Northwestern vs. Michigan

College Search & Selection
221

<p>Hawkette, your appology, although appreciated and welcome, is not necessary or expected. I am definitely a big supporter of Michigan. However, if you read through my posts (not just in this thread, but everywhere on this forum), you will notice that I always put the need of the poster ahead of my love for Michigan. As such, I make sure that I edit my bias for my undergraduate alma matter out of my posts. Trust me, that alone is a full time job!</p>

<p>Before I go on explaining on what I base my conclusion that Michigan and NU are equals, I must make it clear that there are no real statistical tools that can be used to prove or disprove my case...or yours for that matter. I believe that a huge part of an institution's excellence is intangible. Such as the academic and intellectual environment, campus culture, college-town relationship and atmosphere, alumni network and loyalty, all of which are just a few of those intangibles. You believe supporting quantitative evidence can prove that one institution is better than another. I just don't think that's possible. </p>

<p>But like I said many times Hawkette, there are figures that support my conclusion. NU and Michigan place roughly the same percentage of their students into top graduate programs or into top companies. According to a recent study conducted by the Wall Street Journall, NU ranked 14th among national universities, placing 4% of their students into top 5 graduate professional programs. In that same study, Michigan was ranked 18th among national universities, placing 3% of their students into top 5 graduate professional programs. Top companies, like GE, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey etc... recruit hundreds of Michigan undergrads on an annual basis. To me, those stats are significantly more telling than the flawed, discriminatory and easily manipulated statistics provided by the USNWR. But they remain mere stats. They are impossible to interpret. And even if we could interpret them, there just isn't enough of a gap between Northwestern and Michigan to reach a definite conclusion.</p>

222

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I heard that Northwestern's little brother, Nrotheastern, has reached puberty and been growing fast lately. :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's like asking which is prettier, a wolf or a tiger.

[/quote]

LOL! It should be wolverine or wildcat. Anyway, I think tiger is prettier than wolf...</p>

223

<p>Re Michigan and the Northeast, I’d certainly defer to those in Michigan, but my understanding is that Michigan is in the eastern time zone and, as TourGuide points out, Ann Arbor is actually east of Atlanta. I believe that the school attracts the vast majority of its students from the Northeast (67% from Michigan and a large % of the OOS population from the NE), not to mention placing the vast majority of its graduates in that same area. </p>

<p>Alexandre… While I understand the difficulty of making absolute judgments about the quality of various undergraduate institutions, there are some hard numbers that can be used at least at an introductory level to compare schools. IMO, there is value in looking at objective criteria that help one evaluate many aspects of a school such as:
1) the quality of the student body
2) the size and nature of the classroom
3) the ability of a school to effectively meet its financial obligations to the faculty and the students today and tomorrow
4) the reputation of the faculty (although I would strongly favor measuring this reputation among a national universe of employers and NOT among academics)
5) some measure of how to gauge student/alumni satisfaction (perhaps on a per capita adjusted basis)</p>

<p>These are important statistics and can tell a lot about a school while allowing schools as different as Michigan and Northwestern to compare themselves. They also permit schools of more similar size and type to more effectively measure their undergraduate offerings, eg, Michigan vs other state schools like UC Berkeley, U Texas, U North Carolina, U Colorado, etc. </p>

<p>Re intangibles, I completely agree and believe that this actually is extremely important in finding the right college fit. It is definitely not captured in the statistical analysis of USNWR and is a major lacking of this ranking. I intend to pursue this topic in a different forum.</p>

<p>Finally, re the Michigan-Northwestern comparison and your reference to various “rankings” and the recruiting presence of “top employers” and placement into various “top graduate programs,” this strikes me as more of the same subjective thinking that I have previously objected to. For example, would Schlumberger be considered a top employer? If so, I suspect that its recruiting work at UT is significantly greater than its work at Michigan. To me, this proves next to nothing about either school, only that a certain school has an advantage with a certain company or industry and that advantage is likely heavily influenced by geographic proximity. The point is that what is “top” to you is quite likely not “top” to me and potentially not to many others. Such a perspective about what is “top” portends an arrogance that I don’t believe you intend or carry, but which is nonetheless the result. It is a common perspective held in the Northeast and is regularly reinforced by the mainstream media, but it is by no means universally held.</p>

224

<p>Alex -
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh - but isn't the make-up of the student body the biggest factor with regard to a university (after all, w/o the students what DO you have)?</p>

<p>With your logic - there wouldn't be a discernable difference btwn Harvard, Columbia, Penn, NU, Cal, Mich and Vanderbilt (they all have notable and well-respected faculties and a talented student really wouldn't "suffer" learning from one school's faculty over that of another).</p>

<p>Otoh, let's say we trade Boston College's study body with that of Harvard. Such a trade would have a negative impact on Havard and a positive one for BC.</p>

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But what % of Michigan's student body would get a chance with an IBank? </p>

<p>IBanks and other Wall St. firms don't really look at students who score less than 1400 on their SATs (that takes out about 80% of the student body at Mich).</p>

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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Michigan vs. Cal/dOSU: debate: personal and vicious
Michigan vs. Wisconsin: debate: fun
Michigan vs. Michigan St.: priceless</p>

<p>While selectivity has a lot to do with size - it also has an impact on the "quality" of the students enrolled.</p>

225

<p>
[quote]
IBanks and other Wall St. firms don't really look at students who score less than 1400 on their SATs (that takes out about 80% of the student body at Mich).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I could be wrong, but I doubt it and this assertion seems blatantly ignorant and false.</p>

<p>the SAT is used for ADMISSION only by the colleges... what makes you think that, after you graduate, or even as a junior looking for internships, they ask you to put an SAT score -- earned 3+ years ago -- on your resume?</p>

<p>answer: they don't. They instead require your college GPA at most. and the companies that recruit IBankers are often recruiting at the B-school whose students are on par with any elite, and they are well-aware of this.</p>

<p>Furthermore, Michigan has certain small colleges/divisions within the university that are willing to admit slightly less qualified students. The Division of Kinesiology is one of them in particular, with majors like Movement Science, Physical Education, and Sport Management. I doubt Northwestern offers these subjects.</p>

<p>Students enrolled in the college of LSA, the universities largest college, are presumably much more akin to those at Northwestern... and those in the business school and college of engineering are certainly "ivy-caliber"... recruiters know this.</p>

<p>Michigan is large and offers a wide variety of academic disciplines... in virtue of this they admit a wider range of students as indicated by the SAT range. But when you're at Michigan and studying business, engineering, any of the hard sciences, philosophy, etc, you're typically studying with "elite" and very capable students akin to those you'd find at Northwestern... the disparity becomes perhaps negligible.</p>

<p>This is why recruiters come to Michigan to fill the same positions they recruit at Northwestern for... they're dealing with peers. Admittedly, elite I-Banks probably won't recruit in Kinesiology... but they will Economics majors in LSA, Business majors, engineering, etc... cuz they know they're finding top-notch employees there.</p>

226

<p>
[quote]
answer: they don't. They instead require your college GPA at most. and the companies that recruit IBankers are often recruiting at the B-school whose students are on par with any elite, and they are well-aware of this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are wrong - many Wall Street firms require a minimum of a 1400 (old format) on the SATs (we're talking about recruiting out of college - not B-school).</p>

<p>And your argument is circular - only a certain % of Mich's student body qualifies as "elite".</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, Michigan has certain small colleges/divisions within the university that are willing to admit slightly less qualified students. The Division of Kinesiology is one of them in particular, with majors like Movement Science, Physical Education, and Sport Management. I doubt Northwestern offers these subjects.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, Mich does need places to hide FB players. And please, these small divisions that you speak of can't explain away the overall lower test scores for a university with a student body as large as UoM.</p>

227

<p>I don't even know why I'm participating in this discussion as it's ridiculous and stupid but anyway:</p>

<p>1) Michigan has this thing called an undergraduate BBA program... B-School</p>

<p>2) You have any proof of this? Several of my friends work for firms in Chicago and I don't recall them mentioning anything about their college entrance exam score being required... and prima facie, it seems absurd.</p>

<p>3) My mentioning of the the smaller divisions isn't an attempt to "explain away" the discrepency in scores... rather my point is that if you come to Michigan to major in business, engineering, or any traditional academic major, your peers will be, for all intents and purposes, roughly the same as they would be at Northwestern... any difference is arguably moot.</p>

<p>The school is MASSIVE... with many different colleges within the university. </p>

<p>They also seek out, as in go out of their way, to admit lower income students... y'know, the type that aren't afforded the luxury of parents that foot the bill for $1500 SAT prep courses? Even worse, they often attend poorly funded schools with crap curriculum? Yea, Michigan reaches out for these students with potential not indicated by their raw SAT score</p>

<p>A little anecdote: one of my best friends graduated from Michigan last year. Got in with an uncoached 1360 (omg, under 1400? must be a worthless student huh?)... he was rejected by Vanderbilt, the only private to which he applied.</p>

<p>At Michigan he earned a 3.9 in Biology pre-medicine, put a princeton review MCAT course on his credit card, got a 36 and is now at UCSF school of medicine. </p>

<p>My point? There are students whose potential is not indicated by their high school SAT score... I guarantee this guy is every bit as smart as your average Harvard undergraduate, despite his lowly 1360.</p>

228

<p>Hawkette, you mention 5 criteria that you think are important. I agree that they are meaningful. But I don't think either university has a clear edge in either of those 5 categories:</p>

<p>1) The quality of the student body: According to your beloved USNWR, NU and Michigan have equal selectivity. I happen to know better, and I give the slight edge to NU here. But there is never a shortage of brilliant students at either university. </p>

<p>2) The size and nature of the classroom: Freshman classes are larger at Michigan, but they are still pretty large at NU. Most upper class size are small at both universities. I don't think faculty attention is a problem at Michigan and from what I have seen and heard from friends who attended NU, they weren't exactly hanging out with their professors at NU. Students are both schools are very academically and intellectually inclined, so I'd say the nature of the classes on both campuses is pretty intense. No edge.</p>

<p>3) The ability of a school to effectively meet its financial obligations to the faculty and the students today and tomorrow: Average full time professor at NU earns $140,000 over the 9 months academic year, compared to $125,000 over the 8 months academic year at Michigan. Average Associate and Assistant Professors at NU earn roughly $88,000 over the 9 months academic year, compared to $78,000 at Michigan over the 8 months academic year. It is difficult to draw any conclusion from those salary averages because they aren't measured according to department and they don't take cost of living differences into consideration. However, on a per month basis, I'd say that the average monthly salary of faculty at Michigan and NU are almost identical. </p>

<p><a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_faculty_stats.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_faculty_stats.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/databook/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/databook/&lt;/a> (go down to "Faculty" and click on the second to last link (average salary of full time instructional faculty 1991-92 through 2005-06)</p>

<p>Average student indebtedness at both schools is roughly the same. In short, there is no edge to either school here.</p>

<p>4) The reputation of the faculty (although I would strongly favor measuring this reputation among a national universe of employers and NOT among academics): Michigan has a larger faculty, which explains why it is ranked higher in most departments. However, on a pound per pound basis, both faculties are amazing. No edge</p>

<p>5) Some measure of how to gauge student/alumni satisfaction (perhaps on a per capita adjusted basis): Impossible to measure. </p>

<p>K&s, first of all, I interviewed with Goldman Sachs, Lazard, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley while I was an undergrad at Michigan. None of the four asked for my SAT scores. And that's too bad really because my SAT scores were pretty decent. I would have probably gotten offers from all four instead of getting offers from just two of the four. I personally recruited college students while I was working for Lehman Brothers and, later on, when I was at Goldman Sachs. Again, we never asked for SAT scores. And even if companies do ask for SATs, clearly, Wall Street companies are recruiting Michigan undergraduate students by the hundreds. Last year, Goldman Sachs hired 10 Ross undergads and 4 Engineering undergrads. And if things haven't changed, Goldman Sachs still recruits most of its Michigan students from the college of LSA. Goldman Sachs does not recruit as heavily at Michigan as JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS or Credit Suisse. Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, McKinsey, Bain, BCG and Booz Allen also activelly recruit at Michigan. Let us face it, there are currently over 1,000 Michigan seniors who scored over a 1400 on their SATs, so even if companies ask for students with 1400+ SAT scores, the Ann Arbor campus will not disapoint.</p>

229

<p>
[quote]
Well, Mich does need places to hide FB players.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I get what you are saying....and I think there is a risk of overstating the role of smaller, less selective units in absorbing U-M's less capable students. </p>

<p>However, I think your off-the-cuff remark merits a serious response. Michigan also has an art school which admits on portfolio criteria (less emphasis on academics) and a music school which admits on audition (although it's pretty selective and I think their students are probably impressive in any regard). As a state school it also fields some majors and schools that are less selective but meet important public needs, such as the nursing school. </p>

<p>So there is some merit in what they are saying--the typical student at Michigan's selective private peers, wherever you find them on campus, may have better academic stats. But given U-Ms differing selectivity and admissions criteria across the different schools, there are some majors and schools at U-M in which the people you'd be taking classes with are a pretty high calibre. </p>

<p>In other words, I think you're both right, but the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your two positions.</p>

230

<p>Alexandre,
I created that list in hopes of going to a different level of discourse on the most effective way to measure a school's quality and its undergraduate offering. I plan to introduce this topic in another forum and I look forward to your comments and recommendations. I expect that we will agree a lot more in that conversation. </p>

<p>I was not trying to frame the Michigan-Northwestern debate based on the five points, but now that you responded to them in that context, my take is the following:</p>

<p>1) the quality of the student body
Northwestern is the winner as we have discussed to the point of nausea</p>

<p>2) the size and nature of the classroom
I was thinking primarily about class size, student/faculty ratios, and the amount of teaching done by TAs. Such an approach clearly favors any smaller college over a larger college and, notwithstanding your attempts to explain Michigan's class sizes again, this is a pretty simple metric. Northwestern's smaller school size provides for significantly more classes of under 20 students and significantly fewer larger classes over 50 students. This and Northwestern's much lower student/faculty ratio is a pretty clear difference and advantage. </p>

<p>3) the ability of a school to effectively meet its financial obligations to the faculty and the students today and tomorrow
By this, I meant the ability to fund itself through tuition, endowment and outside funding sources (ie, state funding). On a school-wide basis, Michigan probably wins as it has somewhat greater total resources. But on a per student basis, Northwestern clearly can devote more resources to supporting the students and the faculty. As for faculty salaries, this is one of the USNWR criteria and I don't know the detail breakdown, but USNWR does. Northwestern's Faculty Resources rank is 9th while Michigan's is 69th. Advantage to Northwestern. </p>

<p>4) the reputation of the faculty (although I would strongly favor measuring this reputation among a national universe of employers and NOT among academics)
In this case, size works to the advantage of Michigan among academics and its high Peer Assessment score is testament to the school's reputation among academics. However, I strongly believe that this judgment of faculty quality should be made by employers who are actually interested in results, not theory. Employers also do not have anywhere near the same political stake in institutional reputation that academics do and employers are much more willing to buck the status quo and make a true (and mainly capitalistic) judgment on the quality of a school's faculty and its graduates. Not yet sure about which school has the advantage here, but this would probably go back to the quality of the student body, in which case Northwestern would again have the edge overall (meaning that Michigan has plenty of high quality students, but the average quality is lower than that at Northwestern). </p>

<p>5) some measure of how to gauge student/alumni satisfaction (perhaps on a per capita adjusted basis)
While the USNWR numbers would indicate that Northwestern has the advantage, I think this is probably not an accurate indication of the loyalty that Michigan students, families, and alums feel for the school. A per capita calculation would place Michigan above Northwestern. Also, while you state that you don't care about this metric, I would suggest that you reconsider this statement as you personally are a great advocate for the school and perhaps are representative of what is one of the great strengths of Michigan, namely the loyalty that the school inspires in its graduates. If I were you, I would want this metric included in any evaluation as this is one of the intangibles that I believe you were referring to. Advantage Michigan.</p>

<p>Overall, IMO Michigan is a very good state school with a very solid undergraduate offering. On balance, however, and based on all of the quantitative data and subjective comment posted above, I believe that Northwestern has a stronger offering for undergraduates students.</p>

231

<p>As do most people who are not connected to Michigan...... :rolleyes:</p>

232

<p>Actually, many people around the country not assoicated with UM might argue that point. Of course another one of those apple to oranges comparisons that continue . If you want to look at numbers about 6300 undergrades at Michigan have over 1480 SAT CR/M and and only about 2000 or so at Northwestern so one might argue that UM has a better student body. (At least there are a lot more smart students there) Obviously if UM was not a state school and wanted to be as big as Northwestern you might have a different statistic base. Many would argue that what makes places such as Berkeley and Michigan and the like great is that they can have top programs (and after all, you probably need to look program by program), offer hundreds of majors and provide a great education for not just the "elite" but others as well. The peer rankings I believe often are affected by this. People have a lot of respect for great diverse institutions. I, by the way have no connection to Michigan. I do like and admire both places.</p>

233

<p>oldoldad,
The University of Texas has even more scorers over 1480 than Michigan and so probably do several other very large state universities. The point is not that Michigan does not have some quality students, it is that the overall or "average" Michigan student scores below the "average" level at Northwestern (and all of the USNWR Top 25 schools). You can't have it both ways and only count the scores of the top 25% of a class-you have to measure the performance of the entire school.</p>

234

<p>No, it is like people talking about how good their private high is because of all the merit scholars etc. compared to some public high schoool. I hear that all the time and then I see in academic competitions the publics often beat the privates. The subset of the AP students is often the same. What does the average have to do with better or worse? If the state schools did not have the large tier of top students that would be different. I had several students who went to the likes of Northwestern who agreed that those places exceeded the public universites in the number of spoiled rich kids that attended who thought they were better but that the good kids at the state schools were just as good as at the others and often maybe less pampered and more able to deal with the realities of "the real world" after they graduated. Fortunately, in the US there are hundreds of great universities. Someone once said that all that matters is whether or not a school provided the motivated student a chance to reach his/her dreams. All the rest is just window dressing. Certainly students will always want to to engage in the "My school is better than yours debate" and will use statistics that at the individual level are somewhat meaningless.</p>

235

<p>"On balance, however, and based on all of the quantitative data and subjective comment posted above, I believe that Northwestern has a stronger offering for undergraduates students."</p>

<p>this may very well be true in some aspects, but I would argue that NU isn't worth the extra $20,000 a year for stuff like that though. Not even close.</p>

236

<p>oldoldad,
Agreed on the spoiled kids aspects of private schools (and the often accompanying sense of entitlement-hello, Ivy League). Lots and lots of talented kids at the state Us and very likely more risk takers and new business creators from that public school crowd. Doesn't change the conclusion on the above debate, but I agree with your points.</p>

<p>"all that matters is whether or not a school provided the motivated student a chance to reach his/her dreams" -wise words, indeed</p>

237

<p>gomestar,
According to stats listed in USNWR 2007, tuition is as follows:
Northwestern: Tuition and fees:$33,559
Michigan: Tuition and fees:$9,988 in-state, $30,179 out-of-state</p>

<p>The difference for non-Michigan residents is relatively small and certainly no where near the $20,000 per year figure you cite.</p>

238

<p>Hawkette, you rely too much on the USNWR. </p>

<p>Anyway, this debate is pointless. You will never be able to convince me that Michigan is a second rate (not worthy of top 15 or top 20 consideration)university and I will probably never be able to convince you that Michigan is a good (top 20) university. Let us leave it at that. The OP has heard from all of us and can now make up his own mind.</p>

239

<p>"According to stats listed in USNWR 2007, tuition is as follows:
Northwestern: Tuition and fees:$33,559
Michigan: Tuition and fees:$9,988 in-state, $30,179 out-of-state"</p>

<p>-Something else I'm sure the Michigan boosters will ignore.... not to mention the fact that Michigan students who have debt tend to have MORE debt than those from Northwestern.... but as long as CC is functioning, the Michigan crowd shall continue to equate the school with the likes of Harvard, and shall ignore the fact that the school is closer to schools ranked LOWER than higher.</p>

240

<p>Alexandre,
Sorry but is the USNWR data that I provided for tuition and fees wrong? If so, please correct me.</p>

<p>I have never claimed that Michigan is a "second rate" school. It is a very good state school. That is far from second rate as I am sure that the Berkekely, Virginia, UNC, UT, UF, etc. communities don't think of their state schools as "second rate." My argument has consistently been that Northwestern is superior to Michigan as an undergraduate institution. That, in my mind, does not make Michigan "second rate," only second best in this two-school comparison. </p>

<p>I would guess that the OP bowed out of this discussion back around post # 65. I accept your offer to end this thread.</p>