<p>So basically, It seems like there are three main categories for prestige:</p>
<ol>
<li>Academic Reputation (eg. Berkely > Brown)</li>
<li>Street name recognition (eg. Harvard > Williams)</li>
<li>Selectivity (eg. Dartmouth > Michigan)</li>
</ol>
<p>And the answer to "How prestigious" depends on your weight of the three.</p>
<p>I'd say Michigan does pretty well for #1, but not as well for the other two.</p>
<p>Ivy_grad, I did not compare Michigan to Princeton. I am comparing Michigan to Cornell or Johns Hopkins or Chicago. In terms of resources and quality, it is. And I am not cherry picking Michigan strengths either. Michigan is strong accross the board.</p>
<p>As for saying that the WSJ's ranking of Michigan is about right, would you also say that Caltech is #17 in the nation? </p>
<p>My point is that more than 15 universities can make a legitimate and just claim at being top 10. Michigan is one of them.</p>
<p>Ivy_grad, I did not compare Michigan to Princeton. I am comparing Michigan to Cornell or Johns Hopkins or Chicago or Northwestern or Penn or Brown. In terms of resources and quality, Michigan is similar to those schools. And I am not cherry picking Michigan strengths either. Michigan is strong accross the board.</p>
<p>As for saying that the WSJ's ranking of Michigan is about right, would you also say that Caltech is #17 in the nation? </p>
<p>My point is that more than 15 universities can make a legitimate and just claim at being top 10. Michigan is one of them.</p>
<p>Alexandre, huh? </p>
<p>I didn't compare Michigan to Princeton either.</p>
<p>My example was comparing STANFORD to Princeton simply to illustrate why the "aggregate" university endowment numbers are essentially meaningless when you just stack them up without any analysis / adjustments.</p>
<p>Here was what you posted re: endowments:</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) In terms of resources, Michigan is one of the 10 wealthiest universities in the nation:</p>
<h1>1 Harvard University: $26,000,000,000</h1>
<h1>2 Yale University: $15,000,000,000</h1>
<p>**#3 Stanford University: $12,000,000,000</p>
<h1>4 Princeton University: $11,000,000,000**</h1>
<h1>5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $6,700,000,000</h1>
<h1>6 Columbia University: $5,200,000,000</h1>
<h1>7 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: $5,000,000,000</h1>
<h1>8 Emory University: $4,400,000,000</h1>
<h1>9 University of Pennsylvania: $4,400,000,000</h1>
<h1>10 University of Texas-Austin: $4,400,000,000
[/quote]
</h1>
<p>Now here was my response:
*
[quote]
Take Princeton for example. The average undergraduate class is much smaller than at a typical research university. Not only that, it doesn't even have one of the "Big 3" graduate schools (i.e. Law, Medicine or Business) to suck up funds - yet its endowment is nearly as large as Stanford's - a school that dwarfs Princeton in sheer size of students (grad and undergrad = almost 15,000 students = more than double Princeton's grad + undergrad numbers). So even though Stanford's overall endowment ranking is higher than Princeton's, clearly Stanford's $$$ are spread much thinner than Princeton's. Not only that, at Stanford the total number of graduate students outnumber its undergrads - whereas at Princeton the number of undergrads is more than double the number of graduate students - i.e. where is the lion's share of each school's money being spent?
[/quote]
*</p>
<p>What is the major TAKEAWAY from that portion of my post?</p>
<p>That AGGREGATE endowment figures don't tell you anything meaningful if not adjusted / normalized.</p>
<p>That's it - <a href="the%20point%20wasn't%20to%20say%20Princeton%20%3E%20Michigan,%20if%20that%20was%20your%20takeaway,%20I'm%20afraid%20you%20misread%20my%20post">i</a>.*</p>
<p>Which is partially why, in my humble opinion, Princeton is the best school in the country by a significant margin.</p>
<p>When a state supported school has the endowment of a Michigan, even more weighting is required. There is a multiplier effect here. Whereas the privates have to rely on endowment (either directly or as security for financial instruments) and donations for new buildings, for example, state funding provides the base for most public U buildings. Further complicating the endowment numbers is that most funds are restricted in some way. That is, they can be spent only in support of certain activities. As for use of the word best when evaluating schools, it will always reside in the eye of the individual beholder. Indeed, Time Magazine singled out a Seattle community college as the Best College (not community college) in America.</p>
<p>I disagree, most privates fund buildings through new capital campaigns. Michigan's $5M endowment is impressive, but compared to Dartmouth's almost $3Billion as an example it isn't. Dartmouth has an eighth of the undergrad population and a seventh of the total population. There is a huge difference.</p>
<p>Which is precisely what I said, those campaigns often use the endowments for floating bonds, etc as well, most capital drives do not underwrite everything, especially increased staff costs either. A state U's endowment probably should be viewed with at least a X5 multiplier, possibly making MI & Texas the schools with the single largest endowments in the country.</p>
<p>Slipper, Ivy_Grad, even if Michigan depended purely on tuition and endowment to fund its budget, the University does very well for itself. Michigan's endowment per student is roughly $140,000. Cornell has an endowment/student of under $200,000/student and Penn is barely over $200,000/student. Johns Hopkins' endowment/student stands barely at $100,000. Georgetown's endowment/student is $60,000! Michigan's endowment per capita is huge. Among schools with over 10,000 students, Michigan's endowment per capita is the 14th highest. </p>
<p>But Michigan does not rely entirely on tuition and endowment. Michigan gets over $300 million from the state each year and another $700 million from the federal government. As a result, Michigan spends almost as much ($65,000) as Brown ($80,000) and Cornell ($75,000) on its undergraduates on a per capita basis.</p>
<p>Among schools with over 10,000 students, Michigan's endowment per capita is the 14th highest. </p>
<p>Alexandre, the problem is many of the schools Michigan competes with have under 10,000 students. In total its spending per student probably is ranked about 20, right where I personally think it should be ranked. Also, Cornell and Brown are the weakest Ivies in this area. Compare spending per student to Dartmouth or Columbia and then I might be a little more convinced.</p>
<p>Basically here's how I see Michigan in different areas (rough estimate!):
Endowment/ Spending Per Student: 20
Selectivity: 25-30ish
Academics (Research): 10-15 (maybe 12)
Academics (Undergrad Focus): 25-30</p>
<p>Overall I see an undergraduate school ranked somewhere near 20. None of this is science of course.</p>
<p>My point is that if Michigan were to have HALF the number of undergrads it currently has (also decreasing its budget of course), it would be closer to being a top 10-15. As of now its size makes it difficult to sustain the selectivity and undergrad focus necessary to be in that category.</p>
<p>Slipper, spending/student can decrease without a drop in quality as the size of the student body increases. Obviously, there is a significant difference between spending $200,000/student and $50,000/student. But a school with 5,000 undergrads will probably spend twice as much/student as a university with 25,000 undergrads in order to give their students the same opportunities, access to worldclass faculty and facilities.</p>
<p>As far as selectivy goes, I have to agree with you. Michigan is not as selective as its peers. In terms of selectivity, ranking Michigan between #25 and #30 among research universities sounds about right. But in terms of the quality of the student body, I'd say Michigan is roughly equal to any university between #12 and #30. Like I said earlier, you either really underestimate Michigan's student body...or overestimate the quality of the student body at other universities. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I definitely do not agree with your academics ratings.</p>
<p>For academics (research), Michigan is slightly higher than #12...more like #4-#10. Cal, Stanford and Harvard are the top 3. Next come Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, Penn, Princeton and Yale.</p>
<p>For academics (undergraduate focus), among research universities, Michigan is more like #6-#17. I'd say that Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Princeton and Yale are best when it comes to mixing research with undergraduate focus. I am sorry, but Cal, Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Penn and Stanford aren't more undergraduate focused than Michigan. There are some schools that may have more of an undergraduate focus, but they lack the academic power to make a difference.</p>
<p>Overall, as an undergraduate institution, I'd say Michigan can be ranked anywhere between #6 and #17, depending on what you value. For Engineers, pre-professionals, students interested in the Social Sciences, students interested in research and students who like a wide variety of courses, Michigan is hard to beat. On the other hand, for students who want a very focused undergraduate experience, very close contact with faculty at the Freshman and Sophomore level or students who are very keen on the pure sciences (except for Math), Michigan will probably not make the top 15. Ranking Michigan worse than 17 would be ranking it too low.</p>
<p>One thing we can agree on is that Michigan could definitely benefit from decreasing the size of its student body.</p>
<p>I don't know about #4 for academics. I think the following schools exceed Michigan in academic research: Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Chicago, Columbia, Princeton. (8 Schools). And Michigan is peer with: Duke, Penn, JHU, Cornell, NU, UCLA, UCSD, Yale (8 Schools)</p>
<p>Purdue is one of the best and most prestigous universities in the country and i can't believe you guys are leaving it out of this discussion. Im from chicago and have visited chicago U and im not overly impressed. Purdue should def be in the list it would be in most "important people's" top 20 list believe me.</p>
<p>what about Devry Institute...</p>
<p>Devry Institute is one of the best and most prestigious universities in the country and i can't believe you guys are leaving it out of this discussion. Im from New York and have visited Columbia and Cornell and im not overly impressed. Devry Institute should def be in the list it would be in the most "important people's" top 20 list believe me.</p>
<p>Harvard, Cal and Stanford "exceed" Michigan in the research academics bit. The others you mention do not exceed Michigan. Overall, 9 of the remainin schools you mention are certainly as good as Michigan, and they all rank between #4 and #13 or so, with very little separating them. But UCSD, Caltech, Northwestern and Duke are not quite as well rounded.</p>
<p>If you look at the combined rankings in the main disciplines, you see that Michigan is one of the top 10 for sure...arguably one of the top 5. The link below shows you the ranking based on the USNWR averages for research programs.</p>
<p>Here are some research rankings of the universities you feel are better or equal to Michigan in the various disciplines according to the USNWR. The # indicates the national ranking and the number if () indicates the peer assessment score.</p>
<p>BIOLOGY:</p>
<h1>2 MIT (4.8)</h1>
<h1>5 Caltech (4.7)</h1>
<h1>5 Johns Hopkins (4.7)</h1>
<h1>9 Princeton (4.5)</h1>
<h1>9 Yale (4.5)</h1>
<h1>12 Duke (4.4)</h1>
<h1>14 Columbia (4.3)</h1>
<h1>14 Cornell (4.3)</h1>
<h1>14 Michigan (4.3)</h1>
<h1>14 UCSD (4.3)</h1>
<h1>20 Chicago (4.2)</h1>
<h1>20 UCLA (4.2)</h1>
<h1>23 Penn (4.1)</h1>
<h1>36 Northwestern (3.6)</h1>
<p>CHEMISTRY:</p>
<h1>2 Caltech (4.9)</h1>
<h1>2 MIT (4.9)</h1>
<h1>8 Columbia (4.4)</h1>
<h1>8 Cornell (4.4)</h1>
<h1>11 UCLA (4.3)</h1>
<h1>12 Northwestern (4.2)</h1>
<h1>14 Chicago (4.1)</h1>
<h1>14 Princeton (4.1)</h1>
<h1>14 Yale (4.1)</h1>
<h1>18 Penn (4.0)</h1>
<h1>21 Michigan (3.9)</h1>
<h1>22 UCSD (3.8)</h1>
<h1>27 Johns Hopkins (3.7)</h1>
<h1>43 Duke (3.3)</h1>
<p>COMPUTER SCIENCE:</p>
<h1>1 MIT (4.9)</h1>
<h1>6 Cornell (4.5)</h1>
<h1>9 Princeton (4.3)</h1>
<h1>10 Caltech (4.1)</h1>
<h1>14 Michigan (3.9)</h1>
<h1>14 UCLA (3.9)</h1>
<h1>17 Penn (3.8)</h1>
<h1>20 Columbia (3.7)</h1>
<h1>20 Duke (3.7)</h1>
<h1>20 UCSD (3.7)</h1>
<h1>25 Yale (3.6)</h1>
<h1>29 Johns Hopkins (3.3)</h1>
<h1>35 University of Chicago (3.2)</h1>
<p>N/A Northwestern</p>
<p>ECONOMICS:</p>
<h1>1 MIT (5.0)</h1>
<h1>1 Chicago (5.0)</h1>
<h1>3 Princeton (4.9)</h1>
<h1>7 Yale (4.8)</h1>
<h1>8 Northwestern (4.6)</h1>
<h1>9 Penn (4.5)</h1>
<h1>10 UCSD (4.3)</h1>
<h1>11 Columbia (4.2)</h1>
<h1>11 Michigan (4.2)</h1>
<h1>11 UCLA (4.2)</h1>
<h1>17 Caltech (4.0)</h1>
<h1>17 Cornell 4.0)</h1>
<h1>21 Duke (3.7)</h1>
<h1>24 Johns Hopkins (3.6)</h1>
<p>ENGLISH:</p>
<h1>1 Yale (4.9)</h1>
<h1>4 Princeton (4.8)</h1>
<h1>6 Chicago (4.7)</h1>
<h1>6 Cornell (4.7)</h1>
<h1>8 Columbia (4.6)</h1>
<h1>8 Johns Hopkins (4.6)</h1>
<h1>10 Penn (4.5)</h1>
<h1>10 UCLA (4.5)</h1>
<h1>12 Duke (4.4)</h1>
<h1>12 Michigan (4.4)</h1>
<h1>19 Northwestern (4.0)</h1>
<p>N/A Caltech
N/A MIT
N/A UCSD</p>
<p>GEOLOGY:</p>
<h1>1 Caltech (4.9)</h1>
<h1>2 MIT (4.8)</h1>
<h1>5 Columbia (4.3)</h1>
<h1>5 Michigan (4.3)</h1>
<h1>10 Chicago (4.0)</h1>
<h1>11 Cornell (3.9)</h1>
<h1>11 Johns Hopkins (3.9)</h1>
<h1>11 Princeton (3.9)</h1>
<h1>11 UCLA (3.9)</h1>
<h1>11 UCSD (3.9)</h1>
<h1>20 Yale (3.6)</h1>
<p>N/A Duke
N/A Northwestern
N/A Penn</p>
<p>HISTORY:</p>
<h1>1 Yale (4.9)</h1>
<h1>2 Princeton (4.8)</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago (4.7)</h1>
<h1>7 Columbia (4.6)</h1>
<h1>7 Michigan (4.6)</h1>
<h1>9 Johns Hopkins (4.5)</h1>
<h1>9 UCLA (4.5)</h1>
<h1>11 Cornell (4.4)</h1>
<h1>13 Penn (4.3)</h1>
<h1>15 Duke (4.1)</h1>
<h1>17 Northwestern (4.0)</h1>
<p>NA/ Caltech
N/A MIT
NA/ UCSD</p>
<p>MATHEMATICS:</p>
<h1>1 MIT (5.0)</h1>
<h1>2 Princeton (4.9)</h1>
<h1>6 Chicago (4.8)</h1>
<h1>7 Yale (4.7)</h1>
<h1>8 Caltech (4.6)</h1>
<h1>8 Michigan (4.6)</h1>
<h1>10 Cornell (4.4)</h1>
<h1>10 UCLA (4.4)</h1>
<h1>13 Columbia (4.3)</h1>
<h1>16 Penn (4.1)</h1>
<h1>21 Northwestern (4.0)</h1>
<h1>21 UCSD (4.0)</h1>
<h1>25 Duke (3.9)</h1>
<h1>26 Johns Hopkins (3.8)</h1>
<p>PHYSICS:</p>
<h1>1 Caltech (5.0)</h1>
<h1>1 MIT (5.0)</h1>
<h1>3 Princeton (4.9)</h1>
<h1>7 Chicago (4.6)</h1>
<h1>7 Cornell (4.6)</h1>
<h1>10 Columbia (4.3)</h1>
<h1>12 Yale (4.2)</h1>
<h1>13 Michigan (4.1)</h1>
<h1>16 UCLA (4.0)</h1>
<h1>16 UCSD (4.0)</h1>
<h1>20 Johns Hopkins (3.9)</h1>
<h1>20 Penn (3.9)</h1>
<h1>28 Northwestern (3.5)</h1>
<h1>32 Duke (3.4)</h1>
<p>POLITICAL SCIENCE:</p>
<h1>3 Michigan (4.8)</h1>
<h1>4 Princeton (4.7)</h1>
<h1>5 Yale (4.6)</h1>
<h1>7 UCSD (4.4)</h1>
<h1>8 Chicago (4.3)</h1>
<h1>8 Duke (4.3)</h1>
<h1>10 Columbia (4.2)</h1>
<h1>10 MIT (4.2)</h1>
<h1>10 UCLA (4.2)</h1>
<h1>18 Cornell (3.8)</h1>
<h1>21 Northwestern (3.6)</h1>
<p>N/A Caltech
N/A Johns Hopkins
N/A Penn</p>
<p>PSYCHOLOGY:</p>
<h1>2 Michigan (4.6)</h1>
<h1>4 Yale (4.5)</h1>
<h1>5 Princeton (4.4)</h1>
<h1>5 UCLA (4.4)</h1>
<h1>12 MIT (4.1)</h1>
<h1>16 Columbia (4.0)</h1>
<h1>16 Cornell (4.0)</h1>
<h1>16 UCSD (4.0)</h1>
<h1>16 Penn (4.0)</h1>
<h1>22 Johns Hopkins (3.9)</h1>
<h1>22 Northwestern (3.9)</h1>
<h1>28 Chicago (3.9)</h1>
<h1>28 Duke (3.8</h1>
<p>N/A Caltech</p>
<p>SOCIOLOGY:</p>
<h1>3 Michigan (4.7)</h1>
<h1>4 Chicago (4.6)</h1>
<h1>6 Princeton (4.5)</h1>
<h1>8 UCLA (4.4)</h1>
<h1>10 Penn (4.2)</h1>
<h1>11 Columbia (4.1)</h1>
<h1>11 Northwestern (4.1)</h1>
<h1>14 Cornell (3.9)</h1>
<h1>14 Duke (3.9)</h1>
<h1>20 Yale (3.7)</h1>
<h1>22 Johns Hopkins (3.6)</h1>
<p>N/A Caltech
N/A MIT
N/A UCSD</p>
<p>As you can see, in terms of raw academic power, Michigan is very well rounded and very tough to edge out, especially in the Social Sciences.</p>
<p>Dude.. this is graduate programs..</p>
<p>HELLO?!?! UNDERGRAD?!?!</p>
<p>Also can we please use non-obscure rankings?</p>
<p>ACA, we are discussing academics pertaining to research. Look at what Slipper and I were discussing above. We fragmented academics into undergraduate focus and into research. Graduate rankings are at the heart of the matter when discussing the latter. Maybe the professors at some leading graduate programs do not teach undergrads, but at most top research programs, leading faculty members teach juniors and seniors in an intimate setting and most uppleclassment take graduate level classes with leading academics, faculty and cutting edge research.</p>
<p>Hmm... I don't know why you guys are arguing about that.</p>
<p>If you really think graduate programs mean a good undergrad, then you are mistaken. Look at Fordham Law or NYU Law. Or look at Princeton's lack of good graduate programs. </p>
<p>Just because there is interlap between some academic grad/ugrad does not suddenly mean UCSD should also be a top 25 college too.</p>
<p>ACA, you are sadly mistaken. First of all, Princeton is ranked among the top 10 in almost every graduate discipline. In fact, Princetin is ranked in the top 10 in 10 ofd the 12 disciplines I list above and in the top 15 in all 12 disciplines. It lacks professional programs, but we are talking about overall academic power, and Princeton is very strong. And Fordham has a top 30 Law school but nothing else. Besides, Law is not an undergraduate major. But Economics, Political Science, Mathematics and Physics are undergraduate majors.</p>
<p>So do not be fooled into believing that top graduate programs are meaningless to undergraduate rankings. They are very much a part of undergraduate education. Obviously, so is undergraduate focus. It is important to combine two. That is why schools like Brown and Dartmouth, which aren't that strong in terms of graduate and research rankings, are still amazing undergraduate institutions, worthy of top 10 rankings.</p>