<p>In other words, Adams admits that Michigan is more well rounded, just not a better school than Berkeley.
Novi, your point’s taken. This debate is over.</p>
<p>rjk, but of course you changed what you were saying…</p>
<p>just recently you added “across all disciplines” and you specifically claimed that Michigan was the BEST well rounded school and that Michigan had the most high quality departments of any school in the U.S., both false statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is more well rounded that Cal. That is a fact. I said it has more high quality departments than Cal, that is also a fact. It’s rankings per comparable departments aren’t as high on average, but for the vast majority of them Michigan is ranked highly. Since UCB doesn’t have a medical, dental, pharmacy, and nursing school, and Michigan offers pretty much the same courses, Michigan is going to have more highly ranked programs than Cal. Highly ranked doesn’t mean that each department is ranked higher than Cal or any other public. It simply means that Michigan offers more choices and schools than Berkeley, that are also of high quality.</p>
<p>"He doesn’t need to provide links, he simply needs to acknowledge that Michigan is more well rounded that UCB. "</p>
<p>LOL. Yeah…rite. It will probably be more well rounded “that” UC Berkeley after you destroy UC Berkeley. ^.~</p>
<p>“It is more well rounded that Cal.”</p>
<p>Are you sure you’re from this country? ;-)</p>
<p>“Aren’t” it past your bedtime yet? ;-)</p>
<p>LOL. Nope, adults can stay up all night. You kid should go to bed soon. ^.~</p>
<p>rjk, again with the false statements…</p>
<p>you have been completely proven wrong on this</p>
<p>why continue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does have more high quality deparments than Cal, just not rated as highly. Michigan offers more schools and choices than Berkeley.</p>
<p>“It does have more high quality deparments than Cal, just not rated as highly.”</p>
<p>Said the Michigan student. haha</p>
<p>“Michigan offers more schools and choices than Berkeley.”</p>
<p>What’s next? Michigan offers more schools and choices than Princeton. So…?</p>
<p>We’re discussing public schools here. Sigh. Why bother?</p>
<p>What do America’s most prominent college counselors think?</p>
<ol>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Virginia</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>William & Mary</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Purdue</li>
<li>Minnesota</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
</ol>
<p>[College</a> Rankings by High School Counselors](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-counselor-rank]College”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-counselor-rank)</p>
<p>Michigan: more highly ranked depts.
Berkeley: more homeless people.
William & Mary: more blacksmiths.
Wisconsin: more earmuffs.</p>
<p>ugh, please stop using music as an example. I mean, as usual, the field of “music” is way too wide to rank any school for. this is why there are conservatories that specialize in performance, and some that even specialize in certain genres/instruments. </p>
<p>a phd in musicology from berkeley > a phd from michigan
but, a performance degree of any kind from michigan > one from berkeley </p>
<p>and then again, it all depends on who you study with. i mean, i don’t care if you got a degree in engineering, if you studied with richard taruskin, you’re probably know your stuff.</p>
<p>Berkley, UVa, Michigan, UNC, UCLA, William & Mary, then a small gap Wisconsin. Then everyone is just too far behind the top 10 covers top big a spectrum and you cant really compare the number 1 with the number 10 as, some of them will have admit rates in the 60s and 70s and berkeley is in the low 20s UVa low 30s roughly. While Wisconsin is at almost 60 and Purdue just does not belong at 73%. So, there is a big gap in how competitive these schools are but, their academics could still be strong so you should look at how many departments are highly ranked. What student faculty ratio is. As I imagine a few of these will be heavily grad and research orientated. So there are a lot more factors you can go on and on.</p>
<p>As research universities, both Berkeley and Michigan are amazing institutions. No single university encompasses every field of study and within the fields that a university offers, no department or school offers every possible subspecialty. It is absolutely stupid to argue that either Berkeley or Michigan is the most well-rounded, and, even more stupid, to try to count up and compare the number of constituent schools each has. The particular structure of a university depends on its historical development, external political and economic pressures, the organizational dynamics of how specialties develop, etc. Arguing over well-roundedness and splitting hairs over rankings completely ignores these factors. They are what they are, and each is unique in its own way. For example, the fact that Cal has a music and studio art depts in L&S, whereas Michigan situates these in professional schools is just different, not better. For historical reasons, Cal developed differently than Michigan. Cal sees these fields as liberal arts majors and Michigan sees them as professional. So what? </p>
<p>As I said in an earlier post, a more interesting question is why did California and Michigan develop flagship universities of such quality, breath, and depth compared to other states with similar or greater resources that did not? When Cal set out on this path at the beginning of the 20th Century, it was nowhere near as populous as it became. It was primarily an agricultural state. It was a long ways from what would become the great universities in the East, yet early on it set out on a path to compete with the best private universities in the East in the range of disciplines and degree levels offered. Michigan, though more industrial than California, was hardly a cultural and intellectual mecca, yet it set out on this same path. The same could have been done in Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey (not withstanding the current ranking of flagship universities in these states, historically they didnt have the prestige of Cal and Michigan and theyre still trying to catch up), but it wasnt. Why not?</p>
<p>As for whether a university needs all the possible constituent schools to be well-rounded, look at Chicago. It lacks engineering and a host of other schools, yet I dont think its not considered well-rounded. It has the professional schools that matter most in terms of prestige—law and medicine. Princeton has neither law nor medicine, yet I dont think its not considered well-rounded or lacking prestige as a research university. In fact, its probably considered to be more integrated and balanced than most universities where overspecialized academic disciplines rule the day. </p>
<p>Not having a medical school on the same campus also doesnt mean that a university isnt well-rounded. Look at Cornell, Illinois, Indiana, and Northwestern for examples. While Jonathan Cole in his recent book, The Great American University felt that moving Stanfords medical school to Palo Alto was central to its postwar rise to prominence, a medical center on the same campus can become the tail wagging the dog. To carry the well-roundedness argument to an extreme, one could argue that Cornell, Wisconsin, Ohio State at al. are more well-rounded than either Michigan or Cal because they have Ag and Vet schools. Of course, looked at in long historical perspective, a university comprised of A&S, Law, Medicine, and Theology faculties was all that was necessary to be considered a university. And yes, not even engineering or business is necessary, though considering that were talking about American public universities (and, landgrant universities, in the case of Cal), well throw those into the mix to satisfy the state legislature, and drop the theology faculty.</p>
<p>Cal, Michigan, Virginia, UCLA, Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois, UNC. I only came up with eight.</p>
<p>The one subject this thread ignores is the fact that many of the rankings listed here are based on measurable stats or taken from "other rankings. The extremely competitive schools put a much weight on an applicant’s “resume” during the selection process. To get into colleges such as William & Mary, UCB and UVA a kid has to have achieved almost amazing achievements or displayed outstanding leadership throughout high school. There are many applicants with 2200+ SAT’s that get rejected. I think this might be a key differentiation between Midwest schools and the coasts. I mean no insults, I have lived both places and prefer the less stressful path but I have witnessed the “truly” holistic review process as opposed to the not so holistic review process.</p>
<p>If they would increase their class size to adequately serve the state much of the so-called elite admissions aspect would decline. Midwest schools are just more populist trying to provide as much opportunity as possible.</p>
<p>Schmaltz…the Unabomber went to Harvard, got a PhD from Michigan, and was a professor at Berkeley. Prestige has nothing to do with what drives people to terrorism. ([Ted</a> Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski]Ted”>Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia))</p>