<p>Actually, yes, Ross/COE do get lots of attention from recruiters and the like, but those two still comprise a minority of the undergrad population.</p>
<p>Shall we discuss Oxford College at Emory University now esimpoxin. You know that school right? The place where the put in the freshman who aren’t quite up to snuff. I bet they don’t post their scores either when calculations are made. I wouldn’t put it past a school with a sullied reputation for misrepresention of its general student body.</p>
<p>Michigan’s reputation is almost completely because of its grad schools, which are excellent. But in my opinion Michigan undergrad isn’t quite of the same caliber. It is good, and it does have some great fields (Ross and CoE) but by in large I don’t think it is rivaling the undergrad experiences at schools like Cornell, Northwestern or Duke. </p>
<p>Despite its shortcomings, I think USNWR does do a pretty good job of catering to prospective undergraduate students at the national level and does assess overal undergraduate excellence pretty well. Of course no raking would ever please everyone, and there’s always going to be someone who insists their school should be ranked higher, but USNWR isn’t as bad as people make it out to be in my opinion. </p>
<p>But in the grand scheme of things trying to compare schools in the 10-30 range of USNWR is pretty much splitting hairs anyway.</p>
<p>I also think it is pretty tough to compare publics to privates too. They are two different animals. </p>
<p>As for publics in my opinion I’d say Cal>UCLA=Umich>UVA>UNC.
With Cal being the clear frontrunner a fair bit ahead of the others, and the other 4 probably closer in comparison.</p>
<p>The scores they report to USNWR are for the school overall (you can tell by the fact that
the Emory page on USNWR mentions about 7100 undergrads, which includes Oxford). The corrected middle 50% for CR+Math is 1280-1470, but according to the school’s webpage, the corrected middle 50% for just Emory College is 1320-1510.</p>
<p>“Michigan’s reputation is almost completely because of its grad schools, which are excellent. But in my opinion Michigan undergrad isn’t quite of the same caliber.”</p>
<p>Perhaps Michigan should weaken its graduate school programs so the university can be at the same level as those other schools mentioned? </p>
<p>“But in the grand scheme of things trying to compare schools in the 10-30 range of USNWR is pretty much splitting hairs anyway.”</p>
<p>Make that the 6-30 range of schools and I’d tend to agree with you. Btw, it seems like posters such as yourself are the ones who are “splitting hairs.”</p>
<p>“The corrected middle 50% for CR+Math is 1280-1470, but according to the school’s webpage, the corrected middle 50% for just Emory College is 1320-1510.”</p>
<p>Are you saying that the scores are higher for Emory College specifically than for Emory University overall? Is Emory up to its old tricks again or is that the old manipulated data?</p>
<p>Of course the scores are going to be higher for Emory College than for Emory University overall; Emory University includes Oxford, which, as you know, is weaker than Emory College. </p>
<p>Since these stats are based on the stats of the entering freshman class, the business and nursing schools aren’t part of the scores data since those schools are only for juniors and seniors.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say “6-30 range” because that would include Stanford and MIT. Maybe 8-30 range.</p>
<p>^^^Exactly why USNWR is weak. Imagine Stanford and MIT not being top 5 schools?</p>
<p>“Of course the scores are going to be higher for Emory College than for Emory University overall; Emory University includes Oxford, which, as you know, is weaker than Emory College.”</p>
<p>Of course you are correct. I was obviously thinking of Oxford College and not Emory College. My mistake.</p>
<p>Theres only 5 spots in the top 5, obviously. You have Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia and Uchicago, all of which are largely regarded as equals to MIT and Stanford. The point is there would always be an amazing school that is slightly etched out behind equally amazing schools. Its just how rankings are. It’s not like Stanford or MIT is ranked unreasonably poorly and I don’t think that because MIT and Stanford are ranked 6th, that on that basis alone USNWR are “weak.”</p>
<p>“Michigan’s reputation is almost completely because of its grad schools, which are excellent. But in my opinion Michigan undergrad isn’t quite of the same caliber.”</p>
<p>Michigan’s academic excellence comes mostly from its highly ranked departments across all disciplines. It simply has almost no academic weakness; something very few universities can state. Most of those same departments teach at both the graduate and undergraduate level. It’s all there for the taking if one is an ambitious student.</p>
<p>“You have Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia and Uchicago, all of which are largely regarded as equals to MIT and Stanford.”</p>
<p>I disagree. Stanford and MIT are overall a step up from Columbia and Chicago and every other school in this country that isn’t HYP.</p>
<p>“Michigan’s academic excellence comes mostly from its highly ranked departments across all disciplines. It simply has almost no academic weakness; something very few universities can state. Most of those same departments teach at both the graduate and undergraduate level. It’s all there for the taking if one is an ambitious student.”</p>
<p>Right. And this is the advantage of public schools. Because they are bigger and broader, they often offer a wider array or classes across more disciplines, and are typically more consistently strong among more disciplines. </p>
<p>The disadvantages are that classes are generally larger, and that the student bodies are generally weaker overal. Also 6 and 4 year graduation rates are usually lower at publics than they are at their private counterparts. </p>
<p>These pros and cons must be weighed by the individual and he must decide what is most important to him.</p>
<p>“USNWR kept Emory at #20 despite the score scandal for a reason (unlike GWU which was kicked off of the rankings), so don’t pretend like it doesn’t have great academics.”</p>
<p>esimpmoxin, the ranking was already completed before news of the scandal broke out. That is not to say that it will drop much (if at all) as a result of the scandal, but the Emory name has been tarnished. </p>
<p>“Actually, yes, Ross/COE do get lots of attention from recruiters and the like, but those two still comprise a minority of the undergrad population.”</p>
<p>You do realize that Ross and the CoE combined have 7,000 undergraduate students. That is hardly negligible. And LSA is as strong as the CoE and Ross. While companies will always recruit Engineering and Business majors more heavily than arts and sciences major at universities that have all three programs, a large chunk of undergrads enrolled in the college of LSA intend in pursuing graduate studies in Law, Medicine or some other graduate field. If look at graduate school admissions for LSA students into medical and law schools. 40-60 Michigan alums enroll into Michigan Medical annually, and just as many enroll into Michigan Law annually. That’s a pretty significant number when you consider that Michigan Law and Medical are both ranked among the top 10 nationally. </p>
<p>Also, I am not sure how you figure that Notre Dame, Rice, Emory and Vanderbilt do a better job at placing undergrads into graduate schools or jobs. Well, there is no way of proving job placement, but there is plenty of data to compare undergraduate school placement, and Michigan holds its own against all four of those universities. Emory and Michigan both publish detailed placement statistics of students bout for law school. In 2010, Emory had 270 of its alums apply to Law school compared to 870 from Michigan. Of those, 30 of Emory’s alumni ended up at T14 Law schools, as opposed to 112 of Michigan’s. That means that 11% of Emory law school applicants enrolled in T14 Law schools, compared to 13% of Michigan law school applicants. I do not see how Emory has the edge.</p>
<p>Emory and Michigan do not publish Medical school placement statistics, but according to Johns Hopkins Medical school, Michigan currently has 12 alums enrolled, compared to 4 Emory alums. WUSTL Medical school reports that since 1995, 17 Emory alums have enrolled in their Medical school, compared to 48 Michigan alums. Again, it does not appear that Emory alums place better in top graduate programs than Michigan alums.</p>
<p><a href=“http://medadmissions.wustl.edu/HowtoApply/selectionprocess/Pages/WhoChoosesWU.aspx[/url]”>http://medadmissions.wustl.edu/HowtoApply/selectionprocess/Pages/WhoChoosesWU.aspx</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sebin/u/p/SOMCatalog0910.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sebin/u/p/SOMCatalog0910.pdf</a> (page 460)</p>
<p>In 2003, the WSJ published an interesting, albeit very limited report on the universities that placed the most alums in top graduate programs (the top 5 Law schools, top 5 MBA programs and top 5 Medical schools were surveyed in that report). In absolute terms, Michigan placed more alums into those 15 graduate programs than all but 4 universities; Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton. That’s correct, Michigan placed the 5th most alums into those top 15 graduate programs. Even as a percentage of student population, Michigan was 18th among research universities, ahead of Emory, Notre Dame and WUSTL. This is consistant with the figures I have seen for law school placement, where in absolute terms, only Harvard and Yale place more alums in T14 Law schools. Michigan even placed alums than Princeton and Stanford. </p>
<p>Therefore, using your argument, Michigan’s college of LSA should be among the top 20 US universities. After all, LSA is what is feeding those top graduate programs at such an impressive rate. </p>
<p>And that’s just looking at placement into graduate schools. But there are other metrics to consider when rating universities, such as strength of faculty, quality of faculty, quality of facilities etc… In most of those criteria, Michigan is considered one of the top 10 universities in the nation. There is no real weakness. </p>
<p><a href=“http://staging.web.emory.edu/clcc/images/Law_pdf_files/11_Pre_Law_Synopsis[/url]”>http://staging.web.emory.edu/clcc/images/Law_pdf_files/11_Pre_Law_Synopsis</a></p>
<p>[Statistics:</a> UM Undergraduate | Newnan Advising Center | University of Michigan](<a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/academicplanning/prelaw/statisticsumundergraduate/lawschools50umapplicantsbyattendedtotalattended2010_ci]Statistics:”>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/academicplanning/prelaw/statisticsumundergraduate/lawschools50umapplicantsbyattendedtotalattended2010_ci)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/group/SPLS/content/0809lawdata.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/group/SPLS/content/0809lawdata.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://ucs.yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Law_School_Application_Statistics.pdf[/url]”>http://ucs.yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Law_School_Application_Statistics.pdf</a></p>
<p>“The disadvantages are that classes are generally larger, and that the student bodies are generally weaker overal. Also 6 and 4 year graduation rates are usually lower at publics than they are at their private counterparts.”</p>
<p>Classes are larger eh? Have you actually sat in at classes in various universities to compare class size among comparable classes? Remember, you cannot simply look at the classes with fewer than 20 students and classes with more than 50 students to determine class size. Some universities offer hundreds of tiny seminars that really distort the figure. You need to compare similar classes. I have sat in on similar classes that I took at Michigan at several private peer institutions and I have not noticed a significant difference. I also am an alumnus of Cornell, and really looked closely at Cornell’s classes sizes, and they are virtually identical to Michigan’s. </p>
<p>Also, very few universities have genuinely smarter student bodies. You won’t have more than 10 or so universities with genuinely smarter student bodies. Again, using Cornell as a basis of comparison, the undergrads I interacted with there (as a graduate tutor and mentor) were not materially smarter than the students I dealt with at Michigan. If you look at the percentage of students at Michigan who enroll in top graduate schools, you will find that fewer than 10 universities truly place a higher percentage.</p>
<p>I will not presume to speak for other private elites, but I can speak to Cornell and how it compares to Michigan. The two schools are identical in terms of student bodies, class sizes (when comparing like for like), facilities, faculty, prestige and reputation in academe (graduate school admissions) and industry (corporate placement) etc… I know because as an alumnus of both Cornell and Michigan, I have really explored those two universities in their entirety. Also, alums of Michigan and other private elites have observed the same. </p>
<p>With the exception of very young and impressionable teenagers, the gap between Michigan and its private peers (all the top privates minus HYPSM) is practically non-existant.</p>
<p>Finally, graduation rates between Michigan and other private elites are very similar. Michigan graduates 90%, compared to 90%-95% at the vast majority of private elites. Yes, the 4 year graduation rate is lower, but that has been explained by many already. It is a result of curriculum requirements at schools such as Architecture, Engineering and Music. It is also a result of a large number of in-state students who are paying peanuts to attend and do not mind taking an extra semester or two to finish their studies. It has nothing to do with the university lacking resources to allow students to complete their students on time. I have never heard of a student who needed more time to graduate due to not being able to register for classes in time.</p>
<p>OK, I’m sold…hook, line, and sinker.</p>
<p>Now, if only UMich will accept my D, all will be right with the world :)</p>
<p>Yeah the grad school rankings can really rub off on undergrads if we’re talking about quality of education. The GSIs might not have quite the same knowledge as the profs but are often better educators and pretty available.</p>
<p>It should be stressed that GSI’s only teach 3% of undergraduate classes at Michigan, mostly entry-level Mathematics, English and Foreign Language courses. Most GSI’s act as discussion leaders, not as teachers.</p>
<p>Also, the notion that a university is somehow better at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level is laughable. That may be the case in some instances when the university has no resources to provide undergraduate students with any benefits. That is obviously not the case with Michigan. There may be a slight edge accorded to its graduate programs (which is not saying much given the fact that Michigan’s graduate programs are among the top 6 or 7 in the country), but given the resources available at Michigan (6th largest endowment in the US, comparable to a private university with an endowment of $13 billion, or $300,000/student), and the size the faculty, undergrads are provided with virtually unlimited opportunities.</p>