Northwestern vs. Michigan

College Search & Selection
341

<p>Basically what it comes down to if you have the goods to be a top student at UM (say harvard type stats) will you be hurt in life if you go to UM rather than harvard. The answer is probably not if you live up to your stats.<br>
If you manage to get into UM with 1,000 on the SAT you probably are an athlete, a minority, or have some other special skills/qualities that UM wants and you will be able to get an excellent education too.</p>

<p>And put it this way, if you switched the faculty from UM to Harvard would Harvard still be Harvard--pretty much. If the comparison were UM to Dartmouth or Brown you could say it might be an improvement.</p>

342

<p>barrons -
[quote]
Basically what it comes down to if you have the goods to be a top student at UM (say harvard type stats) will you be hurt in life if you go to UM rather than harvard. The answer is probably not if you live up to your stats.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong - a top notch student will do fine anywhere he/she goes (the one caveat is that he/she may not get as many initial opportunities in certain fields where prestige matters - this really isn't a worry about for the top UoM grads).</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you manage to get into UM with 1,000 on the SAT you probably are an athlete, a minority, or have some other special skills/qualities that UM wants and you will be able to get an excellent education too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But many other who get into UoM with less than a 1300 SAT are just "less talented" students (as well as standardized tests can evaluate such a thing).</p>

<p>
[quote]
And put it this way, if you switched the faculty from UM to Harvard would Harvard still be Harvard--pretty much. If the comparison were UM to Dartmouth or Brown you could say it might be an improvement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not really with regards to teaching and the quality of eduaction.</p>

<p>Do students at elite LACs such as Amherst or Williams "suffer" in their education? No - one can argue that they actually get a better education since the faculty isn't distracted by research and the chase the for funding.</p>

<p>So you finally do admit that the quality of the UoM student body is not as strong (overall) as the top privates.</p>

343

<p>So, the quality of the much larger student body is not as strong on average--big whoop. Does that hamper the success of the top graduates? I don't think so. And Harvard is hardly known for the quality of the teaching according to its own undergrad surveys. The UM faculty might be an improvement as they probably do more teaching than the average H prof.</p>

344

<p>
[quote]
So, the quality of the much larger student body is not as strong on average--big whoop. Does that hamper the success of the top graduates? I don't think so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh - pretty much all of us have acknowledged that it does not.</p>

<p>But the lower overall quality of the student body does affect how people look at UoM graduates (i.e. - Is this a Ross student with top credentials or one who managed to get in w/ an 1100/1200?)</p>

<p>
[quote]
And Harvard is hardly known for the quality of the teaching according to its own undergrad surveys. The UM faculty might be an improvement as they probably do more teaching than the average H prof.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You just sunk your own previous argument.</p>

345

<p>barrons,
You express very strong ideas about the importance of faculty as well as the relative quality of faculty at various schools. Can you help me understand how you or anyone in the academic community makes these judgments? Are there any regularly used benchmarks that you or others use that we non-academics can understand and appreciate?</p>

346

<p>Well, I think it is so obvious that faculty are the most important factor. I look at research productivivty at research schools which includes most universities. There are numerous measures of this from the honors won, the dollars awarded in grants, and the publications record. Good numbers for the first two items are in the following reports updated annually. The Center
<a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thecenter.ufl.edu/&lt;/a> For publications productivity the following site uses this as a major factor and has updated them to include rankings by major area</p>

<p><a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Main.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Main.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>KS-I don't see how the idea that Harvard does not have great teaching hurts my argument that there would be little difference noted if you switched them with UM's. My point is that UM's faculty are just a small step behind H's in quality in the way most faculty at major schools are evaluated--scholarship and awards.</p>

347

<p>As a business person and a non-academic, I find the way that academics measure one another to be very interesting and very, very different from the business world. In briefly going through the links provided, everything seems geared to what award is won by whom, who wrote what article and how many articles were written, who got what research grant and how many dollars were involved. In addition, the great majority of the evaluation related to research major institutions and, in particular, their engineering and medical programs. Am I correctly interpreting the major factors and what others have I missed?</p>

348

<p>Most of my friends who are at Michigan applied but did not get into Northwestern. Michigan is equal, if not slightly better than NU as a university, but in terms of the quality of the student body, NU > Michigan.</p>

349

<p>"Michigan is equal, if not slightly better than NU as a university, but in terms of the quality of the student body, NU > Michigan."</p>

<p>This makes no sense to me. How can you say Michigan could be "slightly better" than Northwestern, but not have a weaker student body? What, to you, qualifies being "slightly better as a university"?</p>

350

<p>Simple KK, Caltech has, on average, better students (as it is measured by you) than Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale and MIT, but in general, most people would say that Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale and MIT are at least as good if not better than Caltech. </p>

<p>Or Rice and WUSTL have, on average, better students than Cornell or Northwestern, but again, most would agree that Cornell and Northwestern are at least as good if not better than Rice and WUSTL.</p>

<p>Emory and Tufts have, on average, better students than Cal or Michigan, but again, most would agree than Cal and Michigan are at least as good as WUSTL and Tufts.</p>

<p>Having better students on average does not make a university better.</p>

351

<p>"Having better students on average does not make a university better."</p>

<p>-Sure it does.... </p>

<p>When you compare universities that are, by their nature, similar, of course you can make arguments of universal assent about their quality, arguments that "most would agree" about this and that. The truth of the matter is that many don't agree with your and others' claims about the relative strength of Michigan's undergraduate program, and your relentless attempts to push it into the elite of the elite are unfounded at best. Also, if having better students doesn't make a school better, then Harvard and Howard are the same institution. </p>

<p>And again I ask, if Northwestern has (clearly) better scoring students than Michigan, what criteria could be uses to say that Michigan could be "slightly better" than Northwestern?</p>

352

<p>KK, you are quite correct. Many don't agree with me. And I am sure many don't agree with you. But overall, Michigan is regarded as an elite of the elite. I am pushing nothing. My opinion, and yours, don't matter. You prize SATs above all else, which is why you think NU is better than Michigan. I grant you that I value academic strength over all else, which is why I think Michigan and NU are peers. But the masses of highly educated people agree that Michigan and Northwestern are roughly equal. The PA certainly suggests it, as do most rankings. </p>

<p>As far as the student bodies, I agree that NU has slightly better students. It is actually a minor difference. According to the USNWR selectivity ranking, Northwestern is #17 and Michigan #22. In terms of placement rates into top graduate schools and exclusive firms, the statisitics seem to agree with the USNWR selectivity ranking and me and not with your assessment that NU is far superior to Michigan in that regard. According to the Wall Street Journal feeder score, NU is #14 among national universities and Michigan #18 among national universities. I grant you that the WSJ feeder score is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have. I think we can both agree that exclusive firms recruit heavily at both NU and Michigan. If you look at all the evidence, I'd say that there is only a small difference in the quality of the student bodies at those two universities. Both schools have enormous endowments (over $5 billion), both schools have excellent facilities and faculties and both schools have successful and loyal alumni networks. </p>

<p>And KK, what makes Harvard better than Howard is its faculty, its 4.9 PA (vs 2.9) score and $30 billion (vs $400 million) ewndowment.</p>

353

<p>Michigan "an elite of the elite?" Ribbit.</p>

354

<p>I know, it is a rather funny term. You should ask KK to define it.</p>

355

<p>"And KK, what makes Harvard better than Howard is its faculty, its 4.9 PA (vs 2.9) score and $30 billion (vs $400 million) ewndowment."</p>

<p>Yet again we see that to you the only thing that matters is the PA, as this is from where many of your claims for Michigan being an “elite of the elite” come. </p>

<p>You cite three things that separate Harvard from Howard: faculty, its US News PA, and its endowment. </p>

<p>Using this logic, it would be quite easy to create a ranked list of schools….. Well what do you know, it’s done for us… by the US News! And US News places Northwestern 10 spaces above Michigan, note that that same 10-point difference is the difference between Michigan and Wisconsin. Thus, if Michigan and Wisconsin are equal, than Michigan and Tulane are equal, and so on…. If Michigan is allowed to be equal to Northwestern at the undergraduate level, when it is ranked 10 spots below it, then by implication, this should work for all schools, not just ones you support. You don’t get to cherry pick pieces of the ranking to make yourself seem correct; take it or leave it.</p>

<p>As far as faculty is concerned, this is completely subjective. There is no way to determine which school has a “better” faculty than another. Unlike students who take STANDARDIZED tests, professors (to my knowledge) do not do this, and thus, there is no frame of reference for comparing them objectively.</p>

<p>Again, with the PA, if you are going to accept the PA as being legit, then you have to accept the rankings as being legit, and have to accept that Michigan is not equal to Northwestern on the undergrad level, but is more in line with schools like UVA, UCLA, and USC as the rankings say. </p>

<p>As far as endowment is concerned….. You arbitrarily cite the endowments of the two schools to make Harvard better than Howard. Well then, by implication, any school with a larger endowment than another should be better than one with a smaller endowment, which makes Northwestern better than most all of its peer schools, including: Swarthmore, Brown, Dartmouth, Wash U, Duke, Cornell, and Chicago. Or, of course, would make Michigan better than Pennsylvania, Northwestern, etc. Well, no wonder you bring up endowment; it works in your favor! That is, unless endowment per student is taken into account…….</p>

356

<p>"I know, it is a rather funny term. You should ask KK to define it."</p>

<p>-How about HYPSM.... And the 'M' is for MIT, not Michigan. :rolleyes:</p>

357

<p>KK, did I ever compare Michigan to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford or Yale? Or are you saying that NU is comparable to those 5 universities?</p>

<p>As for endowment, I think once a university has more than $2 billion it is in pretty good shape. Most top universities (except for the big 5 mentioned above) have endowments that range between $2 billion and $6 billion. As far as I am concerned, those top schools are pretty much even when it comes to endowment. But Harvard and Howard are at extreme opposite levels. Harvard's endowment of $30 billion is 100 times larger than Howard's that stands at $400 million.</p>

358

<p>"Or are you saying that NU is comparable to those 5 universities?"</p>

<p>-I'm saying that if Michigan, which is ranked 10 spots lower than Northwestern gets to be 'equal' to Northwestern for undergrad, then Northwestern, which is 10 spots below Stanford, gets to be 'equal' to Stanford. What's good for the goose.....</p>

<p>"As for endowment, I think once a university has more than $2 billion it is in pretty good shape."</p>

<p>-Poor little Brown....</p>

359

<p>Brown's endowment is over $2 billion. </p>

<p>And I don't agree with the USNWR overall undergraduate ranking. I believe Cal and Michigan should be ranked much higher. It turns out that far more educated and knowledgeable people than us agree with me.</p>

360

<p>Your logic is that higher SAT scores equate to a better student body? That's ridiculous. The students were, on average, better at taking a single test. And considering how high the averages and middle ranges are for both schools the differences are neglible. </p>

<p>There are better ways to measure a student's worth than their SAT score.</p>