<p>Well, I am sure you are correct on that front. I suppose it all has to do with respect really. Most people seem to impetuously accept a HYPMS degree as being more credible than one from UCB or Umich. But I must acknowledge that professors at the top schools aforementioned are more intimate with their students aggregately than at massively populous schools like Umich and UCB. While I agree that both schools offer the excellence desired, some schools are more highly regarded than others. However, for grad, a Harvard undergrad would consider himself fortunate to attend UCB or Umich.</p>
<p>DMC, your assumption that professors at Cal and Michigan are not as accessible or as interested in teaching undergraduates as professors at private universities is incorrect. You have fallen prey to lies and myths. Ask anybody who knows those schools well and they will tell you the same thing. Cal and Michigan are as dedicated and committed to undergraduate education as any elite private research university. I personally agree that Cal and Michigan aren't as good as H,M,P,S and Y, but they are as good as any other university, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.</p>
<p>Well, you can have your opinions and I certainly do not have the power to skew those. But I know tens of friends at esp. Umich who complain of just being a number and not having professors that were accesible to them. Umich professors are required to have office hours for students, but many people I know claimed that it took substantial effort to reach them. In most of their cases, the professors did not seem as inviting to private discussion as say...at schools like Uchicago, Dartmouth esp., Caltech, etc. Let us agree to disagree then because there is no use in trying to persuade each other. </p>
<p>Let me just say this: before I met you, I had never heard that Umich was as highly regarded as you speak. I conversed with PhDs, great doctors, and educated friends. So, I am not basing this purely of my own preconceived notions. Alexandre, I implore you to understand that Umich is just NOT at the level of Cornell, Dartmouth, etc for UNDERGRADUATES. It simply does not have that respect. While the education might be similar, the grad school placement at places like dartmouth, cornell, duke, upenn speak for themselves. Is that not what grad placement is? Is it not a kind of measure as to how other schools view each other among other things. Umich has the best placement out of any public, but it is not in a league with the ivies or top privates. Now, I see you post these "tiers" where you place Umich undergrad with schools like Columbia/Penn, and I am stunned. Usnews aside, absolutely none of the highly educated ppl I know feel this way about these schools at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>And yet, those great intellectuals and academics that you refer to have ranked Michigan's undergraduate education among the top 10 annually for the last 30 years in the USNWR that you so highly value. DMC, Michigan has that respect, whether you like it or not. You have known 10s of people who went to Michigan? That is impressive coming from someone who isn't from the state of Michigan. But even if you know that many, it proves nothing. Most of my friends who attended Stanford, Penn, Cornell, Harvard etc... also complained about large classes and feeling like a mere number. Professors at those schools are usually inaccessible. That is typical of all research institutions, private or public. But even then, I have never heard of a professor not welcoming a student, be it at Michigan, Harvard or any other elite university. </p>
<p>And DMC, you always seem to forget that I am an alumnus of both Michigan and Cornell. I have truly investigated both schools inside and out. They are identical. The only difference is that Michigan is twice the size of Cornell. That is it. And most people I know who studied at Michigan/Cal and an elite private university have observed the exact same thing. The difference is not real...and those in the know will tell you that. Obviously, the highly educated people you know have never studied at a public university that caliber of Michigan or Cal. </p>
<p>DMC, it is only in the CC World (and apparently your own little world) that Cal and Michigan aren't considered to be good. Everywhere else, they are considered to be pretty decent schools. Like or not, Michigan is considered a top 10 undergraduate institution. There is no agreeing to disagree. You are either right or wrong about a university. In the case of Michigan, you are wrong.</p>
<p>Given that both Alexandre and I are in the real world, trust us when we say that Michigan and Cal are repected on the level of Cornell, Penn, Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Johns Hopkins, etc.</p>
<p>In my humble opinion, if you are a resident of California or Michigan (or Virginia or North Carolina), and you want to attend a research university for undergrad (not a LAC), then unless you get into HYPSMC, you are better off going to your local flagship university, especially if you get into an honors program. The quality of the education will be close to the same for a tiny fraction of the cost...</p>
<p>Now, you don't have to exxagerate everything and become defensive. That was your first mistake. When are schools below Cornell and Duke considered not to be "decent?" LOL </p>
<p>"You have known 10s of people who went to Michigan? That is impressive coming from someone who isn't from the state of Michigan."
To be honest, I don't even think I can dignify that with an intellectual response, because this comment was beneath you.</p>
<p>"And yet, those great intellectuals and academics that you refer to have ranked Michigan's undergraduate education among the top 10 annually for the last 30 years in the USNWR that you so highly value."
There you go again. I NEVER SAID THAT UMICH (IN IT S ENTIRETY) WAS NOT A TOP 5 INSTITUTION. It's ironic, isnt it? You claim that I pull arbitrary rankings out everytime we have a debate and you are using them to justify your argument. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL. I REPEAT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL. Umich is simply not top 10 at that level. You feel because you went to the school that you must defend it almost blindly. Umich has flaws. These flaws keep it from being in the top 10. Moreover, how can you possibly say that Amherst, Williams, Dartmouth, University of Chicago, Rice, Duke, Cornell, Penn, Columbia, and caltech are just not simply better at the undergraduate level? Where is your proof? Why does Umich's grad school placement wane in comparison to most of these schools? Finally, you claim that Princeton is overall better than Umich wholistically. Lacking a suffiecient grad program, how does Princeton accomplish this? Is there that much of a discernment between Princeton and say, Columbia? You mean to tell me Columbia in its entirety (grad and undergrad) cannot hold a candle to just Princeton undergad?This is foolish. I mean, I'm sure slipper and Ivy-Grad will back me up when I say that you are simply wrong in saying that Umich is better than every school save for HYPMS at the undergrad level. Sorry.</p>
<p>DMC, I am defensive because you are insulting one of the pillars of education. Two of them in fact. Cal and Michigan do not deserve the complete dihumanization and downgrading you constantly hurl on them. Those thousands of university professors, presidents and deans who rank Cal and Michigan among the top 10 are not ranking them overall. If they were, they would rank them both among the top 5. The top 10 ranking is designated for their undergraduate level education. You keep stressing undergraduate education. Why? Did I say I was talking about graduate education. This is an undergraduate forum. I am obviously talking about undergraduate education. I only know about undergraduate education when it comes to Michigan. </p>
<p>You act so insulted becauyse I question your claim that you know more than 19 students at Michigan? Tell me, is that nearly as offensive as accusing me of bias? I happen to be an authority on universities. I take accusations of bias and unethical behavior very seriously. Trust me, I am far more insulted by your claim that I am biased and ignorant than you are by my doubting that you know 10s of Michigan students. </p>
<p>And DMC, saying that Michigan is below Duke at anything save Basketball is indeed saying that Michigan is not good. Let us adhere to the laws of relativity shall we! Why should a university that is a legitimate top 10 university be compared to universities that aren't among the top 20? As for Michigan being below Cornell, as an alumnus of both schools, I am more qualified to pass judgement on those two schools than you are and I can tell you that they are identical. </p>
<p>Michigan certainly has flaws. I never denied that fact. All universities have flaws. Can yopu name me a university that doesn't have flaws? And why do you bring LACs into the equation? If you bring LACs into the equation, either they monopolize the top 20 spots...or they do not appear among the top 20. LACs are too different from research universities for them to be lumped together. </p>
<p>And you try to get Slipper and Ivy-Grad to vouch for your claims that Michigan is not a top 10 university? Why don;t I also enlist a few people on this forum who share my opinion?! LOL </p>
<p>You keep saying that Michigan's placement into graduate schools is below par? I have no idea what gave you that idea. Students of equal abilities and credentials from Michigan and any top 10 university (save H,M,P,S and Y) will have similar placement into top graduate schools. A 3.8 student with a 170 on the LSAT from Michigan will get into the same Law Schools as a student with those numbers from Duke or Chicago or Cornell or Dartmouth or Columbia. Sam with a student with a 3.6 GPA and a 165 on the LSAT etc... Last year, Michigan students got into top 10 Law Schools. </p>
<p>You ask me to prove that Michigan is a top 10 university? I cannot. Nobody can prove rankings. That is why I have close to 20 universities in my top 10 list. Can you prove that Michigan isn't a top 10 university?</p>
<p>I never insulted UCB or Umich. I really am not intimidated by the fact that you "feel" insulted by something so trivial, but I apologize for makign you feel that way.</p>
<p>"And you try to get Slipper and Ivy-Grad to vouch for your claims that Michigan is not a top 10 university? Why don;t I also enlist a few people on this forum who share my opinion?! LOL "</p>
<p>Uhm...ok.</p>
<p>"You act so insulted becauyse I question your claim that you know more than 19 students at Michigan? Tell me, is that nearly as offensive as accusing me of bias? I happen to be an authority on universities."</p>
<p>I've never been truly insulted on these boards, nor do I let myself be insulted by people I have never met. My stance to your other statement still stands. I believe that you are certainly motivated by a slight bias. That's just my assertion.</p>
<p>"And DMC, saying that Michigan is below Duke at anything save Basketball is indeed saying that Michigan is not good."</p>
<p>Wow, i believe this debate is over. I will not lower myself to one of the most self indulgent and self righteous comments I've ever seen. </p>
<p>You win. UMICH IS TOP 10 in both undergrad and grad. I completely disagree with you, but I will not engage in this jeremiad anymore.</p>
<p>"Wow, i believe this debate is over. I will not lower myself to one of the most self indulgent and self righteous comments I've ever seen." </p>
<p>I am sorry that the notion that Michigan and Duke are equal is so offensive and disgusting to you. </p>
<p>"You win. UMICH IS TOP 10 in both undergrad and grad. I completely disagree with you, but I will not engage in this jeremiad anymore."</p>
<p>I somehow doubt that. You will continue to claim to know that Michigan isn't a top 10 university, and you will continue to voice that conjecture.</p>
<p>"By the way, I still agree with collegeboundjen's list."</p>
<p>I agree. It is about time we got back to the topic at hand. CollegeboundJen's list is quite good. I do not necessarily agree with the sequence, but it is still rather good.</p>
<p>DMC, that is not what I said. It is you who claim that Michigan is inferior to Duke. I never claimed Duke was inferior to Michigan. I have always stated they are equals. I do not even have to defend myself on this one. I always list them in the same group. </p>
<p>My statement above was clear. It was not asserting that Michigan was better than Duke but that Duke isn't better than Michigan. Read what I wrote well. Nowhere does it say that Michigan is better than Duke. I would never say such a thing because I do not believe it. But you seem to be so certain that Duke is clearly superior to Michigan. </p>
<p>And by the way, you make the same claim I do. You have often said that Duke is the next best university after H,M,P,S and Y. Does that make you biased?</p>
<p>Are you kidding? I even said that Dartmouth was better for the undergrad experience. I said that Caltech is flat out better than Duke. I said that Penn/Duke are so similar in prestige that is futile to compare them. I even said that Columbia is probably more prestigious. Finally, I even said that, maybe in a few years, Duke will be as good as some of HYPMS. That's all.</p>
<p>"And DMC, saying that Michigan is below Duke at anything save Basketball is indeed saying that Michigan is not good."</p>
<p>Here, you are claiming that saying Umich is below Duke in any department is like saying Umich is garbage. I don't see equity in that statement. I'm not stupid.</p>
And DMC, saying that Michigan is below Duke at anything save Basketball is indeed saying that Michigan is not good. Let us adhere to the laws of relativity shall we! Why should a university that is a legitimate top 10 university be compared to universities that aren't among the top 20?
</p>
<p>I've seen your rankings so I wouldn't jump on you for this, but this statement doesn't jive with them at all. The last part makes it look like you're saying Duke isn't even top 20. Your "not good" statement in effect says that being held in equal or lesser regard than Duke makes a university poor, which means Duke must deliver a mediocre education at best.</p>
<p>That is not correct. My statement was in reference to what you said in the post above...that Michigan is not as good as Duke. What I was saying DMC, is that saying that Michigan is inferior to Duke is not fair to Michigan because Michigan is just as good. I have always said that Duke and Michigan (and Cornell, Penn, Chicago, Columbia, Northwestern, etc...) are equals. If you can find one instance where I said that Michigan is superior to Duke, point it out to me. </p>
<p>Anyway, I am off to bed. It is 4:53 AM in Dubai! Enjoy your Subway.</p>
<p>I think there may be some grave misinterpretations of intentions.</p>
<p>I do not believe Alexandre intended to insult Duke University. I believe his point was that UMich was not receiving the respect, in his opinion, that it deserves. However, his wording--somewhat ambiguous--were miscontrued as an attack on Duke's academic prowess. At first read, I somewhat interpreted his comments as such, but after re-reading I intend to give him the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>I seriously dislike these type of topics--always emotional and very subjective as it is anyway.</p>
<p>I see your point bananainpyjamas (cool handle). I was not clear afterall! LOL I was refering to DMC comparing Michigan to universities that aren't ranked among the top 20. I was not saying that Duke isn't a top 20 university. But you made my point. To schools like Duke and Michigan, ranking them out of the top 20 is really saying that they are average because relatively speaking, out of the top 20 is way below where they should be ranked. As I always point out, Duke and Michigan are both legitimate top 10 universities.</p>