UMICH vs. Northwestern

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Hawkette, I don't have too many thoughts on the differences between Michigan and private university admissions. I think private universities place more weight on SAT scores than Michigan and I think private universities report SAT scores differently than state universities. </p>

<p>I know that the Michigan CDS mentions the SAT as "important". As you pointed out in post 39, even in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, when Michigan was allowed to use the formula, Michigan CDS listed the SAT as "important". But it obviously wasn't important to Michigan. All things being equal (same race, same socio-economic background, same legacy status, same high school curriculum, same class rank etc...) a 3.9 student with a 1200 on the SAT go more points than a 3.8 student with a perfect 1600 on the SAT. A 0.1 difference on one's GPA was worth more points than 400 points on the SAT! I think that says a lot.</p>

<p>In terms of graduate school and professional placement, from the little data I have seen, placement rates into top 10-15 graduate programs and into leading companies obviously favor Northwestern (NU undeniably has a slightly stronger student body than Michigan), but they seem comparable when comparing students of equal calibre. There isn't much to go on mind you, the WSJ is probably the broadest such survey and it only lists numbers enrolled into top 5 Law schools, Medical Schools and MBA programs. According to the WSJ, 4% of NU undergrads end up enrolling into those top 5 graduate professional programs, as opposed to 3% of Michigan undergrads. </p>

<p>All I am saying is that (1), it is hard to compare SAT ranges and averages when two schools have different approches to SATs and (2), students of equal calibre at both schools will have equal opportunities.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Top privates get the majority of students who are in the top of their class and have the best SATs, whereas the top publics tend to get the left over--the top students who don't have quite as competitive SAT scores.

[/quote]

jags861,
Your statement is not supported by admission data. Michigan has MORE students in their freshman class scoring above 1420 (single sitting) than Northwestern (best composite). Do you call the top 25% of Michigan class "left over"?</p>

43

<p>goblue,</p>

<p>i'm not referring to the top students at schools. you'll find that at many tier 1 and 2 schools (public and private), the very top students have similar credentials to the top students at the very best privates. However, look at this example.</p>

<p>University of California: Riverside
% in top 10% of class: 94%
25-75 SAT: 910-1170</p>

<p>Stanford University
% in top 10%: 89%
25-75 SAT score: 1340-1540</p>

<p>Now, just because UCR has a higher % of students in the top 10% doesn't mean it has a stronger class. If all the top 10% students at UCR had 1400 on the SATs they probably wouldn't be at UCR.</p>

<p>Also, no where does it say anymore on Michigans website or CDS that it uses single-sitting scores. It may have at one point used single sitting scores, but I don't believe it does anymore. And by Alexandre's logic, most michigan folk wouldnt take it more than once because Michigan doesn't place emphasis on the SAT. I know MSU uses best composite (it says so on its website), so I'd assume Michigan follows suit. </p>

<p>Also, who cares if michigan has more students with over 1420 on the SATs than northwestern. The top 25% of the class at Michigan is 75% the size of NW entire class.</p>

44

<p>jags861, from Michigan's web site...</p>

<p>"There is no limit to the number of times that you may take the SAT I and/or ACT test. The University of Michigan will use the highest combined test score from any one sitting of either test in our evaluation of your credentials."</p>

<p>"Top privates get the majority of students who are in the top of their class and have the best SATs, whereas the top publics tend to get the left over--the top students who don't have quite as competitive SAT scores."</p>

<p>Michigan must get a lot of NW's leftovers. There are about 6,000 students that have scores above 1320 on the SAT at NW. There are around 12,000 students at Michigan that have these scores (from one sitting). </p>

<p>NW is such a smaller school than Mich you would think they could fill up their school with everyone having SAT scores above 1320. What's wrong with NW? According to CDS SAT scores are "VERY IMPORTANT" at Northwestern. Only 6,000 kids with SAT scores over 1320. Can't even get 8,000 kids with SAT scores over 1320 and Michigan can get around 12,000 and they are just "important" at Michigan.</p>

<p>Michigan stats...</p>

<p>The following statistics on the admitted Freshmen class of 2006 may provide you with some helpful guidelines. Please note: due to the comprehensive review process that each application undergoes there is no guarantee of admission, even if these guidelines are met. </p>

<p>Information on High School Grade Point Averages (calculated using unweighted grades on a 4.0 scale, and only academic courses taken in grades 10th and 11th):</p>

<p>U of M freshmen with a 4.0: 28%
U of M freshmen with a 3.9 or higher: 52%
Middle 50th percentile of the class:</p>

<p>High School GPA of 3.7 - 4.0 (determined by recalculation following the above stated guidelines)</p>

<p>There are over 12,000 students with unweighted gpas of 3.9 or higher. I didn't find that info on NW's web site, but maybe it's there.</p>

<p>Anyway, there are more students in the 10th and 11th grades with unweighted gpas of 3.9 at Michigan than total students at NW. </p>

<p>I'm sorry but I can't see how anyone can choose NW over Michigan. My objective data states there just aren't enough smart students at Northwestern. With those 2,000 crappy students, you would think Northwestern would at least have good sports teams.</p>

45

<p>dstark,</p>

<p>1) i'm not arguing that michigan is better than northwestern. i think they're equals--each has certain advantages over the other.</p>

<p>2) i didn't say that "the only people who go to michigan are people who are got rejected from NW." I made a comment that state/public schools have a responsibility to the tax payers to admit students their students. Top publics take only the top students in their state. This is why most top publics have a very high percentage of top 10% students. Top privates also get top students. But because there are more top students than top test scores, there is a spill over--especially with the kids who live in michigan. I know Michigan is a great school, but it looses cross admits to northwestern, notre dame, duke, harvard, etc...more often than not. Therefore the students at Michigan have lower SAT scores than other top privates. This is the same at any top public (UVa, Berkeley, UCLA, ND, etc.). This doesn't mean there aren't top students at michigan...there are. But the bulk of the class is weaker than the bulk of the class at top privates. This is seen when the 25% SATs at a school like NW are the same as the 50% or 60% SAT scores at michigan. I know you insist on going by total numbers, but thats dumb because...michigan is 3x the size as NW.</p>

46

<p>I know what you said. </p>

<p>I'm sorry. The average might be weaker at Michigan, but objectively, Michigan just has more great students. I want to surround myself with more great students. Northwestern just doesn't have enough. </p>

<p>Northwestern wins all these cross admits and yet, it still only has around 6,000 students with SAT scores over 1320. You would think with all the cross admits Northwestern wins, it could take another 2,000 of Michigan's 1320+ scorers. Then it would have 8,000 compared to Michigan's 10,000. I mean, come on. Michigan has 12,000. Northwestern should be able to take the 2,000. At least it would be closer. But no, it doesn't happen. </p>

<p>So Northwestern just doesn't measure up, objectively. Sorry.</p>

47

<p>hey if you just want to be stubborn about it, thats fine. but making an argument about the absolute number of students at schools and their scores...when 1 school is more than 3x the size of another is just silly and you know it.</p>

48

<p>About as silly as the percentage argument. ;)</p>

49

<p>jags, I think basing the quality of a university entirely on the quality of the average student without taking size into consideration is also silly. If 10% of Michigan students were good (over 1300 on the SAT with 3.8+unweighed GPA and top 5% of high schools class) vs 100% of the students at Northwestern, I would agree with the notion that Northwestern's student body is so far better that comparing the two universities would be difficult. But its more like 50% of the students who are good at Michigan vs 75% at Northwestern. One can interpret this as meaning that NU has a slightly better student body but another way to look at it is that Michigan does one hell of a job attracting top students despite its handicap (size and obligation to the state). </p>

<p>Clearly, both universities have a substantial number and percentage of highly capable and driven students. In terms of overall numbers, Michigan is slightly better off and in terms of percentages, Northwestern is slightly better off. Chosing one of those two schools based on either the percentage or total number of good students is pointless. Both schools are known to be elite academic institutions and receive the highest recognition accross the academic and corporate spectrum.</p>

50

<p>Graduate school placement statistics are often presented as critical factors in how schools are portrayed on CC. One of the most commonly referenced studies of "feeder schools" for graduate school is the WSJ survey. </p>

<p>In the Wall Street Journal survey (which combines National Universities and LACs and measures matriculation numbers to 5 Law Schools, 5 Medical Schools and 5 MBA schools), Northwestern ranked 21st (73 students out of graduating class of 1978 for a placement percentage of 3.7%). U Michigan ranked 30th (156 students, class of 5720, 2.7%). </p>

<p>A critical piece of information, however, should be disclosed as it heavily impacts these numbers and potentially HUGELY benefits U Michigan. One of the five Law Schools that is used in the WSJ survey is U Michigan. I believe that U Michigan has a 25% IS requirement for its law school classes. If this is true, then for an entering class of 350 students, about 87 students come from the state of Michigan. As the flagship school in the state, it is quite likely that a large number of those come from U Michigan undergrad. Does anyone know the true number of U Michigan undergrads going on to U Michigan Law?</p>

<p>Whatever the numbers, as the WSJ survey counted only 156 students total from U Michigan undergrad to the fifteen law, med and MBA schools, it appears probable that the measurement artificially inflates U Michigan's grad school placement rate. </p>

<p>BTW, Northwestern's Law, Medical and MBA schools are not included in the WSJ survey.</p>

51

<p>alex -
[quote]
According to the WSJ, 4% of NU undergrads end up enrolling into those top 5 graduate professional programs, as opposed to 3% of Michigan undergrads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Considering that UoM has more than 3x the student body of NU - those nos. aren't as close as one might think.</p>

<p>
[quote]
All I am saying is that (1), it is hard to compare SAT ranges and averages when two schools have different approches to SATs and (2), students of equal calibre at both schools will have equal opportunities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How are they different? NU, Penn, Stanford, etc. could fill their class w/ students who score over 1350/1400 on the SATs, but they DON'T since they arguably have a more "holistic" admissions standard than UoM.</p>

<p>And note that you said "students of equal calibre" (which basically, what most of us have been saying all along), however, a good chunk of UoM' student body doesn't fit that profile (which you seem to have a habit of overlooking).</p>

<p>dstark -
[quote]
I'm sorry. The average might be weaker at Michigan, but objectively, Michigan just has more great students. I want to surround myself with more great students. Northwestern just doesn't have enough. </p>

<p>Northwestern wins all these cross admits and yet, it still only has around 6,000 students with SAT scores over 1320. You would think with all the cross admits Northwestern wins, it could take another 2,000 of Michigan's 1320+ scorers. Then it would have 8,000 compared to Michigan's 10,000. I mean, come on. Michigan has 12,000. Northwestern should be able to take the 2,000. At least it would be closer. But no, it doesn't happen. </p>

<p>So Northwestern just doesn't measure up, objectively. Sorry.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>dstark - your "analysis" is frankly, quite hilarious.</p>

<p>In that context - UoM has more 1320+ scorers than Penn, Stanford and Princeton as well (oh well, I guess those schools don't measure up as well to "mighty Michigan").</p>

<p>Plus, as I stated earlier, these schools could easily fill their classes w/ more top scorers - but they have "holistic" admissions standards, not to mention more lenient standards for URMs and athletes, etc. (and the athletes at schools like NU and Stanford have a significantly greater impact percentage-wise than at UoM, which has a signifcantly larger student body).</p>

<p>A closer look at the make-up of UoM's student body shows that it is considerably weaker.</p>

<p>(Funny how NONE of the Mich defenders have been able to come up w/ a plausible explanation why Mich's % of ACT scorers over 30 (which tests HS subjects) is almost HALF of that for NU.)</p>

<p>Mich - SAT verbal scores over 600 70%, SAT math scores over 600 86%, ACT scores over 24 94%, SAT verbal scores over 700 21%, SAT math scores over 700 43%, ACT scores over 30 38% </p>

<p>NU -
SAT verbal scores over 600 92%, SAT math scores over 600 94%, ACT scores over 24 96%, SAT verbal scores over 700 53%, SAT math scores over 700 63%, ACT scores over 30 69% </p>

<p>Stanford -
SAT verbal scores over 600 92%, SAT math scores over 600 96%, ACT scores over 24 99%, SAT verbal scores over 700 59%, SAT math scores over 700 67%, ACT scores over 30 66% </p>

<p>Penn -
SAT verbal scores over 600 94%, SAT math scores over 600 97%, ACT scores over 24 97%, SAT verbal scores over 700 54%, SAT math scores over 700 69%, ACT scores over 30 66% </p>

<p>Princeton -
SAT verbal scores over 600 96%, SAT math scores over 600 98%, ACT scores over 24 N/R, SAT verbal scores over 700 73%, SAT math scores over 700 74%, ACT scores over 30 N/R </p>

<p>
[quote]
About as silly as the percentage argument.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhhh, since UoM has significantly more 1320+ scorers than NU - then why does UoM do less well than NU as a WSJ feeder school (and when you take out UoM Law School, it's even worse)? (Maybe you should ask alex this question?)</p>

<p>Really, some of these "arguments" that you guys come up with are rather lame and half-baked.</p>

<p>As as for NU's sports teams -</p>

<p>
[quote]
With those 2,000 crappy students, you would think Northwestern would at least have good sports teams.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>they do quite well, thank you very much (another "illuminating" comment from dstark).</p>

52

<p>alex et al,</p>

<p>i don't think michigan is worse than northwestern. i don't know why you all think that. i realize you're defending your alma mater, but if you look objectively, michigans student body isn't as strong as northwestern. that doesn't make northwestern better...its just a fact. just because michigan has more people with over 1320 doesn't mean anything...michigan also has more people with less than 1320...i don't see the point to the argument.</p>

<p>joshua, you're a fool if you think UCR's student body is as talented as Stanford's. While I don't think SAT scores are end all and be all, a 300-400 point difference is something significant</p>

53

<p>k&s here are two facts. NW has a higher percentage of SAT scorers. Michigan has more high scorers. </p>

<p>Beliefs derived from these two facts are just opinions. The beliefs aren't facts no matter how many times and how many ways these beliefs are stated. </p>

<p>You can't, as a fact, state which school is better based on either fact. </p>

<p>That last statement is a fact, not an opinion.</p>

<p>If you go or are going to go to NW. Congratulations. It's a great school.</p>

54

<p>UCR < Stanford... obviously.</p>

<p>Go to Northwestern. It's so much smaller and tends to have a better name, which DOES matter when you go look for a job or are looking to make some valuable connections.</p>

55

<p>dstark -
[quote]
k&s here are two facts. NW has a higher percentage of SAT scorers. Michigan has more high scorers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Gee, you must be less bright than I had even thought.</p>

<p>Once again, UoM has more "higher scorers" than Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, etc. - so what does that mean? NOTHING!</p>

<p>Btw, since UoM does have more 1320+ scorers than these schools - why doesn't UoM do a better job of being a WSJ feeder (aside from its own law school)?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Beliefs derived from these two facts are just opinions. The beliefs aren't facts no matter how many times and how many ways these beliefs are stated. </p>

<p>You can't, as a fact, state which school is better based on either fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is a FACT - that NU's student body overall, is, on average, considerably stronger than UoM's.</p>

<p>Does that mean that one can't get as good of an education at UoM as one would at NU or even Harvard? Of course not.</p>

<p>But the quality of a student body is a material factor in determining the overall quality of a school.</p>

<p>Btw, it doesn't matter where I went to school - If I had gone to UoM (or Cal or UVA), I would be saying the same thing.</p>

56

<p>NW has higher average SAT scores.</p>

<p>"It is a FACT - that NU's student body overall, is, on average, considerably stronger than UoM's."</p>

<p>Sorry, that isn't proven by the SAT scores. You said yourself schools could choose more higher SAT scorers if they wanted. Why don't they? Are they looking for an inferior student body?</p>

<p>You don't know the difference between NW's student body and Michigan's and how that affects an education. Are NW's classes harder than Michigan's? Are NW students taught secrets that Michigan's don't know?</p>

<p>If you think the WSJ feeder list decides which school is better, I don't know I'm arguing with you.</p>

<p>It doesn't.</p>

57

<p>dstark -
[quote]
[NW has higher average SAT scores.</p>

<p>"It is a FACT - that NU's student body overall, is, on average, considerably stronger than UoM's."</p>

<p>Sorry, that isn't proven by the SAT scores. You said yourself schools could choose more higher SAT scorers if they wanted. Why don't they? Are they looking for an inferior student body?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh - diversity is always a consideration, not to mention athletes, etc. (which btw, have a much greater impact at a smaller school like NU) - care to compare the qualifications of URMs and athletes at NU and UoM?</p>

<p>And SAT or ACT scores are an important factor with regard to gauging the quality of a student body - most universities and rankings take it into account.</p>

<p>Btw, why is it that the % of students at UoM who score over 30 on the ACT (which, unlike the SAT, tests HS subjects) about HALF of that at NU?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't know the difference between NW's student body and Michigan's and how that affects an education. Are NW's classes harder than Michigan's? Are NW students taught secrets that Michigan's don't know?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Geeze - how thick can you be?</p>

<p>I, and a no. of others, have repeatedly stated that a student can get as good of an education at UoM as one would at NU or even Harvard.</p>

<p>But if you think that the overall quality of the student body doesn't have an impact, than you're living in a fantasy world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you think the WSJ feeder list decides which school is better, I don't know I'm arguing with you.</p>

<p>It doesn't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh, that's the argument that alex has been giving (I just threw it back, revealing it's weaknesses, esp. in light if the fact that YOU kept referring the to the greater no. of 1320+ scorers at UoM) - I think you should be having that discussion w/ him.</p>

58

<p>Hawkette, Michigan Law does indeed help Michigan a little bit in the WSJ survey. Having just one program listed in the survey helps, but not as much as having two or even three programs in the survey. Which is why schools like Harvard, Penn, Chicago, Columbia and Yale (which have two or more of their programs included in the survey) really benefit from this ranking. Have only program included in the survey, like Dartmouth MBA or Michigan Law also helps a little. Imagine if Michigan medical and Michigan MBA were also in the survey. It would be interesting to see the ratio of students from Michigan and NU who end up enrolling at top 10-15 Engineering graduate schools, Law Schools, MBA programs and Medical Schools. I think in both cases, it would be close to 25%. </p>

<p>k&s, I never attended NU, so I really am not qualified to compare NU's student body to Michigan's. I did, however, attend Cornell and I have dealt with Cornell undergrads extensively. I have studied with them, taught some of them and interviews/hired a whole bunch of them. From my exposure to Michigan and Cornell undergrads, I can definitely say that there is virtually no difference in the quality of the undergrads at those two universities.</p>

59

<p>Alexandre, perhaps, that is because Cornell is more similar to Michigan than is Northwestern is to Michigan. This is because Cornell has a variety of state programs, with student bodies that mirror Michigan's student body. The students in the AG, ILR, HE in addition to Hotel do not have "stats" that compare with the rest of the university. In fact, I would go as far to say that the student bodies in these schools are more in line with Michigan's student body than they are with Cornell A/s and engineering. This would then render your observations more believable to me.</p>

60

<p>My exposure has been restricted to the colleges of ILR, Engineering and Arts and Sciences. I took most of my classes at in ILR, although I took several classes in the college of Arts and Sciences (Physics and Mathematics mostly). I recruited mainly in the college of Engineering. The mean SAT score at those three schools is well over 1400. I have had absolutely no exposure to the colleges of AG, HE or HM. But like I said, I have not seen a noticeable or significant difference between the quality of the undergraduate student bodies of Cornell and Michigan.</p>