<p>This is my decision as an intended political science major? Thoughts?</p>
<p>Assuming cost is not a concern, Michigan (even without honors) is a tiny notch above UCLA for Political Science. However, fit is also important and if you prefer UCLA, that too should play a part in your decision.</p>
<p>If any of them is in state, go for that one. Otherwise, they are almost as expensive and provide little aid to oos.</p>
<p>both are out of state so the 3k difference is negligible.</p>
<p>It’s an Honors Program, not a separate college, and is more about the community and being with fellow “excellent” students than it is about taking more challenging classes. So you’re basically comparing between UCLA and Michigan, in which case the two are extremely comparable. You won’t lose either way. Go with your own intuition.</p>
<p>At some universities, like ASU or the University of Maryland for example, being part of an honors program can make a big difference. But at Michigan, given the overall quality of the university, size of its endowment and strength of the student body, the honors program is just a nice addition but does not really add much to the students’ experience since all students have access to a first rate undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>When considering two universities of similar cost, reputation and quality, one should focus almost exclusively on fit. Did you visit both campuses? If you haven’t, then you should. Here are some things to consider:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Racial diversity vs geographic diversity. At UCLA, roughly two thirds of undergraduate students are minorities (mostly Asian, but also Hispanic and African American). At Michigan, minorities only make up one third of the student population. On the other hand, at UCLA, only 15% of undergrads are OOS students, compared to 45% at Michigan. </p></li>
<li><p>Socioeconomic diversity. At UCLA, students represent the general US population in terms of socioeconomics. At Michigan, that is unfortunately not the case, with a disproportionately large segment of the student population coming from wealthy backgrounds. </p></li>
<li><p>Location. Michigan is located in a very nice mid-sized college town while UCLA is located in a very nice neighborhood of one of the country’s largest cities.</p></li>
<li><p>Resources. Michigan’s endowment currently stands at $8.3 billion. UCLA’s endowment stands at $2.8 billion. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>You should be looking at these type of differences, because in terms of academic excellence and reputation, Michigan and UCLA are about the same.</p>
<p>Alexandre covered most of the bases. But I’d add:</p>
<ol>
<li>Weather. Michigan is located in a very cold and snowy part of the country whereas UCLA is sunny most of the year.</li>
</ol>
<p>It should really come down to fit. Another thing you should consider is where you’d want to live after you graduate. Michigan is better in the midwest and north east; UCLA is better is the west and south west.</p>
<p>Good additions beyphy.</p>
<p>“5. Weather. Michigan is located in a very cold and snowy part of the country whereas UCLA is sunny most of the year.”</p>
<ol>
<li> Michigan is located in an area that hardly ever has earthquakes, mudslides, brushfires, SMOG, and traffic jams. Weather is overrated. Most of the best schools in the country are located in colder climates.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>“Michigan is better in the midwest and north east; UCLA is better is the west and south west.”</p>
<p>I would contend that Michigan is also “better” in most of the southwest where population is concened. Texas is in the southwest. Michigan is also “better” in the southeast. I’ll give UCLA the west coast. </p>
<p>I actually gave Texas to UCLA. Granted, Texans probably don’t hold that UCLA is better than their own UT-A, but it’d probably be on par at least. I’m basing that on anecdotes though. And it mostly has to do with how UCLA is regarded in Texas, not necessarily how UCLA is regarded as compared to Michigan in Texas.</p>
<p>^^^Except you forget that Texas has been a major magnet for outmigration of Michigan graduates. I would imagine that UCLA keeps most of its domestic graduates closer to home. Do you know a lot of Californians who now live in Texas? I know of lot of ex Michiganians who do. </p>
<p>Living in Texas and having spent substantial time in Texas in my life I give the edge to Michigan in Texas, especially in Houston where at big oils, Michigan is probably the most well represented school after UT and Rice. That said there are a lot of migrants from California in Texas, given the vastly more business friendly, less regulated environment and the 0% income tax.</p>
<p>Not all that useful but I’ll add that I knew several Michigan grads who ended up in Austin for work.</p>
<p>One can never underestimate the size, reach, influence and affluence of Michigan’s alumni network. There are over 20,000 Michigan alums in NYC and over 30,000 Michigan alums in Chicago. Michigan’s diversity is beyond question. For example, only 1,300 or so UCLA undergrads are non-resident (not including international students), compared to a whopping 9,000 or so Michigan undergrads who come from OOS (again, not including international students). According to 2013 enrollment data, below were the most represented states at Michigan:</p>
<p>New York: 1,600
Illinois: 1,400
California: 1,300</p>
<p>Just for a sense of perspective, there are more students from each of the above three states enrolled at Michigan than there are from all OOS 49 states combined at UCLA. </p>
<p>New Jersey: 850
Ohio: 600
Maryland: 400
Pennsylvania 400
Connecticut: 300
Florida: 300
Massachusetts: 300
Texas: 300</p>
<p>Many of those will return to their home state when as proud Michigan alumni. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah I’m not believing that without any evidence. I highly doubt UMich is more respected in Texas than their own A&M (which is very respected within the state and the south.) Not to mention that Texas has a ton of public universities which were funded by their oil boom in the '60s.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising that UCLA has a very small amount of OOS students. Up until maybe half-a-dozen years ago, their incoming classes were composed of like 90% California residents. But that’s changing, and fast.</p>
<p>There are tons of families in the U.S., in various states, which have some affiliation with the Michigan brand. UCLA’s brand is not comparable within the U.S. since the vast majority of the students it admitted, up until a few years ago, were from California. As a result, the brand wasn’t very strong outside of the west. This is something that even continues to this day. There are many more international students paying for UCLA at sticker price than there are OOS students within the U.S. doing so. At least 11% of UCLA’s students are international compared to 6% at Michigan. The reason for UCLA’s high rate is probably because it’s a well respected brand internationally. I don’t know enough about Michigan to comment on why it’s international rate is lower, but if I had to guess, I’d say it probably has a preference for national students vs international ones (at least for undergrad.)</p>
<p>I’d also add that the reason you Wolverines are so ubiquitous has to do with the sheer volume of your alumni. UCLA has about 400,000 alumni, and that’s a lot (Princeton, for comparison, has about 80,000.) Michigan’s alumni association claims to have around 540,000 alumni, which is a TON. And most UCLA alumni stay in California. I doubt that most Michigan alumni stay in Michigan. And so, all those alumni are probably spread around the U.S. and the world.</p>
<p>Does anyone have stats of the # of Michigan alumni that stay within the state vs leave the state? I believe at UCLA about 1/4th of the alumni are outside of California.</p>
<p>As of 2013, forty percent of UM’s alumni lived in Michigan: <a href=“Find out where they go: University of Michigan graduates leaving tree city for the big city”>http://www.annarbor.com/news/where-u-m-alumni-live/</a></p>
<p>This should end the debate. My first year working in Houston, I attended the Bluebonnet Bowl where Michigan played against UCLA. Michigan alum outnumbered UCLA alum 3 to 1.</p>
<p>And I agree with bearcat, there are a lot of Michigan alum in the Oil & Gas industry in Houston and vicinity, at least in the 10 years when I was working as an O&G consultant in Houston. I met a lot of them as customers and at OTC conferences.</p>
<p>“The reason for UCLA’s high rate is probably because it’s a well respected brand internationally.”</p>
<p>As has been proven in earlier statements, Michigan and UCLA have about the same number of international students. Michigan simply has more students overall, hence the lower percentage. Michigan also is a well respected brand internationally, having been among the top universities in the world for decades longer than UCLA.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>Thanks for posting this, it’s very informative. I wouldn’t have guessed that Michigan had so many alumni in California, but at the same time am not surprised (I’ve read that California sends more kids to the states than any other state.)</p>
<p>It seems that Michigan does indeed do well in Texas, but since I’ve still seen no evidence that it does better than UCLA in Texas, I’ll say they’re about equal in the state.</p>