<p>Hawkette, your four points are valid, but not everybody shares your sentiment on their importance, or how statistics can accurately capture variances in quality. For example, according to several sources, including the USNWR, Michigan's student body is among the top 20 in the nation. The value of class size is hard to measure. And even if you could, most universities will have very large classes and tiny little classes, How they present class size is hard to read. And many people value other criteria more than your four. Some value raw strengths of academic offerings above all else. Academically, we can all agree that Michigan is among the top in terms of faculty, curriculum and departmental strength. Michigan is also among the top universities in terms of academic reputation and brand name. Others want a very well rounded undergraduate experience, complete with school spirit, alumni network, great college town, lively campus, political activism, global impact and feel and popular athletic traditions. Again, Michigan is definitely one of the more well-rounded universities.</p>
<p>^ You mean there truly "is a Michigan difference"? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Lower quality average student body
2. Larger average class sizes
3. Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates
4. Lower financial resources per capita </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know what the "Classroom Teaching Excellence" things refers to, but don't worry, chemgrad, it cannot POSSIBLY be that 1995 survey. How do we know? Because there is NO DATA anywhere in that 1995 survey that addresses "Classroom excellence." Respondents, as hawkette knows very well, were asked about "Commitment to undergraduate teaching," not excellence in the classroom. She must be referring to some other survey, because why would a person so committed to helping readers deliberately mislead them about the nature of that data?</p>
<p>And hawkette, I appreciate your assurances that your invitations for me to create my own ranking (or whatever) are meant in a kindly way. It's not the first time you've addressed critiques of your threads in this way (i.e. "if you don't like what I've posted, start your own thread, do your own ranking, post your own data etc") and however warmly you mean the invitation, it does come across as a challenge sometimes, but perhaps that's just my sole perception.</p>
<p>Bc,
Maybe someone reading will know what USNWR is counting with its “non need based aid” and can inform us. IMO, it’s ludicrous to interpret this information as merit aid when you sometimes have as many as 100% of the students receiving it.</p>
<p>And thanks for calling me a liar. Old habits die hard, I guess.</p>
<p>Alex,
Finally, the semblance of a cordial response. I agree with much of what you wrote including your concluding sentence,</p>
<p>“Michigan is definitely one of the more well-rounded universities.”</p>
<p>I agree and have never claimed otherwise. Our differences are in how it compares to other state Us and privates. We disagree on U Michigan because we differ on what we value in judging colleges. </p>
<p>Based on the things that I consider as important for judging an undergraduate academic environment,
1. Strong peers for classmates
2. Small classes sizes that permit and promote interaction with profs and classmates
3. Faculty that make undergraduate teaching a priority by working closely with these students, deliver a good classroom experience and work for an institution that has this reputation.
4. Financial resources that help make possible a wide range of services for undergraduates</p>
<p>I place U Michigan in the Top 6 state universities (with UC Berkeley, U Virginia, UCLA, U North Carolina and W&M) and in the Top 30-40 when compared with private national universities. </p>
<p>I know that you and the Michigan partisans adore institutional measurements like Peer Assessment scoring or rankings reflecting research strength. I don’t begrudge you those rankings, although I would disagree with their benefit to most students in their choice of an undergraduate school. An important exception to this might be something like an Honors Program at a major State U where one can get the many characteristics that I extol while getting them in a research setting that is favored by people like you and those in academia.</p>
<p>Hawkette, the University of Michigan meets all 4 of the criteria you want, but if you don't think so, whatever.</p>
<p>"2. Small classes sizes that permit and promote interaction with profs and classmates
3. Faculty that make undergraduate teaching a priority by working closely with these students, deliver a good classroom experience and work for an institution that has this reputation."</p>
<p>Does Harvard meet this criteria?</p>
<p>"3. Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates"</p>
<p>"I don't know what the "Classroom Teaching Excellence" things refers to, but don't worry, chemgrad, it cannot POSSIBLY be that 1995 survey. How do we know? Because there is NO DATA anywhere in that 1995 survey that addresses "Classroom excellence." "</p>
<p>Is Hoedown, correct?</p>
<p>Less acclaimed? Please explain this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. You insinuated (post #134) that Michigan's claim of providing non-need-based aid to 94% of its in-state freshman was not believable. In other words, you seemed to be suggesting that they were lying. I merely pointed out that their stats are not out of line with many other state universities, and that this lends credence to their claim---unless, I suggested, you somehow think they're ALL lying. In what sense does this amount to my "calling you a liar." Am I missing something? And what exactly do you mean by "old habits die hard"? I've disagreed with you frequently, sometimes heatedly. I do think you quite consistently tend to package and sometimes "massage" data in a way that casts the University of Michigan in a particularly unfavorable light---far more than any other poster I've encountered on CC. I don't think that amounts to calling you a liar, an accusation others have leveled from time to time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe someone reading will know what USNWR is counting with its “non need based aid” and can inform us. IMO, it’s ludicrous to interpret this information as merit aid when you sometimes have as many as 100% of the students receiving it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Non-need-based aid is just what it says what it it is---FA awarded not on the basis of calculated need but on some other basis. Whether you call it "merit" aid or not is a semantical question, though in common parlance on CC and elsewhere aid falls into one of two categories, "need-based" or "merit," so in common usage if it's FA and it's not need-based then it's going to be "merit." You find it counterintuitive that aid that extends to 100% of in-state freshman could be considered "merit." I would note that there is no absolute threshold of what counts as "merit." Some states have non-need-based college financial aid programs that award scholarships to any state resident who meets minimum HS GPA, course distribution, and test score standards, and has the academic qualifications to be admitted to, is admitted to, and actually enrolls in a public university in the state. (An example is Florida's "Bright Futures" scholarship program). You say that can't be "merit" aid because it's an automatic entitlement for anyone who meets minimum program thresholds, applies, qualifies, is accepted at an in-state public university, and enrolls. I say "bunk." The state legislature is entitled to set the merit bar wherever it wants, and if it sets the bar at a level that everyone or nearly everyone attending a particular college or university qualifies for, that's fine by me. The recipients of the aid truly don't give a hoot whether we call it "merit aid" or something else; money is money, it helps pay the bills, and whether 1% or 100% of in-state freshman qualify is quite beside the point. It would clearly be misleading to call aid of this type "need-based," so it's classified by US News as "non-need-based," and in common parlance "merit." What's relevant to students is how available such aid is, and the amount.</p>
<p>At other schools the criteria may be more indefinite, even somewhat subjective, but again if the aid is awarded on the basis of criteria other than need then it's "non-need-based aid." At some schools--and the University of Michigan is clearly one---non-need-based aid comes from a multiplicity of programs and sources, each with its own criteria. I pointed you in the direction of listings of those programs. What's so hard to understand about that?</p>
<p>Good question Dstark, not only does Harvard probably not meet those criteria, neither do most of Michigan's peer institutions. </p>
<p>Hawkette, your argument is weak because it is either impossible to prove or inaccurate. For example, how can you prove how dedicated a faculty is to undergraduate education? All research universities have faculties that will not commit too much time and resources to their undergraduate students. That is a sentiment most honest/realistic people who attended top universities will admit to. But back to your four valid points:</p>
<p>"1. Lower quality average student body"
As I pointed above, Michigan arguably has one of the top 20 undergraduate student bodies. The USNWR is one of many sources that substantiate this. They ranked Michigan the 18th most selective university in the US. My personal exposure to major universities reflects a similar finding. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Larger average class sizes
That may be true, but it is impossible to translate. Are identicfal classes at Michigan larger than those at peer institutions? I am not so sure. When comparing similar classes (intro to Psych or intermediate Econ etc...), my friends who attended elite private universities such as Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford etc... had equally large classes and similar exsposure to TAs. Admitedly, in some casses, Michigan had larger classes, but even then, we are talking about 10%-20% larger. But by and large, classes were almost identical in size and TAs were equally active in most casses. Besides, in many instances, class size is irrelavant when it comes to effectiveness. In some casses, it obviously matters, but like I said, it is impossible to determine if those benefits are in fact materialized in a particular institution simply by examining class-size data for that institution. I can say from personal experience that classes in popular majors at most elite universities will usually be large, but manageably so. </p></li>
<li><p>Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates
I have no idea how you can measure this. Most elite research universities are not known for focusing on class instruction. Even smaller schools like Brown, Columbia, Duke etc.... have TAs leading discussion groups, teaching basic Math and Foreign Language classes and very large lectures for popular introduction level courses such as Biology, Economics, Political Science and Psychology. </p></li>
<li><p>Lower financial resources per capita
Not entirely correct. Michigan's endowment per capita, among research universities, places it among the top 30. However, as a publically funded university, Michigan has sources of income that private universities do not have. And you cannot discount economies of scale. Most universities with larger endowments per capita are significantly smaller than Michigan. When all is said and done, Michigan is probably one of the top 20 universities from a financial point of view. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>So clearly, those 4 points do not expose Michigan as being significantly, if at all, weaker than the top 20 private universities. And there are many other criteria that may matter more to many. For example, quality of faculty, breadth and depth of curriculum and course offerings, academic strengths in specific fields, reputation in academic circles (this is especially helpful for undergrads who wish to apply to graduate school), access to cutting-edge research, alumni loyalty and pride, school spirit, intellectual atmoshpere, quality of facilities, on-campus recruitment activity etc... How does Michigan do in those domains. Are there really 20 private research universities that are better than Michigan overall?</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO, it’s ludicrous to interpret this information as merit aid when you sometimes have as many as 100% of the students receiving it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is not ludicrous. Not if they include state programs (which they might--I don't know what the USNews guidelines are). As bclintonk notes, you should consider states which offers merit aid to students who stay in-state and score above a certain minimum on an achievement test or admissions test. While it would be difficult to imagine that 100% of the students in the entire state would get that aid, it is entirely plausible that the cutoff the state sets will end up including nearly 100% of the residents who enroll at the state's flagship or a desirable private in the state. Michigan has such a program, as it happens--it was one of the ways that the state elected to disburse the Tobacco Settlement money. Georgia's generous program is funded by lottery proceeds, I believe.</p>
<p>Alex and other U Michigan posters,</p>
<p>In response to your comments re the 4 criteria that have been set out as effective markers for comparing undergraduate academic environments, let's break this down and look first at selectivity. </p>
<p>The most commonly used statistical measurements for comparing student bodies at different colleges are:
a. Standardized test scores (CR, Math, ACT)
b. % of students who graduate in the Top 10% of their high school class
c. Acceptance Rate</p>
<p>Different folks will weight these factors differently and that is a major reason why I don't accept the Selectivity rankings of USNWR as they subjectively assign a weighting to each ranking element. I would counsel looking at each element individually and judging the usefulness of the information provided.</p>
<p>In reviewing the data for the USNWR Top 50 National Universities, the inescapable conclusion is that U Michigan's selectivity is high only in the measurement for the Top 10% students (though not when compared to public universities). The other measurements have U Michigan much farther down the list. </p>
<p>Based on my review of the data for all of these schools, I conclude that U Michigan's selectivity is among the top 6 public universities and among the top 30-40 national universities. </p>
<p>See below for individualized data for all of the schools in the comparison group.</p>
<p>CRITICAL READING:
23% = U Michigan % of students scoring 700+
37th overall = Rank out of 51 colleges that have been compared
6th among public universities out of 17 that have been compared</p>
<p>Closest Public Comps within 3%: UCLA (22%), Georgia Tech (21%). W&M, UC Berkeley, U Virginia and U North Carolina are all higher.</p>
<p>Closest Private Comps within 3%: Wake Forest (26%), U Rochester (25%), Case Western (25%), Rensselaer (24%). The only lower private is Lehigh (18%).</p>
<p>Rank , % of students scoring 700+ on SAT CR , National University</p>
<p>1 , na , Harvard (no information available, but I am assiging Harvard a co-# 1 ranking)
1 , 80% , Caltech
3 , 77% , Yale
4 , 73% , Princeton
5 , 65% , Columbia
5 , 65% , Dartmouth
7 , 64% , U Chicago
7 , 64% , Wash U
9 , 61% , Stanford
9 , 61% , Northwestern
9 , 61% , Brown
12 , 60% , Duke
12 , 60% , Tufts
14 , 59% , MIT
15 , 57% , Georgetown
16 , 55% , U Penn
17 , 53% , Rice
18 , 51% , Notre Dame
19 , 48% , Emory
20 , 46% , Vanderbilt
21 , 45% , W&M
22 , 42% , Cornell
22 , 42% , Johns Hopkins
22 , 42% , Brandeis
25 , 35% , USC
26 , 33% , Carnegie Mellon
26 , 33% , Tulane
28 , 32% , UC Berkeley
28 , 32% , NYU
30 , 31% , Boston Coll
31 , 29% , U Virginia
32 , 27% , U North Carolina
33 , 26% , Wake Forest
34 , 25% , U Rochester
34 , 25% , Case Western
36 , 24% , Rensselaer
37 , 23% , U Michigan
38 , 22% , UCLA
39 , 21% , Georgia Tech
40 , 18% , Lehigh
41 , 17% , U Wisconsin
41 , 17% , U Texas
41 , 17% , Yeshiva
44 , 16% , U Illinois
44 , 16% , U Florida
46 , 14% , UCSD
47 , 12% , U Washington
48 , 11% , UC Santa Barbara
49 , 8% , UC Irvine
50 , 7% , UC Davis
50 , 7% , Penn State</p>
<p>MATH:
43% = U Michigan % of students scoring 700+
30th overall = Rank out of 51 colleges that have been compared
4th/5th among public universities out of 17 that have been compared</p>
<p>Closest Public Comps within 3%: Tied with UCLA (43%). Georgia Tech (45%), U Illinois (46%). UC Berkeley is higher by more than 3%.</p>
<p>Closest Private Comps within 3%: Brandeis (46%), Boston College (41%). Six other privates are lower by more than 3%. </p>
<p>Rank , % of students scoring 700+ on SAT Math , National University</p>
<p>1 , na , Harvard (no information available, but I am assiging Harvard a co-# 1 ranking)
1 , 100% , Caltech
3 , 87% , MIT
4 , 77% , Yale
5 , 75% , Princeton
6 , 74% , Wash U
7 , 68% , Duke
8 , 67% , Stanford
8 , 67% , U Penn
8 , 67% , Columbia
8 , 67% , Carnegie Mellon
12 , 66% , Northwestern
12 , 66% , Brown
14 , 65% , Dartmouth
15 , 64% , Rice
16 , 59% , U Chicago
16 , 59% , Cornell
16 , 59% , Johns Hopkins
19 , 58% , Notre Dame
20 , 57% , Tufts
21 , 56% , Emory
22 , 54% , Vanderbilt
23 , 50% , Georgetown
24 , 47% , Rensselaer
25 , 46% , UC Berkeley
25 , 46% , USC
25 , 46% , Brandeis
25 , 46% , U Illinois
29 , 45% , Georgia Tech
30 , 43% , UCLA
30 , 43% , U Michigan
32 , 41% , Boston Coll
33 , 38% , Case Western
34 , 36% , U Virginia
35 , 35% , NYU
36 , 34% , Lehigh
36 , 34% , U Rochester
38 , 32% , Wake Forest
38 , 32% , W&M
38 , 32% , U Wisconsin
41 , 30% , UCSD
42 , 29% , U North Carolina
43 , 25% , U Texas
44 , 21% , U Florida
45 , 17% , UC Irvine
46 , 16% , U Washington
46 , 16% , Yeshiva
46 , 16% , Tulane
49 , 14% , Penn State
50 , 13% , UC Davis
50 , 13% , UC Santa Barbara</p>
<p>"2. Small classes sizes that permit and promote interaction with profs and classmates
3. Faculty that make undergraduate teaching a priority by working closely with these students, deliver a good classroom experience and work for an institution that has this reputation."</p>
<p>Does Harvard meet this criteria?</p>
<p>"3. Less acclaimed for Classroom Teaching Excellence vs most Top 20 privates"</p>
<p>"I don't know what the "Classroom Teaching Excellence" things refers to, but don't worry, chemgrad, it cannot POSSIBLY be that 1995 survey. How do we know? Because there is NO DATA anywhere in that 1995 survey that addresses "Classroom excellence." "</p>
<p>Is Hoedown, correct?</p>
<p>Less acclaimed? Please explain this."</p>
<p>ACT:
43% = U Michigan % of students scoring 30+
25th overall = Rank out of 41 colleges that have been compared. Several privates don't report ACT scorers, including Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Wake Forest, Boston College, Lehigh.<br>
2nd among public universities out of 13 that have been compared. Several publics don't report ACT scorers, including UC Berkeley and U Virginia.</p>
<p>Closest Public Comps within 3%: W&M (46%). </p>
<p>Closest Private Comps within 3%: Tied with NYU (43%). Case Western (46%), U Rochester 43%. Two other privates (Tulane, Rensselaer) are lower by more than 3%. </p>
<pre><code>Only 40 of the USNWR Top 50 provide information on ACT scores. Those that do not are Harvard, Yale, UCB, U Virginia, Georgetown, Wake Forest, Boston College, Lehigh, UC Irvine, Penn State
</code></pre>
<p>Rank , % of students scoring 30+ on ACT , National University</p>
<p>1 , 99% , Caltech
2 , 87% , MIT
3 , 83% , Notre Dame
4 , 80% , Wash U
5 , 79% , Columbia
6 , 77% , Princeton
7 , 76% , Northwestern
7 , 76% , Tufts
9 , 72% , Duke
10 , 71% , Rice
11 , 70% , U Penn
11 , 70% , Emory
11 , 70% , Vanderbilt
14 , 69% , Stanford
15 , 67% , Dartmouth
16 , 65% , Johns Hopkins
17 , 63% , Brown
18 , 62% , Carnegie Mellon
19 , 61% , Brandeis
20 , 58% , U Chicago
20 , 58% , Cornell
22 , 57% , USC
23 , 46% , W&M
23 , 46% , Case Western
25 , 45% , U Michigan
25 , 45% , NYU
27 , 43% , U Rochester
28 , 38% , Tulane
29 , 37% , Georgia Tech
30 , 36% , U Illinois
31 , 35% , UCLA
31 , 35% , U North Carolina
33 , 32% , U Wisconsin
34 , 27% , Yeshiva
35 , 25% , U Texas
36 , 23% , UCSD
36 , 23% , U Florida
38 , 21% , U Washington
39 , 18% , UC Santa Barbara
40 , 17% , Rensselaer
41 , 10% , UC Davis</p>
<p>TOP 10% STUDENTS:
92% = U Michigan % of students than ranked in the Top 10% of their high school class
16th overall = Rank out of 51 colleges that have been compared.<br>
7th among public universities out of 17 that have been compared</p>
<p>Closest Public Comps within 3%: UC Davis (95%). </p>
<p>Closest Private Comps within 3%: Harvard (96%), Wash U (95%), Columbia (94%), Lehigh (93%), Brown (92%), Stanford (91%), Dartmouth (91%), Duke (90%), Georgetown (90%)</p>
<p>Rank , % of Top 10% scorers , National University</p>
<p>1 , 99% , Caltech
1 , 99% , UC Berkeley
1 , 99% , UCSD
4 , 97% , Yale
4 , 97% , MIT
6 , 97% , UCLA
6 , 96% , Princeton
6 , 96% , U Penn
6 , 96% , UC Irvine
6 , 96% , UC Santa Barbara
11 , 95% , Harvard
11 , 95% , Wash U
11 , 95% , UC Davis
14 , 94% , Columbia
15 , 93% , Lehigh
16 , 92% , Brown
16 , 92% , U Michigan
18 , 91% , Stanford
18 , 91% , Dartmouth
20 , 90% , Duke
20 , 90% , Georgetown
22 , 88% , Emory
23 , 87% , Cornell
23 , 87% , U Virginia
25 , 86% , Notre Dame
25 , 86% , USC
25 , 86% , U Washington
28 , 85% , Northwestern
29 , 83% , U Chicago
29 , 83% , Rice
31 , 82% , Johns Hopkins
32 , 80% , Vanderbilt
32 , 80% , Tufts
32 , 80% , Boston Coll
35 , 79% , Brandeis
35 , 79% , W&M
37 , 76% , U North Carolina
37 , 76% , U Florida
39 , 73% , Carnegie Mellon
40 , 72% , U Rochester
41 , 69% , U Texas
42 , 66% , NYU
42 , 66% , Georgia Tech
42 , 66% , Case Western
45 , 64% , Wake Forest
45 , 64% , Rensselaer
47 , 61% , Yeshiva
48 , 60% , U Wisconsin
49 , 55% , U Illinois
50 , 50% , Tulane
51 , 45% , Penn State</p>
<p>
So your only criteria is student selectivity?</p>
<p>ACCEPTANCE RATE:
50% = U Michigan % of students than ranked in the Top 10% of their high school class
40th overall = Rank out of 51 colleges that have been compared.<br>
8th among public universities out of 17 that have been compared</p>
<p>Closest Public Comps within 3%: Penn State (51%), U Texas (51%), UC Santa Barbara (54%), </p>
<p>Closest Private Comps within 3%: None. The only private with a higher Acceptance Rate is Case Western. </p>
<p>Rank , Acceptance Rate , National University</p>
<p>1 , 9% , Harvard
2 , 10% , Princeton
2 , 10% , Yale
2 , 10% , Stanford
5 , 11% , Columbia
6 , 12% , MIT
7 , 14% , Brown
8 , 15% , Dartmouth
9 , 16% , U Penn
10 , 17% , Caltech
10 , 17% , Wash U
12 , 21% , Cornell
12 , 21% , Georgetown
14 , 23% , Duke
14 , 23% , UC Berkeley
16 , 24% , Johns Hopkins
16 , 24% , UCLA
18 , 25% , Rice
18 , 25% , USC
20 , 27% , Northwestern
20 , 27% , Emory
20 , 27% , Tufts
20 , 27% , Boston Coll
24 , 28% , Carnegie Mellon
25 , 32% , Lehigh
26 , 33% , Vanderbilt
26 , 33% , Notre Dame
28 , 34% , Brandeis
28 , 34% , W&M
30 , 35% , U Chicago
30 , 35% , U Virginia
30 , 35% , U North Carolina
33 , 37% , NYU
34 , 41% , U Rochester
35 , 42% , Wake Forest
35 , 42% , U Florida
37 , 43% , UCSD
38 , 44% , Tulane
39 , 49% , Rensselaer
40 , 50% , U Michigan
41 , 51% , Penn State
41 , 51% , U Texas
43 , 54% , UC Santa Barbara
44 , 56% , U Wisconsin
44 , 56% , UC Irvine
46 , 59% , UC Davis
47 , 63% , Georgia Tech
48 , 65% , U Washington
49 , 69% , Yeshiva
50 , 71% , U Illinois
51 , 75% , Case Western</p>
<p>"MATH:
43% = U Michigan % of students scoring 700+</p>
<p>That is a huge number." Objective data. Just a huge number. </p>
<p>There are more students with that score at Michigan than total students at almost any private school in the top 50.</p>
<p>UCB,
The discussion has gotten too diffused and I'd like to narrow it down to one area at a time. Selectivity first and then we'll get to the other 3 foundations of a good undergraduate environment (class size, good teaching, good resources).</p>
<p>Hawkette, Michigan student body is among the most accomplished. I do not pretend to know how to capture the concept of "quality" when it comes to an entire student body, but I do not think it can be done simply by looking at standarized test scores, especially since some schools superscore and others do not and even more so because many universitie place a lot of importance on those test scores whereas others de-emphasize them. I think GPA and class rank is a more telling indicator of student quality if those students come from upper middle income areas, which is the case with the majority of Michigan students. </p>
<p>As for class size and good teaching, I think I proved that there is no way of measuring those accurately. </p>
<p>And as for resources, given its size (economies of scale) and public funding, Michigan is arguably in the top 10, definitely among the top 25 among universities. Even if you completely ignore state funding and economies of scale, on a per capita basis, Michigan is among the top 25 or top 30. But one cannot ignore the $300 million+ that Michigan gets from the state, or the Economies of scale that comes from having 40,000 students.</p>
<p>And you keep ignoring all the other important factors I mentioned above, in which Michigan is among the top 5 or 10 nationally. Overall, you have not proven that 20 private universities are clearly better than Michigan.</p>
<p>Important criteria for undergraduate education at research universities:</p>
<ol>
<li>Quality of student body</li>
<li>Class sizes</li>
<li>Commitment to undergraduate teaching</li>
<li>Financial resources</li>
<li>Faculty quality (i.e., faculties who are leaders in their fields)</li>
<li>Leading-edge research and facilities</li>
<li>Breadth and depth of curriculum offerings</li>
<li>Career and graduate school (all graduate programs) placements
and more...</li>
</ol>
<p>1-3 are important for your freshman and sophomore years
5-7 are important for your junior and senior years</p>