<p>i chose a first tier private university over michigan, and i’d do it again any day. </p>
<p>michigan may be a good university, but it can’t come anywhere close to offering the same type of education or resources that a small, first or second tier private school offers. michigan is too big, accepts too many students, has a less-qualified student body than the other schools we’re talking about on this thread, and is in a crappy location.</p>
<p>i grew up (partly) in michigan – i have seen that, while a michigan degree takes some people far, it also does very little for a lot of graduates. on the contrary, graduating from a first or second tier private university puts you in good shape for the future.</p>
<p>furthermore, just by the students i know at michigan compared to other private schools, i can assure you that it is far less competitive at michigan… the student body just isn’t as highly qualified. yet this is not to say michigan students are stupid or bad students – like i said, its a great school, just not as great as the top privates that this thread was intended to consider.</p>
Many would. Pomona may not be a brand name but look at its mid-50% SAT scores and you’ll see it’s pretty much the most selective LAC in the nation and up there with HYP as well in terms of selectivity. Most people don’t realize this.</p>
<p>“michigan may be a good university, but it can’t come anywhere close to offering the same type of education or resources that a small, first or second tier private school offers…and is in a crappy location.”</p>
<p>Crappy location? Look, you can be an elitist snob and justify why you chose to go to a private school, that’s your business, but Ann Arbor is NOT in a crappy location. You grew up partly in Michigan? I bet you never stepped foot on the Michigan campus, or if you did you must have gone there with blinders on your eyes. Furthermore according to you, Michigan doesn’t have the same type of resources as any small private first or second tier school? You are delusional.</p>
<p>Haha, Hawkette, isn’t it obvious why RML is “picking” on the schools that “can” be included in this thread’s discussions. It so happens that Emory, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame occupy a spot in the USNews ranking that RML believes to be belonging to his beloved Berkeley. </p>
<p>Of course, the request by the OP to only include top 20 schools and provide the geographical qualifier (truthfully) is not as important as the relentless desire to hijack every thread of this type by introducing the same hackneyed and utterly silly debate about the greatness, the prestige, or the reputation of Berkeley. </p>
<p>I so wish that some day he will be able to attend --or even visit-- one of the schools he pushes so hard and pretends to know something about.</p>
<p>Is this thread about selectivity or is it about lay prestige I am fairly certain we are discussing lay prestige because that’s what I read when I look at the top of the page. Vanderbilt and WUSTL are as selective (if not more selective) than Stanford. But are they more prestigious in the general public’s eyes?</p>
<p>As one who frequently posts in favor of Vanderbilt and Wash U and thinks a lot of those schools and their students, I don’t think that either of Vandy or Wash U is as selective as Stanford. And they definitely are not as prestigious. </p>
<p>What’s missing from all of the data that I and others present is the soft information that is contained in the student’s application. I think it’s clear that all of these schools could ramp up the standardized test scores and class rank data for their students if they chose to practice their admissions in that manner. But holistic admissions are the norm at Stanford, Wash U and Vanderbilt and so the scores may not be fully reflective of the relative student body differences (slight as they may be). My anecdotal impression is that the Stanford kids have a little more oomph to their ECs and other intangibles than would be the case for Wash U and Vanderbilt. </p>
<p>As for prestige, comparing to Stanford is a very high bar, perhaps the highest bar in the USA. I’d love to see the cross admit data vs HYPM, especially for students applying from non-Northeastern locations. My guess is that Stanford wins the majority of those battles. </p>
<p>In prestige battles among the lay folk for Stanford vs Wash U and Vandy, I don’t think it’s close. Maybe Wash U would compete well among Midwesterners (a stretch IMO) or Vandy would compete well in the South (more possible, but still not likely). Most lay folks outside of the Midwest have never heard of Wash U. Vanderbilt’s name recognition is probably higher due to the family name and its D-1 sports, but southern schools rarely get the same profile as those closer to the dominant media centers in New York and California.</p>
<p>Hawkette, you often equate selectivity with SAT/ACT ranges and WUSTL has a higher SAT range than Stanford and Vanderbilt has an SAT range roughly equal to Stanford’s.</p>
<p>I am merely quoting Hawkette interestingguy. My point of view has never changed on the subject; I do not believe it is possible to compare student bodies statistically.</p>
<p>“But there are 460,000 of you. Maybe if Michigan didn’t hand out so many degrees, I could tell you all apart…”</p>
<p>Very classy statement interestingguy. I am not entirely certain what you are trying to say though. Harvard’s Alumni network numbers well over 300,000 and Columbia awards almost as many degrees as Michigan annually. Are you suggesting that alums from universities such as Columbia, Harvard and Michigan are a dime a dozen? If that’s the case, we are in good company, though I for one think that the larger the network the better. </p>
<p>Total number of living alumni:
Columbia: 285,563
Harvard: 320,000
Michigan: 460,000</p>
<p>Number of Degrees awarded in 2008-2009:
Columbia: 9,224
Harvard: 7,239
Michigan: 11,079</p>