inaccurate assumptions TheBanker.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>While it is true that I graduated from college 16 years ago, I have research universities very frequently and have kept up with the recent developments. </p></li>
<li><p>Over the past 16 years, not much has changed. The main difference is perception among high school students based on USNWR rankings. If anything, top public universities have outpaced private universities in endowment development. For example, Michigan’s endowment in 1990 was not even among the 25 largest university endowments. Today, Michigan’s endowment is 6th among US universities. Only Harvard, Yale, Stanford and MIT have larger endowments.</p></li>
<li><p>Although MIT’s endowment is one third that of Harvard’s, MIT is significantly smaller (11,000 students as opposed to Harvard’s 21,000 students) and does not have to operate a costly medical school as Harvard does. MIT is in fact extremely well off given its size and cost of operations, and can therefore afford to be very generous with financial aid. It is one of the few universities that has truly blind aid policies, even for international students. However, the upper middle income group (possibly the largest college-bound socio-economic cohort attending college these days) are stuck in a very difficult position where they are too wealthy to be extended any financial aid but are not wealthy enough to afford $65k/year to attend a school like MIT, when they can attend a top ranked public university for under $15k/year. Some parents may be willing to make the sacrifice, but many parents are unwilling to do so.</p></li>
<li><p>It is a stereotype that a university can be elite at the graduate level but not at the undergraduate level. This only occurs when a public university has no financial backing to adequately look after its undergraduate students. That is not the case with public universities with large endowments, such as Cal, Michigan, UVa and several others. Many private universities are also having trouble with their endowments. With the exception of perhaps 10 or 15 private universities, most are having financial issues similar to the majority of public universities, and are nowhere nearly as financially well-off as Michigan or UVa.</p></li>
<li><p>Another stereotype is that public universities necessarily have larger classes than private universities. It is true in many instances, but not in all, and the difference in size is almost always overstated. The difference in class size between many top public universities (like Cal, Michigan, UVa etc…) and most major private research universities is not significant.</p></li>
<li><p>I agree that if money is not a factor (a big if for most parents), MIT is a better option than Michigan. No doubt about it. However, fit must also be considered. Some students would not fit in at MIT and would be much happier at Michigan. In such cases, attending Michigan could make better sense, even if money is not a factor. The gap between Michigan and MIT just isn’t that great. MIT accurately ranked (none of that USNWR BS) is anywhere between #1 and #5 in the country at the undergraduate level, and #1 in Engineering. Michigan accurately ranked (again, none of the USNWR bias) is anywhere between #10 and #20 in the country at the undergraduate level, and between #5 and #10 in Engineering. The gap isn’t significantly enough to attend MIT to the exclusion of all else.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Quick points:
- I entered college recently, so my perceptions (and my friends’) are the most up to date (#1).
- I’m from the West Coast and I get the sense the UC system has been significantly more impacted than Michigan, so that’s where I’m coming from (#2).
- Endowment per capita is a more relevant figure than absolute endowment (#3).
- It’s more of an issue with a large undergraduate population than anything else. Hard to keep high quality with high enrollment (#4).
- Class sizes are not everything - the quality of the student body is important too. The faculty:student ratio is double at a UC school than at my current private university (#5).<br>
- Michigan vs. MIT really only becomes an issue cost-wise for Michigan residents and those who receive full rides (#6). </p>
<ul>
<li>Realistically, I don’t think any aspiring engineer would ever consider giving up an MIT acceptance for Michigan, unless for certain personal/financial reasons.</li>
<li>My sense is that if we look at cross-admit data for U of M and MIT, it’s probably only a handful of cases nowadays (compared to 15-20 years ago).</li>
</ul>
<p>I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. I get your point that there are certain exceptions where U of M > MIT, but those tend to be special cases. Heck, I know someone who turned down Stanford for a full ride to a Cal State (…why?). These things happen.</p>
<p>"- I entered college recently, so my perceptions (and my friends’) are the most up to date (#1)."</p>
<p>Feel free to think that if you wish. It evidently makes you feel good to do so.</p>
<p>"- I’m from the West Coast and I get the sense the UC system has been significantly more impacted than Michigan, so that’s where I’m coming from (#2)."</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>"- Endowment per capita is a more relevant figure than absolute endowment (#3)."</p>
<p>Are you also factoring in state funding? Even if you do not, Michigan’s endowment per capita would be 25th highest among research universities. But if you do, and you should, Michigan’s endowment per capita is roughly the 15th highest in the country among research universities. UVa’s would be #10.</p>
<p>"- Class sizes are not everything - the quality of the student body is important too. The faculty:student ratio is double at a UC school than at my current private university (#5)."</p>
<p>Now define and quantify the quality of a university’s student body and how it impacts the classroom experience. Not that it matters. Cal, Michigan and UVa all have very gifted student bodies (certainly among the top 25 among research universities). Also, does your private university have the integrity to include graduate students when it calculates the faculty:student ratio? Most private universities don’t. When you factor in graduate students, most private universities will have ratios of 10-13:1, which is not that much better than public universities with 14-16:1 ratios. </p>
<p>"- Realistically, I don’t think any aspiring engineer would ever consider giving up an MIT acceptance for Michigan, unless for certain personal/financial reasons."</p>
<p>I would agree that the vast majority wouldn’t, but there are some that would. </p>
<p>"- My sense is that if we look at cross-admit data for U of M and MIT, it’s probably only a handful of cases nowadays (compared to 15-20 years ago)."</p>
<p>I doubt things have changed at all in the past 20 years. There were very few back in my day, and there are very few today.</p>
<p>
What you are describing is [selection</a> bias](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias]selection”>Selection bias - Wikipedia). You go to a private university, no doubt many of your friends do as well. It’s not particularly surprising that your perception of private universities is higher than publics, after all, your college choice made that obvious. You simply do not accurately model the vast majority of students.</p>
<p>
Not necessarily. Many public schools have lower endowment dollars per capita, but they offset that with general fund state allocations. If you wish, you can treat Michigan’s allocation as an additional 6 billion in endowment resources, bringing up the effective endowment to approximately 14.5 billion dollars.</p>
<p>
Is a 3.85 unweighted GPA or SAT scores between 2030-2250 (ACT: 29-33) not selective enough? Completely honest question. What would you classify as high quality?</p>
<p>
Are you completely sure of that? There are a lot of private universities that like to fudge the numbers when it comes to the student:faculty ratios. A common tactic is to include all or nearly all of faculty in the calculation, but when it comes to counting students, they only count their undergraduates. It’s completely ridiculous that these universities get away with it. It does effect the rankings, and it’s completely biased towards private universities which have the luxury of avoiding state audits. I would be very interested to know what university you attend. I have a hunch that they might be exploiting this strategy. If you are interested, you can check for yourself on your institution’s CDS. Look at the numbers they use for the ratio calculation and check to make sure they aren’t only including undergraduates. There are very few universities (with the exception of LAC’s) that have real student:faculty ratios significantly lower than the top publics.</p>
<p>
Generally, I agree. MIT is one of the very few colleges that I believe to be significantly better than Michigan. Unless the student has to pay significantly more at MIT, they usually will (and probably should) accept MIT’s offer. That said, there are definitely exceptions.</p>
<p>People should also take into account the experiences they are going to have at the university.</p>
<p>At MIT, are you going to attend football games with 100,000+ fans singing “Hail to the Victors?”</p>
<p>People overlook things like sports, the surrounding area, school spirit, the student body, etc. However, these things matter too. It’s important that you enjoy your college experience. I could NOT imagine attending a college without exciting football Saturdays.</p>
<p>As a result, I would CERTAINLY choose U-M over MIT. </p>
<p>Additionally, the U-M College of Engineering and the Ross Business School have phenomenal reputations. Degrees from these schools can get you to where you want to be in life. U-M students are not called the “leaders and best” for nothing.</p>
<p>MITGrad, your post was rude and offensive. One of the worst I have ever seen at CC. I’m guessing that you are a product of the Internet generation. You highlight a reason to attend Michigan: more polite and humble people in the Midwest. Arrogance is the very worst disease that young people pick up in college. I don’t care how brilliant you are. If you are arrogant, your life will be a ruination for yourself and everyone you touch. At UM, we care more about developing a complete person. Isn’t that what education is for? Or is it for ruining the world with your genius?</p>
<p>All kinds of factors go into college choice. I know a woman who chose Stern College at Yeshiva University over MIT because she wanted a religious environment. </p>
<p>As for your disparagement of ‘public’ colleges, that’s a canard left over from the rich WASPs of the 1920s. There’s no difference anymore, particularly at the public Ivys. Same professors, mostly the same students. At private schools, you get lots of kids who attend only because of family money. For example, I have several friends who chose Mich. over Harvard because they couldn’t afford Harvard.</p>
<p>I’ll admit that MIT engineering has more of that genius mystique - even as I have several friends who went there who were not geniuses at all. But your characterization of Michigan was so foolish and off the mark. It shows again how arrogance distorts the mind. Michigan conducts $1.3 billion in research each year, far more than MIT. They can’t be that stupid.</p>
<p>Michigan has a much bigger student population than MIT. UM has 27,000 undergrads. MIT has 4,300. If you take the top 1/6 of UM, the grades and scores are basically the same as MIT.</p>
<p>I went to UM undergrad. and Columbia grad. for a PhD in Economics. Both my professors and classmates at Mich. were superior to those at Columbia. Maybe you look down on Columbia too. Maybe you look down on everyone. How sad. And how bad you have made MIT look to those who read your childish post.</p>
<p>seaslipper, don’t mind him. He was just a ■■■■■ from near a decade ago.</p>
<p>It is amusing how emotional posters can be about institutions they’ve never attended. A lot of what we say on this forum are opinions. I have no idea if UM would be better or worse than MIT. A lot depends on the OP and not the institutions.</p>
<p>Thanks Fatsquirrel, I hadn’t noticed the posting date.</p>
<p>My offense wasn’t for the assault on UM in particular. I would have done the same for UCLA, Berkeley, and all kinds of other places. It’s the chutzpah that I found astounding. There’s another engineer, the UCB one, who trolls here often and makes similar offenses. So sad how higher education has become an arms race. The purpose is to make the world a better place by helping young people and growing knowledge. That seems to be lost on people today. For one to talk so disrespectfully about a place like UM or similar places shows a lack of character. One needs a certain humility and respect for those who precede him. UM has done so much for the academic world in general. Has been such a leader and innovator of programs, such as most recently the first school of Information. Does the young poster like his legs? Well the polio vaccine research was conducted there. Does he ever Google or use Google technology? Well Larry Page was an undergraduate in UM Engineering. Did he learn more about himself and society from the playwright Arthur Miller? Well, he went to Michigan too. Did he become a Patriots fan in Boston? Well Tom Brady went to UM. You all know this of course. But it seems the concept of gratitude needs to be stressed to the ingrates of the world.</p>
<p>And then there’s the question of coming into somebody else’s home and criticizing the furniture. If you don’t like UM, don’t come into our discussion era. You want to make people feel bad about themselves? Our young engineer friend needs some courses in humanities. Does MIT have those?</p>
<p>Blow, blow thou bitter wind
Thou does not bite so nigh as man’s ingratitude.
Shakespeare</p>
<p>“There’s another engineer, the UCB one, who trolls here often and makes similar offenses.”</p>
<p>If you are referring to UCBChemEGrad, then I’ll have to politely disagree with you. He praises his alma mater Berkeley to no end, but not to the detriment of Michigan.</p>
<p>Unfortunately seaslipper, you have a lot of haters on CC. Individuals who only care to denigrate and demean others. In the past, I used to allow them on the Michigan forum, but I have recently decided to ban them because of their disruptive nature. You will not read such drivel on this forum any longer.</p>
<p>As for UCB, he is perfectly fine. With the exception of his insisting that UCSF is Cal’s de facto medical school, his posts are always even handed. He thinks the world of Cal, but why shouldn’t he?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why thank you, Alex and rjk.<br>
I miss threads like this…CC has gotten boring this past year.</p>
<p>As for UCSF, I urge you to read the history. And I usually only include UCSF for an apples-to-apples comparison when Berkeley’s stats are compared to other universities with medical campuses. Medical campuses drive a lot of fund-raising and require some of the biggest expenditures. </p>
<p>[UCSF</a> History | ucsf.edu](<a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu/about/history-1]UCSF”>History of UCSF | UC San Francisco)
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I ask you, how does UCSF shed identity as Cal’s Medical Center if it never was Cal’s Medical Center?</p>
<p>There is a reason Cal didn’t set up another medical school on the Berkeley campus…it already exists across the Bay.</p>