<p>As a parent from India, I find these comparisons eerily similar to what we have back home. I went to one of the IITs (Indian Institute of Technology) which is reputed to have the “cream of the cream (students)”, who have gone through a gruelling Joint Entrance Exam to make it there. The students are super smart - not just in academics per se. It was not what we learnt in our classrooms (which accounted for may be 30%) from our professors, most of whom were intellectually very sound, but couldn’t teach, rather what we learnt from each other interacting in our hostels (dorms for you) and these interactions is what made the students passing out of IITs to be very successful overall and continues to be so.</p>
<p>I do not have any personal experience with U of M; however, what I have seen with S at NU (the intellectual growth, overall improvement in his personality) resembles closely to what I had experienced in IIT decades ago. And, my view is that a large part of this growth can be attributed to the UG student body - the type and caliber of students NU attracts.</p>
<p>I love these chest-thumping threads. My daughter applied to both schools. We’d be very happy if she got into either, and ecstatic if she got into both. </p>
<p>Anyhow, when y’all get done with this dispute, I’d turn to these:</p>
<p>Stradivarious v. Amati
Ardveg v. Laphroaig
Ali v. Dempsey
Charlie Parker v. John Coltrane
Rembrandt v. Da Vinci
Heisenberg v. Einstein
Lakers v. Celtics
Melville v. Nabokov
Godfather I v. Godfather II
Glenda Jackson v. Meryl Streep
Jaguar v. Porsche
Sex v. Food</p>
<p>In general it’s all about:
My mamma v. your mamma</p>
<p>This dispute is not just for entertainment. For some here, it matters to make sure that their kids have the best opportunities and undergraduate education. Especially if you have to pay serious money for it.</p>
<p>My kid is not going to either Mich or NU, but he’s considered both. If it’s my money, the choice is easy. I encourage every parent to think very clearly what the respective schools can offer their kids. I especially encourage them to carefully consider what information/ranking is important and what information is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Part of the problem with your posts is a complete lack of attention to the details and the lack of trust they convey. For illustration, you stated that the difference between the NU and UofM kids is 300 points in the SAT. Well, checking that numbers out, you are off by a factor of nearly 2. The average NU SAT (averaging the Common data set numbers for 2011-2012 - the latest year available) is 2185. For Michigan in the same year also using the common data set, the number is 2020. My math tell me the difference is 165 points or 55 points per test. Forget NU versus Michigan for the moment, how can anyone trust what you have to say with respect to the basic numbers? Your hyperbole is off the chart.</p>
<p>Consider too that the 75% percentile kid at Michigan has roughly the same SATs as the midpoint person at NU. This means that Michigan has roughly 1500 kids in a scoring zone that NU can only boast about 1100. See, it’s fun to play with numbers. Further, the Michigan Honors college averages about where your top 75% average. This means that the NU top SAT scorers roughly equal the number of Michigan top SAT scorers (about 500 kids in both cases) - and Michigan keeps these people together for a significant portion of their classes - just like any of the privates you espouse.</p>
<p>Unless you can be a little more honest with the numbers, please lower the rhetoric.</p>
<p>Well, before giving me advice, you should start being careful with the numbers yourself. </p>
<p>The SAT distribution numbers you show are very misleading since, only 34% of Michigan kids take SAT (compared to 65% at NU). In other words, the cds SAT numbers are not representative of the Michigan student body. On the other hand 80%, both at NU and Michigan, take ACT. So, those are much more representative of the respective student bodies. So, what is the picture if you compare those numbers? NU average ACT is 33, while Mich average is 29. 4 points on ACT is roughly 300 on SAT. Even worse, 75 percentile of Mich students is 32 on ACT, below the NU average.</p>
<p>The SAT numbers at Mich most likely represent OOS’s, which are admittedly stronger than instate candidates. It does not change the fact that the overall study body at Mich is much weaker.</p>
<p>Another thing. The honors program might be a good value or not, but if the university cherry picks the stronger kids and puts them into special honors classes, that means that the general interest classes will be even weaker. Then, it might make sense to send your kid to Mich as long as they get into the honors program, but it definitely makes no sense to send them there otherwise if halfway decent privates are available.</p>
<p>Krzy you of course are entitled your own opinions. I have daughter who recently attended NU and it’s a fine school. My wife and I both have degrees from NU as well. But the idea that students at Michigan are being held back is silly. If the entry level classes are a little easier that would be good for their GPA. As I said the hard science classes at Mich are plenty tough and if you can gets A’s you can go to any graduate school just like from NU. Is a 3.75 tougher to get at NU? Certainly but so what. Where one goes to undergraduate school is completely overrated. Smart is smart.</p>
<p>Top, focused kids will flourish anywhere. Smart, unfocused kids need peer support and challenge. The placement record of top privates (including NU) into top graduate programs is vastly superior to Mich. You want best opportunities for your kids, top privates are the way to go.</p>
<p>NU is going to be a slightly better undergrad experience for most people, and provide more opportunities. Both schools, however, are very good. Michigan undergrad is not better, but it’s close. The end.</p>
<p>Just for fun</p>
<p>Stradivarius, I’ve heard recordings of both many times, and personally I like the Stradivarius a little better
No idea what Ardveg and Laphroaig are
Ali, he’s bigger, and he’d probably outsmart dempsey
John Coltrane, I like his freer jazz much better than Bird’s bop
Da Vinci, but that’s more because he was a great inventor… Both make amazing art
Einstein’s more well known amongst the layman for a reason, his work is more broad
Celtics wins both regular season, and post season, in terms of total games won
Melville, I’ve never liked russian lit, not sure why
Never seen either, sorry… Godfather I v. Godfather II
Meryl Streep, because I’m not sure who Glenda Jackson is
Porsche, I’ve heard Jag’s customer service sucks, and I wouldn’t ever buy either, so that’s what I’ll base it on
Food, because it’s necessary to continue living</p>
<p>The validities of both arguments are flawed since they fail to consider the schools on a program-by-program basis in which case finding a “better” one, especially if you are trying to decide which to attend, would be easier. Both schools have their strengths.</p>
<p>Spending 60k per year on smart unfocused kids doesn’t sound like a great idea unless one has unlimited resources. Undergrad today is massively over priced and few if any degrees are worth 250k. Grad school is a different story as is far more important than where you went to college.</p>
<p>It’s exactly the unfocused kid who needs the most support, smart focused kids will take care of themselves. Once you are outside top 20-30, it’s true that undergrad does not matter much, but it does matter at the top, especially for professional graduate school admissions. As to whether it’s worth the money, sure it is a function of priorities. On the other hand, if you have to pay full cost as an OOS at Michigan, then NU is a screaming deal in comparison.</p>
<p>If you think Harvard med is accepting students from Podunk, non-flagship, state U more than once a century, you’re sadly mistaking. So yes, I would say undergrad matters for grad school, if you’re looking at the top.</p>
<p>^^ Are you saying once you get out of the top 30 universities, it doesn’t matter as much where you attend? Like attending a university ranked in the 50s is no better than attending one thats in the 90s? </p>
<p>I’m not doubting that this is true, I’m just curious about it.</p>
<p>Also I think that grad school admissions aren’t as dependent on the undergrad institution as often made out to be. I think it helps a fair bit with law school admits, but Med and Business and most other grad schools are far more concerned with your gpa, test scores and volunteer work, than the actual university you went to.</p>
<p>I think there is the very best, the best, the better, and the worse. That being HYP and such at the very best, NU, Duke, lower Ivies, top publics being the best, other flagships, and good private schools being the good, and public schools that accept 95%, private schools that aren’t that great, etc. being the worse. (Depends on the field though… MIT engineering good, but if you want to be an English teacher, not so much)</p>
<p>Being from the very best helps you for everything. Being a Harvard grad will pretty much help you at any job. Being from the best helps you with top grad schools, and such, but isn’t a huge boost or anything. Being from the good won’t help, but won’t hinder. It will ALL be on your skill. Being from the worse is a hinderance. You’ll have to fight for top jobs and such.</p>
<p>Of course it is. There is no more fact of the matter here than there is in any of the other silly disputes I listed (Glenda Jackson is a British Actress and MP, the things with the weird names are single malt scotches.) </p>
<p>It depends what you’re looking for in a university. Comparing a school the size of Mich to to NU is like comparing NU to Vassar. They’re different animals. </p>
<p>But I don’t say this to discourage the back-yapping. It’s fun both for the participants and for the audience. </p>
<p>Ah, well there’d be the reason I don’t know them. I think it’d be awkward to walk in a bar and totally butcher the pronunciation of one of those, haha</p>