<p>I know that I'm definitely going into Neuroscience/Biology in college. I also know that UMich and UCLA both have stellar science departments but between all three colleges, UVa has the most decent financial aid. I'm very conflicted right now and I really don't know what to do. My parents cannot help me much either as they do not know the details about each of these schools. For them, only USNWR rankings matter. </p>
<p>Help, anyone?</p>
<p>Put some more context to this…what are your out-of-pocket costs going to be for each option?</p>
<p>Well, in terms of the science department, which would be the best to attend?</p>
<p>Michigan>UCLA>UVA</p>
<p>rjkofnovi,</p>
<p>Are you serious? </p>
<p>In terms of admit rate, UCLA>UVA>Michigan</p>
<p>In terms of prestige, UCLA>Michigan>UVA</p>
<p>The USNWR does not differentiate between Michigan, UCLA and UVa as all are always ranked within 1-4 spots of each other every single year. That’s out of hundreds of universities. </p>
<p>hattorihanzo, admit rates aren’t a measure of quality at that level. As far as prestige is concerned, it depends on location, but overall, those are three highly regarded universities, with Michigan having a slight edge over UVa and UVa a slight edge over UCLA. </p>
<p>Of course, on the West Coast, UCLA will be slightly more prestigious than Michigan and significantly more prestigous than UVa and on the East Coast, UVa will be slightly more prestigious than Michigan and significantly more prestigious than UVa. In the Midwest, Michigan is more prestigious than UCLA and UVa. Again, there are pockets within those regions. For example, in NYC, Michigan is as prestigious as UVa. </p>
<p>Internationally, Michigan has the edge over UCLA and UVa in Europe and Michigan and UCLA have the edge over UVa in Asia. Again, there are pockets in those regions. For example, in some parts of Asia, UCLA is more prestigious than Michigan. </p>
<p>In terms of academic quality, all three are excellent.</p>
<p>“Are you serious?”</p>
<p>Quite serious thank you.</p>
<p>In terms of the question that was asked, rjk has the correct order.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>I agree that UCLA, Michigan and UVA are excellent schools in terms of academic quality. However, who says that Michigan has a slight edge over UVA and UVA a slight edge over UCLA?</p>
<p>As opposed to your belief, acceptance rate is one of the criteria that determine the prestige of a university.</p>
<p>In the Fast East Asia (Japan, Korea, China and Hong Kong), UCLA is more prestigious than Michigan and UVA. On the West Coast, UCLA is significantly more prestigious than Michigan and UVA. In general, high school students on the West Coast consider Michigan and UVA as safety schools to Ivy League schools whereas UCLA is not. Most of high school students on the East Coast and the Midwest know that UCLA is more selective than Michigan and UVA.</p>
<p>According to the Princeton Review, high school students and parents have chosen UCLA as one of the top 10 dream colleges they would most like to attend or see their child attend whereas Michigan and UVA didn’t crack the top 10.</p>
<p>Even major international publications perennially rank UCLA ahead of Michigan and UVA.</p>
<p>If USNWR wouldn’t base their rankings on such factors as the size of endowment and alumni giving rate, UCLA would be in the top 20 universities whereas rankings of Michigan and UVA wouldn’t be affected.</p>
<p>Hattorihanzo, do you have any data to support your claims?</p>
<p>BIOLOGY RANKINGS:</p>
<h1>15 Michigan (tied with Columbia and Wisconsin)</h1>
<h1>23 UCLA (tied with UCD and UT-Austin)</h1>
<h1>42 UVa</h1>
<p>PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE:
This is a pretty good indicator of Institutional Prestige in academic circles:
Michigan: 4.4/5.0
UVa: 4.3/5.0
UCLA: 4.2/5.0</p>
<p>EUROPEAN RANKING OF INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
[Times</a> Higher Education](<a href=“Times Higher Education home | Times Higher Education (THE)”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=438)</p>
<p>CHINESE RANKING OF INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
[ARWU</a> 2009](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp)</p>
<p>MID 50% SAT
UVa (super-scored): 1230-1440 (1335 average)
Michigan: 1230-1430 (1330 average)
UCLA: 1170-1410 (1290 average)</p>
<p>MID 50% ACT RANGE
UVa: 27-32 (29.5 average)
Michigan: 27-31 (29 average)
UCLA: 24-31 (27.5 average)</p>
<p>[UCLA</a> Office of Analysis and Information Management | AIM](<a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsformC.asp]UCLA”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsformC.asp)</p>
<p><a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
<p>[Common</a> Data Set: Institutional Assessment and Studies, University of Virginia](<a href=“http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/datacatalog/cds/admission.shtm]Common”>http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/datacatalog/cds/admission.shtm)</p>
<p>Overall, it would seem that Michigan has a slight advantage over UCLA.</p>
<p>“I agree that UCLA, Michigan and UVA are excellent schools in terms of academic quality. However, who says that Michigan has a slight edge over UVA and UVA a slight edge over UCLA?”</p>
<p>As I said, all three universities are elite. They are all legitimate top 20 universities. If there is an edge, it is truly tiny. But I do believe most of the information availlable gives the edge to Michigan.</p>
<p>“As opposed to your belief, acceptance rate is one of the criteria that determine the prestige of a university.”</p>
<p>It isn’t Hattorihanzo. Just because a university rejects many students does not make it prestigious. It may impress 16-19 year olds and uneducated parents, but in most well-educated and well-informed circles, acceptance rates mean very little. Prestige is based mainly on the overall quality of the university (faculty, facilities, curriculum) and the wealth and influence of its alumni. Besides, UCLA’s student body is not stronger than Michigan’s, so its admitedly much lower acceptance rate would indicate that most of the students UCLA rejects are underqualified.</p>
<p>“According to the Princeton Review, high school students and parents have chosen UCLA as one of the top 10 dream colleges they would most like to attend or see their child attend whereas Michigan and UVA didn’t crack the top 10.”</p>
<p>Hattorihanzo, the Princeton Review is not a reliable source. They giveschools like Brown, Michigan and UCLA academic ratings of 85 and unheard of university like Wheaton academic ratings of 95!</p>
<p>“Even major international publications perennially rank UCLA ahead of Michigan and UVA.”</p>
<p>The ARWU (Chinese) ranking does indeed rank UCLA slightly higher than Michigan (#11 vs #18). The Times ranks Michigan slightly higher than UCLA (#14 vs #17). Like I said, from my personal observations, Michigan is more highly regarded than UCLA in Europe and UCLA has a slight edge over Michigan in Asia.</p>
<p>“If USNWR wouldn’t base their rankings on such factors as the size of endowment and alumni giving rate, UCLA would be in the top 20 universities whereas rankings of Michigan and UVA wouldn’t be affected.”</p>
<p>You do realize that Michigan’s alumni giving rate is not better than UCLA’s right? This is one criteria that hurts both Michigan and UCLA. If the USNWR rated universities according to academic quality and reputation, Michigan would probably be ranked higher than UCLA. Michigan’s academic departments are generally ranked slightly higher than UCLA’s. Furthermore, do not downplay the importance of endowment. A university’s financial stability is very important. Ask the folks enrolled at the UCs and they will tell you how nervous they are about their universties’ financial woes. The fact that Michigan’s endowment is three times larger than UCLA’s is indeed part of what makes it slightly better overall.</p>
<p>The info that I really think would help the OP, considering the neuro/bio major, is to compare what research opportunities are available as an undergrad. Check each school’s list of faculty and look at the research they’re doing. Find-out if you are likely to be able to work with them as an undergrad.</p>
<p>I don’t know about how undergrad research works at UVA or UCLA, but at Michigan, the UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program) can be great and will give you research experience helpful for grad/med school applications. I think your lab hours can also count as work/study employment if you qualify for it.</p>
<p>Thank you for this information. I did not know that Michigan has a slight advantage over UCLA in terms of Biology/Neuroscience. This does certainly change a lot of things. </p>
<p>But as for your ACT range for UCLA, it has changed in 2009 so now it is 28-31 which is, I admit, a drastic difference but in terms of selectivity, UCLA and UVA are the most selective public universities in the U.S. along with Berkeley.</p>
<p>^^^Then go with the most selective school instead of the best one.</p>
<p>azarap, the ACT ranges in the CDS above are for 2009. The 28-31 figure may have been for admitted students (at Michigan, it was 28-32). </p>
<p>“UCLA and UVA are the most selective public universities in the U.S. along with Berkeley.”</p>
<p>UCLA is not more selective than Michigan overall, neither is UVa, although they are admittedly harder to get into for OOS students. In terms of student quality, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UNC and UVa are all roughly equal.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>“PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE:
This is a pretty good indicator of Institutional Prestige in academic circles:
Michigan: 4.4/5.0
UVa: 4.3/5.0
UCLA: 4.2/5.0”</p>
<p>The difference between 4.2 (UCLA) and Michigan (4.4) is not significant. </p>
<p>“EUROPEAN RANKING OF INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
Times Higher Education”</p>
<p>Times Higher Education rankings are obnoxiously inaccurate and are worthless to mention. How can they rank University of Hong Kong (#24) higher than UCLA (#32) and UC Berkeley (#39)? Their 2006 and 2007 rankings are more objective. Only morons would trust Times Higher Education rankings, right?</p>
<p>”CHINESE RANKING OF INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
ARWU 2009”</p>
<p>ARWU 2009 is significantly more objective and consistent than Time Higher Education.</p>
<p>”MID 50% SAT
UVa (super-scored): 1230-1440 (1335 average)
Michigan: 1230-1430 (1330 average)
UCLA: 1170-1410 (1290 average)</p>
<p>MID 50% ACT RANGE
UVa: 27-32 (29.5 average)
Michigan: 27-31 (29 average)
UCLA: 24-31 (27.5 average)”</p>
<p>Michigan’s mid 50% SAT score is slightly higher than UCLA. So what? Is College of William and Mary more prestigious than Michigan because mid 50% SAT score (1250-1440) of College of William and Mary is higher than Michigan? According to your logic, College of William and Mary must be more prestigious than Michigan because their mid 50% SAT score is higher than Michigan.</p>
<p>“UCLA Office of Analysis and Information Management | AIM</p>
<p>[UM.SiteMaker:</a> Message](<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning)</p>
<p>Common Data Set: Institutional Assessment and Studies, University of Virginia</p>
<p>Overall, it would seem that Michigan has a slight advantage over UCLA.”</p>
<p>You are wrong. You love to judge the strength of a university solely on the basis of average SAT score although your alma mater’s average SAT score is not much to boast of. </p>
<p>According to the USNWR, </p>
<p>Freshman in top 10% of HS class:
UCLA: 97%
Michigan: 92% </p>
<p>Average freshman retention rate:
UCLA: 97%
Michigan: 96%</p>
<p>“As I said, all three universities are elite. They are all legitimate top 20 universities. If there is an edge, it is truly tiny. But I do believe most of the information available gives the edge to Michigan.”</p>
<p>I disagree again. The USNWR ranks UCLA higher than Michigan although peer assessment score, sizes of endowment, alumni giving rank and alumni giving rate favor Michigan. ARWU 2009 clearly favors UCLA. You and I know that Times Higher Education rankings are worthless to mention as they began to favor British, Canadian, Australian and Hong Kong universities since 2008.</p>
<p>”It isn’t Hattorihanzo. Just because a university rejects many students does not make it prestigious. It may impress 16-19 year olds and uneducated parents, but in most well-educated and well-informed circles, acceptance rates mean very little. Prestige is based mainly on the overall quality of the university (faculty, facilities, curriculum) and the wealth and influence of its alumni. Besides, UCLA’s student body is not stronger than Michigan’s, so its admittedly much lower acceptance rate would indicate that most of the students UCLA rejects are underqualified.”</p>
<p>Acceptance rates mean a lot even in most well-educated and well-informed circles. According to the profile of admitted freshmen for Fall 2009, UCLA rejected 13,994 applicants whose weighted GPA was 4.0 and above, 3,319 applicants whose SAT Critical Reading section score was in the range of 700-800 and 6,573 applicants whose SAT Math section score was in the range of 700-800. The data indicates that weighted GPA of 4.0 and above, and SAT score of 1500-1600 do not guarantee admissions to UCLA. The data also clearly states that as opposed to your assertion, most of the students UCLA rejects are not under-qualified. If UCLA accepted students the way some private schools do, UCLA’s mid 50% SAT score would be significantly higher. </p>
<p>[Profile</a> of Admitted Freshmen, Fall 2009 - UCLA Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof09.htm]Profile”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof09.htm)</p>
<p>”Hattorihanzo, the Princeton Review is not a reliable source. They giveschools like Brown, Michigan and UCLA academic ratings of 85 and unheard of university like Wheaton academic ratings of 95!”</p>
<p>We are not talking about the Princeton Review’s academic ratings on colleges. I am still curious why Michigan and UVA didn’t crack the top 10 dream colleges whereas UCLA is one of them.</p>
<p>”The ARWU (Chinese) ranking does indeed rank UCLA slightly higher than Michigan (#11 vs #18). The Times ranks Michigan slightly higher than UCLA (#14 vs #17). Like I said, from my personal observations, Michigan is more highly regarded than UCLA in Europe and UCLA has a slight edge over Michigan in Asia.”</p>
<p>From my person observations, UCLA has a significant edge over Michigan in Asia, especially in the Far East Asia. </p>
<p>“You do realize that Michigan’s alumni giving rate is not better than UCLA’s right? This is one criteria that hurts both Michigan and UCLA. If the USNWR rated universities according to academic quality and reputation, Michigan would probably be ranked higher than UCLA. Michigan’s academic departments are generally ranked slightly higher than UCLA’s. Furthermore, do not downplay the importance of endowment. A university’s financial stability is very important. Ask the folks enrolled at the UCs and they will tell you how nervous they are about their universties’ financial woes. The fact that Michigan’s endowment is three times larger than UCLA’s is indeed part of what makes it slightly better overall.”</p>
<p>Michigan’s alumni giving rate is slightly higher than UCLA.</p>
<p>According to the USNWR, </p>
<p>Alumni Giving Rank:
UCLA: #107
Michigan: #79</p>
<p>Average Alumni Giving Rate:
UCLA: 14%
Michigan: 17%</p>
<p>As I indicated before, if USNWR wouldn’t base their rankings on such factors as the size of endowment, alumni giving rank and alumni giving rate, UCLA would be benefited more than Michigan in rankings. </p>
<p>Do you still believe Michigan is more reputable and is ahead of UCLA in academic quality? I don’t think so. Why do you think USNWR ranks UCLA higher than Michigan when peer assessment score, sizes of endowment, alumni giving rank and average alumni giving rate favor Michigan? </p>
<p>Freshman Class Size:
UCLA: 4,563
Michigan: 5,783 (According to College *******)</p>
<p>Average Freshman Retention Rate:
UCLA: 97%
Michigan: 96%</p>
<p>% of Classes under 20:
UCLA: 54%
Michigan: 46%</p>
<p>% of Classes of 50 or more:
UCLA: 20%
Michigan: 18%</p>
<p>You know that Michigan is the most expensive public school. Although UC recently hiked tuition fee, UC is still one of the most inexpensive public universities. As a California resident, I can assure you that it is fallacious to assert that UC is in financial woes. From my observations and experience, sizes of endowment and alumni giving rate have nothing to do with the prestige of a university.</p>
<p>This is what I want to know too!
UVa gives more aid to me than UMich, but it’s not as prestigious as UMich.
UVa has a better climate and an extremely beautiful campus, but UMich’s better at science-related majors.
Tough decision indeed!</p>
<p>Hattorihanzo, I never said Michigan’s SAT scores were significantly higher than UCLA’s, or that SAT averages determined reputation and/or institutional quality. There is virtually no difference between a 1290 and 1330 average. None of the stats you provided above make Michigan better than UCLA or vice versa. Statistically, they are very similar. </p>
<p>I also don’t see how the Times ranking is any less accurate than the ARWU ranking. Both are seriously flawed to be sure, but they represent international reputation in their respective areas. As I said, Michigan would have a tiny advantage over UCLA in Europe and UCLA would have a tiny advantage in Asia.</p>
<p>The USNWR does not rank UCLA higher than Michigan…or vice versa. A 3 spot difference is completely negligible. In the last 20 years, Cal, Michigan, UCLA and UVa have always been ranked within a few spots of each other, some years Michigan was slightly above UCLA, other years, UCLA was slightly above Michigan, but either way, according to the USNWR, they are ranked about the same.</p>
<p>Like I said, those are two elite universities, but if one of those schools has a tiny edge over the other, I think it is Michigan that edges out UCLA. It has more resources, slightly stronger professional programs, a more geographically diverse alumni population and reputation etc…</p>
<p>“You know that Michigan is the most expensive public school. Although UC recently hiked tuition fee, UC is still one of the most inexpensive public universities.”</p>
<p>What? Hattorihanzo, the cost of attending Cal and UCLA is HIGHER than the cost of attending Michigan.</p>
<p>RESIDENTS:
Cal: $30,972
UCLA: $27,425
Michhigan: $24,500</p>
<p>OOS
Cal: $53,851
UCLA: $50,304
Michigan: $48,200</p>
<p>[UC</a> Berkeley Financial Aid Office Cost of Attendance](<a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/finaid/home/cost.htm]UC”>http://students.berkeley.edu/finaid/home/cost.htm)
<a href=“http://www.fao.ucla.edu/publications/2010-2011/UG_&_G_Budgets_for_Web.pdf[/url]”>http://www.fao.ucla.edu/publications/2010-2011/UG_&_G_Budgets_for_Web.pdf</a>
[University</a> of Michigan Office of Financial Aid: Cost of Attendance](<a href=“http://www.finaid.umich.edu/Financial_Aid_Basics/cost.asp]University”>http://www.finaid.umich.edu/Financial_Aid_Basics/cost.asp)</p>
<p>Yeah, I am sure living in Michigan is cheaper than living in California</p>