<p>Concerning the Michigan v. NW debate on the previous page, I don’t think many “average” Americans know just how well-respected UMich is (which seems counter-intuitive). However, outside of educated business, engineering, and research circles, I don’t think many people see nor understand Michigan as a public ivy. </p>
<p>For example, when I was ignorant of the college process in its most general sense, I had absolutely no idea how well-respected UMich is. I think most high school students outside of Michigan wouldn’t have any idea either.</p>
<p>Granted, none of this really matters, because for those who prestige DOES matter, Michigan qualifies.</p>
<p>The most tangible and “real” difference between those two universities will be campus culture. Some students will like one and not the other. I would visit and observe the two campuses closely and decide based on fit.</p>
<p>“I think most high school students outside of Michigan wouldn’t have any idea either.”</p>
<p>Yea, I think this is because of USNWR, selectivity, and location. I think Berkeley and UCLA get more attention and respect from high school students because they are significantly more selective than Michigan, and because they are in California, a very desirable state. Then on top of that all the publics are some what disadvantaged by USNWR because, right or wrong, they don’t fare especially well.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d go with Northwestern. I think overal Northwestern is one of the most desirable college experiences in the nation. A nice size - not too big, not too small. A wonderful student body - Students at NU are regarded as some of the most collaborative (with one another), down to earth, intelligent, and well- rounded students around. There is a greek presence which gives the school a traditional feel, but it’s not so overwhelming that if you don’t participate you will be seen as weird. The campus and being right on the lakefront is beautiful. Evanston and Chicago give students the best of both worlds - You have a smaller college-town feel, but are in close proximity to one of the US major cities. Finally there is a sports scene with the Big10 atmosphere, providing a sense of school spirit and competitive excitement. </p>
<p>A lot of this is my personal preference more than anything else, but just figured I’d share what I thought!</p>
<p>I’m sure Umichigan is good in many respects too, I just don’t know much about it.</p>
<p>National Academy of Engineering Members:
Stanford: 95
Berkeley: 91</p>
<p>Michigan: 25
Northwestern: 19</p>
<p>Yeah, I guess you could say that…</p>
<p>
Stanford also has a medical campus on its books…Cal’s medical campus is separate, as you already know. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Stanford vs. Cal/UCSF is apples to apples. But I digress…</p>
<p>“I think most high school students outside of Michigan wouldn’t have any idea either.”</p>
<p>That’s true, and reddog has pointed out several reasons why that is true. However, Michigan still manages to attract more OOS students (2,500 or so) annually than any top private university. Part of the reason is because Michigan, while not popular among all high school students, is very well regarded in some unexpected quarters, particularly in the Tristate area (NY/PA/NJ) and the DC area on the East Coast, and CA out West. Michigan does just as well (relative to other Midwestern elites) among elite private high schools on the East Coast, such as St Paul’s, the Phillips Academies etc…as Chicago and Northwestern.</p>
<p>For example, from 2008-2011, 10 St Paul’s graduates enrolled at Michigan, compared to 4 at Chicago and just 1 at Northwestern.</p>
<p>UCB, typically, most top universities dedicate roughly $1billion of their endowment to their medical program. That would not make that much of a difference. Cal’s endowment per student would rise from $270k to $300k. Still not enough to come close to Stanford.</p>
<p>UBC, it is not appropriate to use UCSF’s endowment as an example, since UCSF is a stand alone university, completely unrelated to Cal for the last 130 years. Not only is UCSF not purely a medical school (it has larger Nursing, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Life Science programs), but it has its own administration that would not otherwise exist if it belonged to a larger university. Medical schools that are part of a university, Michigan or UCLA, do not receive special state funding for their medical schools. </p>
<p>Columbia medical school and Michigan medical school have endowments of $1.1 billion. Michigan’s graduate programs (medical school included) do not receive any special state funding other than the one received for the entire university, and most of that is used for other purposes (maintenance, new construction, financial aid etc…). Medical Schools usually finance themselves though their hospitals. As such, if Cal had its own Medical school, it would drain its current endowment of about $1billion. </p>
<p>But even if you added UCSF’s endowment ($1.6 billion) and whatever state funding it received (let us estimate $250 million/year), Cal’s endowment per student would not swell past the $400,000/student mark, which is still significantly lower than Stanford’s $1.1 million endowment per student.</p>
<p>Not sure your numbers are correct, Alexandre.</p>
<p>I think Stanford and Berkeley can arguably be called peer institutions, but I’d venture to say overal Stanford may have a slight edge. Nationally Stanford gets much more attention because it’s an ultra-competitive private university. In terms of international recognition, however, the two are very much comparable. They are also comparable in terms of academic rankings. The only significant difference is strength of student body, where Stanford bests Cal.</p>
<p>reddog, read post #12. I fully admitted that academically, Cal and Stanford are peers. I stated that it is in other ways that Stanford surpasses Cal, and student selectivity is only one of the reasons, and not a significant one at that. Institutional wealth, alumni networking and strength of graduate professional schools are three main reasons why Stanford is better overall.</p>
<p>If I were to rate Cal as an institution, it would come right between schools like HYPS and Cornell, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn. Cal’s peers in terms of overall excellence are Chicago and Columbia. At the undergraduate level, however, I would say that HYPSM are in a league of their own, followed by a bunch of universities, including Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn, among others.</p>
Cal has much more breadth and depth than Chicago and Columbia. In terms of faculty and general graduate program strength, Cal’s peers are Harvard, Stanford and MIT (for engineering and sciences). Agree though that Cal’s law and business schools are a step lower than Harvard and Stanford.</p>
<p>I agree UCB. Cal’s only peers in the traditional disciplines are Harvard, Princeton and Stanford. I was referring to the overall quality of the university. I do not think Cal has the resources or alumni network to contend with the likes of Harvard or Stanford or Princeton. Overall, I think Cal’s closer to Chicago and Columbia in terms of quality.</p>
<p>I may be a bit old school but it’s sad to see state flagships abandon the in state students for OOS students who can bring them fame and fortune. State flagships once provided a quality, low cost education for in state students. Now many flagships are using the back door to become elite, selective, private universities. UM is up to 43% OOS students and it looks like 50%+ is in the near future.<br>
OOS kids bring test scores, increased selectivity, diversity, high graduation rates, spreads name recognition, and bring a bag full of $$$. In state students have become the red headed stepchildren for state flagships. As more flagships pursue rankings and revenue I fear the trend will continue.</p>
<p>^I agree. Instate students are often what holds publics back in terms of prestige, recognition, and student body strength. I can see why publics like Mich would be tempted to accept more OOS, but I hope they do still admit plenty of their own.</p>
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Stanford vs. Cal/UCSF is apples to apples. But I digress…</p>