<p>Alexandre and I do have similar backgrounds and I absolutely respect everything he says. As I mentioned, we just have a different point of view. Also, if LACs are not comparable to universities I would say MIT, Caltech are as irrelevant to rankings as Amherst/ Williams/ Swarthmoresince they are so focused on only one element of education.</p>
<p>I am not too sure about MIT Slipper. Obviously, MIT is amazing in Engineering, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geology, Mathematics and Physics. But it is also tops in Business, Economics, Linguisitics, Philosophy, Political Science and Psychology. Obviously, MIT leans more toward the sciences but I would not go so far as to say it is focused on only one element of the undergraduate experience. CalTech on the other hand is. But then again, so are most LACs. Would you suggest lumping CalTech with LACs?</p>
<p>My point is that the tech schools (I agree Caltech more than MIT) are so different from other graduate oriented schools that they too cannot be compared "apples to apples" with other universities, as there are both academic and student body differences. A true focused engineer would never truly consider Harvard or Yale. This to me is a more substantial difference than the difference between an econ major at Amherst or Michigan. On the other hand, for banking/ consulting MIT/ Caltech are on par with all the top schools. This is why ranking is so difficult.</p>
<p>Earlier I was asked if the same GPA and LSAT at Dartmouth and Cornell would be considered equally. They absolutely would. The difference though (and the reason (IMO) the LACs and places like Duke/ Dartmouth do so well) is that it is much easier to access opportunities at these schools. An anecdotal example but my good friend at Dartmouth (3.8, 35 MCAT) was Georgetown bound (a great school nonetheless) but his recommendations got him off the wait-list at Yale, WUSTL, and Penn (he attends Penn med).</p>
<p>An "all-star" at Michigan has honestly no disadvantage to the top against Columbia/ Duke/ Dartmouth/ etc but less "all-stars" are likely to come out on a percentage basis simply due to the graduate focus and size of the student body. Essentially there are too many people competing for the same grants, the same attention, etc. This is why personally I think endowment is critical to shape an experience, I feel as if a substatial percentage of Dartmouth's student body recieved research money whereas even at Columbia I know this was rare (I hate using Columbia as an example at risk of being a Columbia "basher" but I know the school extremely well). In my History major at Dartmouth, 100% of the honors students received over $2,000 in grants and many of them $10,000 plus. </p>
<p>Also, there is some comfort in knowing almost everyone who goes to your school is absolutely capable, this I think reinforces reputation. </p>
<p>Honestly, if I were in-state VA, MI, NC, CA I would say that the money saved is likely worth it since in the end the credibility and classwork is similar to most Ivies. But the attention you get at certain schools seems well worth it, especially since out of state students pay similar cost levels. My brother actually chose UNC over UVA/ UMICH because those two cost as much as most privates (he applies from Ohio) and UNC offered a similar education at an overall $50K discount.</p>
<p>honest truth is that there are a number of schools that are in "the consideration set" of grad schools and top employers. The difference between Penn and Cal is moot, more important is what you do when you get there.</p>
<p>Slipper, at Michigan, it is not merely the "all-stars" that succeed and are "absolutely capable. At Michigan, roughly 65% of the studens = 90% of the students at say Dartmouth. Anybody with a 3.5+ GPA will have major doors opening, from jobs with Fortune 500 companies to acceptances into top 10 MBA programs. </p>
<p>Only 3 of my close friends from Michigan graduated sub 3.5 GPAs. One of them graduated from Michigan undergrad with a 3.1 GPA, worked for GM for 6 years and just completed his MBA at Carnegie Mellon and the other graduated from Michigan undergrad with a 2.8 GPA, worked for Bank of New York for 5 years and just completed her MBA at Stern. Both have landed jobs that pay in the 6 figures range. I am not sure what happend to the third, but I understand she got her Law degree from UC Hastings and is actually doing quite well for herlsef in the Bay area. She graduated with a 3.2 GPA. That's what the "average" student at Michigan accomplishes. By average, I mean the middle 50% of the student body. </p>
<p>Roughly 25% of the students at Michigan are weaker and probably do not benefit all that much from their education at Michigan. </p>
<p>Finally, roughly 25% of the students are high capable students who are going to accomplish great things in life. Most of them end up working for major companies like the IBs, MCs, Pharmas and High Techs, or going to top 25 Law Schools or highly regarded Medical Schools. </p>
<p>For those seeking top Law schools admissions, 3.5+ GPAs are in order, but with 150 students enrolling into top 10 Law schools annually, and another 200 or so enrolling in top 25 but not top 10 Law schools, I would again say that you do not have to be an all-star to get into a Law School from Michigan. </p>
<p>A 3.3 at Michigan is equal to a 3.3 at Cornell and a 3.3 at Dartmouth. Same goes for a 3.6 and a 3.9. The real difference is the actual grading distribution.</p>
<p>You seriously underestimate the Michigan student and education. I think that is due to the fact that the mean SAT score at Michigan is 1320 rather than 1380 or 1420. I said it many times before. SAT scores are not telling. If you look closely, the typical Michigan student could have easily score a 1400 on the SAT or 32 on the ACT, were it required to do so. The typical Michigan student takes the SAT/ACT just once and probably never really prepared for the it...let alone took a Prep course. I would say 50% of Michigan's students fall under that category. They are 3.8-4.0 in-state students ranked in the top 5% of their class, come from upper-middle income familes and they know they are going to Michigan because any other university of equal quality will cost 3 times as much to attend since they do not offer merit-based scholarships. Those students could easily have prepared for the test and taken it a couple of times and broken the 1400/32 scores. Instead, they approach it nonchalantly, barely prepare for the test and settled for a 1300-1350/28-30 knowing that such a score will be enough to get them in. And since Michigan itself couldn't care less about the mean SAT score of its students, SAT/ACT scores at Michigan have remained slightly lower than at other peer institutions save Cal). But if you ask any of the out of state students who scored 1500 on their SAT, where straight A students in high school and picked Michigan over Ivy League Schools (myself included), they will tell you that the average student at Michigan is far more gifted than you'd expect. I got well over a 1500 in 1991 (back then, only a dozen students around the world got perfect 1600s and the Harvard mean was 1360). I got eight 5s on my AP exams and five As on my A' Level exams. I turned down 4 Ivy Leagues and a score of other good schools like Chicago, Cal, Northwestern and Duke to attend Michigan. And let me tell you, I struggled to graduate with a 3.5 GPA. </p>
<p>Bottom line, at the smaller elite private universities, 80%-90% of the students are absolutelty capable. At the much larger state universities like Cal and Michigan, 60%-70% of the students are absolutely capable. but when you consider that Michigan graduates 5,000 students annually, that means that employers and adcoms have over 3,000 excellent students to chose from. No matter how you look at it, that is an amazing number.</p>
<p>But I did not realize we were talking about quality of student bodies. I thought we were talking about the overall quality of an undergraduate institution. Whether 65% of 85% of your students are excellent doesn't matter. At that level, you are going to have overwhleming competition and standards. What matters is the rest. And Cal and Michigan have a lot to offer. </p>
<p>You talk about "attention to undergraduate students", if you want to condemn Michigan and Cal, you should also condemn Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Chicago and several other universities that have similar commitment to undergraduates.</p>
<p>We do agree on one thing. A great university helps, but it is what one accomplishes in university (GPA, personal growth, initiative taking, research, community work, networking etc...) that will determine whether a person is successful or not. A 3.8 student from a school like UTA or Illinois will probably be in better shape than a 2.8 student from a school like Duke or Chicago.</p>
<p>Good points all around, slipper and alexandre. Umich is great, just too frickin cold. lol</p>
<p>I just dont like how big Umich is. I would rather have a tight knit community with a place like Dartmouth. At places like that professors bring you to their homes, have unlimited time for you, and respect you greatly. I hope there are people like these at Duke.</p>
<p>DMC, on that we can agree. Michigan is huge and can be impersonal. You will not get many invites to professors' homes, although it it does happen more than you'd think, especially if you decide to go into research. But professors make the time for you. If you want to sit with a professor and have a few things explained to you, you can do it with relative ease. I used to spend a couple of hours with professors on 1 on 1s on a weekly basis in my junior and senior years...not so much my Freshman and Sophomore years. I am not sure how Duke is. I can tell you that schools like Harvard and Chicago are exactly like Michigan. Impersonal and needing initiative. I would guess Duke is somewhere in the middle. But no matter where you are (the smallest of LACs or the largest of Public Us), it is my personal experience that professors will always respect their students, and genuinely wish to help them out.</p>
<p>KupMup: I assume this order is for engineering, right? Because of the Fu Foundation stuff. But, by the way, it seems to me that the Fu foundation isn't very well rated. Please answer my thread called "Is SEAS underrated" at the Columbia subforum.</p>
<p>he def wants to be an engineer, it seems</p>
<p>Yale? Harvard? Columbia? Penn? Engineering? Those are decent schools of Engineering, but what happened to:</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon
Cornell
Michigan
Northwestern
Rice</p>