<p>I think Michigan is 17th in Chem. NU is probably higher. Both are big name schools. If you might change majors, i'd pick UM hands down. If money is a major issue, again UM. If you are okay sacrificing a bit of the college social experience for better academics, then go with NU. Also, it is sometimes good to get out of the state for a change of scenery</p>
<p>Tradition plays a large role in the hiring practices of some east coast firms. Many of them are now moving away from that and expanding to a more national recruiting. Also when you have top students enrolled it is pretty hard to make them dumber than when they started so they are still good fits for firms that will teach them everything they need to know other than which fork to use (some even cover that I hear).</p>
<p>
[quote]
More SAT data for Michigan and Northwestern. The more you look, the greater the difference in student quality (as measured by SAT score) is revealed.</p>
<p>Michigan
Top 25%: 1420-
Middle 50%: 1220-1410
Bottom 25%: 900-1220</p>
<p>Northwestern
Top 53% of students: 1400-
Next 40% of students: 1200-1400
Bottom 7% of students: 1000-1200</p>
<p>A further insight into these numbers. Northwestern’s are from Fall, 2005 and are expected to be reported higher for Fall, 2006. Michigan’s numbers are already adjusted to reflect Fall, 2006.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, better stop in at all the top graduate schools and employment firms and bring this to their attention immediately</p>
<p>they're hiring morons by the hundreds every year and they don't even know it!</p>
<p>who knows, you may find yourself with an HR job somewhere !</p>
<p>kazz,
Right you are. If they're hiring from the bottom 25% of Michigan's student body (representing 6500 students), there very well might be hundreds that are extremely weak (although calling them morons is a bit harsh-these are your classmates after all). Thanks for pointing that out and reinforcing the fact that Michigan's bottom 25% is comparatively very, very weak. It has already been established that the bottom 6500 students at Michigan score at a level rougly equal (and probably slightly below) to the average at Howard University. </p>
<p>A further question. If approximately 150 students are going to Wall Street and Alexandre has posted elsewhere that about 150 more are going to "prestigious" grad schools, that leaves over 6000 other students whose theme song is sung by Dreamgirl Effie, "What about me?" </p>
<p>Can you answer their question?</p>
<p>Hawkette, I believe I answered your question on the BC thread. In short, "don't worry about me...I am doing just fine!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
A further question. If approximately 150 students are going to Wall Street and Alexandre has posted elsewhere that about 150 more are going to "prestigious" grad schools, that leaves over 6000 other students whose theme song is sung by Dreamgirl Effie, "What about me?"</p>
<p>Can you answer their question?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>C'mon Hawkette, you're the one preaching about "think critically"</p>
<p>... and then here you are attempting to judge the overall success of a 5500 member class based on ONE (1) occupation on ONE (1) particular street in NYC</p>
<p>slightly ridiculous, wouldn't you agree?</p>
<p>I work at a finance-related firm with people who have degrees from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Georgetown, Columbia, Brown, UPenn, Chicago, Mcgill, Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. From what I can tell, people are judged by the quality of their work. There's not much of a correlation between a person's position and their school. Just a thought.</p>
<p>How many people from Mississippi State work there?</p>
<p>kazz,
Selective editing will get you no where. My post was clearly in response to the data provided by other Michigan posters (not you) as "proof" that Michigan is among THE GREATEST!! BTW, we're still looking for your first contribution of critical thinking. </p>
<p>KK,
There are probably as many people from Mississippi State on Wall Street as there are people from "Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Georgetown, Columbia, Brown, UPenn, Chicago, Mcgill, Northwestern" working for the major employers in Mississippi. The one exception is Michigan which we all know by now opens doors that very few others can match.</p>
<p>Many of those near the lower end of the UM class will be going into teaching your rugrats. Some will be in the NFL, NBA and NHL. Others will go sell real estate and insurance and make more money than most people.</p>
<p>barrons,
I'm not sure how you quantify "many" but sources tell me that the total number of Michigan grads now playing in the NFL, NBA and NHL is less than 100 and certainly no where near 100 in a given year. </p>
<p>For real estate, insurance, etc, I agree and they will make more money than a lot of the vaunted PhDs. As for everybody else, Judge Smaels (Caddyshack) summed it up nicely, "The world still needs ditch diggers."</p>
<p>
[quote]
kazz,
Selective editing will get you no where. My post was clearly in response to the data provided by other Michigan posters (not you) as "proof" that Michigan is among THE GREATEST!! BTW, we're still looking for your first contribution of critical thinking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was hardly selective editing... that was a very broad statement you made and I left out no details. Take another look:</p>
<p>
[quote]
If approximately 150 students are going to Wall Street and Alexandre has posted elsewhere that about 150 more are going to "prestigious" grad schools, that leaves over 6000 other students whose theme song is sung by Dreamgirl Effie, "What about me?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OMG WHERE DO THE REST OF THE 6,000 GO? WHAT ABOUT ME? </p>
<p>I've read a number of your posts that had the same basic idea... but this one was blatant and warranted a response.</p>
<p>and you won't be seeing me getting too terribly involved in these "Michigan vs. X" discussions... for the most part they're completely trivial, pointless. </p>
<p>plus, I'm a Michigan student -- clearly incapable of thinking "critically"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also when you have top students enrolled it is pretty hard to make them dumber than when they started
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But we try, darnit. Oh how we try.</p>
<p>Hawk--humor--it's a concept not always learned in school. And the word was "some".</p>
<p>barrons,
I stand corrected. It was "some."</p>
<p>kazz,
I'd say you're pretty involved in this discussion. Last count you had 12 posts in this thread. As for critical thinking, we're still trying to establish if you're in that "prolific" top 25% of Michigan students or the "let's hide 'em in the closet" bottom 25%. Based on a review of your comments in this thread, it's not looking good.</p>
<p>Just remember hawk--the world is run by the C students. The smartest guy/gal at a company never is the CEO. They write reports for the CEO.</p>
<p>Sometimes, the C students are the brightest. They just aren't interested in school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
kazz,
I'd say you're pretty involved in this discussion. Last count you had 12 posts in this thread. As for critical thinking, we're still trying to establish if you're in that "prolific" top 25% of Michigan students or the "let's hide 'em in the closet" bottom 25%. Based on a review of your comments in this thread, it's not looking good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, thanks for acknowledging my point -- implicitly or otherwise.</p>
<p>my involvement is selective and casual... pure and simple. I chime in when I feel inclined to do so... for little else than entertainment, as I find it difficult to take most of these discussions seriously.</p>
<p>and given the sheer number of ignorant blanket statements you've made in this thread and others, akin to that which I called you out on, I wouldn't be so overly confident in your "critical thinking" abilities either. Your attempts at evaluating a school based on some manipulatable statistics -- quibbling over fairly insiginificant differences -- are indicative of this narrow framework of thinking with which you're working</p>
<p>and you can take it upon yourself to make conjectures concerning my competency all you want... but rest assured, they're considered entirely inconsequential and hence disregarded on this end.</p>
<p>But please, carry on :)</p>
<p>hawkette - </p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan
Top 25%: 1420-
Middle 50%: 1220-1410
Bottom 25%: 900-1220</p>
<p>Northwestern
Top 53% of students: 1400-
Next 40% of students: 1200-1400
Bottom 7% of students: 1000-1200
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And let's not forget that a significant % of the bottom 7% at NU consists of athletes, while the bottom 25% of UoM is enough to fill 80% of NU's student body.</p>
<p>barrons -
[quote]
Many of those near the lower end of the UM class will be going into teaching your rugrats. Some will be in the NFL, NBA and NHL. Others will go sell real estate and insurance and make more money than most people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty weak argument (what does that have to do with the quality of the school/student body?) - plus, assuming that all of the athletes on scholarship for the big 4 sports are within the bottom 25%, those 120 or so athletes would make up only 2% of the 6,600 at the bottom 25% at UoM - not much of an impact at all (UT and Florida send more athletes to the professional leagues - I guess that must mean that they are better schools than UoM).</p>
<p>barrons -
[quote]
Just remember hawk--the world is run by the C students. The smartest guy/gal at a company never is the CEO. They write reports for the CEO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another great argument with regard to a school/student body's quality (really grasping at straws here).</p>
<p>Look - once again, I think everyone agrees that UoM has a great faculty/research reputation and that the top 20-25% of the UoM student body can compete with the elite private schools (esp. in certain schools at UoM, engineering/Ross - keep in mind, with regard to Ross, we are talking about a class size of 360 or so).</p>
<p>Let's put it this way - would Harvard still be Harvard if we switched their student body with that of UoM (making the necessary adjustments for the difference in size, while maintaining the student profile)? </p>
<p>The answer is NO.</p>