Northwestern vs. Michigan

College Search & Selection
141

<p>I agree that the subfactors for the Faculty Resource score negatively impact all large schools, particularly state schools. I was a bit surprised to see that Michigan ranked so poorly in Faculty Resources at 69th, but I was even more surprised at the many other state and large schools that rank ahead of Michigan, some by a lot. The ones I listed are not small schools. OTOH, the large state schools would seem to be the greatest beneficiaries in the Peer Assessment weighting and few schools benefit more than Michigan. </p>

<p>My answer on the interview question is different as I doubt that either would get an interview with a 3.0 (although I'm guessing that the 3.0 at a very good private school would be seen as slightly stronger than a similar gpa at a very good state school). And I agree that SAT scores are unlikely to be a factor in the decision over who to interview.</p>

142

<p>Faculty resources ranking is one of those obscure stats that needs explaining, and even after it's explained, it still doesn't make complete sense. Peer Assessment, with all its flaws, is a stat that cuts through all the BS and tells you something fairly clearly. I don't think that a difference of a few tenths of a point are meaningful--so I don't think that Michigan is necessarily better than Duke, Brown, or Northwestern.</p>

<p>But I point Michigan's gaudy peer assessment score just to show that it can be mentioned in the same sentence with the likes of Duke, Brown, Penn, Georgetown, Virginia. Nobody can say exactly how these schools rank, but the subjective and objective stats all indicate that Michigan is generally on par with them. Rather than questioning whether Michigan deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with Rice and Northwestern and Emory, I think Rice and Northwestern and Emory should be proud to be mentioned in the same sentence with Michigan.</p>

<p>Also, those who question Michigan's selectivity, and think that its acceptance % undercuts any claims to eliteness, please look at its US News selectivity ranking: #22. That is equal to Cornell, U of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins, and higher than Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, Virginia, William and Mary, and NYU.</p>

143

<p>As so often happens with Michigan supporters, you seem to want to have it both ways. In this case, you see Peer Assessment as a legitimate number to be used and weighted heavily by USNWR while you diminish Faculty Resources. But let's look at the two. You claim that Faculty Resources needs explaining, but arent' the numbers straightforward and speak for themselves. By comparison, the Peer Assessement is completely murky-there is no transparency at all. We are being told that a group of academics (we don't know who they are as there is no record of who responded or how they responded) what schools have the strongest faculties. There is also a very strong geographic effect with concentration of the highest scores in the NE and CA. Sure, there are more schools in these areas, but there is also much greater familiarly among academicians with these locales. This familiarity creates what I call the "club effect" which rewards those in "the club" and marks down those outside. I'm sure many Texans would feel that their flagship state U is every bit the equal to Michigan, yet it is scored only at a 4.1 and Michigan at a 4.5. Yes, the differences are relatively small but the advantages are nearly always given to the schools in "the club."</p>

<p>The selectivity ranking is only 10% acceptance rate and this is fortunate for Michigan as it is clearly the least demanding in this score relative to the schools that you mentioned. 50% of the rank is standardized tests where Michigan lags nearly all of the schools. The factor that boosts Michigan's selectivity score is the class rank %. This number is always high for state schools (UCB, UCLA, UVA, UNC) and this boosts their selectivity vs the private schools which are usually taking a much higher % of private high school students who may be higher achievers, but are coming from highly competitive high schools where the numbers are small and achieving Top 10% rank would put one into Ivy contention. Having said all that, Michigan does very well and comes 22nd. Northwestern comes in 17th.</p>

144

<p>Fact--far more Michigan faculty are highly respected in their fields than NU faculty.</p>

145

<p>^^^^^^^That is as clearly your opinion. That is not a fact.<br>
Michigan's PA is 4.5 and NU's is 4.4. It is a fact that these are the scores as determined by USNWR. It is also a fact that several Michigan-supporting posters have indicated that they believe such a difference is not meaningful. I respect your right to your opinion, but the facts indicate that Michigan's faculty is not "far more highly respected" (unless you believe the difference between 4.5 and 4.4 constitutes far more). If you are making the argument that the PA is not valid or a good indicator and thus is biased and not accurate, then I would agree as subjectivity and partisanship can certainly influence one's opinions.</p>

146

<p>Hawkette, why do you assume that people who respect Michigan have a notive? As far as I know, and I have seen Barrons around this forum for over a year now, he has never lived in Michigan, never attended Michigan and has no ties to the University. Tourguide lives in Michigan, but as far as I know, has never attended the University and has no ties to the University either. Like Barrons, Gomestar never lived in Michigan, never attended Michigan and as far as I know has no ties to Michigan. I personally attended Michigan, but I never allow my personal sentiments for the University to cloud my judgement. I am 100% neutral. Many of the people supporting Michigan on this forum do so because they actually respect the university, for one reason or another.</p>

<p>I personally think that faculty resources is a very important criteria. Along with the Peer Assessment score and student quality (not selectivity), I feel that Faculty Resources is the only other criteria that actually matters. If it were up to me I would assign a 50% weight to the PA, a 25% weight to student quality and a 25% weight to faculty resources. </p>

<p>But one must truly look closely at the faculty resources rank because what it measures and how it is weighed can be misleading. Is there truly a significant difference between #1 and #100? I have seen some universities leap 30 spaces and others drop 30 spots in 1 year. Student selectivity rankings and Peer Assessment scores do not change that much. In fact, they hardly change over the course of time. That is obviously not the case with Faculty resources. As such, I think the Faculty resources rank must be taken with a grain of salt. Faculty salaries are almost identical accross the board, with a 10% variance. Professors actually care more about their funding than their salaries. Whether a professor earns $120,000 or $140,000 doesn't really matter that much. </p>

<p>Class size also matters, but how is it measured? According to the USNWR, roughly 45% of classes have fewer than 20 students. But how many classes have 23 students? Or 26 students? What if it is 30%? It is not inconceivable that a large chunk of classes at most top universities have classes with 21-25 students in them. Many of the classes I took at Michigan had somewhere between 20 and 30 students. Cornell's % of classes with fewer than 20 students lept from 40% 2 years ago to 60% last year. Cal's % of classes with fewer than 20 students lept from 50% to 60% in one year. Michigan's droped from 50% to 44%. Johns Hopkins dropped from 60% to 50%. Those significant drops and leaps occur on an annual basis precisely because there is a very thin line that separates 19 from 20!</p>

<p>In terms of large classes, most elite universities have 10%-15% of their classes with 50 students or more. Even at schools like Princeton and Dartmouth, which are known for having incredible undergraduate focus, 10% of their classes have over 50 students. At Cornell, Harvard and Johns Hopkins, roughly 15% of the classes have over 50 students. But most of those classes are intro-level classes that require very little guidance and supervision. </p>

<p>Given the facts listed above I think it is pretty clear that the USNWR takes tiny, fractional differences and blows them out of proportion to separate universities. As a whole, very little separates the #1 from the #100 in the faculty resources ranking. </p>

<p>But at the end of the day Hawkette, it goes back to what I always say. There is no way to truly rank universities. The best that can be done is group universities in little clusters of peers. In most ways that matter, Michigan and Northwestern belong to the same cluster.</p>

147

<p>Peer assessment is important when you apply to graduate school. The same people who contribute to the PA are also gonna "subjectively" evaluate your application.</p>

148

<p>Sam and GBAM, I see Northwestern won the Swim meet...with relative ease I might add. Oh well, at least Michigan beat OSU. And since the two seem to be getting along swimmingly, then the event would definitely not have been a total waste!</p>

149

<p>Yay!!!!!!!!!!</p>

150

<p>Yea, yea, yea! We know! LOL!!! I can't believe it has come to this. We are bragging about a bunch of men in speedos for crying out loud. I can understand GBAM's keen interest Sam, but your interest frankly worries me! Hehe!!!</p>

151

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>What's wrong with men in speedo vs football gears??</p>

152

<p>Alexandre, I am certain that there are many Michigan related people posting on CC and I admire their zeal for Big Blue. However, my prior responses to those you mention (Barrons, TourGuide, Gomestar) attributed no motive, but rather pointed out weaknesses in their arguments. Statements of Michigan’s superiority are presented as fact when in reality, they are little more than opinion. </p>

<p>Barrons (post # 110): “UM is clearly in the Top 10.” </p>

<p>TourGuide (post #142): “I think Rice and Northwestern and Emory should be proud to be mentioned in the same sentence with Michigan.” </p>

<p>Gomestar (post # 78): “there won't be much of a difference (if any difference at all) between UMich and Northwestern.”</p>

<p>Barrons (post # 144): “Fact--far more Michigan faculty are highly respected in their fields than NU faculty.”</p>

<p>Examples such as the above abound on CC whenever Michigan is mentioned. Left unchallenged, they create a (false IMO) impression of the relative strength of Michigan vis-vis higher (like Northwestern) and lower (like a UT) ranked colleges. I’m not meaning to be the thought police-people are entitled to their opinions-but I presented verifiable, quantifiable data that support my argument while accepting data (PA) that counters my conclusion and is completely subjective. In response, the Michigan proponents attempt to explain away the poor data (Faculty Resources, Acceptance Rate) while the good data is shouted from the rooftops (Peer Assessment), all in an attempt to associate Michigan with the mega elites and distance it from the less acclaimed. This is to be expected from partisans, but it should also be recognized for what it is.</p>

153

<p>the Michigan proponents attempt to explain away the poor data (Faculty Resources, Acceptance Rate) </p>

<p>I don't understand why acceptance rate stats should trump "Selectivity." Seems like the former could be easily inflated by having easy application and essay requirements, low application fees, being located in an unglamourous area, etc. Whereas the latter digs beneath the acceptance %. I think several of us have explained why Michigan gets relatively few in-state applications compared to other flagships...and the selectivity ranking (on par with Cornell, Hopkins, and Chicago) seems to confirm that its acceptance % is misleading.</p>

<p>Likewise I don't see why faculty resources should trump peer assessment. The former can be distorted by lots of things (maybe they have to pay more to get top profs to work there, cost of living, whatever), whereas the latter is a right-to-the-point stat that cuts through peripheral factors.</p>

154

<p>TG, Perhaps you misconstrued some of my prior posts. I made no claim that acceptance rate should trump Selectivity Rank. I provided both numbers and will let the reader make his/her own conclusion. I might quibble with how USNWR weights the subfactors of the Selectivity Rank, but that was not my argument. My point was only that Michigan supporters will quickly trumpet their selectivity rank and assert their similarity to Cornell, Hopkins, etc while doing their utmost to explain away the high acceptance rate which is comparable to schools like UF or Clemson. Please also remember that my initial posts were made to compare Michigan and Northwestern. In both Selectivity Rank and acceptance %, Northwestern has stronger numbers than Michigan.</p>

<p>Re PA, you incorrectly contend that I believe that Faculty Resources should trump Peer Assessment. I only point to the different natures of the two numbers. One is quantitative, measurable, factual. The other (PA) is entirely subjective. I differ strongly with your characterization of the PA as “a stat that cuts through all the BS and tells you something fairly clearly.” It may tell you what some academics think about a school’s reputation and prestige, but it does not tell who these academics are or what they said. Acceptance of this number is acceptance of the status quo (and I understand Michigan’s desire to weight this number heavily). Clearly, the Education Establishment (or “the club” as I like to call it) wants to perpetuate this number, but there is absolutely no accountability in this measurement. IMO, it is the single weakest element of the USNWR rankings and by a large margin. Scientists, historians, heck most academics, like visible data in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis. With the PA, it seems as if supporters of this number want conclusion first, supporting information second (or not at all as is the case today). </p>

<p>Michigan has an impressive PA score. Michigan also has a dismal Faculty Resources rank of 69th. Northwestern has an impressive PA and an even more impressive FR rank of 9th. That was my statement and I again invite the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. While Michigan defenders may interpret these comments as slighting Michigan, my response is to look at the data. There is more to the story and the comparison than just a blind acceptance of the subjectively-determined PA.</p>

155

<p>
[quote]
whoever had the best interview. It could go either way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With all things being equal - I'd say the edge goes to NU (a student with a B average at NU had to compete with an overall higher-qualified student body than a B student at UoM).</p>

<p>As for peer assessment - that rating is more indicative of the reputation of the faculty - particularly with regard to research - than with the student body.</p>

156

<p>"With all things being equal - I'd say the edge goes to NU"</p>

<p>they won't be equal though. In the ultra rare case that two applicants are exactly equal, the college won't have any part in the decision. Rather, more interviews may be conducted, this time with different people administering them seeing if they can see a clear winner. </p>

<p>You have to understand, the school you go to plays only a small detail in the whole application process. In fact, it will likely play about a 5 second role in the initial resume critique. The REAL deal comes in interviews, or even in role playing exercises for some hard core firms out there. Personality profiles or GI exams seem to be gaining popularity as well - it cuts through the crap like we are seeing in this thread about whose really up for the job. </p>

<p>Unless, of course, this is your interview technique:
"what qualifies you for this job?"
-I went to Northwestern.</p>

<p>"What skills would you like to bring to the workplace here"
-My Northwestern degree hanging on the wall.</p>

<p>"What would you like to learn here at this company"
-I don't need to learn a whole lot more, I went to Northwestern.</p>

<p>"Name an event that's helped define you as a person"
-When I got my Northwestern degree.</p>

<p>"Is there anything else you would like to add to this interview?"
-Yes, I went to Northwestern and it's the thing that will get me a job. </p>

<p>You can't use the college plug much further beyond the resume. I can tell you from two very very close connections that here's how the hiring thing goes for 2 particular Fortune 500 companies: pick up resume, is the student from a solid college with a great GPA? If no, reject, if yes then move into another pile. Call up those remaining and interview them, cutting the group in half. Conduct a second interview to narrow down the pool to a manageable size and then do a third interview to select the best applicant. </p>

<p>Trust me, neither Michigan nor Northwestern will have an edge over one another. They're about as equal as one can get - in the case of these two schools, a decision will not be based on which student went to which school.</p>

157

<p>"You can't use the college plug much further beyond the resume."</p>

<p>Ok then, </p>

<p>Michigan = Harvard= Yale= Rice= Stanford= Cornell= Penn= Princeton=Northwestern, Chicago= Duke= MIT= Caltech= Berkeley= Dartmouth= Columbia... etc....</p>

<p>"in the case of these two schools, a decision will not be based on which student went to which school."</p>

<p>-Then between what two schools will such a decision be made?</p>

158

<p>Northwestern and Tufts.</p>

159

<p>“In the ultra rare case that two applicants are exactly equal, the college won't have any part in the decision.”</p>

<p>-Ridiculous… </p>

<p>"You have to understand, the school you go to plays only a small detail in the whole application process.”</p>

<p>-This is clearly something that would vary from place to place, yet you speak so vehemently…… How is that so??? </p>

<p>"You have to understand, the school you go to plays only a small detail in the whole application process. In fact, it will likely play about a 5 second role in the initial resume critique. The REAL deal comes in interviews, or even in role playing exercises for some hard core firms out there."</p>

<p>-I guess, then, I would ask where firms are recruiting. Are firms recruiting elite schools with the same strength as those that are not as elite? That is, do firms recruit as actively from random state college branches as they do at say, Dartmouth? It would seem to me that the only way to give any credit to what you are asserting (beyond your own belief, of course) is to have this kind of question answered.</p>

<p>"Northwestern and Tufts."
- :rolleyes: .....</p>

160

<p>" Ok then,</p>

<p>Michigan = Harvard= Yale= Rice= Stanford= Cornell= Penn= Princeton=Northwestern, Chicago= Duke= MIT= Caltech= Berkeley= Dartmouth= Columbia... etc...."</p>

<p>when it comes to getting a job, this sounds about right. I'm not saying the schools are just as prestigious as one another, you might have read it wrong. But, when it comes to evaluating candidates, a 3.8 applicant from Duke isn't going to be looked on as "better" than a 3.8 from Rice. </p>

<p>"</p>