<p>~Alexandre~</p>
<p>Thanks for your reply. I try not to "preach" at all, but if I did, I am aware that we're basically in agreement. The gist of my post was to get some people to stop this misplaced reliance and emphasis on a generalized sense of "top" or "best." Perhaps there can be some consensus of "top" or "best" in some broad, holistic, total university way; and perhaps not. But, whatever the answer to that, does it have anything more than passing relevance (incremental prestige value? fodder for discussion?) to the individual applicant. Whether it's measureable or not, QUALITY of the undergraduate experience is extremely important and it behooves any applicant to get the best handle on it that they possibly can. If someone IS an undergraduate ... then the matter of MOST importance is where THAT undergraduate can receive the "top" or "best" UNDERGRADUATE education, for THAT undergraduates skills, abilities, interests, and preferred learning "style." So many people STOP their analysis at broadly generalized determinations of "top" or "best" as if it were one-size-fits-all, or objectively determined like a football poll (which is the furthest thing from objectivity also).</p>
<p>P.S. --> Oops. Shouldn't have mentioned football to a Wolverine this time of year! Sorry. :) Couldn't resist Alexandre. By the way, I personally love virtually everything about U of M -- way back in 1976, I was supposed to have been starting there in August ... in July we encountered some family emergencies which required keeping better tabs on finances and keeping me closer to home ... so I withdrew at U of M and my counselor convinced my home state U of I (Urbana) to reopen its offer (loved my experience at Illinois by the way) ... the price difference at the time ... for everything ... was about 3K for Illinois and the astronomical figure of about 7K for Michigan. Times have certainly changed.</p>