Northwestern vs Umichigan?

<p>mekozak,</p>

<p>I’d say if you look at “graduate level resources”, you need to look at not only the rankings but also the faculty:students ratio. Whether you get the opportunities you want depends on a few factors and one of them is obviously how many of your peers want the same research projects. Getting a research project is very much like getting a job; the size of the applicant pool matters, a lot actually.</p>

<p>For example, let’s look at chemical engineering at NU and GA Tech:</p>

<p>NU
Rank: 16th </p>

<h1>Faculty: ~20</h1>

<h1>Undergrads:120</h1>

<p>GA Tech
Rank: 10th</p>

<h1>Faculty:~55</h1>

<h1>Undergrads: 863</h1>

<p>GA Tech is ranked higher in the filed but I wouldn’t say it has more resources on a per capita basis nor it’s easier to get research opportunities there.</p>

<p>What further complicates the analysis is how much the administration is committed to undergrad research. That kind of info would require even more digging. I think NU is very committed to undergrad research; in 2010, about $1.5 millions was used to support undergrads engaged in research. I once compared the number of recipients and awards for summer research between JHU and NU; NU had more awards (even after adjusting for the school size) and each award was higher ($3000 vs $2500) despite the fact that the magazines out there showed a higher federal research expenditure number for JHU.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/financial-operations/annual-financial-reports/2010-Financial-Report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.northwestern.edu/financial-operations/annual-financial-reports/2010-Financial-Report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>One thing to keep in mind when talking about affordability is that you need to account for lower graduation rates. If your kid is the one unlucky enough not to get into required classes and needs 5 or 6 years to graduate, the savings from going to state school might very quickly prove to be illusory.</p>

<p>To avoid being crucified by other wolverines, I’ll just post some weaknesses of Michigan that may help you figure out where you want to go:</p>

<p>Advising:
Freshman advising at Michigan is non-existent, and advising quality varies widely by department after declaring. Advising caters to the lowest common denominator, and you won’t find much help there if you are an excellent student. </p>

<p>Recruiting:
The engineering school and the business school have great recruiting. If you are an LSA student, recruiting is pretty much non-existent. The engineering career center is decent - they have good resources if you want to be an engineer after graduation with traditional engineering firms, but if you want to pursue an alternative career path, i.e. consulting/finance/whatever, you won’t find much help. The Ross career center is pretty great, probably comparable to any school in the country.</p>

<p>Class size:
Varies widely by major. You are probably screwed if you want to major in science. I’ve only taken 1 science course where there were less than 30 people in the class. Anyone who says class size doesn’t matter is full of *<strong><em>. Discussions are mostly completely worthless: some graduate student instructors straight up don’t give a *</em></strong> and are terrible, some GSIs try really hard to be good teachers, but it doesn’t really matter because none of them have the experience needed to be really effective educators.</p>

<p>Undergrads
Academically, the undergrads here at kinda underwhelming…</p>

<p>Of course, Michigan also has its strengths, but you just need to go over to the Michigan forum to find those…</p>

<p>The expected contribution things are wrong a lot, and nothing would say 140K a year, because no school costs that much. It’s your fault if your daughter can’t afford it; everyone should file for Financial Aid, unless the school isn’t need blind, and it might hurt their admission. NU has better peers, better undergrad quality, smaller classes, etc.</p>

<p>I can’t really take the posts on this topic on the Umichigan forum seriously anymore after they were saying Umich is in the same peer group as Uchicago, Columbia and Caletch.</p>

<p>To say NU and Umich are equal is a slight stretch, but to say Umich and Columbia are equal is a pretty shameless exaggeration. </p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong, I do think Umich is an excellent school, I just don’t think the posts in the umich forum are at all objective. </p>

<p>In any case, OP, I think you should take the posts on CC with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>“I can’t really take the posts on this topic on the Umichigan forum seriously anymore after they were saying Umich is in the same peer group as Uchicago, Columbia and Caletch.”</p>

<p>I can’t really take comments seriously on this topic from someone who makes inaccurate statements that are so easily refuted.</p>

<p>Alexandre stated that:</p>

<p>“I am in favor of grouping universities rather than ranking them. Group 1 would include Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. Group 2 would include a dozen universities; Brown, Cal, Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn. Within that group, I personally believe that Cal, Caltech, Chicago and Columbia are a slight notch above the others”</p>

<p>Where was it stated that Michigan and Columbia were equal? Alexandre clearly stated that those fours schools were a “slight notch” above the others. Seems about right to me too.</p>

<p>Cal is definitely not better than NU. Just for an example, NU is #12, Cal is #21 in USNWR.</p>

<p>Caltech is better for STEM, obviously, but has no liberal arts, as far as I know. Chicago is good for somethings, but not nearly as good at others, such as Journalism, Music, Mat engineering, etc. Columbia is definitely better in most things too. But Cal is absolutely not at the top of that group. I’d say Columbia, Chicago, Cal Tech, NU, and Duke are the top of that group, if that’s how you’d group it.</p>

<p>rjk,</p>

<p>In my opinion to even have Umich and Columbia/Uchicago/Caltech in the same group is completely unrealistic. Even if she said they were “a slight notch above” that hardly accounts for the difference between Umich and those schools. The bottom line is she said they belong in the same group, which, in my opinion, is not representative of how the majority of Americans, employers, and people in general see it. </p>

<p>I think Uchicago, Columbia, Caltech, Northwestern and Duke are deserving of their own group just after the first group of HYPSM. In that group I would say Columbia and Uchicago are probably at the top.</p>

<p>“Cal is definitely not better than NU. Just for an example, NU is #12, Cal is #21 in USNWR.”</p>

<p>If you look at things purely in term of ACADEMICS, there is not question Berkeley trumps NU and all but a very few select schools. </p>

<p>“But Cal is absolutely not at the top of that group. I’d say Columbia, Chicago, Cal Tech, NU, and Duke are the top of that group, if that’s how you’d group it.”</p>

<p>I think you’re drinking the USNWR Kool-Aid a bit too much</p>

<p>“I think Uchicago, Columbia, Caltech, Northwestern and Duke are deserving of their own group just after the first group of HYPSM.”</p>

<p>Of course you do.</p>

<p>Berkeley has a strong regional reputation while Northwestern, Duke, Columbia, etc. have excellent national reputations.</p>

<p>Goldenboy, If Berkeley only has a strong regional reputation, please explain why the attached “World Univerity Rankings” places Berkeley at #9 ahead of Duke (#23), Northwestern (#19), Columbia (#14). Wouldn’t a mere regional reputation get swamped by the big national reputations when you enter the world stage?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>mekozak, UCB is extremely prestigious internationally and in its home state of California. Surprisingly, where Berkeley’s reputation is the weakest is the rest of the United States in other regions like the Northeast, Midwest, and the South. Very few people are aware of Berkeley’s myriad of highly ranked academic programs and professional schools in these parts of the country. That’s where Duke and NU hold an advantage. I can’t speak on behalf of Northwestern, but I’ve never met someone in the United States who didn’t know that Duke is considered a good school. Not even one…very few schools can have that sort of name recognition. I believe NU is another since its a prominent school with recognized Big 10 sports teams and high undergraduate selectivity.</p>

<p>RJK, you have been told time and time again you are wrong. Michigan is, if it is in a peer group with NU, at the bottom for undergraduates. No one agrees with you. Just go back and sulk somewhere else.</p>

<p>The thread on Michigan forum is a pretty sad orgy of insecurities. It’s pretty clear that the UG body at Northwestern is significantly stronger. Yet, when I post the relevant stats there, the moderator Alexandre deletes them, since he cannot take the comparison. Pretty sad situation.</p>

<p>Either way, in important UG metrics Michigan is much weaker than NU. That does not change the fact that Mich is a great University. However, this information is of little use for parents trying to help their kids make the decision. If you can help it, have your kid go to NU or another top private. It’s no contest.</p>

<p>kHz with no dog in the hunt I would respectfully say your last post is close to crossing the line. As probably the only poster here to have personally attended both schools I can tell you that it would matter little which school most students attended. Getting A’s in the hard sciences is plenty tough at Mich and achieving good grades there would allow a given student a chance to do anything. Having now had multiple children in various top ten schools the truth is that the exact school is mostly overrated. Any given kid could do about the same attending any of the top 20-25 schools. Most of the endless discussions on this site are pointless arguments about whether #9 is really much better than #13. In the end all of these schools are more than good enough and the main problem for most students now is graduating with manageable debt. Where someone goes to college is about the most overrated thing in America these days. The same student would end up about the same no matter which of these schools he or she attended.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the 3 key tenets of this forum so far are that NU: 1) has superior UG academics, 2) has a stronger student body, 3) has more recognition/prestige. Well I know i placed it third on the list but i think i’ll start with prestige. In most places these two schools are seen on essentially equal footing. I personally live in the NY metro area and i must say that a slight edge goes to Michigan in this regard, so to say that the school lacks in the NE is incorrect. As for worldwide prestige Michigan wins in two out of the three major polls, those being QS and ARWU while NU edged out Michigan on THE. As to the stronger undergraduate body NU does win in this regard. However, OOS students at Michigan are largely comparable to students at NU. At my school for instance the average accepted SAT to Michigan is 2143 while at NU it is 2134. This difference is marginal and just goes to show that OOS applicants to Michigan can compete with the best of them. Lastly i do believe this board is unfair in completely rejecting the faculty rankings in regards to academic quality at the UG level. In upper level classes UG students are often taught by high profile faculty members and will learn along side graduate students. Also it is almost unquestionable that Michigan’s business and engineering programs UG are head and shoulders above NU. If we were purely discussing arts and sciences the slight edge would have to go NU but even then it is ever so slight. The sheer breadth of study options at Michigan far trumps NU. At Michigan there is seldom a program outside the top 25 in any discipline. Overall the faculty rankings for Michigan are far better and to me that is convincing evidence of an academic advantage even at the UG level.</p>

<p>ps I’m super biased much like everyone else on this board so please take everything with a grain of salt. </p>

<p>pps I am like many others of the opinion that Cal is academically superior to NU. Maybe its just my view that faculty ratings and world ratings are far more important than prestige or USNWR overall ranking, but i am more impressed by Cal than NU.</p>

<p>“RJK, you have been told time and time again you are wrong. Michigan is, if it is in a peer group with NU, at the bottom for undergraduates. No one agrees with you. Just go back and sulk somewhere else.”</p>

<p>Perhaps you should peruse the two previous posts. Now you can go sulk…</p>

<p>I see that they are saying they are close, and that it won’t make much of a difference, but people say that about any school you could attend, not just two close ones. Who cares about world prestige, if you aren’t going to work internationally?</p>

<p>Say,</p>

<p>No, what crosses the line is deleting messages that quote inconvenient facts in order to mislead parents of kids considering Michigan against other schools. Deliberate distorting a discussion for a personal aggrandizement, the way Alexandre does it, is simply pathetic.</p>

<p>Again, there are some very smart kids at Michigan, but on average they are much weaker (300 points off on SAT) than at Northwestern. This will have direct impact on the quality of education your kid receives. The professors can be the world beaters, but they cannot push hard forward if half the class can’t follow. The difference is not minor. The only reason Michigan is rated so relatively highly is the glow off of its outstanding graduate education. UG is substandard for a top 20 school and does not belong.</p>