<p>DMC, you cannot conveniently separate undergraduate from graduate. They are identical. In some ways, Cal and Michigan are simply too good to be left out of the top 10. In other ways, they are indeed not good enough to make the top 10 list. I can say the same of Penn and Duke. The USNWR that you so highly praise even says as much. Academically, Michigan is tied with Duke and Penn...Cal is better than all three.</p>
<p>Josh, rating Michigan above Rice is not absurd, although clearly, Rice has its qualities that arguably make it as good, if not better, than Michigan.</p>
<p>Alexandre, how can you seperate LACs from other undergraduate differences but not graduate schools. You have yourself admitted that the prowess of a graduate department has little to do with how good the undergraduate programs is. You have to take the benefits of LACs into account when looking at schools, or otherwise how can one make sense of a Brown/ Dartmouth (undergraduate focused) against a place like Cal (graduate focused).</p>
<p>Eeerrr...Slipper, that IS precisely the point. Research universities should be kept separate from LACs precisely because graduate program enrich and impoverish undergraduate educations. I would never say that LACs are better than research universities at undergraduate education. They are simply different. </p>
<p>And Slipper, I have never said that the prowess of graduate department has little to do with the quality of their undergraduate counterparts. On the contrary, I always maintained that the two cannot be separated in most instances. It is possible for an undergraduate program to be excellent if the graduate program isn't, but it is not possible for the opposite to be true. You cannot have a top graduate program that isn't a top undergraduate program, lest you assume the students do not know how to manage themselves, in which case, the students are a lost cause, regardless of their education.</p>
<p>And Slipper, I think you know by now that I do not believe that one can fairly rate a university one piece at a time. A university must be looked at as one package. To say that Dartmouth and Brown are better undergraduate institutions that Cal or Michigan is a lie...or ignorance. Take your pick, it is not flattering either way.</p>
<p>Ummm...Analyzing a place like Dartmouth against graduate focused schools like Michigan makes exactly the same sense as analyzing it against a place like Williams. All are in the consideration set of would be students so they must be looked at together. Just because we can't simply quantify the differences does not mean that they are exclusive to each other. </p>
<p>Going to a place like Dartmouth or a LAC is much more than the academics, its the alumni sentiment (not the rah-rah football kind), the students connection to the place, the resources available to UNDERGRADS, the faculty attention to teaching and availability, the opportunities to go on special programs, etc. Having attended undergrad at both Columbia (research university) and Dartmouth (LAC-like school) I can honestly say that there was no comparison. At Columbia I felt as if some of my Professors were doing me a favor by talking to me, at Dartmouth the same professor invites the class home to dinner. </p>
<p>I found this from the Yale board...</p>
<p>...Other factors come into play: the undergraduate focus, the thoughtfulness that went into the design of the university rules and regulations, the quality and variety in residential life, the user-friendliness, aesthetics, and stimulation of the setting (New Haven is nowhere as bad as people think), the size of the endowment and how smartly it is spent, etc. When all this is put together, for most students, Yale still provides an undergraduate education that is second to none, along with a dozen or so colleges that range from research universities to small liberal arts colleges. Can Yale still compete with Harvard and Stanford in academic strength across the board? Not any more. Can Yale still attract applicants of extremely high caliber and make them happy they went there by giving them an undergraduate education exceeding their every expectation? Most certainly.</p>
<p>Slipper, on that we can agree. Dartmouth and Columbia, Williams and Cal, Brown and Michigan etc... are different. I never said they were the same. But to claim that one type of school offers a better undergraduate education or experience than another type isn't true. It just isn't. They are all amazing universities that offer equally brilliant educations. And one more thing Slipper. There is far more that unites Michigan students than the football program. Michigan alums are arguably the most loyal of any alumni base. The reason is simple, Michigan offers the best undergraduate experience in the nation. It may have equals in that regard, but it has no superiors.</p>
<p>Aaaahhhh...BBall, you are a newbie here. Slipper and I always argue, but deep inside, I actually respect him a great deal. And he respects Michigan a great deal too...but we have very different points of views on the issue of what constitutes a great undergraduate institution.</p>
<p>well the fact that you respect my school Cornell more than Slipper does, I gotta give you more respect than my man Slipper, who constantly treats my schooool like second-class.</p>
<p>After reading all the preceding posts i have to ask one thing. Alexandre, what makes Umich a better school than Uva? The only answer IMO is your bias. Please don't take this the wrong way, Umich is a great school, and you are extremely helpful and knowledgable about colleges.<br>
As a side note: This year USNWR rated Uva and Umich tied at 22. EVERY year before that(i have info from 1996-2005) Uva was ranked HIGHER than Umich, and from up until 1999 it was the #1 public university(also in 2000 i believe Uva and UCB were tied at #1). Now i know USNWR rankings aren't everything, but i believe that count more than a SINGLE persons opinion. Also i don't think there is any argument against the fact that Uva offers the BEST public UNDERGRAD education, and still phenomenal graduate and research.</p>
<p>USNews usually has UVA higher, for whatever thats worth, and in most places more people would rather be at UVA then UMich (most places around here, mind you)</p>
<p>well idk, wat turned me off to UVA is that they have A VERY LITTLE out of state population, hence, it is hard to get in out-of-state. Therefore, I didn't want to go to a school that had 90 percent in-state. That was too much for me.</p>
<p>Uvajoe, its funny that in the same post that you call Alexander out on his bias towards Mich, you say that it is a "fact that uva offers the best public undergrad education." Hmm, bias? Because as a Cal student I certainly wouldn't agree with you, but the fact that educational experience is subjective, I don't see how any of us can say wich is better. We can only really argue about prestige, because that too is purley subjective. If you think that UVA is more prestigious than Cal, that's your oppinion, but to say it is better for undergrads can't really be proven.</p>
<p>BBall, no one here is arguing. Truth is, we all have respect for one another and debates like these are actually quite healthy. With that said, suppose a Penn/Duke/Columbia/Dartmouth student with a 4.0 GPA and a 180 LSAt was applying to Harvard Law. Now, say an exact same student statistically was applying to harvard Law from Umich. Let us be real for one moment, the Penn/Duke/COlumbia/Dartmouth student is bound to have the advantage. I suppose that could be the definitve measure of "prestige:" how other high ranking schools view your school.</p>