<p>finalchild, I do not mix LACs with research universities. LACs would have their own rating. </p>
<p>Most of the universities you list (you missed Georgetown) are also excellent and would be in my third group, which falls one small notch below group 2. Of course, that is just my opinion. I merely consider academic prowess and reputation, institutional wealth and strength of student body. Others value different criteria and based on those, some universities in group 2 may drop and some universities in group 3 may rise.</p>
<p>I think, broadly speaking, Alexandre has identified the research universities where the real heavy lifting gets done in the academic world, the schools that have extraordinary faculty strength across all disciplines, whose scholarship is most influential and admired. By that metric, which is what most academic administrators would focus on, I’d say Michigan is easily in the top dozen. </p>
<p>I would characterize some of the schools finalchild mentions as having students better than their faculty, in the sense that they are highly selective in undergraduate admissions and successfully compete for high-stats students, but their faculties are either uneven across disciplines or just a little spotty. That’s not to say they’re not good teachers–they may be that–but they’re just not academic superstars within their own disciplines, or at any rate fewer of them are.</p>
<p>Take Georgetown as an example. I can’t think of a single academic discipline where I would say Georgetown has a stronger faculty than Michigan has. Well, OK, theology, because as a public institution Michigan doesn’t have a Department of Theology, and Georgetown’s is probably pretty good. But you name it, English, philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science (yes, by a mile!), math, physics, chemistry, biology–Michigan’s faculty beats Georgetown’s faculty hands down, every time. Yet Georgetown students have slightly higher average stats than Michigan students. In part, that’s simply because as a public university it’s part of Michigan’s mission to educate more people and therefore it needs to reach deeper into the applicant pool to fill more seats. If Michigan had the luxury of filling 1/4 the number of seats it presently does–the number Georgetown presently enrolls as its whole class–it’s a pretty sure bet Michigan’s average stats would be much stronger than Georgetown’s, because the 1,600 students in the top quarter of Michigan’s entering class are much stronger than the 1,600 who make up Georgetown’s entire entering class. But be that as it may, US News looks only at the medians for the entire class, and Georgetown’s medians are unquestionably a bit higher.</p>
<p>But I’m with Alexandre here. To my mind, a school with better faculty and more strong students is just a stronger school. Others, including US News, obviously see it differently.</p>
<p>Obviously there are different ways to look at what makes for a strong school.</p>
<p>I’m guessing fans of Rice, Wash U, Vandy, as you say Georgetown, and probably Notre Dame would contest. Also interesting to have Cal and Mich in a group without any of the other big 3 publics (UCLA, UVA, UNC).</p>
<p>A lot has been made of the strength of Michigan’s department rankings. Most here right now are interested in undergrad. Are these world-class professors at Mich across the board the ones that would be teaching my kid if she gets admitted and enrolls. That to me is a huge ratings factor. Sure, maybe Michigan trumps a Georgetown or Rice or Wash U for the reason you gave, but for me it has to be reason that actually matters concretely. So I hope that is true.</p>
<p>Also forgot Tufts and some would argue for BC.</p>
<p>It’s hard to do these rankings things when some of the schools are on the border of being in the universities or LAC categories. How do you compare Michigan with 25K+students with a Rice at 3-3.5K or even a Duke? Obviously Michigan is going to have bigger and more departments and perhaps a larger number of bigger names in terms of professors, but where is the best actual undergrad experience?</p>
<p>finalchild, Rice, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Emory, Wash U, UVa, UNC, UCLA etc…are well within their rights to contest. This is not an exact science. All those universities are excellent. I was merely stating my own opinion. </p>
<p>But to answer your question, the Michigan professors who make the University a powerhouse in academe teach undergrads. In fact, they often teach advanced undergraduate classes with similar structure and content to graduate courses they teach, only usually a little more watered down and less quantitative. They also usually teach in the same facilities used by graduate students. </p>
<p>As for which university provides the best undergraduate experience, that depends entirely on the student…and how he/she fits in at the university.</p>
<p>Yeah bclinktonk, you’re right about the upper quarter at UMich being competitive and in fact, many of them did get into schools in that 2nd group. Just about every class has at least a few students of that caliber, which if you ask me benefits the ‘bottom 3/4’ too.</p>
<p>But is it fair to assume that when you and bclintock rave about Michigan it is not just or mostly because of its research, superstar faculty, and graduate level powerhouse prowess? That you also believe the undergrad experience in itself is exceptional? Or, do you think, all other things being relatively equal, that most kids can get a better undergrad education at a well-regarded university in the 4500-7500 students range and/or a highly rated LAC?</p>
<p>finalchild, the quality of one’s undergraduate education depends entirely, 100%, on their own initiative. Given the complexity and quantity of the material covered in college, students must make a serious commitment to their education, regardless of the undergraduate institution they attend. That being said, I have no desire to sell you Michigan. It would seem that you have a preference for a different type of university (perhaps Rice or Vanderbilt perhaps?), and I seriously urge you to consider sending your child to such a university because Michigan will likely not live up to your expectations. Whenever there is a hiccup along the way, you will attribute it to Michigan not measuring up to your standards. There is nothing worse than regretting wasting $200k on an education that you feel is not stellar. I will always recommend a university based on fit, and in your case, and that of your daughter, I do not think Michigan will be a good fit.</p>
<p>I kind of agree with Alexandre’s post regarding undergraduate teaching by certain university “powerhouse” researchers who often teach advanced undergraduate classes with similar structure and content to graduate courses. I may have missed it in earlier posts but for the most part I believe the most well respected research faculty members also tend to have the most highly qualified GSI also working for them. It’s the GSIs that the undergraduate students have the most contact and interaction during their class discussion/laboratory sessions</p>
<p>I was enjoying all of your posts and information until now.</p>
<p>If it’s all the same to you, I think we will decide with our daugther what is the best choice among the options she is fortunate to have once we get though the next several weeks. On what basis would you presume to know that Michigan is not a good fit for her. That was a pretty wild (and irresponsible) statement/conclusion you made. Do you know something about her that we don’t? And wouldn’t you assume if a kid is considering schools of the quality of a Michigan (or any of the others referenced) that the kid (and parents) have some vague idea of what is involved with succeeding in college? I know you have me beat here by about 20,000 posts, but still…</p>
<p>I genuinely am trying to figure out what might make Michigan a great choice. I think it is reasonable to make sure whether folks are talking about undergrad vs grad, or both, with a school like Michigan (or similar excellent larger schools). I wasn’t sure at first when various department rankings were being cited whether that was for undergrad or grad, or both, since Med and Law schools were also being referenced.</p>
<p>As for your rankings, you seem like you know what you are talking about, so I was curious about where you have a few schools, especially in comparision to Michigan.</p>
<p>finalchild, I am not sure about bclintonk, but all of my experiences with the University of Michigan have been as an undergraduate student. I went somewhere else for graduate school and have absolutely no knowledge of Michigan’s graduate programs other than their lofty rankings. Michigan’s graduate programs are excellent, naturally, but its undergraduate programs are just as formidable. I am not sure how one can distinguish between the two. At Michigan, undergraduate and graduate students share the same faculty and the same facilities. But this is an undergraduate forum, and all of the details we discuss here focus on undergraduate programs. There are other forums on CC that address graduate programs.</p>
<p>All your questions make sense but this is a tough board. I am going through the same thing with my D - accepted to Michigan but has other great choices and trying to figure it all out. </p>
<p>I think its great that Michigan people take such pride but it shouldn’t be unreasonable to question a few things before you plop down $200K+!!</p>
<p>Thanks BigDog. I don’t think it’s too much to expect better treatment than the below. It’s one thing to say not a good for me based on a distorted understanding of my post, but our friend went out of his way to also include my daugther who I do not believe I have said one word about or revealed any data about.</p>
<p>“I seriously urge you to consider sending your child to such a university because Michigan will likely not live up to your expectations. Whenever there is a hiccup along the way, you will attribute it to Michigan not measuring up to your standards. There is nothing worse than regretting wasting $200k on an education that you feel is not stellar. I will always recommend a university based on fit, and in your case, and that of your daughter, I do not think Michigan will be a good fit.”</p>
<p>Bigdoglover, I do not think there is anything wrong with questioning, nor do I think this is a “tough board”. At times, questions can be relatively easy to answer. Questions regarding dorms, meal plans, cost of attendance, size of endowment etc… At other times, I think the questions asked by concerned parents are almost impossible to answer. How can anybody encapsulate or pin down a concept as abstract as quality of undergraduate experience? It cannot be done beyond barking out obvious data points, such as endowment figures, quality of faculty, athletic tradition etc… </p>
<p>finalchild, I apologise for having offended you. Toss it to my Old World personality; lack of tact and bluntness of speech are counted among my finer qualities! From your earlier posts, it seemed like you have a preference for smaller universities. This preference, experience has shown me, is hard to overcome. I was genuinely trying to help manage your expectations, but it is clear that I could have phrased it more elegantly. ;)</p>
<p>It is a “tough board”. If you dare question one thing about Michigan you are subjected to tough comments. Less by you Alexandre than most.</p>
<p>As I said it is a mixed thing…great that people take such pride in a school but not great that nothing can be questioned</p>
<p>Just my observation and it doesn’t even really matter. I’m pretty sure my D is going to choose Michigan and then she too will be telling me to stop questioning anything UMichigan. HA!</p>
<p>Since this was partly directed at me, I’ll respond. I attended Michigan as an undergrad. Granted, this was ages ago, but I’ve followed the school closely ever since, partly out of professional interest–I’m on the faculty of another Big Ten school that, frankly, only dreams of being Michigan-- and I’ve encouraged my own daughters to consider it as an option. As a result, I feel I have a pretty good sense of what’s there. I had an outstanding undergraduate experience, and I truly believed at the time, and continue to believe to this day, that there were perhaps 2 or 3 schools in the entire country–well 2, to be precise, and their initials are H and P–that could have given me a comparable undergraduate education in my chosen field of study, which was philosophy—still a field in which Michigan has extraordinary strength. </p>
<p>My experience may not have been typical for a number of reasons. I came in as part of the LS&A Honors Program which meant that, apart from a moderately large Great Books lecture, my intro-level classes were all small classes with top professors and basically Ivy-caliber students. By the time I was deeply into my major in my Junior and Senior years, I was largely taking graduate-level classes in one of the top handful of philosophy grad programs in the country, though all the undergrad classes in my field were also taught by regular, full-time faculty, all among the top people in their field. (I do recognize that in some of the more popular majors even upper-level classes tend to be quite large, but I’ve been both a grad student and a faculty member at Ivies, and I know from first-hand experience that the most popular classes in the most popular majors also tend to be quite large there). </p>
<p>I think Michigan’s a school that has incredible breadth and incredible depth and excellence across all disciplines. As an undergrad, however, it is largely what you make of it. Sky’s the limit for academic opportunities. Not everyone seizes those opportunities, and probably not everyone is cut out to seize those opportunities.</p>
<p>My own D1 didn’t want to attend a large research university. Not only was Michigan too big for her, but so were all the Ivies. Her first choice was a small and very good LAC where I think she is getting an outstanding education and the intimacy and personal attention she wanted. I think it was probably a good choice for her. Personally, I would have found that environment a bit claustrophobic, socially limiting, and academically confining, in a way; her LAC is very good at what it offers, but it just doesn’t have the kind of breadth and richness of academic opportunities that Michigan does, and even where it’s strong there’s excellence but in most cases not much depth. But there are trade-offs. She has all very small classes, she knows nearly everyone on campus and is on a first-name basis with most students and a fair number of faculty and administrators, not just in her own field but across the entire college. She values that intimacy, and I trust her when she says she learns better in that environment.</p>
<p>Moderate-sized research universities represent a different set of trade-offs: neither the intimacy of a LAC, and a lot more time spent in large classes; nor quite the academic breadth or depth of a school like Michigan, either, sort of a middle-ground compromise between the two. That works for some people. For “most kids”? No, I don’t have any reason to believe that. I don’t think it would have worked for me, or at any rate not any better than Michigan did. And my D1 carefully considered that option and found it unappealing–in her view, the worst of both worlds. But I have no doubt it works for some. People’s tastes, preferences, needs, and learning styles differ.</p>
<p>My D2, by the way, is torn. She’s a HS senior who has been accepted to Michigan EA, and is waiting to hear from a bunch of LACs where she’s also applied. She always thought she’d follow in her sister’s footsteps and go the LAC route, but now she’s not so sure. She’s really intrigued by Michigan, and she’s also been accepted into Michigan’s Residential College, which attempts to combine the best of both–the intimacy of a small college with the opportunities of a great university. It will be interesting to see what she ultimately decides. I’d love to have her attend Michigan for my own selfish reasons–it would give me an excuse to get back there more often. But I’ll be happy whatever she decides, as long as she’s comfortable and confident that she’s making the right choice for her, and she’s in better position to judge that than I am.</p>
<p>^just to support the fit notion (as opposed to the rankings phenom) I feel that once a student has options among top schools and finances being equal, the idea of “where” they will do best really comes down to their disposition, learning style, and capacity for initiative. </p>
<p>My son graduated from a GT magnet program that was tiny and intimate that emphasized Socratic learning. Many of its students have enjoyed the fit of small LACs or smaller universities such as Chicago. So I was pretty surprised in some ways that he fell in love with Michigan due to its size. Some parents from this GT program were naturally oriented to assume that the quality of education improves in a small class setting - but that’s actually more of an internal bias that I suspect is generated from the direct experience of the public education system. Kind of left-over thinking from high school, if you will. I probably shared that notion at one point, but four years later, (my son graduates in April) I see things a bit differently. </p>
<p>At a large and well-respected research university, the benefit is to my mind the richness of opportunity and the inherent capability to learn to navigate such a large population and “get what you need” that it develops. This environmental aspect in some ways might concern a parent who is accustomed to – heck, conditioned to – advocate for or otherwise assist their child. You worry that you may be turning you child loose in the wilds. And yes, to some degree, you are But in so doing, you’re also giving them the opportunity to develop their resourcefulness, to make their niche and stand out in a crowd or otherwise construct some sort of “life.”</p>
<p>What ends up happening after the initial adjustment of Freshman year is often that the student finds ways to make the university “smaller.” By that I mean I feel that those inclined to do so will follow a sequence of narrowing in specialty, (and subsequently, class size), will develop relationships with particular professors to whom they naturally align, and become involved with activities that create a smaller social experience and sense of inclusion. What’s awesome about watching this unfold is again the sheer breadth of opportunity, the raw material, if you will, that is available to work with. </p>
<p>Michigan is no doubt a large school, but like a vibrant city, it’s made up of many neighborhoods. If your child is the type to be energized by vigorous diversity and variety he or she will likely love it and have little trouble finding a “community.” It’s size does not mean, however, that its like a smorgasbord at a substandard restaurant. More like a party thrown by the best chefs in the world Size does not determine quality. Quality determines quality.</p>
<p>So size only matters in this case as it relates to your child’s preferences and disposition. With so any applicants to choose from, if your d was selected for admission it means the school believes she will succeed in its environment. The high graduation rate suggests that it is rare for students to leave once they’re there. The OOS cost is without question high, but if you’re comfortable with the cost or would otherwise be willing to spend it elsewhere, then the only thing to do is to tell your d you expect her to make good use of the opportunity being underwritten – wherever she chooses ;)</p>
But in so doing, you’re also giving them the opportunity to develop their resourcefulness, to make their niche and stand out in a crowd or otherwise construct some sort of “life.”</p>