Northwestern vs. Michigan

College Search & Selection
121

<p>
[quote]
Certainly the top quarter of Michigan is strong, but the numbers (and my comments) talk about the whole school. I am sorry if you feel that pointing that out is impolite. I'm not making a qualitative statement about Michigan or Northwestern-I'm only saying that, based on the numbers, the average Northwestern student is stronger.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Northwestern: 1320-1500
Michigan: 1260-1480</p>

<p>I really don't see a meaningful difference here =/</p>

<p>(this is fall 06' class btw; USNews still reports fall 05')</p>

122

<p>kazz,</p>

<p>Graduation & Retention Rank
Northwestern: 8th Michigan: 28th
-% of Students expected to graduate in 6 years:
Northwestern: 91% Michigan: 77%
-% of students who do graduate in 6 years:
Northwestern: 93% Michigan: 86%</p>

<p>Faculty Resources Rank:
Northwestern: 9th Michigan: 69th
-% of classes with 50+ students
Northwestern: 9% Michigan: 16%
-% of classes with <20 students
Northwestern: 72% Michigan: 43%
-Faculty/student ratio
Northwestern: 7/1 Michigan: 15/1</p>

<p>Student Selectivity Rank:
Northwestern: 17th Michigan: 22nd
-Average SAT/ACT:
Northwestern: 1320-1500 Michigan: 26-31
-% of students ranking in top 10% of high school class
Northwestern: 82% Michigan: 89%
-% acceptance rate
Northwestern: 30% Michigan: 57%</p>

<p>Financial Resources Rank:
Northwestern: 14th Michigan: 31st</p>

<p>Alumni Giving % and Rank:
Northwestern: 29% (29th) Michigan: 15% (105th)</p>

<p>Peer Assessment:
Northwestern: 4.4 Michigan: 4.5</p>

<p>I agree that the differences are modest but they are consistent across many frequently used objective measures. Taken together, Michigan comes out well. Northwestern comes out better.</p>

<p>P.S. I am still looking for a CDS link for 2006-07 to confirm the SAT numbers.</p>

123

<p>First of all, I was simply referring to the quality of the student bodies, which the difference happens to be negligible.</p>

<p>and many of those other statistics are naturally going to fall in favor of a smaller private school (Alumni giving %, student/faculty ratio, graduation and retention)... I agree they favor NW, but I suppose I just expect them to.</p>

<p>
[quote]
-% of Students expected to graduate in 6 years:
Northwestern: 91% Michigan: 77%
-% of students who do graduate in 6 years:
Northwestern: 93% Michigan: 86%

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does "expected" even mean when they list "do" immediately after... seems "expected" is quite irrelevant/meaningless. Perhaps you could shed some light on that?</p>

<p>Financial resources... is this a ranking based on endowment per student? I know Michigan has a top-5 endowment and has one of the highest growth rates over time... if it's ranked on a per student basis, again NW is private and less than half the size.</p>

<p>Where Michigan falls short in virtue of it being a large public, I'd argue it makes up for it in the sheer breadth and quality of their academic programs across the board. I'm not sure you can find a program ranked out of the top-25, and you'd be hard-pressed to find many outside of the top 10-15</p>

<p>In a sense, I guess we're comparing apples to oranges... but I think it's difficult to say that one is indubitably better than the other... one is public, one is private, and they're both amazing for what they are.</p>

<p>I guess that's my opinion =/</p>

124

<p>Hawkette, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why Michigan lags Northwestern in some of the USNWR criteria. 4 year graduating rates at NU are higher than Michigan's because 70% of Michigan students pay less than $10,000 in tuition to attend the university. Same goes for Cal and UVa. Students at private universities pay over $30,000 in tuition. most of us would love staying in college for 5 or 6 years if we could afford it. But as you can see, the bottom line between NU and Michigan is almost identical: 93% vs 86% is negigible. As for Alumni donation rates, it is a direct function of size. The larger the school, the harder it is to reach out to alums. That's why LACs have alumni donation rates that exceed 50%. Alumni donation rates have little to do with student satisfaction. Those two criteria are completely useless and the USNWR uses them precisely because they wish to inflict damage on public universities. </p>

<p>Faculty ratio isn't telling, although class size is, and that's one place where NU has an advantage over Michigan. But that advantage is superficial. Average class size at Michigan is only slightly larger than average class size at NU. </p>

<p>As for student quality, NU does have an edge over Michigan. But it isn't as significant as you think. the top 50% of Michigan students score over a 1330 on the SAT and over a 29 on the ACT. Those students match the stats of the top 75% of NU's student body, with the bottom 50% of Michigan student body matching the bottom quarter of NU's student body. Those two universities' admissions rates into top graduate schools seem to support the notion that they have similar similar quality student bodies, with only a slight edge going to NU. Either that or Michigan's overall reputation makes up for a larger gap in student quality you seem to believe exists between Michigan and NU.</p>

125

<p>
[quote]
While GoBlue correctly points out Michigan's high Selectivity rank, does he/she recognize that this number itself is weighted in a subjective fashion (50% to standardized test scores, 40% to class rank, and 10% to admission rate)?

[/quote]

In general I don't have much respect for US News' ranking formula, but in this case at least they recognize that test scores and class ranks are better measure of the student body than admission rate.</p>

<p>I don't think you can compare universities based on their admission rates because the base may not be the same; at least test scores are more objective.</p>

<p>You are the one who insists on comparing selectivity based on admission rate. If that's your premise, you must agree with my "derived" conclusion that Northwestern(30%) is less selective than UCB/UCLA, USC, Tufs and Pepperdine; and Chicago(40%) is less selective than all of the above, plus NYU, GWU, UVa and UNC.</p>

<p>Btw, you will have to conclude that the College of the Ozarks(11%) and the Naval Academy(13%) are more selective, hence more elite, than most of the Ivies. Clearly this is absurd, as the admission base is not the same.</p>

<p>Most people will agree that Chicago's admission pool is self-selecting. Not many students will attempt Chicago's "uncommon" application without the proper credentials; hence the higher admission rate (40%).</p>

<p>UCB/UCLA are on the other extreme. With one application you can apply to all the UC's, and the in-state eligibility rule helps too. Thus if you have an extra $60, you can apply to UCB/UCLA without much of an effort. That's why UCB gets a whooping 37000 applications. UCB/UCLA get the first pick of the hugh California application pool and it trickles down from there. That's why you see a large drop in admission rate as you go down the ranks of the UC's ... UCB/UCLA(27%); UCSD(44%); UCI/UCD(60%). Clearly it's not fair to compare UCB's admission rate with other state schools.</p>

<p>Btw, Michigan's admission rate dropped to 47% in 2006. Did Michigan "improve" that much in one year?</p>

126

<p>hawkette,
I have no problem with you quoting facts. It's some of your conclusions that I disagree with. For example,</p>

<p>
[quote]
But Michigan is not the only place where the in-state students have a lot of pride in their flagship university and somehow I doubt that the application behavior of high school students is that different from other states with prestigious (at least to in-staters) state schools, eg, UCB, UVA, UNC, UT, UF.

[/quote]

[quote]
By comparison, the traditional comps of Michigan of Berkeley, Virginia, and UNC have acceptance rates of 27%, 38%, and 37%.

[/quote]

If these are your premises, you must conclude that the students in Michigan are smarter than those in California, Virginia and NC. For the top 57% of the Michigan pool has the same or better (in the case of UNC) stats as the top 27% in California, top 38% in Virginia and top 37% in NC. Since the "application behavior of high school students" is more or less the same in these states, the same can be concluded for the students in general in the respective states.</p>

<p>Clearly this is absurd. But if the conclusion is wrong, so are your premises.</p>

127

<p>I don't even know why I am in this battle. I have absolutely no tie to Northwestern in any way, shape, or form. I'm not making the numbers up-I'm only reiterating what is already out there and comparing Michgan to Northwestern. But ever since I advanced the idea that Northwestern was a stronger institution and had better students based on the data available via USNWR, it's been attack, attack, attack by the Michigan folk. (Given the nature of some of these exchanges, I know who I'll be pulling for in the swimming meet.) I admire your tenacity and your loyalty to your school, but I think you lack a little balance and perspective. Michigan is a good state school. On the numbers, I think that most disinterested observers would conclude that Northwestern is a better school.<br>
Anyway, I certainly didn't intend to get into an argument when I began to post in this thread. Good luck to both schools and to students who attend either school.</p>

128

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>You should respect all sports. The swimmers work just as hard as football players. :)</p>

<p>GBAM,
I think NU is going to win this time after all these years of getting beat! Go Cats!</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
Northwestern: 1320-1500
Michigan: 1260-1480</p>

<p>I really don't see a meaningful difference here =/

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some of you are analyzing these nos. in the wrong way.</p>

<p>These USNWR figures are for the 25-75% percentile.</p>

<p>25% of UoM students scored below 1260 on their SATs - that's about 6,400 students (enough to fill 3 1/3 classes at NU) which is no small thing.</p>

130

<p>actually on collegeboard. it says that Michigan's SAT range is 1220-1420, the following above is the admitted range, not enrolled
'</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
25% of UoM students scored below 1260 on their SATs - that's about 6,400 students (enough to fill 3 1/3 classes at NU) which is no small thing.

[/quote]

Your math is not quite right. 6400 is a little over 25% of Michigan's entire undergrad student body. NU's has around 8000 undergrad and 2000 freshman. How's that "enough to fill 3 1/3 classes at NU"?</p>

<p>So the glass is half empty. You can also look at it as half full. About 1500 of the freshman class of 2005 scored above 1420, that's over 75% of the size of NU's freshman class ... I'm sure you can find enough smart people to communicate with.</p>

132

<p>My math is fine - UoM has 25,555 undergrads according to wiki (which could be off). A quarter of that is roughly 6,400.</p>

<p>NU's enrollment is 7,826 (also according to wiki). 3 1/3 of that is about 6,500</p>

<p>For someone who did the initial calculations in my head - I think I came pretty close.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So the glass is half empty. You can also look at it as half full. About 1500 of the freshman class of 2005 scored above 1420, that's over 75% of the size of NU's freshman class ... I'm sure you can find enough smart people to communicate with.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sheesh - but that's NOT THE POINT. The point was - due to the fairly significant range of scores for UoM students (and a sizeable no. who are on the lower end of the range) - some employers aren't necessarily going to be bedazzled just b/c someone has a UoM degree.</p>

<p>Really - get a grip people (I'm sure the students who are in the honors program at PSU would do very well at NU or anywhere else - but does that mean everyone or the majority of people at PSU are qualified? Of course not.).</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
NU's enrollment is 7,826 (also according to wiki). 3 1/3 of that is about 6,500

[/quote]

You lost me. What is "3 1/3"?
6,500 is 83% of 7,826. So in some way "3 1/3" is equal to 83%? I got the benefit of using a calculator.</p>

<p>
[quote]
some employers aren't necessarily going to be bedazzled just b/c someone has a UoM degree.

[/quote]

There are plenty of people who graduate from Michigan with a GPA below 3.0. You are right that employers are not gonna be impressed with these folks despite their Michigan diploma. Will the same employers be impressed with NU grads with less than stella GPA?</p>

134

<p>For your benefit - I kept it simple (since my initial reference was to 3 and 1/3 classes at NU).</p>

<p>And if employers had to pick a person with a 3.0 gpa - who would they more likely pick (esp. in light of the NU grad having had to compete with a higher % of students who did well on the SAT/ACT)?</p>

<p>Sorry - but there isn't much logic behind your posts.</p>

135

<p>Here are some schools that are BELOW Michigan in US News Peer Assessment:</p>

<p>Brown
Dartmouth
Washington U.
NORTWESTERN
Rice
Emory
Notre Dame
Carnegie Mellon
Georgetown
UCLA
Virginia
Tufts</p>

<p>EQUAL to Michigan in Peer Assessment: Penn & Duke.</p>

136

<p>"And if employers had to pick a person with a 3.0 gpa - who would they more likely pick (esp. in light of the NU grad having had to compete with a higher % of students who did well on the SAT/ACT)?"</p>

<p>whoever had the best interview. It could go either way.</p>

137

<p>Quite a few of you made the mistake of comparing <em>admitted</em> stats of one school with the <em>enrolled</em> stats of another school. Everybody understands the difference yet the mistake is surprisingly common on this board. The difference between the two stats can be sigificant for any given school. Some schools like posting admitted stats to look more impressive. Not that SAT score should be over-emphasized in evaluating eduational quality. But if you are going to compare, make sure you are dealing the same things.</p>

138

<p>TourGuide
I listed Michigan’s Peer Assessment score twice in my posts (# 63and # 122). As you and most readers of this website know, PA also happens to be the single most controversial and most subjective element of the USNWR rankings. Many, many posters on CC question the validity of these opinions. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that Michigan has a slightly higher Peer Assessment score than Northwestern (4.5 to 4.4) and, as TG points out, Michigan’s score is also higher than the elite institutions that he lists.</p>

<p>I should also like to point to Michigan’s Faculty Resources rank (69th). This score is computed from six measurable factors: 1) Student/Faculty ratio; 2) % of Professors with highest degree in their fields; 3) % of faculty that are full-time; 4) % of classes that are over 50 students; 5) % of classes with fewer than 20 students; and 6) Faculty Salary. </p>

<p>Here are some of the schools that are ABOVE Michigan in this category:</p>

<p>University of Alabama (60th in Faculty Resources, 88th Overall USNWR rank)
Brigham Young (57th and 70th)
SMU (54th and 70th)
Fordham (63rd and 70th)
University of Iowa (57th and 64th)
University of Miami (45th and 60th)
Syracuse (45th and 52nd)
University of Colorado (63rd and 77th)
Ohio State (63rd and 57th)
Purdue (63rd and 64th)
Rutgers (63rd and 60th)</p>

<p>Tied with Michigan: Georgia (69th and 60th) </p>

<p>As for the schools that TourGuide referenced in the post about PA (# 135), here are their ranks vs Michigan’s 69th place finish in Faculty Resources:</p>

<p>Brown (18th in Faculty Resources, 15th Overall USNWR rank)
Dartmouth (17th and 9th)
Wash U (6th and 12th)
NORTHWESTERN (9th and 14th)
Rice (15th and 17th)
Emory (12th and 18th)
Notre Dame (23rd and 20th)
Carnegie Mellon (18th and 21st)
Georgetown (40th and 23rd)
UCLA (50th and 26th)
Virginia (35th and 24th)
Tufts (22nd and 27th)
Penn (1st and 7th)
Duke (4th and 8th)</p>

<p>Michigan (69th and 24th)</p>

<p>Michigan supporters would like to believe that its faculty belongs with the group of elite colleges referenced by TourGuide. It would appear that their publicity campaign with academics has worked as Michigan has very high scores in the subjective Peer Assessment ranking. But when it comes to the measurable data for Faculty Resources, Michigan’s relative weakness to this elite group of schools is revealed. In fact, it would appear that Michigan does not even measure up to the other, far less elite group of schools, many of which are also large state schools.</p>

139

<p>for the interview question, gomester has it right-the winner is whoever does the best in the interview. the more relevant question, however, is who would get the interview in the first place-the average 3.0 student from Michigan or the average 3.0 student from Northwestern?</p>

140

<p>"I should also like to point to Michigan’s Faculty Resources rank (69th). This score is computed from six measurable factors: 1) Student/Faculty ratio; 2) % of Professors with highest degree in their fields; 3) % of faculty that are full-time; 4) % of classes that are over 50 students; 5) % of classes with fewer than 20 students; and 6) Faculty Salary."</p>

<p>well, the problem is these all really hurt large schools, in particular state schools. Only 2 and 3 are things that being a large state school may or may not affect (i'm not sure of the answer). It's because of compositions like these that many say state schools are extremely underrated in the US News rankings. </p>

<p>"however, is who would get the interview in the first place-the average 3.0 student from Michigan or the average 3.0 student from Northwestern?"
both will, most likely. A 3.0 isn't likely to apply to the most competitive of places, for one thing. Even if the 3.0 from NU had a 1550 SAT and the 3.0 from Mich had a 1050 SAT, how would an employer find this out unless they requested SAT score reports. Also, would you want to hire a NU grad who was in the 99th percentile on the SAT but barely squeaked by with a B average at Northwestern?</p>