UM student taking any questions you have

<p>Alexandre, do you know the stats for graduate Engineering (specifically aerospace)?</p>

<p>I do not have a lot of details when it comes to individual concentrations. I know that Michigan's Aerospace Engineering program is one of the top 4 or 5 in the nation and that it has a special connection with NASA, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and most other major aerospace companies in the World. I also know that the largest number of Michigan students end up getting offers and joing the aerospace engineering and defense industries. I think close to 15% of Michigan engineers end up joining companies in that industry. The mean starting salary for MS in Aeorspace Engineering from Michigan is about $70,000. Not too shabby!</p>

<p>alex do you have similar stats for med schools?</p>

<p>I was JUST gonna ask that question nirvana :) thanks</p>

<p>I am not talking to you two. One of you is a Brady hater and Manning lover. The other is a Buckeye! For exhibiting such poor judgment, I banish you from my sight! LOL </p>

<p>Seriously, Michigan places anywhere from 60%-80% of its med-school applicants into Medical school, depending on the year. Last year, Michigan placed about 60%, but a couple of years ago, it was in the 75%-80% range. I realize 60% sounds low, but do not panic. Most top universities limit which of their students can apply to medical school, which explains why some schools have 80%-90% placement. But Michigan allows any student to apply to medical school, including a bunch of 2.8-3.2 students. If you are a 3.4+ student at Michigan, chances are, you will get into medical school. </p>

<p>Furthermore, there has been a surge in the number of students who are applying to medical school nationwide. Most universities that claim 100% or 90% medical school placement are not only handpicking which of their students may apply to medical school, but they are also listing their placement rates of 2 or 3 years ago.</p>

<p>But a good student at Michigan should not have too much trouble getting into medical school. For example, any student that manages an A or A- in Orgo has taken the first major step toward guaranteeing admission into a respected medical school. Your go, Manning-lover! :)</p>

<p>As far as actuall numbers, I know the following. In 2004, about 550 Michigan students applied to medical school and about 350 actually enrolled into medical schools. Of those 350, 35 (10%) enrolled in the Michigan medical program. Unfortunately, I do njot have figures of where the remaining 300+ students went. </p>

<p>I hope this answers your question.</p>

<p>LOL, i dunno if ur talkin to me cause i am both a buckeye and brady hater, not just 1 of em haha. Whats wrong with Manning, besides the fact hes a hick? </p>

<p>anyways, a girl told me after her orientation that i cant take biology before chemistry???? I'm thinking what the hell, WHY?! Im majoriing in Molecular and Cell Biology and its a prereq for med school so why are they making me postpone the class???</p>

<p>Umdarr, you are from Ohio...'nuff said! hehe </p>

<p>Seriously, I do not like Manning for several reasons. </p>

<p>1) He isn't a team player.
2) He isn't humble or modest.
3) He isn't a role model.
4) He did not behave like a gentleman when Woodson won the Heisman.
5) He isn't a good leader.
6) He does not thrive under pressure.
7) He isn't very game-smart.
8) He never won a single game that mattered. He was 0-4 vs Florida (biggest game of the year) when he played for Tennessee and he also fails to deliver in the big games.</p>

<p>Basically, he does not possess any of the qualities I respect in an athlete. If you look at the list of my favorite athletes, they all have common traits. He just doesn't cut it. He is relatively talented (certainly one of the top 3 QBs in the game today), but he isn't worthy of any respect.</p>

<p>Brady on the other hand is an all around winner. He is not merely one of the best QBs today, he is one of the best QBs of all time. One more SpuerBowl MVP award and he will be considered one of the top 2 or 3 QBs of all time.</p>

<p>As for having to take Chemistry before Biology...what's the big deal. Get Cehmistry out of the way. I hear it is excriciating (just ask the other Manning lover above)! Have fun! hehe</p>

<p>ah u see the problem with that is i cant get chem out the way for 2 yrs...req for med school is "2 yrs of chemistry though organic" so bascially im gonna be taking it till the end of soph year.</p>

<p>maybe i shouldnt say i hate brady, but rather i hate the patriots lol...I HATE how they win the superbowl by 3 pts and call themselves a dynasty? A DYNASTY!!??? Dynastys don't win by slight margins, they kick ass in the superbowl...I guess thats the real reason i hate the patriots. That and they beat my lovely team (st louis rams) in 2001. I bet it was set up, 9/11, new england PATRIOTS!!?? CMON!! MY TEAM GOT RIPPED OFF</p>

<p>Ok here's the deal with Chemistry at Michigan-if you test out of Chem w/ ap or the placement test, DO IT. I did, and I was glad because most of my friends said that gen chem is a huge waste of time, though not THAT hard. Intro Bio (162) isn't that hard, but it's not that exciting because it's not very in-depth. If you have ap credits, use them. I took bio first semester last year and orgo I (my fav. class so far!) 2nd semester. This semester I am doubling with orgo 2 and physics. You will be taking chem for a large part of your college career. After orgo, you take pchem, which fulfills a requirement for the CMDB concentration anyway, as does biochem, which is also a med school pre req. All med schools require "2 semesters of organic and 2 of inorganic," and I talked to the pre med advisor, and she said that If you tested out of gen chem you don't have to take an upper level inorganic class unless you are applying to Harvard or the U-Texas schools.</p>

<p>Now, to refute Alexandre
1) Manning is a team player-when he talks about the record setting season-he always says "we did it, it was us" He also will give the ball to Edgerrin James rather than attempt to throw it, and up his stats if that is more feasible.
2) Manning is incredibly humble and modest. He did not gloat after breaking Marino's record-his head was still in the game and gives all the credit to his teammates. He would not up the score-he has more respect for the game than any QB in the nation
3) He is a role model-he's clean, doesn't make innapropriate comments/behaviors (randy moss,terrell owens),
4) I agree with you that woodson deserved the heisman over manning and manning was a biatch about it, but Manning is the best qb in the league now, and woodson is a washed up alcoholic
5) Manning is a GREAT leader-he calls the plays right from the line and makes the plays happen
6)Manning does thrive under pressure-did you see the amazing comeback against San Diego!
7)Manning is the most intelligent QB in the league! He's not as physically gifted as culpepper and ron mexico (vick), but he can read the defense before they attack. He is practically a football genius. Ever since his high school days, he would fill notebooks while watching and noting videos of the opposing team.
8) He has won big games, but you have to remember he is still young. His day is coming, and he will be wearing a Super Bowl Ring.</p>

<p>Bio 162 is one of the hardest and most failed classes at UM. Chem 130 is not easy, either, especially the honors section. I agree, try to get credit for both of those classes through AP.</p>

<p>ah thanks nirvana lol but u see i dont necessarily LIKE chem or physics haha so i dont mind if i take gen chem lol, i got it figured out tho...just gotta talk to the advisors and what not at orientation.&lt;/p>

<p>btw, nice comeback on refuting alexandre LOL</p>

<p>Umardarr, whether a team wins the superbowl by 1 point or 50 points isn't the issue. Winning it in of itself is impressive. Now the Patriots may have won the superbowl by a mere 3 points, but over they had an 18-2 record this season, outscoring their opponants by a greater margin than any other team in the NFL. That is dominant, not matter bow you slice it. </p>

<p>And winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 seasons does consitute a dynasty. If you can name me 2 other franchises that have won 3 super bowls in 4 years, let me know. I can only think of the Cowboys in the 90s. Pittsburgh won 3 in 5 years in the 70s and the 49rs won 5 in a 15 year stretch, but not franchise other than the Pats and the Cowboys have managed to win 3 in 4 seasons. And it's not like the Patriuots were not dominant either. In the last 4 years, the Pats have amassed a 60-15 (0.800) record. Do you know how impressive that is? So, winning three championships may not make it a dynasty in some arenas, but in the NFL, since only 2 or 3 other franchises have ever managed the feat, I would say that relatively speaking, the Pats are a dynasty.</p>

<p>Nirvana, I do not agree with many of your points. </p>

<p>Points 1 and 2: Manning is an arrogant person. That is not going to change overnight. He was arrogant when he was in college...he is arrogant now. His not gloating about breaking Marino's record is expected. You do not gloat publically about breaking a legend's record unless you want to be bashed by the press and lose credibility in the eyes of NFL fans. And his attributing his success to his team is what I call self-preservation. If he took the credit all for himself, I don't think his OL would block as well in the future! LOL</p>

<p>Point 3: Although Manning is indeed clean and outwardly polite, it does not make him a role model. I am not saying that he isn't, but I have not noticed his being one.</p>

<p>Point 4: Whether Woodson is a "washed up alcoholic" today or not is not the issue. The point is, he whined about not winning the Heisman back then and did not act as a classy, role-model should when he lost to Woodson. And by the way, Woodson is a 5-time all-pro. I have no idea why you just insulted him. I agree that Woodson is not role model. I would never say that he is. But let us not vilify him either. He is one of the top 5 CBs of the last decade.</p>

<p>Point 5: And your point is? Most top QBs are take-charge players who call the shots when the chips are down.</p>

<p>Point 6: I would not compare Manning to Brady in this department. Manning cannot hold a candle to Brady. Let us face it, Brady is the ultimate athlete when things go wrong. He is undefeated in come-from-behind situations and in OT. </p>

<p>Point 7: I actually think Brady is a great deal smarter than Manning when it counts. I mean, let us face it, when things get rough and the opposing defense plays well, Manning is error-prone....Brady isn't.</p>

<p>Point 8: Sorry Nirvana, but Manning is not a Big-Game QB. His 0-4 record vs Florida alone speaks volume. And his inability to do well in the playoffs is also pretty telling. What I consider big games are : Rivalry games and Bowl games in college and playoffs games in the NFL. </p>

<p>Brady is 2-1 vs OSU, 2-0 in Bowl games, 13-1 in the playoffs. That's a remarkable 17-2 record in "big games". That is AMAZING!!!I mean, it is not a coincidence. You win a couple of big games, you can call it luck. But winning 90% of your big games over the course of 10 years takes more than luck.</p>

<p>Manning is 0-4 against Florida, 3-1 in Bowl games (that is actually impressive) and 5-5 in the playoffs. Manning is 8-10 in "big" games. That is not bad mind you...but it is not good either.</p>

<p>I give the edge to Brady in Big games. </p>

<p>And Manning is not young either. He is almost 30 years old. He has played in the NFL for 7 full seasons. He is not old and has 5 or 6 more seasons left, but he is not young. Brady is almost 2 years younger than Manning and he has accomplished a great deal more than Manning.</p>

<p>o please alexandre lol, the fight is more btween u and nirvana here haha, im backin out. To me winning by a mere 3 pts IS part of a definition of a dynasty cause the 49ers, Cowboys, Steelers, all won by a score that gave the message that THEY DOMINATE the Fball field. The pats you see can easily be beaten. 01? Rams DEF coulda beaten em but i know that game was a setup so ill let it go, and 04? Eagles coulda DEFINITELY beaten them if they didnt try to "not be under too much pressure", they had plenty of time to make a touchdown and could have done so. So in my mind, how you win the superbowl is an indicator of a "dynasty". The steelers had the best record in the season btw, not pats. What team by the way lets the freakin miami dolphins come along and kick their butt?</p>

<p>I reckon this is all a setup...for example 02? what the heck happened with em? they just blew off the season with a 7-9 record and then come back to win 2 superbowls? BULL</p>

<p>Pitt did not dominate. All of their wins were by 10 or fewer points (2 of them were by fewer than 5 points). And Umardarr, you cannot conveniently define dynisty as you wish. Winning three superbowls in 4 years, especially in the age of free-agency and complete parity, is a dynasty. A team that finishes 15-5, 18-2 and 18-2 and wins 3 SBs in 4 years is a dynastry. Dallas went 16-3, 15-4 and 15-4 in its dynsaty run.</p>

<p>And I do not recall saying that the Pats had the best record last season. I said that they outscored their opponents by a greater marging than any other team. The Pats outscored their opponents by 177 points. The Colts were second with 171. But since you brought up the best records last season, I feel I must stress that the best record did belong to the Pats. Pitt finished 16-2, the Pats finished 18-2. Last time I checked, 18-2 > 17-2. ;) Besides, the Pats beat Pittsburgh with relative easy in the playoffs. I think 41-27. </p>

<p>At any rate, there is no fight between Nirvana and I...or between you and I. I actually like both of you...as I like all the Wolverines in this forum. We are all Wolverines remember. I see nothing wrong with some playfull taunting! hehe</p>

<p>Finally, NE did not finish 7-9 in 2002. They finished 9-7. Not great, but it happens.</p>

<p>i didnt mean fight fight, just what u meant lol</p>

<p>AH SHUTUP I GIVE UP! Throw all the stats u want, pats suck!...actually no, if the pats make it to the playoffs in the next 2 yrs and dont die out, THEN i will throw the towel in and say the patriots are a good team. After this last superbow, the pats lost their offensive coordinator which was one of the reasons why the pats became so great. If they can manage to keep their team together for the coming seasons, i will step back...otherwise THEY DO SUCK! GO RAMS!!!!!!! lol</p>

<p>what cell phone service works best at umich (in all of the buildings) "?</p>

<p>All cell phones work poorly in nearly all the buildings and dorm (large buildings, often underground, lots of cement, bricks, and other old fashioned construction).</p>

<p>The only legitimate championship was the patriots 1st one, in 2002. In 2003, the carolina panthers did not lose, the kicker lost it...big difference. This year, mcnabb had the flu, but anyway the eagles were a much better team. Bellichek,Weiss, and Crennel comprised the best staff in the nfl, but 2/3 are gone. The pats will be without bruschi and ty law, and troy brown is too old to constantly play receiver, return kicks, and play saftey. The only reason the patriots have beaten the colts in the postseason was because there was snow at foxboro, in which the colts cannot play (yes that is their fault, but still). The colts lost the regular season opener there because of sloppiness (Edge fumbling at the 1 yd line), but came together much better as the season progressed. College2004-maize is right...no cell phones work well in dorms</p>

<p>theres 1 thing i hate aboout football..and that's that the morons don't stop the FREAKIN CLOCK when it should be. There's like 1 min left in the game, nothings happening, and the clock still ticks. WHAT THE HECK!</p>

<p>You guys are incredible. I guess you are NFL fans. I personally couldn't care less about the NFL. To me, weather and field goals are part of the game. They aren't reasons for losing. And by the way, Law did not play all of last season and Bruschi was past his prime in 2002...and was actually not that effective in 2003 and 2004. </p>

<p>NE is going to keep winning. I would say as long as they have Brady, NE, is going to be a contender. </p>

<p>And Umardarr, your needing to see the Patriots break the NFL record to accept them as a legitimate dynasty tells me you are really not fond of the Pats! LOL</p>