<p>I received a 10k scholarship at UMICH and was accepted to MIT</p>
<p>Alexandre believes UMICH is a superior university while MITgrad is making arrogant claims in favor of MIT on the Michigan forum</p>
<p>Why should I choose MIT over UMICH</p>
<p>Post here or on the UMICH forum</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>MIT is a top five university and arguably the best in engineeringranked number one in many disciplines. Will you be getting financial aid from any of these places?</p>
<p>You must be confused Collegeconfused. I never said Michigan was superior to MIT. My postion on MIT being one of the top 5 universities in the nation is well documented. </p>
<p>In the Michigan forum, you asked: </p>
<p>"So what your saying is: Never choose UMICH over MIT because MIT is superior in all aspects?"... </p>
<p>to which I replied:</p>
<p>"Not really, in several ways, Michigan is surperior to MIT. For example, in the social sciences (with the exception of Economics), and the humanities, Michigan is generally superior to MIT. Michigan has top Medical and Law schools, MIT does not. Michigan owns and operates one of the nation's top 10 hospitals. MIT does not have a hospital. Michigan's student body is more well rounded and academically, more diverse than MITs. School spirit at the University of Michigan is much stronger than at MIT. Michigan is a center for the arts, MIT is not. Michigan has awesome sports teams, MIT does not. MIT's Business school is not superior to Michigan's. I would say they are about equal in Business. </p>
<p>In short, with the exception of Engineering, the hard Sciences and Economics, which MIT is superior to Michigan (but not by much since Michigan is ranked #5 or 6 in Engineering, top 10 in Physics, Biology, Mathematics, Geology and Economics), I would say that MIT is not superior to Michigan in many aspects of college life. It really depends what you want. If you only care about studies, and wish to study Engineering, the hard sciences and Economics, yes, MIT is superior to Michigan. Otherwise, I would say Michigan is at least as good as MIT.</p>
<p>In short, MIT is an amazing academic institution (top 5 nationally). Michigan is not quite as good as MIT, but it is also a very good university (top 10-15 nationally) and it is more versatile than MIT."</p>
<p>As for MITgrad, you MIT faithful should go over to the same thread on the Michigan forum and see how well he/she is representing your school. Personally, I have my doubts that he/she truly is a MIT student/grad.</p>
<p>Look, collegeconfused, MITGrad is clearly beyond the pale. It's one thing to prefer a school - it's quite another to tout it beyond all possible reason. MIT is great, but to say that it is better than Michigan in all aspects is simply ridiculous. </p>
<p>However, collegeconfused, I do think your answer should be answered in context, and it seems to me that you are talking about the undergraduate programs. And when we're talking about undergrad programs, all the talk about how strong the graduate schools may happen to be at a particular school is really irrelevant. When you're a graduate student, you should worry about graduate school quality, but when you're an undergraduate, you should worry about undergraduate quality. If you're an undergraduate, the strength of a medical school, a law school, or a graduate business school, basically should not impact your decision at all - that is, unless you're prepared to say that Princeton is one of the worst places to go for undergrad because it doesn't have any of these professional programs. Even the supposed distinction of the departments has to be taken with a large shaker of salt, for that is something that is highly relevant to graduate students, but far less so for undergraduates. Case in point - few of the elite LAC's like Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore have highly ranked departments in any major, and so if you follow the logic that an undergraduate program's quality can be measured by 'department rankings', then that logic dictates that AWS must be some of the worst schools in the country because they don't have high department rankings. </p>
<p>I would also say that if you applied to MIT in the first place, you are probably quant/tech-oriented (for if you weren't, then why did you apply?), hence a discussion of humanities programs is probably not relevant for you, and so are many of the social sciences. If you really want to study sociology or English, you should pick Michigan over MIT, but then again, if you really wanted to study sociology or English, then you probably wouldn't have applied to MIT in the first place. Again, the point is, it's a matter of what you want to do. The strengths of those programs that have nothing to do with you don't matter. If you're going to be studying English, it doesn't matter how strong the electrical engineering program is, and vice versa. </p>
<p>Now obviously it is true that nobody knows exactly what they want to study and people do change their majors - but rarely is that change a wild 180-degree swing. While you might not know exactly what you want to study, you can probably make an educated guess. If it's techie (as it probably is, for otherwise you wouldn't be seriously considering MIT), then the strengths of the non-tech programs don't really matter. </p>
<p>I would also point out that switching majors seems to be easier to do at MIT than at Michigan. If you want to switch majors at MIT, you just do it. This isn't always the case at Michigan. This is particularly true of bus-ad. At MIT, you can switch to the Sloan School anytime you want. Not so at Michigan. The Michigan undergrad business program only accepts people at the junior level. Hence, if you intend to study bus-ad as an undergrad at Michigan, you run the significant risk of going to Michigan for 2 years and then not getting into the program. That's a risk you will need to seriously consider. </p>
<p>Then there is the spirit/lifestyle aspect of the question. I have to disagree with Alexandre and say that it is not clear to me at all that Michigan spirit is much stronger than MIT spirit. What I think is closer to the truth is that MIT spirit manifests itself in a completely different way. MIT definitely has that sort of 'cyber-punk' or 'techno-geek' mentality about it that forms tremendously strong bonds among its students, and (especially) its alumni. Michigan does indeed have many of the outer aspects of a 'normal' university - the sports teams, the myriad clubs, etc. Which school is therefore more spirited is, I suppose, all dependent on how you choose to define 'spirit'. I think the real question is what sort of lifestyle interests you. If you like the MIT lifestyle (for example, if you like the cyberpunk way of life), then you will clearly be far far more comfortable at MIT than at Michigan. If you want a 'normal' college experience, then Michigan is better. </p>
<p>I also agree that the arts scene at MIT itself is weak compared to Michigan. But I am not convinced that that's a fair way of looking at it. A simple and cheap 15 minute subway ride from MIT will take you to either Harvard Square, and the very very arty scene there, or to downtown Boston, where you can find pretty much anything you want. Detroit is a 45-minute ride away from Ann Arbor, and let's face it, while Detroit has some things to do, I think many college students will agree that Boston is more fun (but that's a matter of opinion - if you happen to like Detroit a lot, then Michigan is probably better for you). The point is, that while there may not be a whole lot of arty stuff within MIT itself, that's a far cry from saying that there isn't anything arty very nearby to MIT. </p>
<p>And of course, there is the money aspect. Scholarships are certainly nothing to sneeze at, and clearly, you must not be rich, for otherwise, you wouldn't care about scholarship money anyway, and clearly you must not be extremely poor, for otherwise MIT would have hooked you up with aid. Only you can answer the question of just how valuable the money is to you. </p>
<p>None of this is to say that you should choose MIT over Michigan or vice versa. Nobody here can answer that question for you. All we can do is provide you with a framework so that you can answer the question for yourself.</p>
<p>Ooo nice post sakky -</p>
<p>Are you in-state to michigan? If so, 10,000 is a great scholarship - if not, who's to say MIT won't throw 10k your way as well? (Finaid comes out in march) And out-of-state publics are almost as expensive as privates.</p>
<p>One must keep in mind that a $10,000 scholarship knocks the Michigan bill (including room and board) down to $24,000. MIT without a scholarship costs roughly $40,000 (including room and board). So unless MIT gives some scholarship money, Michigan will cost roughly $64,000 less than MIT over 4 years...and I am not taking into account cost of living differential. Going out on the town in Cambridge/Boston is significantly more expenssive than going out in Ann Arbor. Over 4 years, I would say that living in Cambridge would costs thousands of dollards more than living in Ann Arbor. We aren't talking about a huge amount of money to be sure, but it certainly something to consider. For example, an MBA costs roughly $70,000 in terms of tuition. The money Collegeconfused would save by going to Michigan (assuming MIT does not offer merit aid) could easily pay for an MBA (in full) down the line.</p>
<p>usually you can get a company to sponsor an MBA for you</p>
<p>Not really Vecter, most MBA students have to pay their own way and those who are sponsored are usually obligated to remain with their sponsor for a couple of years, so they do not benefit from the MBA recruiting events. Some companies will pay off MBA debts, especially for students from top 8 or 10 programs, but again, there are no guarantees. At any rate, saving $60,000-$70,000 is nothing to sneeze at, if money is an issue.</p>
<p>Getting back to the original question: UMichigan with 10K free money vs MIT.</p>
<p>A simple rule of thumb: go to the best school you can afford. If you can hack the extra money to go to MIT, don't miss the chance to go to MIT.</p>
<p>If the cost of MIT is going to hurt big time, go UMich. I think everybody knows UMich has a highly regarded Engineering program so don't bury yourself or family in debt for a UG education.</p>
<p>I agree with Joemama. Personally, my finances were not a problem, so if I had the brains to get into MIT, I probably would have chosen it over Michigan. I would have given up a lot, but MIT is MIT.</p>
<p>The fall of my senior year in high school, I applied to both the University of Michigan and MIT. As a native resident of Michigan, applying to UofM simply made sense, and MIT was my reach school.</p>
<p>After being admitted to both schools, the choice was actually quite easy for me for several reasons:</p>
<p>1) MIT, statistically, is a better engineering school. No matter where you check, MIT always ranks in the top five colleges nationwide, and almost always the the top engineering school. U of M, on the other hand, ranks about 25th.</p>
<p>2) MIT is socially a better fit for me. Yes, I know that sounds weird, but that's what I truly believe; I feel that I have personally grown and experienced more in Boston than I ever would have in Ann Arbor.</p>
<p>3) MIT actually was CHEAPER for me to attend. NO LIE! Granted, my EFC was only a few thousand dollars, below that of most students, but MIT offered the best fin aid package. Remember: MIT matches 100% of one's financial need, while U of M and other public schools match only a portion of one's aid. Basically, if you're in a low financial bracket, you'll be better off at MIT.</p>
<p>Well, those are the reasons for my choice, and I honestly couldn't be happier. While it does require a TON of work, MIT IS AWESOME! Feel free to check out my MIT Blog at <a href="http://blogs.mit.edu/cappaert/%5B/url%5D">http://blogs.mit.edu/cappaert/</a> for more insight into my MIT life and career, or to contact me to discuss anything. See you then!</p>
<p>great points, mitman.</p>
<p>collegeconfused, you have to look at the financial aid package that MIT offers and compare that to the discounted cost of UMich.</p>
<p>Myabe you'll get the same kind of great deal as mitman!</p>
<p>This is offtopic, so if I may digress, I would say that this discussion of financial aid (not merit aid, just FA) at MIT and Michigan exposes a larger point. The fact is, if you are truly poor, you are almost certainly and ironically going to be better off going to one of the elite private schools like HYPSMC than going to a public school, because the elite private schools will probably cost less than the public school will, after aid is calculated in. As I'm sure many of you are aware, Harvard has announced that they will provide 100% grants (and hence Harvard is free) to any undergrad whose family makes less than 40k. </p>
<p>This calls into serious question the contention that public universities exist to truly help the poor, one of the claims that public schools make time and time again. If that's really true, then why is it often times cheaper for poor people to attend HYPSMC than a public school? I have heard the supposed riposte that so few truly poor students get into HYPSMC that the financial aid money that HYPSMC do provide to those students is really an inconsequential total. Well, if it's really true that it's an inconsequential total, then the public schools should have no problem in matching it, right? I think what's far more accurate to say is that public schools don't really exist to help the poor, but rather that they exist to help the middle class.</p>
<p>Sakky, the purpose of state universities is to offer affordable education to the masses, not to provide education to the poor. Weather you like it or not, if a household income is over $90,000, chances are, they will get almost nothing from the private elite schools. Can a family that earns $90,000 afford $40,000/year on a university? I don't think so. A person can attend UTA, UNC, UVA, Michigan, Cal etc... for under $20,000/year, and those schools all provide a lot of FA to the poor. The avarage in-state student at Michigan pays $6,000/year in tuition. That's an amazing bargain for a top 10 university.</p>
<p>Now, in some cases, the system will fail, and it is inded true that an elite private university will cost less than a state school, but that is not often the case.</p>
<p>I would also argue that the bulk of the data seems to indicate that the Sloan School of Management at MIT is probably better than Michigan-Ross, although the difference is not large. Yes, we can all cite rankings that say that one is better than the other. However, just my opinion, but the ones that seem to indicate that Ross is better than Sloan also seem to be the ones that tend to produce rather unusual results in general. The most infamous MBA ranking would be the WSJ which ranked Michigan #1, and MIT #9... but then also ranked Stanford #10 and HBS #13. , I think even the most hardcore Michigan MBA would have difficulty justifying the notion that Michigan-Ross is 12 spots better than HBS. Or take Businessweek - Michigan is 6, MIT is 9, but then HBS is 5. More reasonable than the WSJ, but again, it's not easy to justify the notion that HBS is only the 5th best business-school in the country. </p>
<p>More to the point, MIT-Sloan is an integral member of the so-called "Group of 7" business schools that consider each other to be peers and that share curricula. The Group of 7 are generally held to be HBS, Stanford, Wharton, Sloan, Kellogg, Chicago, and Columbia. I have also heard of a 'group of 5' which consist of the group of 7 minus Columbia and Chicago. But regardless, the point is that Michigan, while clearly a top-flight business school, has not quite reached the upper echelons.</p>
<p>Allright, Alexandre, now I see that you have said what I think is the real truth. You said it yourself - it's about offering education to the masses, which is not the same thing as offering education to the poor. Many of those masses are in fact relatively well off, and some of them are extremely well off. Hence, my point is simply that public schools should stop trying to justify their existence on the false pretense that they are primarily offering education to the poor. They are not. You know and I know that most of the benefits of public schools actually accrue to the middle-class, not the poor. If they really want to truly provide benefits to the poor, then they should put their money where their mouth is and be willing to provide the same financial aid packages to truly poor people that the elite private schools provide. The fact that they don't do that indicates to me that they're not really all THAT interested in helping the poor. They're out to help the masses, regardless of whether individuals in those masses are poor or rich or in-between. You talk about a family making $90,000 benefitting by sending their kid to a public school and enjoying the state subsidy. Yet, a family that is worth millions who also sends their kid to a public school also gets to enjoy that same subsidy. </p>
<p>You also said it yourself - the system occasionally breaks down and occassionally private schools will offer a better deal to poor people than the public schools will. Well, if it really is an occasional thing, then the public schools should have no problem in remedying it, right? Why would the public schools object to remedying a situation that supposedly happens only occassionally anyway? I think you ought to agree with me that public schools should then drop the pretense that they are really out to help the poor - something that they drag out time and time again whenever they are threatened with state budget cuts. You know and I know that they are not really out to help the poor. </p>
<p>And finally, even the whole notion of 'serving the masses' breaks down when you look at the situation closely. Keep in mind that universities are not just about undergraduate teaching, but about graduate teaching as well. What school has the largest graduate engineering enrollment in the country? A public school? Hardly - it's MIT. Which law school has the largest enrollment in the country? A public school? Nope - it's Harvard. Which graduate business program has the largest enrollment in the country? Not a public school. Once again, it's Harvard (at HBS). So if public schools are truly out to educate the masses when it comes to undergraduate education, then shouldn't they also be out to educate the masses when it comes to graduate education as well? If not, then why not? Why is it so important for public schools to provide widespread undergraduate education, but apparently not so important to provide widespread graduate education? It would seem to me that if you truly believed in providing widespread education to the masses, then you should be trying to provide all forms of education to the masses, not just certain forms.</p>
<p>Sakky, Michigan's B school is as good as MITs. Whether one is considered 2 or 3 spots better than the other makes no difference. At the MBA level, there is no difference between #1 and #10. Secondly, you dismiss BusinessWeek's rankings, but it is actually the most respected ranking out there. Thirdly, there is no such thing as the "Group of 7". If you can provide a link to that institution or membership, please do so. At the end of the day, Wharton, Harvard and Kellogg are generally believed to be the top 3 MBA programs (by a hair)...and Stanford is a close fourth. After that, Chicago, Columbia, MIT and Michigan are all considered equals and worthy MBA programs. Dartmouth and Duke are generally considered top 10 as well. But it really is impossible to claim that there is an absolute #1 and an absolute top 10 etc...</p>
<p>Sakky, you bring up many good points about state schools and their quest to provide education to the masses. But at the same time, it is also the state school's responsibilty to provide the best education to the masses, which explains why some schools, like Michigan, Cal, UCLA and UVA, charge higher tuition and are more selective.</p>
<p>As for the size of graduate programs, the reason why state schools do not have the largest graduate programs is due to funding. Harvard, which is much wealthier than any university in the World, can afford having a huge Law and Business program. Besides, since very few highly qualified people from each state actually go on to get Law Degrees and MBAs, most state schools do not need to be too large. Let us face it, only 25% of Michigan's graduate students come from the state of Michigan. More of them come from international destinations. Its not like Michigan is closing its door to in-state applicants.</p>
<p>But Sakky, only the top few schools provide full financial aid so the policies you are talking about help only the very smartest of the poor.</p>
<p>mitman2008,</p>
<p>the topic is UMICH engineering: undergrad is top ten across the board (one "lowly" 13 for grad).</p>