<p>I just think it's absurd to be mixing grad ratings with undergrad ratings on a prospective college board.</p>
<p>There are major differences between some programs in grad vs other programs in ugrad. I would definitely agree that Umich is absurdly strong in grad but that does not make up for its ugrad. Why should ugrads care that grad students will have good job offers and are highly regarded by peers and recruiters? Are they getting that prestige? No, they are getting the 60% acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Let's take CMU for example then (since I can talk about it without digging up data). Shall we mix its PH.D program in business(accounting) with a 3-5% acceptance rate with undergrad programs? </p>
<p>If you want to mix grad and ugrad for Michigan, then I'd agree with you that it would probably be a top 20 institution.</p>
<p>However I, and many others on this site, are only concerned with undergrad selectivity, ranking, and prestige and for undergrad Umich is not top 20.</p>
<p>you can't really compare Ivy League schools to non-ivy leauge schools. they have to be on equal standing it's like comparing luxury cars to regular cars. that being said Purdue is da ****...</p>
<p>I don't think you quite understand my point ACA. As an undergrad at Michigan, I was taught by Michigan leading Economists. The ones who make Michigan's Econ program one of the nation's top 10. I was taught by them in classes of 20-40 students. I got to know them on a first name basis. Furthermore, I also took a bunch of graduate level classes with graduate students. </p>
<p>And do not confuse selectivity with prestige or academic quality. They are not related. And even if it weren't for its incredible graduate programs, Michigan's undergraduate academic rating, its graduate school placement and its professional placement all place Michigan well in the top 20. Its undergraduate academic rating makes it a top 12 university, its professional placement is top 10 and its graduate school placement is top 20. All in all, Michigan is a top 20 undergraduate university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And do not confuse selectivity with prestige or academic quality.They are not related
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Long time no see Alexandre :). Unfortunately from mathematical point of view, this is incorrect, selectivity does have a highly positive correlation with prestige and academic quality. Pour the number on a table and calculate the cross-correlation among the three and surely a significantly high positive number will come out.</p>
<p>Absolutely Rtksyg, all top universities have strong student bodies. There is no doubt about that. But a university does not have to accept 30% of its applicants to be prestigious. For years now, Michigan has accepted 50%-60% of its applicants, and Michigan has always been one of the nation's most prestigious universities. You probably don't know this but from 1870-1970, Michigan was one of the nation's 5 or 6 most prestigious universities. And where it matters most, Michigan's prestige has not declined over the last 35 years. Chicago's acceptance rate (and until the last couple of years, Johns Hopkins) has always hovered in the 40%-50% range. Again, those two universities have always been among the most prestigious in the nation. But I repeat, popularity and quality are not always related. What appeals to 16 and 17 year old students is not always correlated with what impresses the highly educated adult.</p>
<p>First off, I am very glad you had such a rich and delightful college experience at Umich for undergrad. I too am very glad to have worked under great minds such as Steven Klepper for Economics. However, the caliber of the avg Umich ugrad student is still at question here.</p>
<p>For your points on Uchicago: Chicago however, has a very strong and self-selecting applicant pool (nerdy some may say). Johns Hopkins too, has a self-selecting applicant pool of pre-med majors as well as other science-interested students. This is why the caliber of students at JHU and Uchicago at the undergrad level is more intellectual and abled. </p>
<p>Michigan, as a state school, does not have such a self-selecting applicant pool. Just about everyone in Michigan who feels like they have a decent shot applies to Michigan. Many others out of state (as you can see from this board) apply to Michigan as a safetey for the Ivies because of its wonderful Rolling Admissions which allows one to get his/her decision back quickly and having a college "in the bag".</p>
<p>That is why I propose finding the ENROLLING freshman class instead of the accepted freshman class, as the matriculating students will probably have lower scores and stats than matriculating students at UChicago or JHU for Undergrad.</p>
<p>Yes, for example Rice University whose enrolled student numbers are as high or higher than all but 3 of the Ivy's and whose admit rate is similar to many of them. I guess if one considers selectivity and student stats to determine prestige, then Rice would be as or more prestigious than most Ivy's.</p>
<p>(Chicago has similar student stats, but a higher admit rate from a much smaller pool of applicants).</p>
<p>but idad, thats not true, b/c what is on paper is not what is true in reality</p>
<p>i got into Rice, i didn't get into brown, columbia, or upenn, rejected at 2 and waitlisted at one
yet, Rice on paper is more selective than probably 2 of those, it doesn't matter</p>
<p>Rice's students have higher stats than all three. My point was that basing subjective judgments such as perceived prestige on selectivity and student numbers doesn't work well. Individual experience is not a good indicator either, though they are interesting and can show that averages don't necessarily reflect individual cases. For example, my S had two friends with numbers similar to his rejected by Chicago who were accepted at Ivies.</p>
<p>If you're looking for the average quality of students, just do some calculations with stats. That's all the concrete evidence we have to work with anyway. If the basic average won't do it for you, try parcing it up to quartiles, so you can compare quarter to quarter. I think if this were done, Mich would measure up at least with the top two.</p>
<p>yeah i can, b/c i know a bunch of kids including myself, we got admitted to places like Rice, Chicago, Cornell and didn't hit other ivies such as Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown.....</p>
<p>its a regional thing, and places like Rice hand out scholarship money like water, and ivies don't, they can't.....</p>
<p>also, take a look at things a lil closer</p>
<p>Rice has 750 freshman, if they can get 200 kids with SAT scores above 1530, instantly they have a class with a 1330-1530 SAT range, and Rice has a ton of money, and i know for a fact, that they have lower tuition and they give out a lot of scholarships (merit-based) to many ppl, it is not accidental that they have a student body with such high scorers. Wash U does the same thing. If both schools couldn't award merit scholarships, their classes would fall by the wait side. Why do you think that Rice's entering class stats have been stagnant for the last few years. It has been at a 1330-1530 for the last 3-4 years. However, other schools have caught up. Its acceptance rate from last year got knocked down to 25 percent. Its clearly very stagnant right now.</p>
<p>a place like Cornell has 3100 freshman, to get such a class statistic, it would need not 200, not 500, but around 800 students above 1530, which is a lot harder to achieve.</p>
<p>I'm not taking sides in this prestige debate. However, to cite facts, Michigan reports its SAT results to the federal government, which publishes them on its IPEDS COOL site. Here is what Michigan reported for students applying for admission for fall 2005.</p>
<p>Scores 25th Percentile 75th Percentile
SAT I Verbal 590 690
SAT I Math 630 730</p>
<p>So it's combined mid 50% should be about 1220-1420. Well below any of the Ivies. SAT's may be meaningless, but those are the numbers.</p>
<p>afan, from what i've heard, umich, because it's a public school, can't report re-calculated sat score like ivies(ivies report recalculated applicants' sat scores that's combination of best scores from different sittings of tests) but umich doesn't. So I think we should give approx. 50-100 more scores to umich's sat scores</p>
<p>Everytime a person tells he/she goes to University of Michigan/Berkeley/UVa, I consider him/her as smart as I would consider an average Ivy League student.</p>
<p>Choosing school is purely a personal preference. My sister goes to Princeton, and I don't think she's a genius at all (she's obviously not stupid). She just worked her ass off for all her life.</p>