<p>I'm curious why this is. It wasn't too long ago when Mich was ranked as America's top public and in the original Big 6 universities. Also, Michigan, California, and Wisconsin were the original publics that founded the AAU. Further, Mich is one of, if not thee, wealthiest universities, public or private.</p>
<p>Someone help me make sense of this. I agree that UVA needs to be up there with the top publics, but definitely not UCLA. There is no reason why the top two publics in America need to be both in California.</p>
<p>UVA isn’t in California, and it’s tied for second with UCLA. UCLA is listed before it in alphabetic order.</p>
<p>Also, “wealthiest university”? By endowment? Not even close… Though it was #8 as of 2005.</p>
<p>Anyway, the USNWR rankings are built to favor private universities, as well as those public universities that receive and reject many out-of-state applicants. It doesn’t mean that Michigan isn’t an excellent university, because it certainly is. Don’t pay too much attention to those rankings.</p>
<p>found this on the berkeley forum, even though it’s been posted here before a few times iirc</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not gonna lie, i was one of the people who used to care about rankings and such, but really, truly, there’s no point in paying any attention to them. michigan is an amazing university, and i know quite a few students from my school who wish they would’ve applied/been accepted to michigan, over other schools of comparable quality (UCLA/UCB included)</p>
<p>That quote from the Stanford President is spot-on. Honestly, who gives a rat’s ass what USNWR has to say from year-to-year; schools like U of M, UCB, University of Virginia, etc. have reputations that far precede a number in a thick book that US News makes a killing off of each year. Don’t get me wrong, the ratings are nice to have, but people who take them as godsend are morons. Like everything worth analyzing from media publications, take it for what it’s worth and with a grain of salt for good measure.</p>
<p>Well if the top.kids do not go to a school because of its ranking, true or not, the school could suffer and fall further, creating a domino effect. People shouldn’t get caught up in ratings but that doesnt mean it wont happen</p>
<p>^^^
Totally agree. Ignoring rankings is fine for people who are competent about colleges, but the negative effects of lower rankings could have a larger negative impact on the school, both from in perception and student-body.</p>
<p>I agree with your premise, but reject your conclusion. You’re honestly telling me that people are going to stop applying to and attending prestigious schools like U of M because they slide a few slots in USNWR? Doubtful. Sure, everyone here is up in a tizzy about this kind of stuff, but the greater population hardly even looks at these ratings, yet alone cares.</p>
<p>The greater population looks at these rankings. Put yourself in the perspective of a good oos-student ten to fifteen years from now who bases his/her college selection on rankings & prestige. If I knew little about a school other than it has great sports and a cool town, and saw it around the thirty mark, I def. think it would be a detractor for many kids.</p>
<p>I’m sure it would turn a few students off to attending, but come on. Top Universities have kids apply en masse, sliding a few points in an arbitrary ranking system isn’t going to change that, especially seeing as U of M won’t be dropping from the top 30 anytime soon. Hell, our two class Valedictorians are going to Michigan, and neither of them even glanced at USNWR. Obviously it matters to people attending this site, because they’re people who are passionate about the future of their education. I can all but guarantee a number on a website or a book is a mere footnote to most kids applying for college. Factor in the fact that U of M’s Graduate School, Law School, and Medical School are all well within the Top 10 of their field, I don’t think they’ll be going anywhere soon.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that U of M’s rating most likely dropped because of the lax admission standards this year. Our incoming Freshman class is massive, and they’ve already stated it’s going to be tougher this coming year.</p>
<p>‘Doubtful. Sure, everyone here is up in a tizzy about this kind of stuff.’</p>
<p>What? Nobody I know cares about rankings at all.</p>
<p>‘but the greater population hardly even looks at these ratings, yet alone cares.’</p>
<p>The greater population DOES look at rankings. The greater population DOES care. However, I’ll agree with you in saying that ranking slip isn’t going to drop the number of applicants.</p>
<p>‘U of M’s Graduate School, Law School, and Medical School are all well within the Top 10 of their field’</p>
<p>Not that this isn’t true or good, but I doubt many people are applying to UM undergrad with the forethought of getting into UM grad.</p>
<p>While USNWR does change its formula from year to year, this does not mean that it doesn’t measure vague trends in the rise and fall of a university. </p>
<p>For example, USC is now rank 26 from the 40s a decade or two ago and most people agree that the university has attracted better students.</p>
<p>The ratings have also become less volatile in modern times.</p>
<p>While I cannot say for certain Michigan’s decline is not within the rankings natural votality I can argue that a long persisting decline does indicate the deterioration of a university.</p>
<p>It’s a bit foolish to say that the USNWR has no relevance. UIUC and Wisconsin are both great schools with strong graduate programs (both have many graduate programs in the top 10), but I doubt they attract many top students from outside their respective states - at least part of this is due to their relatively low rankings…</p>
<p>The USNWR formula does not suit a certain type of university, particularly public universities. It is important to understand that no ranking is accurate enough to differentiate between universities of equal quality.</p>
<p>BillyMC, by endowment, Michigan is the wealthiest public university and the 6th wealthiest university overall. The UT system has a larger endowments than Michigan, but it has multiple campuses with over 150,000 students and over 15,000 faculty members. As single campuses, Michigan is slightly wealthier than UT-Austin and significantly wealthier than any other single-campus public university. Below is a list of universities ranked according to endowment:</p>
<p>PRIVATE TOP 10 (as of July 2009)
Harvard University: $26 billion
Yale University: $16 billion
Princeton University: $12.6 billion
Stanford University: $12.6 billion
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $8 billion
Columbia University: $5.9 billion
Northwestern University: $5.4 billion
University of Pennsylvania: $5.2 billion
University of Chicago: $5.1 billion
University of Notre Dame: $4.8 billion</p>
<p>PUBLIC TOP 10 (as of July 2009)
University of Texas system (9 campuses, 6 health centers, 20,000 faculty and 200,000 students): $12.1 billion
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: $6 billion
Texas A&M system (11 camouses, 100,000 students): $5.1 billion
University of California system (9 campuses, 1 health center, 15,000 faculty and 200,000 students): $4.9 billion
University of Virginia: $3.6
University of Minnesota-Twin cities: $2.1 billion
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: $1.9 billion
Ohio State University: $1.7 billion
University of Pittsburgh: $1.7 billion</p>
<p>I think it makes sense to separate public from private because public universities benefit from economies of scale and state funding but are much larger than private universities. The 2010 endowment report is due sometime in October.</p>
<p>I think if UM were to go private it would at least make the top 20. The US News has a super bias against public universities. I mean cmon, Berkeley at number at number 21? Ask anyone around the world what they think the best universities are and they will like likely say Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley.</p>
<p>Cal is underrated. Cal should be ranked between #6 and #16. Michigan should be ranked between #10 and #20. Both schools are hurt by the USNWR formula. That said, there isn’t much of a difference in quality between #6 and #21 or between #10 and #28, so it’s not the end of the world.</p>
<p>“and they’ve already stated it’s going to be tougher this coming year”</p>
<p>when did they say that? and what do they mean my tougher? More kids will be applying (well, should because of the common app) so does that mean less % of students getting in or less students total getting in?</p>