<p>Yes, Alchemy, it is but one data point and certain students don't do well on it. But wouldn't that be true for the whole universe of students applying to colleges and not just for those who applied to Michigan? Beyond SAT scores, which are measurable and permit direct comparison between schools. what other measures do you suggest? Standardized test scores are very important in college admissions (all but a handful of schools have them noted in their CDS as Very Important). Michigan's average score is 100 points less than Northwestern. Statistically speaking, I would say that that is a sizable difference.</p>
<p>Hawkette, have you considered we aren't just comparing the students at one college to another? We are comparing the level of education. In other words, what I'm saying is, just because a school doesn't have a super high average SAT score, doesn't mean it can't be compared with another school that DOES have a super-high SAT score. SAT scores don't represent the level of a school's education. It's quite likely that a school like Michigan could be compared to Northwestern in terms of academic quality. Sure, the average student at Michigan may have a SAT score that's 100 points lower then the average Northwestern student. But, let's pretend both of these students end up going to a grad school like Stanford or getting a very good job. Wouldn't you say that Michigan did a "better" job teaching the student, considering that particular student had a lower SAT score upon entering Michigan, yet after graduating, he/she manages to land the same job/university that the student (that had 100 points more on their SAT). UMich and Northwestern both present similar opportunties after graduating, and there is only a slight difference in the two of them when you compare them in terms of WSJ and PA. </p>
<p>My point is, though a SAT score, or faculty:student ratio, or alumni giving rank (or many other factors that USNWR uses to calculate the rankings of colleges) may show the quality of a university, it is not the end all fact. In my opinion, USNWR often weighs certain factors too heavily. </p>
<p>I agree that Northwestern probably has a stronger student base, but I don't necessarily agree that it is a "better" university. I believe both Northwestern and Michigan are at the same level (or near) in terms of the quality of education they provide.</p>
<p>"And I don't agree with the USNWR overall undergraduate ranking."</p>
<p>-Of course you don't. In your world, Michigan is tops....</p>
<p>"It turns out that far more educated and knowledgeable people than us agree with me."</p>
<p>-This is ridiculous. I don't agree with you, so I'm not "knowledgeable" enough on the situation? Yeah, whatever...... I'm sure I can find people to agree with me too.</p>
<p>Michigan > Northwestern</p>
<p>By the arguments given... any school is equal.</p>
<p>Havard>Northwestern>Michigan>University of Illinois</p>
<p>If you are going to make the exception and say NU=Michigan, then that implies that the other '>'s are equal too. You can't just make an exception.</p>
<p>6 is close to 7... but then again... 7 is close to 8 and 6 is close to 5... see what I mean?</p>
<p>"6 is close to 7... but then again... 7 is close to 8 and 6 is close to 5... see what I mean?"</p>
<p>-Exactly!</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>
<p>Too bad your belief does nothing to alter those rankings. And may I ask who are these "far more educated and knowledgeable people"? Michigan graduates?</p>
<p>
[quote]
-This is ridiculous. I don't agree with you, so I'm not "knowledgeable" enough on the situation? Yeah, whatever...... I'm sure I can find people to agree with me too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nah man, it has nothing to do with you. Or him, or hawkette, or anyone here.</p>
<p>It has to do with peer assessment scores, graduate admissions, and employment data... y'know, that stuff that really matters.</p>
<p>The SAT's credibility, by and large, only lasts until admission.</p>
<p>After that, it's all about how they do in college, how they do on graduate exams, their employment opportunities, etc.</p>
<p>and from a postgraduate perspective, they produce the same types of people in equally "prestigious" occupations... thus, the SAT difference -- at least between NW and Michigan -- becomes meaningless upon admission.</p>
<p>People here seem to think one's SAT score is a lifelong brand to be worn on the sleeve... as if it somehow a 4-hour exam on a saturday afternoon sums up your potential and ability -- your worthiness to the human race. Sorry folks, but it isn't as significant as you think it is.</p>
<p>Surely, they can be a predictor... especially given large discrepencies... but alot also goes into preparation (both the quality of schooling and SAT prep courses)... some people just struggle with taking standardized exams... there are probably countless explanations for why the SAT isn't always an accurate depiction of a student's potential</p>
<p>Michigan apparently does well with identifying these students that have more potential than their SAT score indicates.</p>
<p>kk + atomic:</p>
<p>Alexandre is making the argument that NU is not in any way SIGNIFICANTLY better then UMich. What he is trying to say, NU might be 7, UMich 8, or UMich 8, NU 7. But not NU 7 and UMich 20. There are a few people here that are saying that UMich is on level with schools like BC, USC, etc. However, Alexandre is trying to point out, that UMich is on par with NU, WashU, Cornell and other such schools. He is not saying that UMich is better (no questions asked, without a doubt) then NU, because it all depends on the way you define "better". He may have stated that HE believes that UMich is better (though I don't remember reading anywhere where he stated that), but that's his opinion.</p>
<p>zkevin, I think you need to realize that Michigan is NOT on par with NU, WashU, Cornell, and other such schools. Michigan is NOT as good as any of the ivies or the top private schools. It is NOT NU 7, UMich 8. Why don't you check out USNews, which says NU is ten places better than UMich. There IS a difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why don't you check out USNews, which says NU is ten places better than UMich. There IS a difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because not everyone buys into the USNews formula... infact, alot of people don't.</p>
<p>the ex-president of stanford, for instance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He has no affiliation with Michigan or Berkeley</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Roughly, that's right. People have a strong sense of what others in their field are working on, how important it has been to the discipline. They also have a sense of what kinds of graduate students they are mentoring, where those people are going and what they are doing. In the aggregate (meaning at the institutional level), federal research in the sciences and engineering may drive the overall perception of research excellence, but judging faculty is often more discipline-specific. So, in other fields, people know who's successfully won funding from the various foundations and government agencies who give money in that area (and may not give two figs about NIH grants, for example).</p>
<p>"-This is ridiculous. I don't agree with you, so I'm not "knowledgeable" enough on the situation? Yeah, whatever...... I'm sure I can find people to agree with me too."</p>
<p>KK, you and I know very little about universities. Don't be offended by that. We know very little about most things. I am not saying I am more knowledgeable than you. I never claimed that. I have been observing universities from most angles for a good 15 years now, so I would hope that I have a little bit more experience than you in these matters. However, you may think that I am intellectually inferior to you, in which case, as far as you are concerned, I am unable to grasp concepts as readily as you are. Or perhaps you think that you are capable of being neutral and objective where I am not. Who knows, maybe you are correct. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that we aren't qualified to rate universities. We don't have PhDs. We haven't worked in academe for decades. We haven't been exposed to 5 or 6 different universities as students and professors. We haven't worked closely and collaborated with top people from another 20 or 30 universities around the US on dozens of projects and publications. Bottom line, you and I are not knowledgeable when it comes to universities. </p>
<p>When I said "It turns out that far more educated and knowledgeable people than us agree with me", I was referring to the 2500 or so university Presidents, Deans of Admissions and Provosts who make up with PAS. Those thousands of highly educated and experienced members of academe teaching all over the country's "national research universities", not as individuals but as a group, form a pretty comprehensive picture, especially when you consider the fact that outliers are removed from the final score. Kazz provided a link to what then Stanford President (Yale educated and administrator at Chicago, Cal and finally Stanford) had to say about Michigan. His opinion is not unique among the highest members of academe. That is why Michigan's PAS is high. In the eyes of most of the academic World, Michigan is not inferior to NU. Those two universities are indeed peers in every sense of the word.</p>
<p>USNews was just one example cited for the person who said this: "NU might be 7, UMich 8, or UMich 8, NU 7. But not NU 7 and UMich 20." - Someone who obviously never looked at college rankings.</p>
<p>These schools are completely different. They offer absolutely disparate academic and social environments for students. I can't believe you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. Compare Northwestern to UChicago, to Tufts, to Georgetown, yeah, maybe. Compare UMich to Berkeley, to UNC, also. But not Northwestern to Georgetown. They are similar only in that they both offer great educations.</p>
<p>Michigan is #24 on the current US News rankings, while NU is #14. But the rankings seem to be based more on academic performance of the school and the students than anything else, making Michigan ranked lower because the average test scores, etc. aren't as high.</p>
<p>But I agree with lolabelle, I don't think it's really fair to compare Michigan to all these amazing schools like NU and UChicago. Michigan really doesn't have a whole lot in common with these schools that the comparison between the two would be strong.</p>
<p>Michigan has more in common with Northwestern than Northwestern with Chicago. Don't forget that both are in the Big Ten and share a lot of resources.</p>
<p>I don't think starryblaze was talking about conferences or resources.</p>
<p>You're right, I wasn't. It's basically in terms of the academic style and way of teaching. Which makes schools like UChicago unique from so many other schools because of its distinct core curriculum.</p>
<p>"USNews was just one example cited for the person who said this: "NU might be 7, UMich 8, or UMich 8, NU 7. But not NU 7 and UMich 20." - Someone who obviously never looked at college rankings."</p>
<p>Where did I cite USNWR? I don't know what your reading. I was pointing out that there shouldn't be a 10ish difference in rankings between NU and UMich as there is in USNWR (checking the exact stats 14 and 24). Believe or not, USNWR is not "THE RANKINGS" when it comes to colleges. It just so happens it is the most common one. Many people in academia would rank the schools very differently then USNWR. Not everyone in bows before USNWR and thinks that it is 100% correct...</p>