<p>"the Michigan crowd shall continue to equate the school with the likes of Harvard"</p>
<p>actually, most people are equating the school with the likes of Northwestern, its peer. This is what the entire thread is about, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a broad brush you've got, there.</p>
<p>"actually, most people are equating the school with the likes of Northwestern, its peer. This is what the entire thread is about, right?"</p>
<p>-Not really..... The Michigan boosters like to play down the statistical differences Michigan has with higher ranked schools, in an attempt to make the school seem better than it actually is. </p>
<p>In post # 157, I said:</p>
<p>"Ok then, </p>
<p>Michigan = Harvard= Yale= Rice= Stanford= Cornell= Penn= Princeton=Northwestern= Chicago= Duke= MIT= Caltech= Berkeley= Dartmouth= Columbia... etc...."</p>
<p>To which Alexandre replied:</p>
<p>"KK, the 16 universities you mentioned above, along with a couple others (Brown, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore) are pretty even when it comes to employers. Sure Harvard and Yale have an edge over most other universities, but overall, the top 20 or 25 universities are highly regarded and will attract the vast majority of exclusive firms and will send a significant portion of their students into top graduate programs."</p>
<p>By the very implication of this, Michigan is elevated to a level with schools that are statistically better than it. The Michigan boosters give NO statistical reasons why the school should be considered equal to schools like Northwestern, other than the fact that they believe it should be so. This is clear in the "Michigan vs Dartmouth” debates. Only on CC would people actually try to equate Michigan with a place like Dartmouth. I also find it comical that comparisons to lower ranked schools are played down, in an attempt to legitimize the claims that Michigan is an elite school.</p>
<p>Look at what Hawkette wrote in #212, showing, at least as US News is concerned, the differences between Northwestern and Michigan, and that, by implication, lower ranked schools should be equal to Michigan if it is equal to Northwestern. </p>
<p>Alexandre’s response to this?..... </p>
<p>“Hawkette, your rely far too much on statistical facts and not enough of the intangibles.”</p>
<p>Oh really? So when the FACTS don’t agree with the Michigan boosters, then they just make up random crap that does…. Fine, whatever…..</p>
<p>The fact is that the President of Stanford, who I presume knows a bit more about colleges than you or any other poster here, said Michigan should be in the top handful of universities.</p>
<p>I don't care what the president of Stanford said. I also fail to see how his opinion changes anything. Michigan is still not an elite undergraduate institution, and certainty not statistically equal to Northwestern.</p>
<p>Your education has obviously served you well.</p>
<p>"Michigan is still not an elite undergraduate institution"</p>
<p>I am not sure if this statement is arrogance, ignorance, jealousy, or just plain stupidity. I'm leaning towards a composition of all 4. </p>
<p>"Michigan = Harvard= Yale= Rice= Stanford= Cornell= Penn= Princeton=Northwestern= Chicago= Duke= MIT= Caltech= Berkeley= Dartmouth= Columbia... etc...."</p>
<p>To which Alexandre replied:</p>
<p>"KK, the 16 universities you mentioned above, along with a couple others (Brown, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore) are pretty even when it comes to employers. Sure Harvard and Yale have an edge over most other universities..."</p>
<p>Do you see that last word there ... employers. Alexandre is 100% correct in this statement. He's not saying which school is clearly better than the other in terms of prestige, academics, social life, etc. He was talking about employers. It's clear you're not an english major (and if you are, shame on the Northwestern program) because Alexandre even admitted that HY have an edge in this respect while you're gunning the assumption that "the Michigan crowd shall continue to equate the school with the likes of Harvard." There wern't any difficult analogies that needed to be pulled out and no esoteric phrases meant to trick readers.</p>
<p>barrons,
I was ready to let this die, but....</p>
<p>I can't believe you are referring again to the ancient (1996) and irrelevant letter that was presented in post # 115 as evidence of Michigan's superiority. Are you kidding??? If you really want to argue for Michigan's strength, then I hope you will provide something more compelling than a personal opinion or the opinion of an academic in California from eleven years ago. (Now if John Doerr had said this, then I might care but then only if he made the comment in the last few years). Can't you come up with anything better than that?</p>
<p>It is as relevant today as when it was done as nothing much has happened to change that opinion. NU has not turned into Harvard and Michigan has not become UNLV.</p>
<p>I agree that, in some regards, not much has changed.</p>
<p>In 1996, Michigan ranked # 24 in the USNWR rankings. In 2007, Michigan ranked # 24 in the USNWR rankiings. </p>
<p>In 1996, Northwestern ranked # 13 in the USNWR rankings. In 2007, Northwestern ranked # 14 in the USNWR rankings. </p>
<p>At this rate of change, Michigan will achieve equal ranking with Northwestern in 110 years.</p>
<p>Yes, US News is the last word. That's rich. They sell magazines.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well - that argument would have more credibility if (1) nearly 80% of Mich's undergrads weren't enrolled in the College of Lit, Science and the Arts, the Coll of Engineering and the Ross (Biz) and if (2) NU didn't also have a School of Music, School of Education, etc. which make up a similar proportion of NU's undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly the point that some people here can't seem to accept. </p>
<p>Does UoM have a great faculty and reputation? Yes (as evident by the PA score). Can a bright student get an education there that is equal to that anywhere else? Yes.</p>
<p>Does that mean a UoM grad, overall, is comparable to a NU grad? No (it depends).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you see that last word there ... employers. Alexandre is 100% correct in this statement. He's not saying which school is clearly better than the other in terms of prestige, academics, social life, etc. He was talking about employers. It's clear you're not an english major (and if you are, shame on the Northwestern program) because Alexandre even admitted that HY have an edge in this respect while you're gunning the assumption that "the Michigan crowd shall continue to equate the school with the likes of Harvard." There wern't any difficult analogies that needed to be pulled out and no esoteric phrases meant to trick readers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that isn't entirely true either. An employer isn't going to look at a UoM grad exactly the same as a NU grad (or a Dartmouth or Brown grad - 2 other schools with lower PA scores).</p>
<p>Employers also know that only a certain % of UoM grads would have been admitted to NU, Dartmouth or Brown.</p>
<p>If a recruiter is coming to campus they have signed off on the quality of the school and the students. From that point it comes down to how the student does in the interview process. I used to recruit the midwest for a major national investment firm. We went to NU, Chicago, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin. Anyone interviewing at any of the schools has as good a shot at getting hired and we had several from each school in the group. There was no, oh, he went to NU, he must be smarter.</p>
<p>"An employer isn't going to look at a UoM grad exactly the same as a NU grad"</p>
<p>You're right, they'll favor whoever has the superior interview between the two. </p>
<p>" Employers also know that only a certain % of UoM grads would have been admitted to NU, Dartmouth or Brown."</p>
<p>do you think an employer is really going to care when an UM grad applies to a company sporting a 3.98 GPA? "gee, this 3.98 sure is fantastic, but I bet this applicant couldn't have gotten into Dartmouth out of high school ... next!"</p>
<p>"From that point it comes down to how the student does in the interview process. I used to recruit the midwest for a major national investment firm."</p>
<p>I said that looooong ago in the thread, yet people still don't seem to get it. Maybe with two people with experience saying it, it'll sink in.</p>
<p>You guys seem to have a difficult time grasping the idea that there is a level of self-selection going on - like I have stated prior, it's pretty even for the top students (and oh, btw, I have also done interviews for Wall St.).</p>
<p>However, overall, an employer would have greater confidence in the make-up of the NU student body (i.e - rather hire from the bottom 2/3rds of the NU student body than that of UoM).</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder why Yale law grads don't have to worry about where they rank in the student body, while those at lesser schools (say, Fordham) have to?</p>
<p>Really people - get a grip with reality.</p>
<p>barrons,
And your source of all wisdom is an academic in California making a comment eleven years ago....??? Bizarro world. </p>
<p>USNWR is hardly the last word, but it is in the conversation. I have great difficulty swallowing some of the USNWR methodology (PA and the weightings of several categories), but at least I have the sense to recognize that it does provide a lot of data (some of which we can even use!). I'll bet that even you would readily accept their (subjective) Peer Assessment rankings. The problem, of course, is that when the other (factual) information does not go in Michigan's favor, then you want to throw out that part of the analysis. </p>
<p>Look, I want to state again for the record: Michigan is a very good state school. That is not an insult. The University of Michigan and its constituencies have a lot to be proud of. (But I would not include in that some of the defenses presented in recent posts.)</p>
<p>It's more support than your blind support for certain numerical factors. What about the fact that UM has a better library or more and better lab space or even a better student union and art museum? Is that more or less important than average SAT scores? Who says and where is that proven?</p>
<p>I hardly think those are "facts". SAT numbers and the like, however, are....</p>
<p>" Gee, I wonder why Yale law grads don't have to worry about where they rank in the student body"</p>
<p>are you assuming that all Yale law students get exactly the jobs they want regardless of their rank?</p>
<p>"However, overall, an employer would have greater confidence in the make-up of the NU student body"</p>
<p>But wouldn't you agree that college performance is probably more important than high school performance? If somebody with a 3.8 GPA at Mich scored an 1150 on the SAT, should their applications be considered already in the "rejected" pile? This doesn't seem to make much sense to me and for somebody who has "also done interviews for Wall St.", it defies my logic that you would think it.</p>