Rankings of the past???

College Search & Selection
61

<p>Probably a more accurate description would be that the top 75% of a top state school's student body is comparable to those of the better private schools -- at least as measured by SATs.</p>

<p>Let me use UVA because they have a 98% SAT reporting rate and because it is a school I pitched very hard to my daughter and because, for out of state applicants, it is just about as tough to get into as the better private schools. I'll compare to Swarthmore because I have the numbers handy and because the numbers are somewhat comparable to Dartmouth, Brown, Duke, etc.</p>

<p>U Mich is a little harder to compare because they have less than 60% providing SAT scores.</p>

<p>The following numbers are the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile scores for the Fall 2004 entering class:</p>

<p>Verbal:</p>

<p>Virginia: 610 / 660 / 710
Swarth: 680 / 730 / 770</p>

<p>Math:</p>

<p>Virginia: 620 / 670 / 720
Swarth: 670 / 710 / 760</p>

<p>Basically, half of the class at the elite private school is comparable to the top quarter at the State U. And, three-quarters is comparable to the top half at the State U.</p>

<p>Still very impressive for UVa. Especially, if you can get in-state tuition. In fact, I told my daughter that, had we lived in Virginia, she could choose between William & Mary and UVa.</p>

<p>Where it gets a little less clear-cut is when you have to pay out-of-state tuition and clear very high out-of-state admissions bars to attend somebody else's state U. Then, you are dealing with a somewhat more diluted student body, much larger class sizes, and a much lower per student expenditures, for what is often just a slight savings in tuition cost. Not sure that's great value, relatively speaking. </p>

<p>In-state? No question. Great value in large university education.</p>

62

<p>Interesteddad, it is only natural that I compare the elite State schools to the elite privates. </p>

<p>But I disagree with soem of the things you say. State schools spend almost as much on their students as private universities. The difference is a direct result of economies of scale and financial aid donations. Since state universities are significantly larger, they can afford to operate with the benefits of economies of scale. And since they are already discounted for in-staters, state universities do not have to spend as much on sholarships.</p>

<p>But even then, the difference in spending per student is negligible. Brown and Dartmouth have operating budgets of $500-$600 million. Most elite LACs have operating budgets of roughly $100 million. So on average, those schools spend roughly $50,000-$80,000/student. Michigan's operating budget is roughly $2.5 billion. So Michigan spends over $60,000/student. Wisconsin, UVA, Cal etc... have similar arrangements. They spend between $50,000-$60,000/student. With the exception of a couple of institutions, like CalTech, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Harvard, top Privates do not spend significantly more on students than top publics. </p>

<p>And classes are not "much larger at state schools. Many posters have demonstrated the average class sizes above. At Michigan, 70% of the classes have fewer than 30 students. The average class size at Michigan is 28. Cal and UVA have even slightly smaller classes on average (26 and 24 respectively). The average class size at most elite privates hovers between 18 and 26. </p>

<p>State Universities are not a step down in any way. They provide the same resources, the same opportunities, the same prestige etc... as private universities. They do require more initiative and more independence on the part of the students than smaller universities. Classes are indeed slightly larger (but it is negligible). But they also provide a more laid back atmosphere, a more genuine student body, far more variety in course sellection, better research opportunities etc... In the end, the advantages and disadvantages cross each other out and what you are left with is highly different but equally excellent and special academic institutions that offer the ideal setting for a perfect education.</p>

<p>And I find the insinuation that students at state universities are somewhat inferior to students at private universities (diluted as you put it) elitist and offensive. The student bodies at State universities have a slightly weaker bottom quater/third, but the grading is also slightly harsher and the academics are just as intense. At Michigan, UVA and Cal, the top three quarters of the students have SAT scores over 1200 and the mid point is roughly 1320-1330. A quarter of the students at those schools have mean SAT scores over 1400. The mid 50% at most elite privates and LACs is between 1250-1500, with a mid point hovering between 1400. Like I said, if you remove the bottom quarter of the students at the state schools, you get a student body that is almost identical to the student body at an elite private university.</p>

<p>In short, I think it is certainly worth spending as much on a state university as it is on a private university. One will get as good an education and a better overall experience.</p>

63

<p>TheThoughtProcess. This year, from the students I handle, 24 students from the UAE were admitted into Michigan and 14 of students have decided to go to Michigan. Here's a summary of their decisions:</p>

<p>THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO MICHIGAN:
Student #1: Chose Michigan over Indiana University-Bloomington and Purdue University-West Lafayette
Student #2: Chose Michigan over Indiana University-Bloomington and Purdue University-West Lafayette
Student #3: Chose Michigan over Johns Hopkins
Student #4: Chose Michigan over Cornell and Northwestern
Student #5: Chose Michigan over Cornell and Columbia
Student #6: Chose Michigan over Cal and McGill
Student #7: Chose Michigan over McGill and Purdue
Student #8: Chose Michigan over NYU (Stern)
Student #9: Chose Michigan over NYU (Stern)
Student #10: Chose Michigan over Boston University
Student #11: Chose Michigan over Duke
Student #12: Chose Michigan over Penn
Student #13: Chose Michigan over Carnegie Mellon and Illinois
Student #14: Chose Michigan over Illinois and Purdue</p>

<p>THOSE WHO ARE GOING ELSEWHERE:
Student #1: Chose UVA over Michigan.
Student #2: Chose Duke over Johns Hopkins and Michigan
Student #3: Chose Rice * over Columbia, Cornell and Michigan
Student #4: Chose Penn over Michigan and Northwestern
Student #5: Chose London School of Economics over Michigan
Student #6: Chose Stanford over Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, Swarthmore and Williams.
Student #7: Chose Waterloo * over Michigan
Student #8: Chose NYU (Stern) over Michigan
Student #9: Chose to go to return to her native India * over Michigan
Student #10: Chose McGill * over Michigan </p>

<p>If you see a * next to the university of choice, it means the student had a great financial package from the university in question.</p>

<p>From my experience over the last 12 or so years, I have been exposed to many Michigan-bound students and I can tell you this year's crop is not different from any other year's crop. So it is true that some students who go to Michigan really have "limited choices (Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, BU etc...), but many chose Michigan over other excellent schools, including Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins and Penn. </p>

<p>And a large chunk of in-state applicants are amazing students who only apply to Michigan. The reason for this is actually quite simple. They come from upper middle income families and they know they will not get any merit aid from elite privates like Stanford, MIT, Duke. They will not will not even consider elite private schools Ivys because they will not pay $40,000/year to attend one of those schools when they can go to Michigan for a third that price. Those students are typically 3.9 or 4.0 students with amazing course selection and 5s on their APs. They usually do not take the SAT seriously, do not prepare for it, take it once and get in the 1300-1400 range. Those same students, if they actually prepared for the SAT would break the 1500. But a 1350 will virtually guarantee them an acceptance to Michigan, the only school they end up applying to.</p>

<p>By and large, Michigan's student body is as talented as them come. If you do not believe me, ask the adcoms at top graduate schools and corporate recruiters why they approach Michigan students the same way they approach students at elite private universities.</p>

64

<p>Giving MIT a 4.9 while giving Caltech a 4.7 makes me wonder about the accuracy of peer assessment.</p>

65

<p>Longhorn, I agree that no rating can be 100% accurate. There is very little difference between 4.7 and 4.9 or between 4.4 and 4.6 etc...</p>

<p>But I do believe that MIT should be rated above CalTech. It is slightly better in Engineering, Math, Computer Science and Biology and as good in Chemistry and Physics. On top of that, MIT has top ranked programs in Business, Economics, Philosophy, Political Science and Psychology. CalTech doesn't.</p>

66

<p>Ok, so I got bored from reading the previous REALLY long post. But from the scraps that I did skim over, I have to say something. As a student at CAL (or UC Berkeley), it is a JOKE to think the average class size is 24 or 26. HAHAHAHHA Are you kidding me? Our discussions are 30 people on average, and the lectures-- many are 800, 400, and 200. The upper division courses have 200 people--not even lower div. (I love large classes btw, and hence large universities.)</p>

<p>Anyway, another thing, University of Michigan may be good--but it's a party school.(So *** are those students chosing it over other top unis?) It's like UCSB except academically more prestigious. </p>

<p>Also, I never knew Berkeley was ranked over Stanford some ten years ago. Interesting information...............Ok, so I scored over 1400 on my SAT so don't criticize me for my next comment: Only difference between Stanford and Berkeley, is that students at Stanford studied for their SATs.</p>

<p>THey should make studying for them illegal--this way it is a true assessment of a pupil's abilities, instead of what you can "memorize" from a SAT prep book. </p>

<p>And I scored over 1400 without studying, as many people, but not enough people (esp. at Stanford) do.</p>

67

<p>I find it hard to believe that Berkeley classes are on average larger than UCLA, when you guys have a smaller student:faculty ratio than UCLA.</p>

68

<p>Soton, either Cal lied or you overestimate the size of Cal classes. I think it is the latter. I cannot believe Cal would lie.</p>

<p>As far as Michigan being a party school...no way. Michigan does have a happening social life, but it is not a party school.</p>

69

<p>Michigan State maybe?</p>

70

<p>Actually no Alexandre--honestly, they did a "top party school" rank at princeton review.com..and U Mich-Ann Arbor was, i believe, in the top ten, along with another pretty good uni--University of Texas, Austin.</p>

<p>The school can be good, but also a party school. My friend from back home goes to U Mich--he parties all the time...</p>

<p>And another thing, my Economics 1 class had 800 students in it--It was held in Wheeler Auditorium.</p>

<p>A lot of lower div classes consist of couple hundred people. Intermediate economics courses have 200+ students in them.</p>

<p>Other majors like English, history--about 100 to 200 students... Why would I lie??</p>

71

<p>i chose rice over cornell and michigan.....because its better.</p>

72

<p>Jimminy, I think you meant to add "for me" after "better".</p>

73

<p>Soton, the PR is a joke. Do not take them seriously. Michigan is not a party school...no more than Cal, Cornell or Stanford. </p>

<p>As for class sizes at Cal, I guess Cal lied about the numbers.</p>

74

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>I still have to agree with you about class sizes, if we look at the math. I think what all of us are overlooking is this...</p>

<p>Lower div classes in popular majors will always be huge, of course. However, upper div classes in say Korean will always be small. Those 15 people upper div classes are very helpful in bringing the mean down, and therefore making us believe that average courses are smaller than maybe is true?</p>

75

<p>That's a good point UCLAri. At any rate, it is clear that large universities like Michigan will have, on average, slightly larger classes than small universities like Chicago and Columbia. However, the size difference is exaggerated. There really is no real difference between the top state schools and the top private schools.</p>

76

<p>As a grad of one, I agree. The biggest differences, as you stated, are the bottom 25th percentile of students, and slightly larger classes.</p>

<p>Big whoop.</p>

77

<p>There is no reason to worry. Adcoms and corporate recruiters think as highly of the elite publics as they do of the elite privates and the elite LACs. I personally do not mind what the averahe Joe thinks. Unfortunately, many on this forum are, whether deliberately or accidentally, misleading students who come here for real advice.</p>

78

<p>i second that, Alexandre :)</p>

79

<p>question is: how the hell does caltech jump down from #1 to #9 in one year? That just proves to show how bogus these rankings are. The rankings should simply be in increments of 5, since deciding whether a certain school is better than another school of the same level is stupid. It's all personal opinion. USnews should change to this format:
1-5 (list of colleges order not mattering)
6-10 (list)
11-15 (list)</p>

80

<p>well, i averaged out the rankings and they would look like this then:</p>

<ol>
<li>HYPSM</li>
<li>Caltech, Duke, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth</li>
<li>Cornell, Brown, Northwestern, U Chicago, Johns Hopkins</li>
</ol>

<p>However, Caltech should be put in the 1 category if you ask me</p>