“If there is a tie for any of the top three places all competitors are entitled to receive the appropriate medal according to IOC rules.” <=== specifically, ties are allowed for the bronze, there is no fourth place or fourth ranking. There are only three medals and any participant who ties received the appropriate medal. A tie between the 3rd best and 3rd best entails two participants each of whom receive an equivalent medal, which medal equates to 3rd place (even with 4 OR MORE participants).
Think of it as a race. If 5 people run a mile in lets just say 7 minutes and bob runs his mile in 9 minutes bob was not the second fastest runner, he was the 6th
Michigan has strong social science and pre-professional programs. It is weaker in the physical and life sciences.
Alex, just nitpicking since you brought it up, but UCLAs and Cal’s admission numbers have not leveled off. Each year since 2010 has seen a record number of applications.
Disagree: Bob is the 6th guy across the line, but has the second fastest time; qualitatively, bob is as fast as the first five as a cohort all of whom win a gold medal for first place; Bob wins second place silver.
UCB, most universities have experienced some growth in their applicant pool in the past 5 years, but in the majority of cases, the increase has been in the 25%-35% range. In Michigan’s case, it has been about 70% in that same period. There are obviously other exceptions. Some universities have seen a significant increase in applicants in recent years. Chicago and the UCs come to mind. But in the case of Chicago and Michigan, the yield has held up (which is highly unusual in the case of rapid increases in applicant pools), while in the case of the UCs, the yield has dropped (which is generally the case when applicant pools expand rapidly).
hpflstdnt, when I said that all schools improve over time, I was referring to Michigan peer institutions. There are perhaps some lower tier universities that have not improved, or even deteriorated, over time, but those are not relevant to this discussion.
@Alexandre @UCBChemEGrad I agree with you, so I guess the question would be more along the lines of which universities have a slower rate of accelerated improvement than others?
In the eyes of academics, the University of Nebraska and Syracuse University losing their membership to the Association of American Universities could be viewed as a decline.
UCB, Syracuse and Nebraska are not peers of Michigan. I was referring to universities like Boston College, Cal, Caltech, CMU, Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, JHU, MIT, NYU, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, Stanford, Texas-Austin, Tufts, UCLA, UIUC, UNC-Chapel Hill, USC, UVa, Vanderbilt, WUSTL, Wisconsin-Madison and the Ivy League. The vast majority of those universities, all of which I consider to be Michigan peers, have improved vis a vis their previous selves.
I should have been more clear. I meant universities relevant to this discussion. How Michigan fares relative to universities in different tiers is not pertinent.
Some other rankings of note (all from US News except as noted):
Philosophy #4 (Philosophical Gourmet 2014-15)
Undergrad Business #4
Grad Business #11
Business MBA #9 (Bloomberg Businessweek)
Undergrad Engineering #7
Grad Engineering #8
Law #10
Education #8
Public Affairs #12
Medicine (research) #12
Medicine (primary care) #8
Nursing #6
Pharmacy #7
Public Health #4
Michigan also has a stellar Music, Theater, and Dance school (top 5 from past rankings) and its School of Social Work is typically top rated. I honestly feel that only a few schools on the entire planet can compare with Michigan as to the enormous variety and academic excellence across so many disciplines.