top 15 most prestigious universities

College Search & Selection
221

<p>Yea well some ppl at michigan are stupid. I know plenty of 3.3 in-staters and idiot 3.5ers from my old high school. </p>

<p>Seriously one of them argued once during Philosophy that unless we all loved each other more and worked together, we will all die out like "the dinosaurs". </p>

<p>I can only imagine how bad things are for INSTATE.</p>

<p>I know some pretty smart UVA kids and Berkeley kids ARE intelligent. I think of some asian friends I know and their interests in science and academics. When i think of Umich, I think 60% acceptance rate and a bunch of Philosophy 'tards who couldn't even get into NYU.</p>

222

<p>the dumbest girl i've ever known goes to UMich. She even got in after flunking a stupid art elective in high school. I know it's a terrific school, I just keep shaking my head when I recall all of the dumb things that she has said before.</p>

223

<p>

Really? I think UMich is a fine school, with some great students. But on average? Believe me when I say I'm not an Ivy league fanboy, but I feel pretty strongly that an average Ivy league student is smarter and/or more qualified than the average UMich undergrad. This is strongly (though not completely) correlated to selectivity. </p>

<p>On another note, what AcceptedToCollegeAlready said about comparing enrolled scores/average class rank to admitted is interesting, and might say a lot about UMich's selectivity.</p>

<p>Edit: I didn't mean to pick on UMich only, but I don't know much about UVa, and I tend to think of Berkeley as having a stronger student body than UMich - though I admit I could certainly be wrong.</p>

224

<p>ACA, I am sure you know "idiots" who attend Michigan. You will have a fair share of idiots at every elite univetsity. I have known idiots that attended Stanford. I convinced a couple of Stanford students (not athletes mind you) that I was Indian. For the record, although I am an Arab, I look nothing like an Indian. I don't even look like an Arab! I have very light skin, blond hair and very light blue eyes. People often guess I am German. And Yale admits idiots too. I am not going to mention any names, but I know at least one idiot who attended Yale. hehe Michigan has 25,000 undergrads. Odds are pretty good that Michigan has a couple thousand idiots lurking in the corners. Michigan also has 15,000 undergrads who got 1300-1600 on their SATs, graduated in the top 5% of their class with 3.7+ unweighed GPAs. Those students have Ivy League stats and abilities. Can you name me an Ivy League with 15,000 undergrads? Can you even name me an Ivy League that has over 10,000 undergrads with such stats. And remember, Michigan does not recalculate the SAT. </p>

<p>Anyway, most of the remaining 10,000 undergrads at Michigan got 1200-1300 on their SAT, graduated in the top 10% of their class with unweighed GPAs in the 3.5-3.7 range. And Like I said, Michigan does not fudge their SATs like private schools do. That alone makes a difference of 40 points. Add 40 points to Michigan's averages and ranges, and you have SAT scores similar to those at Cornell, Brown etc... So yes, Michigan has many idiots, but the number of brilliant students outnumber them by a large margin. So yes, op students, getting into Michigan is not that difficult. But that doesn't mean Michigan doesn't have a stellar student body.</p>

225

<p>Even without the extra 50-100 points, an SAT of over 1420 puts one in the top 25% at Michigan. That means there are roughly 1500 students in the entering class scoring above 1420 on the SAT. The average SAT for that group must be much higher, lets say close to 1500. The average for Dartmouth's, for example, (about) 1000 freshman is 1437 (as reported for 2005 in the PR). Therefore, there are more students with overall higher SAT scores at Michigan than at Dartmouth. True there are many more with lower scores, but if one wants to find a community of people with very high numbers, it can be found quite easily at Michigan. (No reason to single out Dartmouth, I just like that school so it was the first one I thought of.)</p>

226

<p>CGhen, Cal, Michigan and UVA have identical student bodies in terms of stats. Their mean SAT scores, class ranks and unweighed GPA ranges are pretty much the same. And all three have student bodies that are better than they seem because private universities manipulate their data...public schools cannot manipulate their data. This adds, on average, 40 points to the SAT scores and ranges of private universities. It isn't much, but then again, neither if the difference between the actual SAT scores at Cal, Michigan and UVA and the recalculated SAT scores at some of the Ivies.</p>

227

<p>
[quote]
This adds, on average, 40 points to the SAT scores and ranges of private universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I assume you have emperical evidence or backup data for such a precise figure? Which would further assume that you :</p>

<p>1) Are correct that EVERY private university manipulates their data AND
2) You know exactly by HOW MUCH they manipulate their data</p>

<p>Bold assumptions...</p>

228

<p>Not at all bold. Private universities take the highest score of each section of the test, regardless of how many times a student takes the SAT. That is undisputable. Public universities can only consider the highest score in one sitting. That too is undisputable. As for whether or not the way private schools report their SAT means and ranges adds 40 points to the actual SAT means and ranges, a study was made a couple of years back that showed that taking the highest score in each section as opposed to the highest score in one sitting adds 30-50 points to the average. I forgot who conducted that study, but it was a well regarded source.</p>

229

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>By manipulating the data, you mean that private universities take the best verbal and best math scores separately opposed to in one sitting right? Just a question for my clarification. (Edit: has been answered)</p>

<p>Even with those 40 (or however many - 40 sounds plausible) points, I'm still not convinced that UMich (for example - I'll take your word that Berkeley and UVa are similar) has as good of a student body statistically as most or all Ivy league schools. </p>

<p>Lets compare the data found in:
<a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_freshprof.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/files/umaa_freshprof.pdf&lt;/a> (for UMich)
and
<a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html&lt;/a> (for Brown - which seems to be on the weaker side of the Ivy league from what people have said here).</p>

<p>Accepted Applicants/Total Applicants (for 2005):
UMich: 57.0 percent (13,610/23,882)
Brown: 15.1 percent (2,557/16,911)</p>

<p>Frankly I was really surprised that UMich's acceptance rate was SO high. I certainly don't think that applicants "self-select" away from applying to UMich as well, and so I think these numbers are pretty indicative of selectivity.</p>

<p>75 percentile enrolled SAT score (remember UMich could be ~40 points artificially low):
UMich: 690 V + 730 M = 1420, so I'll concede 1460
Brown: ~775 V + ~770 M = ~1545 (these are approximate because of how the data are presented on the website - it could range from 1500-1600, but probably closer to 1530-1560 - take a look at the numbers yourself).</p>

<p>Clearly there's a statistical difference here, even with the extra 40 points.</p>

<p>25 percentile enrolled SAT score:
UMich: 590 V + 630 M = 1220, so I'll concede 1260
Brown: ~660 V + ~675 M = ~1335 (again could range from 1300 to 1400, but it should be near 1330 or so).</p>

<p>Anyway, again there's definitely a big difference in these scores.</p>

<p>My only point was that the average student from the Ivy league is smarter/more qualified than the average student from UMich. </p>

<p>Feel free to look through the data and see if I miss-interpreted anything. I'm always open to a convincing argument.</p>

230

<p>Idad, Dartmouth is 1/6 the size. Raw numbers are meaningless. There are more 1500+ at Ohio State than Amherst, it doesn't mean anything.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone is arguing there are many top students at Michigan, and as I mentioned a top student can get a lot out of the Michigan experience. Its just flat out not as selective. Anecdotally the kids from my high school who went to Michigan weren't even close to the Ivy kids.</p>

231

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, surely when I mean selectivity, it doesn't mean simply acceptance rate (i.e. count in the quality of the applicant pools and discount the effect of low yield rate). Nevertheless, the fact that selectivity, prestige and academic quality have high correlation towards each other is undeniable mathematically.</p>

232

<p>Acceptance rate is not an important measure of quality. Schools like Chicago, Johns Hopkins and Michigan prove that. </p>

<p>Your SAT ranges sound about right. At Michigan,(or Cal and UVA) the mid 50% SAT range is 1240-1400 (1200-1450 at Cal and 1230-1430 at UVA). If you add 40 points, you get 1280-1440 (1240-1490 at Cal and 1270-1470 at UVA). The mid 50% at Brown is 1320-1500 (not 1335-1545). Cornell's range is a little lower than Brown's. So yes, there is obviously a difference, I just don't think it is noteworthy. </p>

<p>Slipper, your experience with your school is obviously limited. From my school, roughly 5 or 6 students would enroll into Michigan annually. Many of them chose Michigan over Ivy League schools. My year, 7 of us went to Michigan and all of us save maybe one (it was a long time ago so I forget) chose Michigan over Ivies. My school was obviously another extreme. Maybe in your locale, Michigan isn't popular and the Ivies are. In the Middle East and in Europe, Michigan is very highly regarded. All I am saying is that we should probably stick to the overall stats, not merely our limited exposure. </p>

<p>And by the way Slipper, like I always say, it isn't merely a small number of students who are good at Michigan. Well over 50% of Michigan students have credentials of Ivy League students. By Ivy credentials I mean the following:</p>

<p>-Above a 1300 on the SAT (in one sitting mind you. Let us assume for now that there is absolutely no advantage to the way private universities recalculate the SAT)
-Unweighed GPA of at least 3.7
-Lots of AP classes
-Class rank in the top 5%
-Very strong ECs</p>

<p>That is a fact that no amount of arguing can diminish. If you are disqualifying Michigan from being a good university simply because only 50%-60% as opposed to 75% (in the case of Brown or Cornell)-90% (in the case of H,P and Y) of the students are stellar, that's your prerogative, but most people in high places don't usually care about such little details. The fact is, Michigan has a huge number of very talented students...always has. That's why Michigan checks it at #18 on the feeder scale, marginally below Caltech, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Penn etc... and that is why companies like McKinsey, BCG, Carlyle Group, Goldman Sachs, Lazard, Morgan Stanley etc... recruit so many Michigan students.</p>

233

<p>


</p>

<p>I think you might be underestimating the immense value of a strong student body on the quality of a school.</p>

<p>In terms of academics, how much information is taught in classes is solely limited by the ability for the average student to absorb new information. A higher average of qualified students leads to classes expecting more from students, and consequently the students learning more. Schools like MIT can cover more (and in more depth) not because the faculty are amazing, but rather because the students know what they’re doing. I would be really surprised if anyone thought that neither the breadth or depth of a course is strongly correlated to the preparedness and intelligence of the students who are in the class.</p>

<p>Moreover, there are many benefits of being around intelligent (in some field) people in that a lot of learning is done outside the classroom through peer interaction and collaboration. I think most people understand what I’m talking about so I won’t elaborate further. </p>

<p>Finally, really the overall prestige of a college is strongly related to the performance and capacity of the average student. Think of it this way, most people (employers) assess the prestige of a college based on the successes (or failures) of people they’ve met that went to that college. We see it all the time on the boards here – where people will boil down their thoughts of a school into saying “well this guy was so retarded”, or “wow everyone I’ve met was a genius from there.” While this may not be the most objective or “valid” approach to evaluating prestige, there’s no denial that employers will be at least partly basing their impressions of a college off the previous graduates they’ve encountered. </p>

<p>Nothing more comes to mind about why a strong (average or otherwise) student body is important, but I think that the difference between 50-60 percent and 75 percent are quite noticeable and important.</p>

234

<p>cghen, all of your points are very valid...and do not apply to Michigan and Cal. Those two schools have faculties that bulldoz over students. It is sink or swim and the faculty has no issues with the fact that they will give Cs and Ds to 50% of their students. It is pretty clear that most Michigan and Cal profs would never lower their standards and since the faculties at Cal and Michigan are among the top in the World, their standards are pretty lofty. Only top students get s As and Bs at Michigan. I know for a fact that the material taught at Michigan is identical to the material taught at Chicago, Cornell or Stanford. I have enough friends who went to those schools who majored in Economics and we often compared notes. We were learning the same material at the same pace. </p>

<p>I also agree that associating with driven and gifted students is also important. If a person cannot identify the 60% of the students at Cal or Michigan who qualify, then perhaps they shouldn't count themselves among the driven and gifted. I certainly never had any trouble finding challenging conversations while at Michigan. </p>

<p>Finally, employers value Michigan greatly. It is one of their favorite hunting grounds. If you can find one major exclusive employer that does not list Michigan among its "strategic" campuses, let me know. But the numbers don't lie. Last year, over 200 Michigan undergrads joined exclusive IBs andMCs. Close to 100 from Ross alone and well over 100 from the colleges of Engineering and LSA. </p>

<p>Finally, and I am tired of repeating myself, if Michigan's student body weren't so qualified, why is it that that in 2004, Michigan sent 156 students to top 5 Medical Schools, top 5 Law Schools and top 5 MBA programs? Only 4 universities (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale) sent more. Even as a ratio of all students, only 17 universities did better than Michigan. Cornell, Caltech, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn were only fractionally better.</p>

<p>I repeat, there is almost no difference between the students at Michigan and those at elite private schools...and that difference can easily be overlooked. It obviously is by professional recruits and elite graduate school adcoms.</p>

235

<p>Alex you have not addressed one important fact.</p>

<p>JHU and Uchicago have self-selecting applicants. Umich however, does not as it is a state school, has rolling admissions, and is seen as a safety for many top students.</p>

236

<p>I never dsaid Michigan had a self-selecting student body. I said acceptance rates are unrevealing. But if you must know, Michigan has a self-selecting applicant pool. From the state of Michigan, only students with excellent credentials bother applying. From out of state, mostly very serious students apply because let us face it, most out of staters want to live on one of the two coasts, so those who apply to Michigan usually really want it. Michigan is obviously not as self-selective as Chicago, but it is more self selective than say Duke or Cornell. </p>

<p>And you haven't told me why you continuously insist on saying that Michigan's student body isn't strong when it is a fact that Michigan has the 18th highest rate of admissions into top 5 graduate schools. And you also haven't to me what 20 universities are better than Michigan. I am waiting for your list. I am curious to see their peer assessment scores, their graduate school placement rank, their total endowment etc...</p>

237

<p>Alexandre, I think Michigan is about 18 overall exactly where that feeder list places it. Its better than its selectivity indicates by virtue of its sheer academic prowess (which NYU doesn't have for example), but is held to reality by its lack of an undergrad focus. I don't think anyone is arguing Michigan isn't the 18th-20th best school in the country, its the top ten prestige assertion that has people jumping.</p>

238

<p>Slipper, ranking Michigan 18th in the nation as an undergraduate institution is a worst case scenario. Like I always say, there are 17 or so universities that can make a claim at being top 10 and Michigan is one of them. It really depends on what one thinks matters most. If one believes student quality and undergraduate focus are all that matter, than I agree that Michigan is indeed somwhere around #20. On the other hand, if one were to value academic quality and opportunities, resources and corporate ties above all else, Michigan would most likely make the top 10. So it really depends on what one values. The point I am making is that there is no difference in overall quality and reputation between #6 and #17 or #18. Schools in that group can be ranked anywhere between #6 and #17 based on what one values the most and al of them can make a legitimate calim at being top 10. Let me put it another way...although some people on this forum would jump at the thought of Michigan making the list of top 10 undergraduate schools, very few professors or corporate recruiters would argue with such a notion.</p>

239

<p>"Michigan is obviously not as self-selective as Chicago, but it is more self selective than say Duke or Cornell."</p>

<p>Self selective???? I'm not sure what you mean by that. </p>

<p>I am sure that a lot of in-state students with very good credentials are accepted at Michigan, and it is not their first choice school. I am also sure that many in-state students with very good (not excellent) credentials apply to other reach schools and use Michigan as a back-up school. Is that what you mean by "self-selecting"?</p>

<p>I am also sure that some very good students from out of state apply to Michigan as a back-up school, and it is not a first choice scool. I would think that because Michigan has a rolling admissions policy that its' applicants may actually be less self selective. It is always great to have a safety in your pocket early in the game!</p>

240

<p>This is true. A lot of people see Michigan's acceptance rate and apply. Many others see Michigan's rolling admissions and apply (I've mentioned this in previous posts).</p>

<p>I definitely think Duke is more self-selective. Many people do not like the south nor such emphasis on basketball. It was one of the reasons I did not apply to Duke last year. </p>

<p>Cornell is sometimes seen as the easiest Ivy so this may be why you say it is not very self-selecting. Umich has the same problem as being a backup AND it is a state school with rolling admissions. Unless you have some data, I would stand behind the fact that Umich is less self-selecting (as any State school would be) than any top 20.</p>

<p>Any institution that is a public suffers a blow to self-selecting applicants. Hell I even know losers from my old school with 3.0's who try and apply to UVA and William and Mary. </p>

<p>Add to the public status the 60% acceptance rate that students see PLUS rolling admissions and you've got Umich...</p>