<p>Well Mendoza doesn't reject Notre Dame students like Ross school does at Michigan. That makes the Ross school more selective than the overall Michigan population and probably equally as, if not more, selective as Notre Dame. As for Notre Dame's relatively under qualified athletes, they are probably still better academically than athletes at Michigan, just going off of number of Academic All-Americans and Wonderlic scores.</p>
<p>bpayne, Basketball and Football players, even at the most selective Division I programs like Stanford, are relatively underqualified. I think the highest SAT average is like 1150 at Stanford. Most schools have averages in the 900-1000 range.</p>
<p><a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm%5B/url%5D">http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm</a>
Cal pwns.</p>
<p>This is silly. Everyone knows that ND is very hard to get in. And why is that? I can give you 65,000,000 reasons.</p>
<p>Haven't read the whole thread, but according to post #37 (Alexandre's original groupings) UMN--TC should go in Group V.</p>
<p>"Really, this shows that the top 25% of students at Michigan (the segment of the student body you'll likely be taking classes with if you're really able to pick and choose from top schools) "</p>
<p>Why are you going to be able to take classes with only the top 25% of UMichigan? Are you going to figure a way to have the bottom 75% not be in your dorms or attend the same parties too? Much of the experience has to with the influence of those around you, which while repeated a lot on here, still seems to be largely ignored.</p>
<p>I think I have seen that the Stanford football team had the highest SAT average of any D-I (non Ivy or Patriot League) school at 1070. Only five schools had an average above 950: Stanford, Duke, Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt. Basically the historical football doormats of the five major football conferences (Pac-10, ACC, SWC, Big-10, SEC).</p>
<p>Yes it certainly is no good to talk to anyone with under a 1350 SAT. You could start with Bill Bradley, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and John Kerry. What ignorant crap.</p>
<p>
What exactly is your point here? It's common knowledge that there are individuals who didn't shine in high school who are now prominent figures of our society. There are always going to be exceptions but I would be surprised if you don't agree with the premise that the type of environment that you are immersed in closely correlates with how well you perform/are motivated to succeed.</p>
<p>You just can't pretend like an entire segment of a student body doesn't exist and claim that the top whatever percent of the college however is on par with the students at more selective private universities. I believe that the true measure of the strength of a university is by the performance/strength of its weakest students, rather than its stronger ones. Schools like Michigan and Berkeley are inferior to other privates like Northwestern, Vandy, Emory, ND, etc. in this regard.</p>
<p>Alex,
I think you again are promoting U Michigan's selectivity to a position that is not warranted by the facts. </p>
<p>Let's put a little more meat on the data you provided and U Michigan and colleges that you referenced as peers in student selectivity:</p>
<ol>
<li>ACT 25/75, % of students scoring 30+, College (% of students submitting scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>27-31, 38%, U Michigan (72%)
27-33, 60%, Brown (20%)
28-32, 61%, Carnegie Mellon (17%)
28-32, 53%, Cornell (20%)
28-34, na, Dartmouth (14%)
29-33, 71%, Northwestern (51%)
28-33, 68%, U Chicago (na)
28-32, 57%, Vanderbilt (56%)</p>
<ol>
<li>SAT CR 25/75, % of students scoring 700+, College (% of students submitting scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>580-690, 21%, U Michigan (56%)
670-760, 64%, Brown (96%)
610-710, 30%, Carnegie Mellon (98%)
620-730, 38%, Cornell (95%)
670-770, 65%, Dartmouth (86%)
650-740, 50%, Northwestern (82%)
1350-1510 U Chicago does not provide a breakdown by SAT section, 64% of students scored 1400+
630-730, 37%, Vanderbilt (87%)</p>
<ol>
<li>SAT Math 25/75, % of students scoring 700+, College (% of students submitting scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>630-730, 43%, U Michigan (56%)
680-770, 69%, Brown (96%)
690-780, 74%, Carnegie Mellon (98%)
660-760, 59%, Cornell (95%)
680-780, 70%, Dartmouth (86%)
670-760, 63%, Northwestern (82%)
1350-1510 U Chicago does not provide a breakdown by SAT section, 64% of students scored 1400+
650-740, 49%, Vanderbilt (87%)</p>
<ol>
<li>Acceptance Rate</li>
</ol>
<p>50% U Michigan
14% Brown
28% Carnegie Mellon
21% Cornell
15% Dartmouth
27% Northwestern
35% U Chicago
33% Vanderbilt</p>
<p>Looking at the numbers above, U Michigan lags all of the other schools and usually by a large margin, especially when the full student body is counted. The most revealing measurement is by % of highest scoring students and the gap in student strength is quite large and quite evident. I also think that many of these private colleges have seen improvement (sometimes very sharp) in their 2007-08 data (with even more improvement in the most recently admitted class) and I am not sure if U Michigan is keeping pace. We will know when U Michigan releases a CDS for the latest class.</p>
<p>So, which private colleges is U Michigan's selectivity more comparable to? I would suggest that the facts support the following as more appropriate peers:</p>
<ol>
<li>ACT 25/75, % of students scoring 30+, College (% of students submitting scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>27-31, 38%, U Michigan
28-32, na, Boston College
28-31, 53%, NYU
27-31, na, Tulane
na, na, Lehigh </p>
<ol>
<li>SAT CR 25/75, % of students scoring 700+, College (% of students submitting scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>580-690, 21%, U Michigan
610-700, 26%, Boston College
620-720, 30%, NYU
600-690, 36%, Tulane
600-680, 19%, Lehigh</p>
<ol>
<li>SAT Math 25/75, % of students scoring 700+, College (% of students submitting scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>630-730, 43%, U Michigan (56%)
630-720, 40%, Boston College
620-710, 36%, NYU
590-680, 23%, Tulane
640-710, 39%, Lehigh</p>
<ol>
<li>Acceptance Rate</li>
</ol>
<p>50% U Michigan
27% Boston College
37% NYU
44% Tulane
32% Lehigh</p>
<p>You guys just love bashing publics like Berkeley and Michigan don't you?</p>
<p>We don't love bashing them. We, rather, see their weaknesses as compared to actual top ten undergraduate schools. When Michigan and Cal lower their undergrad student bodies to 6000 students then maybe they can compete with the elite privates.</p>
<p>MightyNick,
Despite your protestions, I think that the publics have A LOT to offer, but promoting them to a level that is not supported by the facts is wrong. </p>
<p>IMO, the best arguments for the publics are:
1) the great breadth of academic offerings for a student to choose among
2) in some cases, clear and widely accepted strength in certain departments, eg, engineering at UCB or U Mich
3) better social life with greater variety of potential experiences
4) in many cases, much better athletic scene
5) high number of recruiting firms provides opportunity for entry into desirable jobs
6) if academia is going to be your thing, publics probably provide as good or better profile with grad school adcomms</p>
<p>I'm sure you and others can add to this list. </p>
<p>But I think you and Alex and others posting in support of the publics are at a disadvantage in measurements involving things like student selectivity or institutional resources dedicated to undergraduates or graduation statistics and probably classroom teaching excellence. On these measures, which many will regard as the centerpiece items for evaluating and choosing top colleges as they relate directly to the actual experience that an undergradute will have, all of the top publics will be at a deficit to the top privates.</p>
<p>Go Syracuse!</p>
<p>I think that some people are confusing a college's selectivity with that college's strength/prestige. Talking about UMich, it has numerous programs ranked top 15-20 across all kinds of fields, including research, Ph.d programs, medicine, law, mba, engineering, etc. Sure, its undergrad selectivity isn't on par with elite privates, but, it is pretty close to being equally as prestigious as several other privates because of its academic merits and academic reputation. As an example, the University of Chicago had an acceptance rate of over 50% just like 3-4 yrs ago (it was around 60% i think). But, University of Chicago has always been an elite school, and it will always be. Remember, we are talking about top 25 universities, not the students within those top 25 universities.</p>
<p>% of students score above 700 is very misleading because public has a huge undergraduate student body. Why don't you compare raw number of students scoring above 700? You'll see that public has more "smart" students than any elite private.<br>
Same thing with % of students getting into top 5 med/law/biz schools. By raw numbers, top public put in a lot more than top privates.<br>
Naturally, they should be peer and should be comparable. Most UNDERGRAD majors at top public are in the top 10, so why is the whole less than the sum of its parts?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Everyone I know at ND had umich as a safety. That's right a safety....Here's some even less reliable evidence, but evidence nonetheless: my student host at ND had turned down uchicago (not fun enough for him). my student host at umich had turned down george washington, but said it was a close call.
[/Quote]
EVERYONE?! Really? You must be quite the socializer if you managed to meet all 9,000 people at Notre Dame. Crazy.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Meanwhile, you can check the facebook groups: most people, myself included, who are going to ND are turning down other phenomonal schools.
[/Quote]
I turned down "many other phenomenal schools" for UCLA. Many people at Michigan turned down Notre Dame. In fact, search through the UM threads and you'll find some admitted to Duke, NOTRE DAME, and the Ivy League (one Stanford), who were waitlisted at UM. One had a 2340 SAT. I know someone at Berkeley who turned down offers at Columbia and CalTech. Someone else turned down your precious Notre Dame, and he's having the time of his life there. Take a few moments to look through the UCLA threads, and you'll find an unusually large amount of people admitted to "elite privates," but rejected from UCLA (eg Stanford, Columbia, and Cornell). What's your reasoning for that?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
But for the schools just mentioned, unless someone got into ross, they will not be attending umich.
[/Quote]
You are kidding, right? BC I can't even begin to fathom how someone who wrote that would even GET IN to ND. Wow, you need to get out more.</p>
<p>It's a shame you're so blind to the wealth of opportunity around you. Am I saying Berkeley/UCLA/Michiga/UVA are the best in everything? No. Obviously there are many, many great schools out there; Dartmouth, Cornell, ND, etc., all have extraordinary strengths. But only an ignorant "intellectual" would show complete lack of respect for the top publics like you do. I'm glad you're not going to Berkeley or Michigan. I have doubts about whether one could survive in such a competitive, accelarating atmosphere with that attitude.</p>
<p>The world will certainly be a better place when people are measured by a lifetime of work, rather than lower acceptance rates or 50 point differences on the SAT. Do you all realize how LITTLE that means in the great scheme of things?! The entire Apollo 15 crew went to Michigan; George Bush, in all his intellectual glory, went to Yale. I realize there are many counter-examples. But it's a shame that in such a land of opportunity, students with such motivation and smarts to get into Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, etc. are so looked down upon by the Harvards, Yales, etc. And, the irony is, that those schools would be the first to refute the "arrogant, snobby" stereotype. I have a friend who was recently rejected from North Carolina. She'll be attending Harvard this fall. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I would like to add that I have a cousin who graduated #3 in his engineering department at Stanford, and did his post-doc work at Harvard. He'll be a professor at an elite private school next year, in chemical engineering. He graduated #1 in his class at UCLA. For undergrad. But, like many of you implied, too bad public undergrad isn't "prestigious" enough.</p>
<p>PS~ Joker, you should know that BOTH Berkeley and UCLA had lower acceptance rates than Notre Dame this year. Since that seems to be an important aspect of your argument.</p>
<p>patlees,
Selectivity is a measure of strength and, unlike prestige, it is real and quantifiable. As for prestige, I think you overrate the prestige of a university and how this should apply to the undergraduate college. </p>
<p>As for absolute numbers, this is a line of thinking that one may pursue for their individual circumstances, but when evaluating an institution, I doubt many would think that you can pick and choose which subsets of students to count and which not to count. All will receive a diploma with ABC College's name on it.</p>
<p>"It is real"--by what definition. Real in that kids from wealthy college educated homes with full test prep in their high schools score better than other kids from less elite backgrounds?</p>
<p>Alexandre, your admissions stats are highly outdated. This year at Vanderbilt, via literature they sent me, or their website, here are the following stats: </p>
<p>As far as some statistics on the admitted students for the Vanderbilt class of 2012:</p>
<pre><code>* 23% overall admit rate (Regular and Early Decision I & II combined)
* SAT middle 50%: (CR & M) 1380 - 1540
* ACT middle 50%: 31-34
* 92% of all admitted students were in the top ten percent of their high school's graduating class
</code></pre>
<p>Vanderbilt</a> Admissions Blog</p>
<p>For the other universities, your info is also outdated. Btw, look at SAT score comparisons too, since most students applying to these top unis are using SAT instead of ACT. In fact, for most of those schools, less than 5% of applicants are using the ACT, so that's not a reliable measure of incoming students. I know at yale, its less than 1% of incoming students who only took the ACT.</p>
<p>And, like I said, umich is great for research, eng., and biz, but, even despite the high rankings for this stuff, and indeed ross and the eng. merit it, is research the primary criterion for ug education? Last time I checked ug. was about finding out your interests to research in grad school. In terms of the majority of top students, who are undecided/ liberal arts, the other schools mentioned will provide a better education for reasons stated above, reasons that I will now reiterate: strength of peer group, focus by profs on ug. education, smaller class sizes, more discussion oriented classes, more personal accessibility by profs, and more personal attention/ advising by the administration.</p>