<p>Hi everyone. I've been accepted to both Umich and IU. To go to Indiana University it will cost ~20-25/year while at Mich ~40k/year. I plan on majoring in history, looking into some business, and will most likely pursue graduate studies, possibly law school. Everyone tells me that Indiana is the clear choice, yet I am having a hard time turning down a school like the University of Michigan. It just gets to me, that when I look at the rankings (however reliable or telling they are) I would be turning down a top 25 school.</p>
<p>Think about it this way,
A. It'll probably be a bit easier to great absolutely amazing grades at IU, by a little.
B. Which you can then parlay into an acceptance into UMICH grad school
C. Which by then you could actually pay for without going into EXTREME debt.</p>
<p>yeah it really ****es me off that UMich's OOS tuition is so FREAKIN high! its really hard for me to turn that down...but I probably will. I would also go with IU, because their b-school is great as well, although not as good as Ross.</p>
<p>I'm having the same dilemma with Northwestern and UW-Madison. Madison is 32k whereas NU is 52k.</p>
<p>same with me...umich, ucla or gt.... :(</p>
<p>2pacaintdead - didn't u get any fin aid from NU?? I didn't know Madison would cost this much!!! but, still cheaper than NU. I thought NU would give generous aids since they are private and have bigger endowment...</p>
<p>With respect to UW-Madison...you should get the in-state rate if you have financial need.</p>
<p>My dad does pretty good so I'm not getting aid anywhere. My parents are actually paying for my undergrad without taking out loans. I just don't know if i can justify having them pay that much for the difference in education/opportunity at NU over Madison.</p>
<p>recap5, you need to keep in mind that the rankings are not some absolute guide based on decades of scientific research and produced by highly-trained researchers clad in white coats. They are the product of a couple of reporters at a magazine sitting around a table drinking a few cups of coffee and toying with the weights they assign to each factor.</p>
<p>Ratings are produced by assigning a weight to things that can be measured like average SAT, polls of deans ranking schools, acceptance rate, etc. Add up all the weighted factors for each school, sort the list, and you have the US News (or whatever) rankings. See the US News description of this at Best</a> Colleges 2008: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights</p>
<p>A few things should be obvious. For one thing, the weights are arbitrary. Why is the peer assessment 25% of the final score and graduation rate 20%? Given that other deans are harder to fool than graduation rates are to manipulate, maybe 30% and 15% would have been better? The point is there is no divinely-given way to set the weights, and yet if you change them so does the score. And they have been deliberately manipulated. Years ago US News ran its process and the top US college was Caltech. This wasn't what their readers wanted to see, so a few tweaks later Caltech was no longer top dog. See Cooking</a> the School Books for more on how ratings are manipulated. And keep in mind that if it wasn't measured everywhere and easily available to US News, it isn't part of the rankings. Wouldn't you care about whether students think the faculty is interested in teaching undergrads, whether they received effective advising, how helpful the career center has been? You might care, but since they weren't measured they play ZERO role in the rankings.</p>
<p>How this all applies to you is that you're stressing over rankings as if they're some absolute truth, but they're not. Rankings capture some information about colleges and can be useful as a quick reference to identifying schools you want to investigate in more detail. But to think they've done all the work for you, that you just need to look at the ranking number and pick the highest one, is not a good approach for picking a college! Given the the raw values before weighting I can change the weights and make Indiana rank higher than Michigan. Would that change your leanings? </p>
<p>At the very least, you owe it to yourself to look at the factors that were used in calculating the ranking and think about how they matter to you, to think about what is NOT measured in rankings and decide if they matter to you. As you'll do this you'll realize the rankings are a short-cut, a Cliff's Notes if you will. And just as Cliff's Notes don't capture the full essence of the book, neither do rankings capture the full measure of a college.</p>
<p>If the best reason you can come up with to explain why you should pay $15-20K more per year to go to Michigan over Indiana is "its ranked higher" rather than a list of why it's better for you in relevant ways (faculty attention to undergrads, class size, advising program, major offered you're interested in, school atmosphere, type of kids that attend, etc) that justify the difference, then IMHO you don't have a good reason to pick Michigan.</p>
<p>Dear recap: Unless you're independently wealthy, have very wealthy parents or have been offered full-cost scholarships at both schools, the choice isn't likely to be yours alone but a family matter, since your parents likley will be paying the bill.</p>
<p>Indiana has an excellent business school, not to mention an excellent music department. It may not have the overall reputation as Michigan but it has a prety good one.</p>
<p>I believe CISCO CEO(John Chambers) went to Indiana University.</p>
<p>John</a> Chambers (CEO) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>I think you should go for the cheaper place. If you're going to major in history, it's not going to make a big difference. If you were going to major in, say, law or something, then the prestige of your school would be important.</p>
<p>I have the same dilemma (with different schools) and am also probably going to the cheaper and much lower-ranked one. I know everyone says this but it really is true that if you work hard at wherever you're at you'll be given plenty of opportunities. I'm sure you would rather save your parents some money for their retirement than squeeze them for a higher ranked school.</p>