<p>"roughly equal" in terms of quality? If you're referring to the qualifications of the professors and the research output, then I might agree with you. However, with regards to the actual learning experience, academic resources for students and job/grad school prospects, there's no comparison between Chicago and Michigan. Michigan is a notch lower than Chicago at best. They are both excellent schools mind you and I am speaking on a relativistic level.</p>
<p>"In fact, according to their "peers", those two schools are roughly equal in terms of quality." </p>
<p>Alexandre,
Michigan is a very good school, but you need to ease off the wolverine Kool-aid. Chicago is definitely considered a notch above Michigan. Schools like Penn, Northwestern, and Cornell are all above Michigan. </p>
<p>Michigan being public and so large hurts its ability to compete with the percentage of quality students that those institutions are able to bring to their school. They are all much smaller and private. Honestly, Michigan's real level is around the top to middle of the top 15 public universities: </p>
<p>1 Cal
2 UVA
3 UCLA
4 Michigan
5 UNC
6 W & M
7 UCSD
8 Wisconsin
9 Illinois
10 Washington
11 UCD
12 UCI
13UCSB
14 Penn State University Park
14 Texas</p>
<p>i love how the bottom cutoff of "peer schools" happens to be the school you go to (penn state)...</p>
<p>though sometimes alexandre's michigan love can be a bit much, i think he's more or less right here. I really do think Michigan's peers are schools like Cornell, Northwestern + Cal in terms of resources available and the future options grads have (grad school, jobs, etc).</p>
<p>the thing you have to realize is just that michigan is huge - of course the percent of quality students cant possibly be the same. Why does this matter? Michigan just has a higher standard deviation of student quality. In absolute numbers the amount who are the same "quality" as cornell or northwestern is no different from those schools. The academic resources here are basically as good as any place not named harvard. If you're a good student, the academic skills of the bottom 50% really has no effect on your academic experience anyway - and hey, a lot of those not so good students are a lot of fun to party with anyway.</p>
<p>I dont think anyone considers Chicago a peer school to Michigan. Academically, yes they are similar, but the type of person they attract is way different. I haven't seen anyone in this thread back up the claim that "Chicago is definitely considered a notch above Michigan."</p>
<p>Michigan may not be as selective and prestigious as the top privates, but it's clearly one of the most renowned academic institutions in the world. Michigan has always had such a strong presence both in the world of academe and the corporate world.
One of the top executives in the top 5 Fortune 500 (Duke alum) that I talked to over the summer even admitted that Michigan is clearly up there among the best. Michigan may not be comparable to the likes of HYPSM but it's certainly comparable to Cornell, Northwestern, NYU, USC, Berkeley, UVA, UNC, UCLA, just to name a few.</p>
<p>"However, with regards to the actual learning experience, academic resources for students and job/grad school prospects, there's no comparison between Chicago and Michigan. Michigan is a notch lower than Chicago at best."</p>
<p>I am not sure how you came to the conclusion ring<em>of</em>fire. Can you prove your claims? Can you prove that, all things being equal, individual X will be better off at Chicago than Michigan? My contention is that he/she will not. </p>
<p>I repeat, Chicago and Michigan are very different. But in terms of quality, there is very little that separates those two universities. Recruiters are just as active at Michigan as they are at Chicago, graduate schools adcoms will view applicants from both schools in the same light and students will be given equal opportunities to learn and develop while on campus.</p>
<p>
Yes I can Alexandre, yes I can. If two students of absolute equal quality enter Michigan and Chicago, the Chicago student has a greater chance of coming out on top intellecually, maturity-wise and with regards to jobs/grad school admissions.</p>
<p>The elite privates simply offer much better learning opportunities than the top state schools. I can't speak about specific programs at Chicago because I don't attend the school. But I attend Duke, another top private school, so I will use that as proxy to develop my argument.</p>
<p>This is the typical experience of the top 30% of Duke students:
1. 15-20 student small classroom experiences(class sizes LESS THAN 20) even if a student majors in Econ/BME/Psych/pre-med courses
2. service project over the summer in a foreign country or in the local community(DukeEngage</a> | Home)
3. semester/summer abroad somewhere in the world(50% OF DUKE STUDENTS STUDY ABROAD)
4. internship with a Fortune 500 company during junior year summer
5. independent research with a mentor as part of major requirements or personal interest
5. post-graduation: 35% of Duke grads go to Wall Street, 29% of Duke grads go into Consulting, 85% acceptance rate to med schools, 95%+ acceptance rate to law schools, etc.</p>
<p>You know what's funny Alexandre? The type of student I described above isn't even an overachiever at Duke. My friend did a service project in Malawi after the summer of sophomore year, studied abroad in Italy the fall of his junior year, interned with Morgan Stanley the summer after his junior year and actually switched over to law and is now attend Penn Law School.</p>
<p>My friend didn't even work that hard in college. He still went to basketball games and partied 2-4 nights a week. It's just that the resources the school has are absolutely incredible. The application to do his service project took all of 2 hours and the school FULLY FUNDED his trip to Africa and gave him complete guidance on what to do there. As far as research goes, he just e-mailed a professor in the Econ department and he was immediately offered a position in a lab and was placed under the guidance of multiple mentors. Same with the study abroad and internship process. The school's advisors and programs for this are simply phenominal and are pretty much accessible to any student.</p>
<p>It takes very little initiative on the part of a student to do everything I described above at Duke. At Michigan, there might be 50 students total who have done all of that and perhaps fewer yet who had as much fun as my friend did in college while doing it.</p>
<p>umm.... you are right, Duke is really a lot better and You have very capable friends.</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire, you haven't really proved anything, and some of your claims about Michigan are vastly presumptious. How do you know that fewer than 50 students at Michigan experienced what your friend has experienced at Duke? Each year, well over 100 students from Michigan end up enrolling into top 10 Law Schools. Naturally, one would assume that roughly 500 (125 or so per class) students at Michigan experience what your friend has experienced. </p>
<p>In fact, you have shown that similar opportunities exist for undergrads at most top universities. Of course, one must not lose sight of relativity. 65% of Duke students may end up on Wall Street or working as Consultants. At a school like Michigan, fewer than 25% of students would even apply for jobs in those sectors. So comparing figures is not always possible unless one factors in the actual makup of the student body which is, obviously, impossible to do. </p>
<p>As for Law School and Medical School placement rates, again, one must take into account GPA and LSAT/MCAT scores. Students with similar stats will have similar placement rates, regardless of which top university they attended. I know, I have actually interviewed adcoms at top Law schools and top MBA programs. They listed Cal, Michigan and UVa in the same sentence as Chicago, Cornell, Duke and Penn.</p>
<p>I am asking for actual proof, not observations. By proof I mean surveys by a majority of academics and recruiters, hard numbers that prove students of equal quality actually come out more mature and better educated and gare iven better opportunities. I have done all the analysis there is to be done. No matter how you look at it, you cannot prove that Chicago (or Duke for that matter) is better than Michigan. Different, yes...but not better or worse.</p>
<p>Well spoken, Alexandre, well spoken.</p>
<p>Honestly, ring of fire, what satisfaction do you derive from belittling Michigan? Is it really that enjoyable? You speak of all these wonderful opportunities at Duke - do us all a favor and get off CC and go and take advantage of them.</p>
<p>It just seems very odd that some senior at Duke feels the desire to go on college confidential to bad-mouth a school he doesn't even attend.</p>
<p>Why are you so defensive CCRunner123? A lot of my friends go to UMich and my family resides in Michigan and they have been paying tax dollars to the state, which in turn funds the university operations of UMich, for over a decade. I think it's a fantastic school and I don't see how I'm "belittling" it by suggesting that a small number of private schools offer a better learning opportunities than it.</p>
<p>I'm just responding to the poster Alexandre who believes there is no difference in quality between an elite private like Chicago and a top state school like Michigan. The fact that there are a small number of Michigan students who go to top law schools, top medical schools, top companies, etc. doesn't really address my point that the top elite schools offer a better learning experience. For all you know, there might be several hundred more Michigan students who end up at top law schools if they had the right resources at their disposal.</p>
<p>Top private schools have excellent opportunities for undergraduate research, many grants available for students to complete service projects, great study abroad programs, intimate/intellecually engaging classroom experiences that a state school like Michigan can't match. So, I don't see how you think that the learning experience will be the same at both places Alexandre.</p>
<p>I don't suscribe to the idea that two students of similar ability will achieve the same results regardless of what college they attend. To suggest that would imply that the actual learning experience in college has no impact on a student's intelligence and maturity.</p>
<p>If we assume the hypothetical scenario of two students who went to a private school and Michigan who had similar stats in high school. Can you honestly say that the student who has to sit through many large discussion lectures in college and has to compete with 5,000 other students to take advantage of the resources of a large state university is as well off as the student who has many discussion lectures, studies abroad in a foreign country, has a meaningful internship, does a service project in the local community or abroad, has access to top-notch advising and career counseling, etc. will be equally well off at the end of college?</p>
<p>
[quote]
is as well off as the student who has many discussion lectures, studies abroad in a foreign country, has a meaningful internship, does a service project in the local community or abroad, has access to top-notch advising and career counseling, etc. will be equally well off at the end of college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we're going to go the anecdotal route you seemed to like:
I turned down both schools in question (duke and chicago, including 10k/year scholarship to chicago) to come here to study business (my original reasoning was mostly because of scholarship money/other financial constraints). At Michigan I have had the chance to do everything you mention here as being exclusive to private schools. I have never had any trouble obtaining access to any of our school's resources, am doing economics research under supervision by a world-renowned faculty member, have studied abroad, had solid investment banking internship experience, good access to professors, etc. </p>
<p>The only point you make that I think is probably true is the one about advising and career counseling. Im doing degrees in both ross and lsa and id say that, while ross's advising is probably up to par with duke, etc, lsa leaves much to be desired. I cant really speak for engineering or any other schools, but then again I doubt youd go to chicago anyway if your goal was to become an engineer.</p>
<p>
The academic opportunities and experiences available to Shipman students differ from those available to the general UMich population though. I definitely agree that for students in your position, Michigan is probably just as good of an option as any private school with the special benfits of a program like Shipmans.</p>
<p>However, imagine if the experience that you had at Michigan was shared by a 1/3 of the students in your class. Wouldn't you consider that a vast difference in learning atmosphere and opportunities available with regards to the student body as a whole? At a top private school, even a mediocre student can have access to what a top-notch student like yourself had at your disposal at UM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Top private schools have excellent opportunities for undergraduate research, ... that a state school like Michigan can't match.
[/quote]
Michigan is a pioneer in undergraduate research. It's "UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program) was created in 1989 to provide research partnerships between faculty and first- and second-year students." Michigan received the first ever NSF RAIRE Award in 1997 in recognition for its efforts as a research university to integrate undergraduate learning with research (Duke was one of the other 10 award recipients).</p>
<p>Nowadays, undergraduate research is rather common in a lot of research universities. The University of Washington reports that:</p>
<ul>
<li>every year, 7,000 undergraduates participate in research (that is 1/4 of the undergraduate student body)</li>
<li>100% of Material Science & Engineering majors are involved in undergraduate research</li>
<li>more than 160 undergraduates currently participate in research with the Department of Physics</li>
</ul>
<p>As Michigan has more top ranked departments, I'd give the edge to Michigan on research.</p>
<p>guys please stop feeding the trolls, didn't we have another duke guy who turned down michigan instate to goto duke just a few months ago? (ie. is this the same guy, different handle?)</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire, you are entitled to your opinion of course. Like many of this board, I fail to see the purpose of your involvement here. I am proud to say you will never see a Wolverine degrade another university on its own forum. </p>
<p>At any rate, it is clear you think little of Michigan since you chose to pay an additional $200,000 to attend Duke. Many of us (myself included) chose Michigan over Duke when there was virtually no difference in cost. It boils down to preference. You would not have chosen Duke over Michigan if you felt that Michigan came close to Duke. We would not have chosen Michigan over Duke if we did not feel Michigan were at least as good. It really boils down to preference. </p>
<p>However, you have offered no proof that Duke (or Chicago) is better than Michigan. I am not surprised really, since no such proof exists. Duke and Michigan are both excellent in their own right, albeit very different and therfore, not worth comparing. You are, however, clearly wrong about research opportunities, resources, intellectual atmosphere and placement etc...at Michigan. Your knowledge of the university is truly lacking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and has to compete with 5,000 other students to take advantage of the resources of a large state university
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That implies that U-M offers some level of paltry resources that people have to struggle to get. Is it not also possible that U-M is aware of its student population, and thereby offers lots of resources?</p>
<p>The biggest complaint I heard from a recent student survey? There's TOO MUCH great stuff at Michigan to choose from, and students need more/better channels for finding out about stuff. Now, that may be a problem that a smaller school wouldn't have, but it's a far different problem than the one you are accusing U-M of having.</p>
<p>I think you have some good points about why some students may prefer a smaller, excellently-funded private institution instead of a larger public. However, a few assertions aren't accurate, and this is one of them. It's possible that despite all your ties to U-M, you don't know all of its aspects intimately.</p>