<p>I don't know what you're reading either. I said it was cited FOR you, not BY you. And I did say that it was just ONE EXAMPLE, not THE RANKINGS. And yes, the difference in most rankings is more than one spot, whether you like it or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Didn't lolabelle mention "social" ... and you agreed with her? The social environment between Northwestern and Chicago can't be more different. And even the academic style of the two schools are not that similar.</p>
<p>barrons -
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And these difference are not something that employers particularly care about (student A will get a fine education at any of the top universities/colleges) - the strength of the overall student body, otoh...</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not when it comes to engineering and certain other areas (with the exception of MIT).</p>
<p>
[quote]
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>Having better students on average does not make a university better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference among the student bodies at the privates you mention are small and the differences are mostly a prestige factor than anything else.</p>
<p>The diff. btwn the student bodies of UoM and privates (with equitable faculties), otoh, is fairly significant.</p>
<p>When you look at the % of students who score above 600 and 700 for math/verbal on the SATs and 30 on the ACT for private universities like Brown, Chicago, Northwestern, Penn, Rice, Stanford, Duke and LACs such as Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, etc. - the %s are within a certain range (and are pretty close to each other).</p>
<p>Otoh, the figures for UoM (and other well-regarded publics like UVA, Wisc., UCLA) are significantly lower.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While UoM definitely has a world-class faculty and research (not sure if it fits within "the elite of the elite" tho, usually reserved for HYPMS), UoM isn't seen exactly in the same class as the top privates due to its composition of its student body (due to its more lax admissions standards as a public university).</p>
<p>The PA is more a reflection of the academic reputation of the faculty and standings in reserach than anything else.</p>
<p>Otoh, many employers know about the composition of student bodies at the various top schools - which is why a graduate of an university like Dartmouth (which isn't a big research oriented school) or LACs like Amherst are going to be seen in a different light than all but the top 25% or so of UoM grads.</p>
<p>And btw, it's not the fact that I "prize" the SAT or other standardized test - many employers do as well (not to mention the universities, esp. state schools like UoM, and grad schools which highly use LSAT, MCAT and GMAT scores in their considerations for admission).</p>
<p>alchemy -
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What other basis is there besides the SAT and ACT? And the differences are much larger than you suggest.</p>
<p>For instance 69% of NU students who took the ACT scored over 30. At UoM, only 38% who did scored over 30.</p>
<p>kazz -
[quote]
The SAT's credibility, by and large, only lasts until admission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not for a good no. of employers in highly competitive areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At the same % rates?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is why universities care about it (and UoM in particular) and why gard schools care about the other standardized tests such as the MCAT, LSAT and GMAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan apparently does well with identifying these students that have more potential than their SAT score indicates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What delusional world are you living in (oh sorry - the UoM is the greatest world)? </p>
<p>If anything, the top privates have the luxury of focusing more on things other than standardized scores and publics like UoM, Cal and UCLA are more heavily reliant on numbers for admission (remember the UoM "point-system?).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is why universities care about it (and UoM in particular)
[/quote]
k&s,
Did I read it right? Are you saying that UofM in particular care more about SAT scores?</p>
<p>
[quote]
publics like UoM, Cal and UCLA are more heavily reliant on numbers for admission (remember the UoM "point-system?).
[/quote]
And you cite UofM's old point-system to prove that it relies heavy on numbers for admission?</p>
<p>In the old "point-system", you get 12 points for scoring 1360-1600 in SAT (that's right, you get the same number of points for 1360 as the guy with 1600). And you get 11 points for scoring 1200-1350; and 10 points for 1010-1190. Yup, that's right, a whooping 2 points separate an applicant with 1010 SAT and the smart one with 1600. Does this look like a school that places a lot of emphasis on standardized tests?</p>
<p>oh wow, we resurrected this thread again? well done k&s</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not for a good no. of employers in highly competitive areas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still don't believe this claim. </p>
<p>
[quote]
At the same % rates?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I believe they are very close.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is why universities care about it (and UoM in particular) and why gard schools care about the other standardized tests such as the MCAT, LSAT and GMAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm, hence why I stated the SAT's credibility dies after admission. Michigan graduates do excellent on standardized exam scores... which is why they get admitted to top graduate programs. and yes, many of these people were "low" scorers on the SAT.... </p>
<p>anecdotal account: one of my my best friends got into Michigan with a 1360. Took his MCAT and got a 36 and is now studying medicine at UCSF...</p>
<p>get the picture yet? the SAT becomes meaningless</p>
<p>
[quote]
What delusional world are you living in (oh sorry - the UoM is the greatest world)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, just the world that hires and admits Michigan graduates with the same confidence as Northwestern graduates.</p>
<p>Lemme guess, you did particularly well on the SAT (as did I)?</p>
<p>but you appear to have this complex that compels you to assign as MUCH value as possible to the SAT... the absolute measure of competence and ability... that way you can have this sense of superiority over those that scored lower</p>
<p>you'll be 55 on a golf outing still bragging about the college admission exam score you received at 17...</p>
<p>I hate to break it to you man, but it isn't as signifcant as you're desperately trying to make it out to be.</p>
<p>kazz,
You write with the perspective of a college student. </p>
<p>No need to run down k&s-his/her point about SAT scores and what they mean for judging student quality is a broadly accepted idea, both in the college acceptance process and the job placement process. Undoubtedly there are many anecdotes (like yours) that prove the converse of the idea that SAT scores have some indicative value. Anecdotes have little to zero relevance for judging institutional merit. But given the tools at hand, SAT scores are one of the best available measures for evaluating and comparing student quality. They are used by the vast, vast majority of schools in this country (including Michigan) and by many, many employers as well in their job selection process. </p>
<p>As for the confidence with which Michigan students are hired, you must consider the type of job and the locale. In Chicago, Michigan would be strongest and would be in the conversation with Northwestern (and U Chicago, Notre Dame, U Illinois and U Wisconsin). In New York, Michigan is in the conversation about in line with its USNWR ranking, ie, it is known and respected, but many, many other schools are far stronger. This is a fine record and one that Michigan people should be proud of. But the fact is that outside of the NE and the MW, among business people, Michigan is just another school. To use your words, "it isn't as significant as you're desperately trying to make it out to be."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan is just another school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This strikes me as ranking up there with the whole "pretty good for a state school" vibe we had upthread.</p>
<p>Michigan is clearly going to fare better, reputation-wise, in the Midwest and perhaps also in the Northeast. It's also going to be appealing to businesses and organizations in these areas because its convenient for them to travel to campus, and because they know MI grads might be predisposed to locating where they are. </p>
<p>However, I've seen little evidence that it's a "just another school" elsewhere in the country. Do you have some metric for how you're assessing that?</p>
<p>Hawkette, as I don't care to go back and forth all over again about the significance of the SAT, let me direct you to a post that my point rests on.</p>
<p>This is why there is a limit as to how much emphasis we can justifiably place on merit... people from affluent backgrounds have opportunities to boost their credentials that many/most could never dream of... as a result, their scores and other credentials are inflated.</p>
<p>This is also why many students with ~1300 SAT scores, especially those coming from more modest backgrounds, are often just as capable academically as those in the 1400+ range</p>
<p>and from this, we can explain why many lower-scoring Michigan graduates (presumably relative to private peers) do well in employment and graduate admissions.... the playing field is leveled somewhat once in college.</p>
<p>I said it once, and I'll say it again. Read carefully... as I'm done if we find ourselves in a circle again.</p>
<p>YES, the SAT can be a good indicator when there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in scores... (ie, the difference between Northwestern and the University of Alabama)... this difference could not be accounted for with preparation... clearly, NW has a more talented student body... their graduates reflect that on where they're employed and where they're attending graduate school.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, despite your claims to the contrary, MOST of the difference between Northwestern and Michigan, in terms of student quality, can be accounted for in preparation... and is perhaps the only reasonable way given the relative parity with job and graduate school prospects. </p>
<p>Why is this you ask? Because Michigan is PUBLIC. It serves the state of Michigan, and makes a special effort to identify and admit instate students from underprivileged backgrounds that are more talented academically than their statistics would indicate. By such students, I mean those roughly in the range of 1250-1350 that went to poorly funded high schools and had no real means of preparation for the SAT... and HAD those students been afforded those opportunities that more affluent students had, they would likely have scored in the 1400+ range.</p>
<p>What is my evidence of this claim? The success of Michigan graduates... which is the ABSOLUTE measure of a university... NOT the SAT average (though, don't get ADD on me, it can be important as I stated, but not concerning Michigan and NW)... </p>
<p>makes sense right? why should it matter if some student got admitted to Michigan with a 1300, only to graduate with a 3.7/170 LSAT and attend Columbia Law? Would there be any difference between her and some girl from Northwestern who had a 1450 SAT? But the same law school credentials? Nope.</p>
<p>I will concede that the VERY BOTTOM of Michigan's student body may be sub-par... but by the very bottom, I mean the bottom ~%10 at the most... and these are a combination of athletes and students in obscure programs that Michigan offers. Basically, my point is that if a student comes to Michigan and succeeds, he/she will have the same post-graduate opportunities as just about anyone graduating from anywhere. </p>
<p>and you clearly underestimate the reach of Michigan's reputation... "just another school" lol</p>
<p>I don't even care to get into that discussion.</p>
<p>Kazz,
You must be a Michigan student as your posts lack objectivity:
1. SAT scores-you act as if Michigan is the only school that takes students from lower income environments and thus only their students are disadvantaged in SAT prep. Hogwash. This is common at many schools (even the private elites) and these low-income applicants are often the most sought after students.<br>
2. Still on SATs-the difference between Michigan’s average SAT and Northwestern is quite large (1410 for Northwestern vs 1315 for Michigan). If you don’t believe that 100 points is statistically significant, then that means you consider schools 100 points BELOW Michigan’s average to be peers with Michigan. I have mentioned some of these before-Rutgers (1215), Virginia Tech (1200), University of Washington (1210), etc.-and these schools have the same issues with low income applicants that Michigan does. These are not small private schools.<br>
3. Comps-William & Mary (Avg SAT 1350), UC Berkeley (1335), U Virginia (1325), U North Carolina (1300), UCLA (1290), U Maryland (1275) U Florida (1260), UC-San Diego (1255), U Texas (1235), U Georgia (1230) are all public schools with SAT levels modestly above or modestly below Michigan (1315). While the residents of those states are undoubtedly proud of their institutions, I don’t think many of those people would consider their average student to be the equal of the very top privates (like Northwestern (1410)). And I doubt that they would try to explain away the difference by saying their students were disadvantaged by not doing enough SAT prep. They would, however, be proud of their institution and believe it capable of delivering an excellent undergraduate education.<br>
4. Success of Michigan grads-so far, we have been able to quantify the results of between 500-1000 students and the level of their success is very good, but hardly unique. Furthermore, there are still 5000 other Michigan grads every year that are unaccounted for.
5. Grad school placement-this is a self-selecting universe of students. Are those who do not pursue graduate degrees directly from undergrad or ever just dumber than everyone else? I don’t think so. The total number of students nationally and at any school that go on to grad school is a relatively small number. Even estimates of Michigan’s success (posted by Michigan supporters) reflect relatively small numbers. Furthermore, I would wager that this universe of students is from that top quartile of Michigan’s enrolled student body and I repeat that this group is accepted as Northwestern level.<br>
6. Student performance during undergrad-you are correct that students will sometimes perform at a level different than what their SAT might indicate. But the 1300 student who did well on the LSAT and had the high GPA could easily be offset by the 1480 student who goofed off and did poorly on the LSAT. They are also in the measurement pool. Not every Michigan student magically arrives in AA and becomes a super student. In fact, the truth is more likely that very, very few do.<br>
7. Reputation-The reason that these Michigan vs the world battles continue and multiply is because most Michigan partisans have only the perspective of being inside the belly of the beast. If you live and work in other parts of the country, you will realize that, among business people, while Michigan is a respected name, it has no where near the strength of reputation that Michigan fans claim. I stand completely behind my prior posts on this thread and others. Let me summarize:
State of Michigan: Excellent
Midwest: Very good
Northeast: Good to very good depending on location
Other parts of the country: Modestly above average</p>
<p>I am not a UM fan but saying it has no national rep is utter bullcrap.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I disagree with your assessment. Michigan's reputation is excellent in the entire Midwest, parts of the East Coast (NYC, New Jersey and DC) and in the Silicon Valley area. By excellent, I mean it is widely considered to be one of the top 10 or top 15 universities in the nation. And contrary to your belief, Michigan is a huge player on Wall Street. In all those areas, Michigan's reputation far exceeds its USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>In other parts of the country, like Texas, Maryland, LA, Georgia and Colorado to name a few, Michigan's preputation is good to very good (about where it is ranked in the USNWR). </p>
<p>Overall, Michigan has a national reputation...and an international reputation. It is ranked #21 in the World (and #14 among US universities) according to the STJU ranking of global universities and it is ranked #30 in the World ( and#18 among US universities) according to the UK Times (British equivallent of the USNWR). I personally don't necessarily agree with those rankings, but to say that Michigan's reputation is primarily limited to the midwest is actually incorrect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The total number of students nationally and at any school that go on to grad school is a relatively small number.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you amplfy what you'd consider "relatively small?" Nationally, I think that's probably supportable. But at some schools, the proportion of students with graduate or professional degree aspirations is very high. That includes U-M and a lot of the other top national unversities. You can see that from CIRP data. Of course, aspirations are not always realized, but at top schools students are very well prepared for further study and there is little reason to assume they don't pursue advanced degrees. I don't when or if much of the recent COFHE alumni survey data will be released, but I suspect it will show that at elite institutions, the number isn't small.</p>
<p>At U-M, up to 1/3 go on to grad school right away (that is, the next year). Others will go, but they first take some time off either by choice or because that is what the field dictates. That may or may not be a big or small number to outside observers.</p>
<p>I am from MI but don't share the typical Michigander's view of U of M ... which is that it is THE place to go if you have any brains. It's a very good school with a strong national reputation & a long history of excellent sports teams. I am a firm believer that no school is best for everyone. I find U of M very different from Northwestern, and I think students who go to Northwestern & students who go to U of M --- if they actually THINK about it & don't simply do what everyone else around them does --- do so for different reasons. So why the big debate? </p>
<p>Another point I'd like to make: the kids I know who have gone to U of M do not have particularly high scores (these are not minority kids). They are generally among the highest in their respective schools, but they aren't all that high. That comes from the fact that it's a public school, serving the residents of the state. I think it's much harder to get in from OOS, so the SAT requirements of those students are higher. Important to note is that few MI kids take the SAT --- most take the ACT. Just from observation (I'm not saying it's a fact), it seems that scores needed to get into Northwestern are uniformly higher; that is, there is less of a range. I could be wrong. Just my two cents! :)</p>
<p>hoedown,
I agree that "relatively small" is somewhat vague. This is partially deliberate because the aspirations vary from school to school and certainly from region to region. I don't think that grad school aspirations necessarily elevate one person or one school to a higher level. It is just the result of the environment. As applied to Michigan, other Michigan posters have referenced some numbers approaching 2.75% of their students go to the most elite 15 grad schools. That, in the context of a graduating class of 6000+, is a lot of students, but a relatively small number of an overall graduating class. I recognize that there are several other students who will go to less "elite" institutions (and perhaps even in greater numbers), but all together the numbers are not that big. Furthermore, the ones who attend MBA school nearly always go after a few years in the workforce.</p>
<p>It is bizarre to me that on the first page of this forum alone there are four threads comparing Michigan to school_X--all hotly debated. I don't get it.</p>
<p>Michigan must be the forge all other schools must-needs test their mettle/metal on.</p>
<p>What else could explain it?</p>
<p>Hawkette, although MBA students generally hit the workforce prior to going to graduate school, they are still part of the same class. Whether they graduated 4 months or 4 years prior to going to graduate school, they are still part of the 5,500 (again, for the 3rd or 4th time, Michigan's graduating classes have 5,300-5,700 students, not 6,500 as you continuously claim) who graduated on any given year.</p>
<p>And although the total numbers aren't availlable, we do know that roughly 150 Michigan students each year enroll into top 5 Law Schools, top 5 Medical Schools and top 5 MBA programs. It is safe to assume that far more Michigan students enroll into the top 25 Law Schools, top 25 Medical Schools and top 25 MBA programs not included among those top 5 in the Wall Street Journal survey. For example, roughly 150 Michigan students enrolled into top 25 Law schools not among the top 5 Law schools in the survey last year. Close to 50 Michigan students enrolled into Michigan medical school last year and every year. Who knows how many Michigan students enrolled into top 25 MBA programs that were not among the top 5 MBA programs included in the Wall Street survey, but it is safe to say that is is more than 150 since Michigan's Ross (not among the 5) enrolls over 50 Michigan students each year. And we have not even discussed Engineering graduate programs (remember that over 1,000 undergraduate engineers graduate each year and many of those end up at top 5, top 10 and top 25 Engineering graduate schools. And we haven't discussed PhD programs in the traditional disciplines, like Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Economics, English, History, Mathematics, Physics, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology. Again, it is safe to assume that many Michigan undergrads end up at top 5, top 10 and top 25 departments in their chosen field of study.</p>
<p>In the end, if you count all the Michigan undergrads in a class of 5,500 who end up anrolling into a top 25 MBA program, top 25 Law School, top 25 Medical School, top 25 Engineering graduate program, top 25 PhD program in a traditional discipline, top 25 graduate Health Services program (Nursing, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Public Health, Social Work, Health Services Administration) or top 25 Music graduate program, you would be looking at well over 1,000. </p>
<p>And we haven't touched on the students who get into major Fortune 500 companies or into exclusive firms on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and all over the nation. Those number in the hundreds.</p>
<p>Bottom line, we are talking about thousands of highly successful students out of a class of 5,500.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As applied to Michigan, other Michigan posters have referenced some numbers approaching 2.75% of their students go to the most elite 15 grad schools...I recognize that there are several other students who will go to less "elite" institutions (and perhaps even in greater numbers), but all together the numbers are not that big.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, looking at just "elite grad schools" is a funny way to draw conclusions about how many students go on. Is this a reference to that Wall Street journal article about professional schools? That's nice for what it is, and it gets trottted out here all the time, but one has to know its limits. Just as Michigan supporters can't use it to make broad statements about how great Michigan is, Michigan detractors can't use it to say how marginal the place is. Using that study to draw conclusions about the numbers of students who persist to grad study is short-sighted. </p>
<p>The primary flaw with it is that there IS no "elite few" when it comes to measuring graduate study. It's very field-specific. </p>
<p>As for aspirations, remember that CIRP is essentially a "pre-test" instrument. Some institutions give it during orientation, even! You can't attribute CIRP-measured aspirations to the environment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. SAT scores-you act as if Michigan is the only school that takes students from lower income environments and thus only their students are disadvantaged in SAT prep. Hogwash. This is common at many schools (even the private elites) and these low-income applicants are often the most sought after students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We both know that Northwestern would BARELY consider a 1250 applicant, underprivileged or otherwise. Northwestern, in general, looks for applicants well within its range. Northwestern has NO obligation to any group of applicants… Michigan does, and will therefore take a closer look at students with slightly lower statistics if they’re from Michigan and represent a certain demographic, etc. That’s not to say Northwestern doesn’t outreach at all… I’m sure they do… but not to the extent that a public is obligated to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Still on SATs-the difference between Michigan’s average SAT and
Northwestern is quite large (1410 for Northwestern vs 1315 for Michigan). If you don’t believe that 100 points is statistically significant, then that means you consider schools 100 points BELOW Michigan’s average to be peers with Michigan. I have mentioned some of these before-Rutgers (1215), Virginia Tech (1200), University of Washington (1210), etc.-and these schools have the same issues with low income applicants that Michigan does. These are not small private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're overlooking my point. So no, because graduates of Rutgers, Vtech, Washington, and other schools with lower averages don't accomplish the things Michigan graduates do. In fact, many schools with similar averages tend not to do as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4. Success of Michigan grads-so far, we have been able to quantify the results of between 500-1000 students and the level of their success is very good, but hardly unique. Furthermore, there are still 5000 other Michigan grads every year that are unaccounted for.
5. Grad school placement-this is a self-selecting universe of students. Are those who do not pursue graduate degrees directly from undergrad or ever just dumber than everyone else? I don’t think so. The total number of students nationally and at any school that go on to grad school is a relatively small number. Even estimates of Michigan’s success (posted by Michigan supporters) reflect relatively small numbers. Furthermore, I would wager that this universe of students is from that top quartile of Michigan’s enrolled student body and I repeat that this group is accepted as Northwestern level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The same numbers we have for Michigan, we have for Northwestern and any other private. Percentage-wise, admission into top graduate programs is fairly equal between NW and Michigan. </p>
<p>Yes, the numbers are small for graduate programs in general... especially when you consider ALL college graduates, the percentage that go onto graduate school is VERY slim. </p>
<p>However, I think we can agree that the better schools often feed more of their students into graduate programs than other schools, even if it is still a small number... this is one of the benefits of attending a "good" school... and both Northwestern and Michigan send a larger portion of their students into graduate programs (not just elite) than other more average schools.</p>
<p>It may be a "self-selecting universe," but as stated, a large portion of those in that cohort come from top schools... and an even greater portion into “elite” graduate programs. Northwestern/Michigan are both among the schools that send a greater portion both onto graduate programs in general, and the elite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
6. Student performance during undergrad-you are correct that students will sometimes perform at a level different than what their SAT might indicate. But the 1300 student who did well on the LSAT and had the high GPA could easily be offset by the 1480 student who goofed off and did poorly on the LSAT. They are also in the measurement pool. Not every Michigan student magically arrives in AA and becomes a super student. In fact, the truth is more likely that very, very few do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh that’s preposterous… a 1480 student earning a 3.7 undergrad GPA and a 170+ on the LSAT is not goofing off… I’m sorry… it seems more reasonable to think that the 1300 student simply excelled with the additional resources afforded to him/her.</p>
<p>And I’m not saying that every student that comes to Ann Arbor becomes a stud… I’m saying that to generate the graduate school and employment statistics that Michigan does, akin to schools with higher-quality student bodies judged by SAT scores, a good portion of its “lower-quality” students must be doing something above what their admissions statistics would indicate. How else could one explain why Michigan graduates often do better than many of their similar scoring peers at other schools? Given my personal experience, this is the explanation I came up with. Perhaps you have another explanation for the success of Michigan graduates over schools with similar students? I’m all ears.</p>
<p>And your assessment of Michigan’s reputation is laughable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
on the first page of this forum alone there are four threads comparing Michigan to school_X--all hotly debated. I don't get it.</p>
<p>Michigan must be the forge all other schools must-needs test their mettle/metal on.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a kindly interpretation. I think it's in part because some U-M supporters are prolific posters. They're like Notre Dame football fans--pervasive, unswayable, hard to kill. Well, maybe we're more like cockroaches in that latter regard. </p>
<p>There is also an occasional anti-Michigan streak on this board, which further riles up the boosters and makes some threads go on and on (and keeps them on the first page).</p>