Northwestern vs. Michigan

College Search & Selection
201

<p>I still fail to see the relevance of SAT scores relative to the quality of a university. </p>

<p>Mid 50% SAT range at Catech: 1470-1580.
Mid 50% SAT range at MIT:1430-1570.
Mid 50% SAT range at Stanford: 1360-1550. </p>

<p>Does that mean Caltech and MIT are better than Stanford? Does it mean that Caltech is way better than Northwestern? I agree that SAT ranges is a cireteria worth considering, but when looking at the overall excellence of a university, it makes up a very small portion of the whole.</p>

202

<p>
[quote]
I still fail to see the relevance of SAT scores relative to the quality of a university. </p>

<p>Mid 50% SAT range at Catech: 1470-1580.
Mid 50% SAT range at MIT:1430-1570.
Mid 50% SAT range at Stanford: 1360-1550. </p>

<p>Does that mean Caltech and MIT are better than Stanford? Does it mean that Caltech is way better than Northwestern? I agree that SAT ranges is a cireteria worth considering, but when looking at the overall excellence of a university, it makes up a very small portion of the whole.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's a DISTINCTION btwn the overall quality of a university and the overall quality of its student body.</p>

<p>The mid 50% data set are not as good of an indicator of the quality of a student body as the % of students who score above certain points on the standardized tests.</p>

<p>UoM
Average high school GPA 3.75
Test scores SAT verbal scores over 500 96%, SAT math scores over 500 98%, ACT scores over 18 100%, SAT verbal scores over 600 70%, SAT math scores over 600 86%, ACT scores over 24 94%, SAT verbal scores over 700 21%, SAT math scores over 700 43%, ACT scores over 30 38% </p>

<p>NU
Test scores SAT verbal scores over 500 100%, SAT math scores over 500 99%, ACT scores over 18 100%, SAT verbal scores over 600 92%, SAT math scores over 600 94%, ACT scores over 24 96%, SAT verbal scores over 700 53%, SAT math scores over 700 63%, ACT scores over 30 69%</p>

<p>There is a significant difference in the % of students who score above a 1400 on the SATs and over 30 on the ACT.</p>

203

<p>Hmmm...that kind of reasoning looks a bit funny though. It seems rather arbitrary to use 1400/30 as the benchmarks. I really don't think there's a big difference between NU and UMich students, just like there's not a big difference between NU and Stanford students.</p>

204

<p>That's b/c there isn't that big of a difference btwn the make-up of NU's and Stanford's student body.</p>

<p>Stanford - </p>

<p>SAT verbal scores over 500 100%, SAT math scores over 500 100%, ACT scores over 18 100%, SAT verbal scores over 600 92%, SAT math scores over 600 96%, ACT scores over 24 99%, SAT verbal scores over 700 59%, SAT math scores over 700 67%, ACT scores over 30 66% </p>

<p>In contrast - the difference with Michigan is substantial.</p>

205

<p>Time for a reality check on enrolled student quality…Northwestern is not Stanford…and Michigan is not Northwestern… and Michigan might not even be BC. </p>

<p>SAT Scores (from school websites and link for Michigan provided by hoedown)
Michigan: 1210-1420 (Fall 2006 class)
Northwestern: 1320-1500 (***Fall 2005 class-does anyone have data for 2006?)
Stanford: 1340-1520 (Fall 2006 class)
Boston College: 1250-1420 (Fall 2006 class)</p>

<p>Admit Rate (from school websites and link for Michigan provided by hoedown)
Michigan: 47%
Northwestern: 30%
Stanford: 11%
Boston College: 29%</p>

<p>Freshman in Top 10% (from 2007 edition of USNWR)
Michigan: 89%
Northwestern: 82%
Stanford: 89%
Boston College: 75%</p>

206

<p>The students at UM are far more lively and interesting. They worry about things besides when Ibanks are coming to recruit.</p>

207

<p>So K&s, what you are saying is that NU's student body is better than Michigan's student body...not that Northwestern university is better than the University of Michigan? I agree with that assessment. If the OP were asking which university had better students, I am pretty sure the vast majority on this thread, myself included, would say that NU wins. But the OP was asking which university (not student body) is better. To that, I say that neither is better. Michigan and NU each have their strengths and weakneses, but overall, they are equal undergraduate institutions.</p>

208

<p>Alexandre is right. A lot of the comparisons between UMich and NU have been between student bodies.</p>

209

<p>::They worry about things besides when Ibanks are coming to recruit::</p>

<p>that's right, because we're all pre-business. even the theater, poli sci, sociology, comm studies, journalism, art history and voice majors. we just do all that other stuff for fun.</p>

210

<p>Besides, IBanks recruit just as heavily, on a per/student basis, at Michigan.</p>

211

<p>They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
I plotted the SAT score distributions of Michigan and Northwestern based on the mid 50% data posted earlier.
I assumed normal distribution. It's a huge assumption, as I have no idea what the actual distributions look like. But I think it's a reasonable assumption if you just want to get a rough idea for the purpose of comparison.
Middle 50% is roughly +/-0.675 standard deviation, and I assumed Michigan is three times as large as Northwestern, blah, blah, blah. Stat101 stuff.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=487950%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=487950&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(Did it work?)</p>

212

<p>I believe that this thread has revealed the Michigan approach. Associate your school's name repeatedly with higher ranked institutions (and never with lower ranked institutions) in a broad effort to convince others that Michigan is a mega elite school that is an equal to many of the Ivies and other highly ranked privates, including Northwestern. </p>

<p>It has been repeatedly stated here on this thread and elsewhere that Michigan and Northwestern are equal as undergraduate institutions and that the quantitative and qualitative data differences are negligible. By doing so, Michigan supporters insist on associating up, but should they not also be required to associate down? Shouldn’t what is good for the goose also be good for the gander? </p>

<p>If you believe that the rankings differences between Michigan and Northwestern are negligible and that Michigan is an equal to Northwestern, then you must accept that there are many other lower ranked undergraduate institutions that are also equal to Michigan:</p>

<p>Graduation/Retention Rank
Northwestern: 8th
Michigan: 28th (20 places behind Northwestern)
Schools 20 places or less behind Michigan: Miami of Ohio (39), UC Davis (44), U Florida (44), Syracuse (44), SUNY-Binghamton (44), Case Western (48)</p>

<p>Faculty Resources Rank
Northwestern: 9th
Michigan: 69th (60 places behind Northwestern)
Schools 60 places or less behind Michigan: SUNY-Binghamton (131), U Vermont (131), Kansas State (131), Indiana U (136), Ohio U (136), U Oklahoma (136), U South Carolina (136)</p>

<p>Student Selectivity
Northwestern: 17th
Michigan: 22nd (5 places behind Northwestern)
Schools 5 places or less behind Michigan: Vanderbilt (26), U Virginia (26), W&M (26)</p>

<p>Financial Resources
Northwestern: 14th
Michigan: 31st (17 places behind Northwestern)
Schools 17 places or less behind Michigan: Georgia Tech (42), U Florida (42), U Minnesota (42), U Southern Cal (45), RPI (45), U Wisconsin (47), Howard U (47)</p>

<p>Alumni Giving
Northwestern: 29th (29%)
Michigan: 105th (15%) (76 places behind Northwestern)
Schools 76 places or less behind Michigan: U Arizona (8%), UC Irvine (8%), U Buffalo (10%), Colorado State U (10%), U Missouri (10%)</p>

<p>Peer Assessment
Northwestern: 4.4
Michigan: 4.5 (.1 ahead of Northwestern)
Schools .1 ahead of Michigan: Columbia (4.6), Cornell (4.6), Johns Hopkins (4.6)</p>

<p>Overall USNWR rank
Northwestern: 14th
Michigan: 24th (10 places behind Northwestern)
Schools 10 places or less behind Michigan: Lehigh (33), Boston College (34), NYU (34), U Rochester (34), U Wisconsin (34)</p>

<p>I suspect that other than Peer Assessment (which is the only subjective measurement and there is no transparency) and Selectivity, Michigan fans would protest loudly at being included with the other schools listed. </p>

<p>Conclusion: Michigan is a fine school and almost certainly one of the top state schools in the US, but its reputation on CC is overblown. The numbers don’t lie (although the PA might) and the quantitative differences with Northwestern are not small. One cannot accept that Michigan is an equal undergraduate institution to Northwestern or many of the other top privates (unless Michigan supporters are willing to concede that Michigan is equal to the lower ranked undergraduate institutions listed above).</p>

213

<p>Hawkette, your rely far too much on statistical facts and not enough of the intangibles. The statistical figures you provide mean a lot to some and very little to others. For example, I don't really care about graduation rates. As long as I graduate along with over 80% of the students I enrolled with, I am happy. Whether a university graduates 86% of its students or 93% of its students doesn't prove anything as far as I am concerned. Financial aid donations are cool. But they mean nothing to me. My parents are loaded. As far as I am concerned, alumni donation rates aren't telling. It doesn't take a statistician to figure out that alumni donation rates are linked to the size of the institution and not to its quality or student satisfaction.</p>

<p>I am sure some people on this forum care for those criteria and I am sure others couldn't care less about them. Whether one cares for them or not is a matter of personal preference. </p>

<p>At any rate, that you don't believe a particular university should be considered elite or not isn't a problem. We all have our personal opinions. I personally don't think several USNWR top 25 universities are deserving of elite status. I even voice my opinion about it. There is nothing wrong with opinion and expression. </p>

<p>However, I would appreciate it if you didn't insinuate (on several occasions) that I (and others for that matter) are somehow lying and misleading others with false claims. I do not recall accusing you of anything and I would appreciate the same courtesy. Whether we like it or not, university ratings are purely a question of opinion. No amount of statistics can change that fact.</p>

214

<p>Alexandre,
This is not personal with you or the other Michigan partisans. My posts (esp # 212) are meant to clarify and delineate the differences between Michigan and Northwestern. In addition, in response to the statement that Michigan and Northwestern are undergraduate equals, I sought to put in perspective the differences between Michigan and Northwestern and Michigan and other lower-ranked schools. I believe that these differences challenge the claim that Michigan is equal to Northwestern. </p>

<p>There are opinions and there are facts. My point is not that opinions are bad, it is that they are often presented here as facts. Frequently, Michigan posters confuse the two by continually stating that Michigan's status is a fact when in fact it is just an opinion. These are false claims of fact as they are based on subjective assessments of a school. </p>

<p>My posts in this thread have dealt almost entirely with quantitative measures, many of which paint a different picture than what Michigan's supporters would like to see. These quantitative measures are not "purely a question of opinion." They are facts. The Peer Assessment, on which Michigan excels, is a question of opinion. All of the other data presented are facts. I have said repeatedly that people will make their own judgments about the quality of these measures and their relevance to their evaluation of a school. </p>

<p>Based on the measurable data, which I hasten to add academics typically require to test the validity of a thesis, Michigan's undergraduate prowess is almost certainly less than Northwestern. Undoubtedly, this statement infuriates Michigan supporters, but what, other than opinions, do you or others have that can respond to this and advance this discussion?</p>

215

<p>Hawkette, the facts you present aren't in question. I certainly never questioned their validity. Their importance, on the other hand, are in question. Like I said, some people care for class size, graduation rates, alumni donation rates and financial aid statistics. I never said the statistics you provided were incorrect. And I am pretty sure I offered more than just opinion to support my conclusion, such as professional and graduate school placement (which favor neither institution), academic rankings, the peer assessment score etc... </p>

<p>Speaking of the PA, you seem to think it is some arbitrary, subjective rating that means nothing. If it were the opinion of a handful of uneducated individuals like ourselves, I would agree. But it is the collective opinion of hundreds of PhDs who generally must keep up with the developments and progress of other peer institutions. I would not take it so lightly. </p>

<p>And Hawkette, your insinuations that those who compare Michigan to NU are somehow deceitful is personal. I don't think it can be intrepreted any other way.</p>

216

<p>Alexandre,
Finally, we agree as the importance of these factors is best determined in the mind of the reader. My posts in this thread have not opined on the relative importance of one statistic versus another and frankly, I agree with you that some of these measures are near useless and highly unfair to the larger state schools (eg, Alumni Giving). But they are factual and do reveal some clear quantitative differences between Michigan and Northwestern. </p>

<p>Re the PA, I unfortunately do believe that it is an arbitrary number. It is a reflection of the opinions of those who responded, but we don’t know who they are, what schools they represent, what schools they commented on, what they said about various schools, etc. The complete lack of transparency substantially undermines the quality of this number which I believe is heavily invested in supporting the academic status quo. You and others will likely respond that this does not necessarily make their conclusions inaccurate and I would agree. But I am unwilling to accept them blindly, particularly without any supporting detail. The other numbers used by USNWR are at least objective and that alone permits the reader to make informed judgments about their application in their own college search and selection. By its very nature, the PA is a biased number. As for Michigan’s PA, I suspect that Michigan is a major beneficiary of its Northeastern location, close to the center of the Education Establishment. IMO, if Michigan were to swap geographical locations with the University of Texas, then their scores might be reversed. But that is clearly only my opinion and it is this subjectivity that erodes any confidence that a reader can have about its accuracy. </p>

<p>Re your statement about deceit, please don’t confuse legitimate challenges as charges of deceit. Perhaps my statements were not as artfully crafted as they could have been, but crying deceit was never my intention. If that was your interpretation, then please accept my apology. </p>

<p>My posts have sought, through the recitation of mostly factual data, to identify and highlight differences between Michigan and Northwestern and, in the most recent posts, put some of these differences in context vis-a-vis lower ranked institutions. In contrast, the posts of several Michigan supporters have relied on subjective comment and opinion and even some attack me for pointing out the quantitative differences. IMO, I have characterized your and others’ statements of Michigan’s equality to Northwestern as inaccurate and not supported by the facts. In my posts, I have provided supporting quantitative evidence to support my conclusion that Michigan’s undergraduate offering is not an equal to Northwestern. You have a different opinion, but (in this thread at least), I have not seen much quantitative refutation of my arguments. It is clear that you are a great supporter of and advocate for Michigan, but on what do you base your conclusion that it is an undergraduate equal to Northwestern?</p>

217

<p>Michigan vs. Northwestern debate: personal and vicious
Northwestern vs. Tufts debate: fun
Northwestern vs. Northeastern debate: priceless</p>

<p>I agree that categories such as alumni giving % and retention rate should have ZERO effect on any discussion of a college's quality.</p>

<p>And some of the other categories (e.g., selectivity) are only relevant if the schools are somewhat similar in size, public/private, and price (e.g., NU, Stanford, and/or Boston College). NU being much smaller and private makes it a whole different selectivity animal than Michigan. It's like asking which is prettier, a wolf or a tiger.</p>

218

<p>"As for Michigan’s PA, I suspect that Michigan is a major beneficiary of its Northeastern location, close to the center of the Education Establishment."</p>

<p>Not to intrude on an interesting dicussion, but since when is Ann Arbor, MI in the Northeast? It certainly is no more northeast than Evanston, IL.</p>

219

<p>"As for Michigan’s PA, I suspect that Michigan is a major beneficiary of its Northeastern location, close to the center of the Education Establishment."</p>

<p>Ann Arbor is a lot closer to the center of crack houses and carjacking (Detroit) than it is to the center of the Education Establishment.</p>

<p>Perhaps we should expect some geographical vertigo from a school that is in the MIDwest but is called NORTHWESTern.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Ann Arbor is farther east than Atlanta. Check it out.</p>

220

<p>
[quote]
I suspect that other than Peer Assessment (which is the only subjective measurement and there is no transparency) and Selectivity, Michigan fans would protest loudly at being included with the other schools listed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Maybe Michigan "fans" would, but not uniformly. And as for U-M itself, it can and does compare itself with many of these institutions. Either because they compete for the same students, compete for similar faculty, have similar strengths, and so on. GA Tech is definitely Michigan's peer when it comes to Engineering. It's flattering to be compared to UVa on many measures. Wisconsin is our peer in many ways. The list goes on. Michigan is not anywhere near as "social climbing"/snobby as you fear it is. </p>

<p>It is true there are many proud alums (and prospective students) who like to emphasize the extent to which it can call the country's most elite institutions its peers, but I believe you are wrong to attribute it to some kind of Michigan ethos.</p>