<p>"EVERYONE?! Really? You must be quite the socializer if you managed to meet all 9,000 people at Notre Dame. Crazy." -vc08</p>
<p>Its really easy to see your stance and thus bias on this point. Let's look at my actual quote "Everyone I know". Here's a lesson for you: don't quote out of context. Look at the "I know" part.</p>
<p>"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>
<ol>
<li><p>the almightly dollar for instaters. </p></li>
<li><p>umich has rolling apps, and many people might have applied when there is no room left, like in Jan, when most private schools have their deadlines. You should look at what you're posting with more objectivity. Its nice someone is having the time of their life at umich instead of ND. They probably couldn't afford ND, or simply didn't deem it a right fit. Anyways, its good that they are having fun. No one is disputing that about state u's. What we are disputing is the ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE, which most people with well reasoned arguments will deem that for a majority of students, this ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE is better at the top privates.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For Fall 2007 Berkeley enrollees the breakdown is this:</p>
<p>
Highest SAT score: #Students Percentage
200-499 170 4%
500-599 705 17%
600-699 1769 42%
700-800 1581 37%
</p>
<p>Now, keep in mind Berkeley is a public university with a public mission to educate the masses.</p>
<p>Breakdown of number of Berkeley enrollees by parents level of education:
No HS
200-499: 52
500-599: 89
600-699: 46
700-800: 11</p>
<p>Some HS
200-499: 22
500-599: 58
600-699: 42
700-800: 11</p>
<p>HS Grad
200-499: 34
500-599: 132
600-699: 187
700-800: 49</p>
<p>Some College
200-499: 23
500-599: 82
600-699: 164
700-800: 49</p>
<p>2 Year Grad
200-499: 15
500-599: 28
600-699: 87
700-800: 40</p>
<p>4 Year Grad
200-499: 24
500-599: 140
600-699: 433
700-800: 312</p>
<p>Postgraduate
200-499: 0
500-599: 139
600-699: 703
700-800: 964</p>
<p>Unknown
200-499: 0
500-599: 37
600-699: 107
700-800: 141</p>
<p>Of the lowest scoring students (200-499), 86% (146/170 enrollees) came from families whose parents do not have a 4 college degree. In contrast, 81% (1276/1581 enrollees) of the highest scoring students come from families whose parents have at least a 4 year degree.</p>
<p>University</a> of California: StatFinder</p>
<p>Do other colleges publicly provide this level of information for comparison?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Selectivity surely provides some measure of the overall student body strength at an institution. But, that was not what I was refuting. By measuring the quality of institution, I thought that it makes more sense to look at what the university offers to a student on individual basis. This includes academic resources, opportunities, breadth of courses available, etc. And, UMich happens to offer some of the best academic programs and academic resources to the students, which are reflected through its academic strength and prestige. Also, hawkette, I believe that undergrad isn't a seperate entity from the rest of the university in measuring its quality. Talking about Harvard, we can agree that Harvard undergrad's prestige and quality seems to be boosted by Harvard's excellent grad schools and their reputation. Likewise, UMich undergrad, Berkeley undergrad, too, present strong overall quality partially due to their grad schools' successes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This not only applies to UMich, but also to any other university. I know two kids from my high school who got into Harvard for their athletic merits. One got in with 24 ACT and 25% class rank. (Track and Field) The other got in with 26 ACT with 30% class rank. (Football) These students will be counted, too, towards getting the Harvard diploma. Frankly, even excluding the student athletes, there are big chunks of students at many of the ivies, including HYP, that don't necessarily deserve to be there in regards to their academic qualities. However, HYP and ivies are still very prestigious, regardless of these subsets of low-performing students. Thus, by measuring the university's prestige and quality, it makes more sense to look at the university's resources and academic merits, not the student body.</p>
<p>For the record, noone on this forum, myself included are bashing the top publics. They are fine institutions. Correct that, they are phenomenal institutions. How well one does in life is generally determinate upon that individual himself. Yes, I know that. What we are saying is the academic experience at the top privates is better than that at the top publics. </p>
<p>I know ND might have a little higher admit rate: 2%. But what about the avg. SAT scores: 50% of ND students SAT scores were over a 2130 while 39.17% of UCLA students scored over a 2100. This is despite a more number-oriented admissions game by UCLA and UCB too. Both are great schools, but do they provide the same certain aspects that a top private provides? no.</p>
<p>patlees are you equating the small number of athletes who didn't get over a 32 ACT or 2200 SAT with the overwhelming proportion of students who didn't get this scores at umich. Probably only 30% of students at umich got these numbers, but even then, what about their g.p.a., class rank, ec's, etc. The selectivity aids an undergrad by providing a better peer group, which facilitates learning both inside and outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>
[quote]
patlees are you equating the small number of athletes who didn't get over a 32 ACT or 2200 SAT with the overwhelming proportion of students who didn't get this scores at umich. Probably only 30% of students at umich got these numbers, but even then, what about their g.p.a., class rank, ec's, etc. The selectivity aids an undergrad by providing a better peer group, which facilitates learning both inside and outside of the classroom.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I have been saying so far is that the university's academic strength, prestige, and resources should be much more heavily weighted in measuring the school's rep and quality. I agree that the student body and their strength should and does play a role in measuring the quality of the institution. But, it isn't the dominant factor, IMO, for the reasons I cited. One promient example that I cited is the fact that there are many students at Ivies and other top privates who aren't as smart as you seem to believe. My cousin is a recent Yale alum and he said that there were quite a few students whose lack of academic motivation and capabilities led him to question "how the heck did people like this get into Yale?" As you and I know very well, nowadays, the top schools practice this holistic admissions process. The ivies won't necessarily admit the smartest students, but rather most "well rounded" students. Another reason that we should not pay too close of attention to the selectivity, when comparing between elite publics and privates, is the fact that publics are much larger and thus have more space to fill, leading these universities to accept more of low-scoring students. However, this doesn't change the fact that these schools, especially Berkeley and UMich, are academic powerhouses and some of the best schools in the nation. These schools (esp Umich, UCLA, Berkeley) should not be penalized simply for their bigger sizes and a bit of higher acceptance rate compared to elite private schools.</p>
<p>Well said patlees88.</p>
<p>It's the schools' students, not their professors and lab equipment, that are applying for jobs and grad school. Concepts like academic strength and prestige are completely nebulous and can be debated all day long (case in point) in comparison to objective data involved with selectivity. Many on here are treating it like a slight difference between UMichigan and Dartmouth in terms of selectivity, but to me there is a huge difference between a 15% acceptance rate and a 50% acceptance rate and a 1450 median SAT and a 1320 median SAT. Plus, anyone with a 1380 SAT and in top 5% of hs class will get into UMichigan, while the vast majority of these candidates will be rejected from Dartmouth or Brown.</p>
<ol>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>West Point</li>
<li>Annapolis</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Cal-Tech</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Cornell </li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Air Force</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
</ol>
<p>Just my opinion. I love people using SAT scores to measure a schools worth. By this logic schools like Boston College would be better than Annapolis because they have higher SAT scores. In my opinion tons of factors go into how valuable a school is, such as class sizes (privates benefit), research opportunities (publics benefit), how respected the degree is outside of your school (depends on the school obviously), and how many doors the degree can open up for you. </p>
<p>On a personal note if I were to pick a top 10 based on where I'd like to go it would be filled with about 5/6 "elite" schools and the other 4 would be big sports schools (mich, georgia, ucla, florida)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know ND might have a little higher admit rate: 2%. But what about the avg. SAT scores: 50% of ND students SAT scores were over a 2130 while 39.17% of UCLA students scored over a 2100. This is despite a more number-oriented admissions game by UCLA and UCB too. Both are great schools, but do they provide the same certain aspects that a top private provides? no.
[/quote]
39.17% of 25.5k undergraduate vs. 50% of 8.5k. You do the math.
UCLA, UCB SAT score are not superscore, thus the real number should be higher. If you look at the admit threads, they are not number-oriented at all.</p>
<p>LaxAttack09, curious, why isn't johns hopkins on your list?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's the schools' students, not their professors and lab equipment, that are applying for jobs and grad school. Concepts like academic strength and prestige are completely nebulous and can be debated all day long (case in point) in comparison to objective data involved with selectivity. Many on here are treating it like a slight difference between UMichigan and Dartmouth in terms of selectivity, but to me there is a huge difference between a 15% acceptance rate and a 50% acceptance rate and a 1450 median SAT and a 1320 median SAT. Plus, anyone with a 1380 SAT and in top 5% of hs class will get into UMichigan, while the vast majority of these candidates will be rejected from Dartmouth or Brown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correlation does not imply causation. Dartmouth has a higher SAT, lower acceptance rates, and thus stronger student body on average. But, UMich is a public school that is multiple the size of Dartmouth and thus its selectivity suffers. And, Dartmouth alums seem to be a bit more represented at Wall Street firms and other top grad schools. However, Dartmouth's stronger placement or higher selectivity does not imply that a Dartmouth student will get an edge in getting top jobs or getting into top grad schools compared to UMich on individual basis. If a Dartmouth-caliber student who was accepted at both Dartmouth and UMich attends UMich for whatever reason, would he be at a disadvantage and would he face lesser career and future opportunities as a result of his choice to turn down Dartmouth and go to UMich? Like I said, UMich has the resources and academic prestige that are plentiful for a top student to take advantage of. On the flip side of things, a Umich-caliber student, who may not qualify to get into Dartmouth but did get in, if he attends Dartmouth instead of UMich, would he be given greater opportunities? You said it yourself. It is not the school that applies for jobs/grad schools. It is the student that does that. And, UMich does not lag behind many other private elites in providing necessary opportunities and academic resources for the students to take advantage of.</p>
<p>I believe that HYPSM and few other top schools are much better than schools like Cal or UMich. But, to suggest that private schools like Notre Dame provide superior academic experience or opportunities is simply incorrect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LaxAttack09, curious, why isn't johns hopkins on your list?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Eh, thought of putting it on there. I know it's a great school but to be honest I think of it as more of a science oriented/premed type place. Not saying it's not a great school, just that you only have 25 places and, well, I thought 25 were better??</p>
<p>"Eh, thought of putting it on there. I know it's a great school but to be honest I think of it as more of a science oriented/premed type place. Not saying it's not a great school, just that you only have 25 places and, well, I thought 25 were better??"</p>
<p>Oh. Well.... whatever. Yeah, there's premed (or biology, if you will), but there's also IR, history, writing seminars, english, neuroscience, romance languages, enviro. engineering, BME, etc... (I know I'm leaving some out), which are all tops, but then there's several other departments scattered in the top 20 and 30 as well. I guess i just disagree.</p>
<p>"However, Dartmouth's stronger placement or higher selectivity does not imply that a Dartmouth student will get an edge in getting top jobs or getting into top grad schools compared to UMich on individual basis. If a Dartmouth-caliber student who was accepted at both Dartmouth and UMich attends UMich for whatever reason, would he be at a disadvantage and would he face lesser career and future opportunities as a result of his choice to turn down Dartmouth and go to UMich"</p>
<p>It depends on what the student is looking to do. With some firms, especially consulting firms, hedge funds, private equity shops and to a lesser extent investment banks, if your school is not on their recruiting schedule, you have very little chance of getting a job there or you're more likely to make a connection to one of those companies through contacts made at Dartmouth. So, in that sense, yes, even if someone at UMichigan was good enough to go to Dartmouth, he will be hurt by going to UMichigan instead. Also, there is probably a lot more pressure to be one of the top people in order to get one of those jobs at UMichigan vs being slightly above average at Dartmouth is good enough for one of the top jobs, so it could be an additional reason why it could be a more pleasant experience at Dartmouth. Similarly, since MBA admissions is based largely on work experience, the result could be that the same person will have an easier time of ultimately gaining admission by going to Dartmouth over UMichigan. </p>
<p>For law school and and med school admissions, that person who was good enough to go to Dartmouth, but goes to UMichigan instead probably isn't at all disadvantaged; it's just a matter of type of environment preference. That probably holds true for all other types of grad schools too. However, I would guess at least for law schools, that given the same LSAT score and other similar application qualities that a law school (say Penn) may be willing to stoop say down to a 3.42 GPA for a Dartmouth candidate as the last acceptee vs maybe a 3.58 GPA for UMichigan candidate (or some type of spread along these lines). I'm sure some econ prof, in the name of propagating somewhat meaningless research, has done some type of study looking at this kind of thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I would guess at least for law schools, that given the same LSAT score and other similar application qualities that a law school (say Penn) may be willing to stoop say down to a 3.42 GPA for a Dartmouth candidate as the last acceptee vs maybe a 3.58 GPA for UMichigan candidate (or some type of spread along these lines). I'm sure some econ prof, in the name of propagating somewhat meaningless research, has done some type of study looking at this kind of thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's where you're slightly wrong. Law schools care about the numbers they report because those numbers have a high impact on rankings and, with law schools, rankings translate into employment prospects. You report LSAT + GPA so it would make no sense to take a dartmouth person with a 170 + 3.42 compared to a michigan person with a 170 + 3.58 because you would lower your 25/75 gpa #'s. In this case, all other factors being equal, the Michigan guy would have a huge edge because of his gpa. </p>
<p>Where you are correct is that, all things being equal (gpa, lsat, strength of recs, personal statement, work experience...a huge # of things) the darmouth person would probably get in over the michigan one. The problem with this is how many people are exactly the same? Sure, gpa/lsat might be the same, but how many people have work experience that is of similar strength? A similar upbringing? A similar personal statement? Similar quality of recs? Now how many people have all those things similar w/ somebody else?</p>
<p>joker: My lesson for you is, don't lie. Not everyone, unless you're anti-social and have a very small sphere of friends, applied to UM as a safety. If they had, it wouldn't be one of ND's biggest crossover schools.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
They probably couldn't afford ND, or simply didn't deem it a right fit.
[/Quote]
With their financial status, ND was cheaper than UCB; they wanted "an open-minded university where students are less pretentious about themselves." << His words, NOT mine, for the record.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
What we are saying is the academic experience at the top privates is better than that at the top publics.
[/Quote]
How do you know? Have you attended both Michigan and Notre Dame at the undergrad level? Ask a Berkeley undergrad if he'd rather have attended Notre Dame, and 9 times out of 10 they'll say no. At UCLA, 96% of the students say they are happy with their undergraduate experience as a whole. 92% report satisfaction with the academic experience. So yeah, I guess for 4% of the people, it could have been "better." </p>
<p>Thus, your argument has no basis! Who are YOU to say that someone at Notre Dame will have a "better" time than one at Berkeley, Virginia, or UCLA? Unless you're Superman and can attend multiple colleges full-time at once, you have no clue! Your argument is humorous for this very reason! In fact, I laughed when I read it because you are making so many assumptions, uneducated assumptions, that it lacks depth and common sense. When you can argue in a mature manner with thorough research instead of speculation, maybe your personality will start to shed itself from your username. </p>
<p>I agree that HYPS probably provide a more tailored undergraduate education. They're great schools! But I do not agree with the argument that just because it's a public school means you won't get a good experience. That's a huge slap in the face to many of the people on here, and certainly does nothing to better the private school "snobby, arrogant kid" stereotype. I sincerely hope you come out of ND with a hugely broadened vision of the world than the one you posses right now.</p>
<p>patlees:
[Quote]
It is not the school that applies for jobs/grad schools. It is the student that does that. And, UMich does not lag behind many other private elites in providing necessary opportunities and academic resources for the students to take advantage of. I believe that HYPSM and few other top schools are much better than schools like Cal or UMich. But, to suggest that private schools like Notre Dame provide superior academic experience or opportunities is simply incorrect.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I completely agree. I wouldn't say "much better", to me <em>much</em> is perhaps an overstatement, but they are more narrowly tailored. But other than that, I think you hit it right on; the experiences at public schools and private schools are very different no doubt, but one should not be criticized or tantalized for choosing one over the other. Different strokes for different folks, getting a degree for Berkeley/Michigan/UCLA/UVA/UNC will no doubt set you up for great success, and most of their graduates are greatly enriched by their experiences there. Likewise, so are graduates of Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, HYPS, etc. There are pros and cons to both systems, and in the end we need to all realize that it comes down to personal preference and fit, something that should not be attacked without specific basis to do so.</p>
<p>Here's an interesting ranking, btw....take from it what you will, obviously there are multiple controversies surrounding each one. But in this case, Iowa State beat out Princeton!</p>
<p>"The</a> Washington Monthly College Guide " by The Editors</p>
<p>I believe that state schools are inherently worse than privates because as another poster on this thread earlier said, the goal of a State U is to educate the masses. This should not be the goal of an institution which seeks to admit intellectual, motivated and talented students and turn them into world-class scholars and leaders who will have a tremendous impact of society. State schools like UMich and Berkeley basically have "cutoffs" for admissions when it comes to GPA/SAT and their admissions processes aren't very holistic at all.</p>
<p>Schools like Duke, Vandy, Columbia, Penn, Northwestern, etc. on the other hand routinely reject half of the valedictorians that apply as well as numerous applicants that score 2300+ on the SAT since they are equally concerned with other applicant qualities like involvement in extracurriculars, personal situation, unique talents, demonstrated interest, intellectual curiosity, etc. If Penn or Columbia wanted, they could just accept high SAT/ACT scorers and their mid 50th SAT/ACT percentile of enrolled students could easily be from 2300-2400 and 35-36. They don't however because they are looking for "well-rounded" students who will make the best use of the resources they have to offer.</p>
<p>This is especially sad for top state schools like UMich, Berkeley and UCLA because they accept virtually all individuals who are "qualified" numbers-wise. Yet, they still come well short of top private schools by a 100 points on the SAT and 2-3 points on the ACT when one looks at the mid 50th percentile SAT/ACT scores. These public schools clearly can't even get enough top scorers to enroll/apply while the top privates can easily fill their classes multiple times over with high standardized test scorers. You can't even blame the size of the public schools for this inadequacy because they accept far more students to compensate per capita.</p>
<p>Although they are good schools, the top publics can't come close to competing with the non-HYP privates in terms of selectivity and student body strength. This is why the top publics like Berkeley and UMich will never crack the top 20 in USNEWS in forseeable future.</p>
<p>By the way, I went to high school in Michigan and I can't think of one individual out of the many I knew in HS who was accepted to a top private school and hadn't considered UMich to be a "safety". That is, as long as they applied reasonably early. A lot of the top students in the state do end up at UMich, but ONLY because of financial reasons.</p>