UMICH vs. Northwestern

College Search & Selection
81

<p>alexandre,
Please read more closely. I was comparing the quality of the student bodies in the statement from #84:</p>

<p>"U Michigan’s true peers for student body quality are schools like Boston College, NYU, Georgia Tech. Not Northwestern."</p>

<p>Here is how the schools compare based on SAT scores:
U Michigan: Average of 1315
Boston College: 1335
NYU: 1330
Georgia Tech: 1345</p>

<p>U Michigan’s scores are the weakest of this bunch. One could certainly make a reasonable argument that the student body of U Michigan is not as strong as these schools.</p>

<p>If you want to opine about relative job placement of U Michigan vs these schools, I urge you to be careful in your comments about these schools. All are fine schools and their students compete very effectively against U Michigan. While U Michigan would be stronger in the Midwest, I believe that each of these schools would be stronger in its home region than U Michigan (BC stronger in NE, NYU stronger in NYC, GT stronger in South). </p>

<p>For comparisons with public schools,
U Michigan: 1315
U Virginia: 1325
UC Berkeley: 1335
U North Carolina: 1300
U Texas: 1235
U Florida: 1260
U Wisconsin: 1265
U Washington: 1210</p>

<p>In my view, this is the right peer group for U Michigan.</p>

<p>For Northwestern, here is what I stated was its peer group:
Northwestern: Average SAT of 1410
Dartmouth: 1450
Columbia: 1440
Brown: 1435
U Penn: 1430
Cornell: 1385
U Chicago: 1440
Wash U: 1440
Duke: 1450
Rice: 1435
Vanderbilt: 1370
Notre Dame: 1380</p>

<p>If you look at these groups, it is pretty clear that U Michigan does not belong in the bottom group of top privates…and that Northwestern does not belong in either of the first two groups of lower ranked privates and top publics. U Michigan and Northwestern are not close peers.</p>

82

<p>"Please read more closely. I was comparing the quality of the student bodies"</p>

<p>I know, and I was saying that it is impossible to compare student bodies without a common frame of reference. I only compare universities according to academics (rankings of individual departments) and reputation (corporate polls and peer assessment scores). In that, Michigan and Northwestern are pretty even.</p>

83

<p>he is saying the quality of education at each of the institutions is equal, if not the student bodies.</p>

<p>although i would object on the basis that while it may be true that the caliber of education on the DELIVERING side is equal, WHO you are going to school with makes a large difference in the quality of your education. The kind of questions being asked in class, the nature of the interactions with your peers, the type of concepts analyzed at study sessions - these things all have a significant effect on the quality of the education you are receiving.</p>

<p>and although you say that SAT score is not a good indicator of the quality of the student body, and thus the nature of the things i mentioned above, because public school students "don't care" about the SAT, i would disagree with this entirely, and assert that not only is it accurate, but even without conceding that, it is the best measurement available, and in that way must be used as an indicator.</p>

<p>The argument that high schoolers prone to attend public schools "care less" about their SAT is not only unsubstantiated, but is also a moot point. Those who "don't care" about achieving their best potential are going to be the exact type of students who detract from a quality student body. So that is a self-defeating argument.</p>

<p>And even that point aside, the SAT is essentially an IQ test, so "not caring" would hardly effect the results, it's a test of aptitude not effort.</p>

<p>I know nothing about the reporting practices of public schools, i would assume these are either exaggerated or statistically insignificant.</p>

<p>So while i would concede that the departments between these two schools are most definitely comparable, a higher quality student body would give one the edge over the other in overall academic experience, if you are able to rely on test scores as an indocator for a higher quality student body.</p>

84

<p>"I know nothing about the reporting practices of public schools, i would assume these are either exaggerated or statistically insignificant."</p>

<p>It has been estimated that the difference in reporting styles adds an average of 40 or so points (in favor of private universities) to the mean. That is indeed not that significant, but when you also consider the lower emphasis students at public universities place on preparing for the SAT, I think you can pretty much make a good case against comparing SAT scores at private universities with SAT scores at public universities.</p>

<p>Which takes me to my next point. elsijfdl, you aren't taking many things into consideration:</p>

<p>1) The number of hours the NU student spends preparing for the SAT compared to the average number of hours the Michigan students spends preparing for the SAT. </p>

<p>2) The average number of times the NU student takes the SAT compared to the average number of times the Michigan student takes the SAT.</p>

<p>3) The percentage of NU students who take SAT prep classes compared to the percentage of Michigan students who take SAT prep classes.</p>

<p>Like I demonstrated in a post above, Michigan cares very little about the SAT. It always has. Until 2003, Michigan used an admissions formula. In it, Michigan awarded a possible 80 points for a perfect 4.0 unweighed GPA, 78 points for a 3.9 unweighed GPA, 76 points for a 3.8 unweighed GPA etc...). On the other hand, Michigan would award only 12 points for a perfect 1600 on the SAT. In fact, Michigan would award 12 points for an SAT score of 1360 too. In other words, whether a student scored a perfect 1600 or a 1360 on the SAT made no difference. And for students who scored between 1200 and 1350, Michigan would award 11/12 points. In other words, with all other things being equal (race, curriculum, quality of high school, socio-economic background etc...) Michigan admissions granted more points to a 3.9 (uwneighed GPA) student with a 1200 on the SAT than to a 3.8 (unweighed GPA) student with a perfect 1600 on the SAT. Here's a link to the Michigan admissions formula. Like I said, it was used until 2003. Even though Michigan was forced to stop using the formula in 2003, most of Michigan's admissions officers are the same and their approach to admissions hasn't changed. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Emrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Michigan residents (65% of the undergraduate student population) know this and as a result, they hardly prepare for the SAT. </p>

<p>At any rate, even if SAT scores could be properly examined and interpeted, and assuming that SAT scores (or IQ tests) truly measured intelligence, students of a higher calibre in any university (be it Michigan or Northwestern) will generally skip more of the intro classes and will generally take more advanced and challenging classes throughout their college career. Generally speaking, students of equal ability travel in similar circles at most universities. Furthermore, professors at a university like Michigan or any other top university (leaders in their chosen field of study) move at full speed. They do not slow down because some students cannot keep up. Those who can't keep up will either drop out or fail.</p>

85

<p>Alex, </p>

<p>You're statement that "students at public schools don't take the SATs seriously" is ridiculous. Students who applied to Michigan (or UVa or Cal or UCLA or UNC) applied to private schools to. I don't understand why "they wouldn't take the SATs seriously." As someone who goes to a public college, I know I took my SATs seriously...and so did all of my friends.</p>

<p>That being said, I think its silly to say, Hawkette, that those private schools you mentioned are "a notch above" Michigan, UVa, Cal, etc. because they have average SAT scores 50-100 points higher. Public schools are at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to SAT scores for a variety of reasons already mentioned. That being said, I don't think someone who scored 1400 is dumber than someone who scored 1450 or 1500. However, a difference of scores, like 1000 and 1500 IS a difference (like the UCR stanford example I gave earlier). That isn't the case with comparing a Michigan and a Notre Dame or whichever other school.</p>

86

<p>Jags, I am sure many student who attend Michigan took the SAT seriously. I am not saying that 100% of Michigan students don't take prep classes and don't prepare for the SAT. But on average, I think students at private universities invest a lot more time and energy in preparing for the SAT.</p>

87

<p>In going back to the OP for this thread which asked for guidance for a student considering a math/econ major, I thought it might be helpful to focus on some measurements that show a large difference between Northwestern and U Michigan. </p>

<p>While the reputation of these two schools among academics may be roughly equal, will the experience in the classroom be roughly equal? One way to evaluate this is with the statistics provided by USNWR in their Faculty Resources calculations. Consider the following comparisons and think what these mean in practice for a student attending each of the schools:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>What is the % of classes with 50+ students at each school?
Northwestern: 9% U Michigan: 16%</p></li>
<li><p>What is the % of classes with <20 students at each school?
Northwestern: 72% U Michigan: 43%</p></li>
<li><p>What is the Faculty/student ratio at each school?
Northwestern: 7/1 U Michigan: 15/1</p></li>
<li><p>What is the overall Faculty Resources rank of each school?
Northwestern: 9th U Michigan: 69th </p></li>
</ol>

<p>What other schools are similarly ranked to these levels?
Close in ranking to Northwestern are Yale, U Chicago, Wash U (tied for 6th), Vanderbilt (10th), Cornell (11th), and Emory (12th)</p>

<p>Close in ranking to U Michigan are UC Irvine, Ohio State, Rutgers, Purdue, U Colorado and Fordham (tied for 63rd), and U Wisconsin and U Georgia (tied with U Michigan for 69th). </p>

<p>U Michigan’s reputation among academics may be equal to that of Northwestern, but on the ground as an undergraduate student, I suspect that the numbers above say a lot about the classroom experience that a student will enjoy at each school.</p>

88

<p>I seldom had classes with over 30 students at Michigan and never after my Freshman year. Most of my classes had 20-30 students and some had fewer than 15 students. Math classes at Michigan are definitely very small. Econ classes tend to be larger at the intro levels because it is such a popular major. For a double major in Econ and Math, I would suspect the academic environment would be roughly the same at both schools, with a slight edge going to NU in Economics and a slight edfe going to Michigan in Mathematics. So as I initially recommended to the OP, pick the overall atmosphere you prefer, the academics will be pretty similar.</p>

89

<p>Alexandre,
I am glad that you had a good experience with class sizes at U Michigan when you attended in the mid 1990s. However, the reported facts from the CDS of U Michigan would indicate that undergraduates in 2007 will not have the same experience as you. Or perhaps what you are remembering was actually Sub-Section classes. These classes, which typically are taught by either junior professors and/or TAs, make up 45% of the classes offered at U Michigan (vs 25% at Northwestern). From the latest CDS, here are the class size facts for both U Michigan and Northwestern.</p>

<p>Undergraduate enrollment
Northwestern: 8023 U Michigan: 25,467</p>

<p>U Michigan Class Sections
2-9 students in the class: 379 classes (12% of total classes offered)
10-19: 973 classes (31%)
20-29: 798 classes (26%)
30-39: 326 classes (10%)
40-49: 135 classes (4%)
50-99: 294 classes (9%)
100+: 219 classes (7%)
Total Classes offered: 3124</p>

<p>Northwestern Class Sections
2-9 students in the class: 658 classes (41% of total classes offered)
10-19: 504 classes (31%)
20-29: 178 classes (11%)
30-39: 80 classes (5%)
40-49: 49 classes (3%)
50-99: 78 classes (5%)
100+: 61 classes (4%)
Total Classes offered: 1608</p>

<p>For classes taught at the Sub-section level.<br>
U Michigan Class Sub-Sections
2-9 students in the class: 251 classes (10% of total Sub-Section classes offered)
10-19: 705 classes (28%)
20-29: 1216 classes (48%)
30-39: 308 classes (12%)
40-49: 16 classes (1%)
50-99: 16 classes (1%)
100+: 3 classes (0%)
Total Sub-Section Classes offered: 2515</p>

<p>Northwestern Class Sub-Sections
2-9 students in the class: 90 classes (17% of total Sub-Section classes offered)
10-19: 253 classes (47%)
20-29: 132 classes (24%)
30-39: 37 classes (7%)
40-49: 10 classes (2%)
50-99: 16 classes (3%)
100+: 4 classes (1%)
Total Sub-Section Classes offered: 542</p>

90

<p>No, I am referring to classes taught by professors. And my experience is no different from most other students. According to your stats above, 70% of class sections at Michigan have 30 or fewer students. In my experience, I would say it was more like 80%. Classes at Michigan are pretty small, regardless of size. NU has smaller classes no doubt, but Michigan classes aren't significantly larger.</p>

<p>By the way, class size statistics are interesting, but they should be taken with a grain of salt. Two years ago, 44% of Cornell classes had fewer than 20 students and 22% had more than 50 students. Last year, Cornell's classes with under 20 students jumped to 64% and the number of classes with more than 50 students dropped to 14%. That pretty much means that Cornell had a lot of classes with 20-30 students and decided to cap those classes to 20. Michigan also has a huge number of classes with 20-30 students. If the university wanted to play the numbers game, it could easily cap those classes to 20 and next thing you know, close to 70% of Michigan classes would have fewer than 20 students. As it stands, 70% of Michigan classes have fewer than 30 students comapred to 80% at Northwestern. Like I said, NU has smaller classes, but we aren't talking night and day difference.</p>

91

<p>Alex,
These are not my numbers. These are the numbers provided officially from the CDS for U Michigan and Northwestern. </p>

<p>I believe that the comparison of this thread is U Michigan vs Northwestern, not U Michigan vs Cornell. </p>

<p>As for playing games with the numbers, every school, including U Michigan and Northwestern, has this option. For U Michigan, one difficulty of your thought to do this is that it takes money to accomplish this. Given that U Michigan already ranks 69th in resources dedicated to Faculty, it would appear that the school does not have the financial and operating room to execute this. As already disclosed, Northwestern ranks 9th in this measure and would appear to have plenty of financial and operational flexibility to do this if that were an institutional priority.</p>

92

<p>Actually, Hawkette, state universities cannot play games with numbers, even if they have the resources to do so.</p>

93

<p>Alexandre,
I understand your statement in #103 that you believe that U Michigan is not playing games with the numbers. Not sure how to interpret your comment in #101 about playing games with the numbers so perhaps you'd like to expand them. Are you suggesting that other schools play games with the numbers or operate in a fashion different than what U Michigan does when they report on class sizes? If this was the intention of your comment, I hope that you will be able to provide some evidence. Otherwise, your comments could be interpreted as a smear.</p>

94

<p>It isn't a smear Hawkette, just an unfortunate reality. For example, in determining student/faculty ratio, private universities include research faculty and other faculty who don't teach undergraduate students. State schools may not do so. I remember the Princeton Review mentioning that 100% of classes at Cornell and NU being taught by professors. Michigan reported that 75% of classes are taught by professors. The reason for this gap is simple. Private universities can define what "qualifes" as a class as a lecture. Michigan must include all classes, including sections. </p>

<p>In terms of class size, there is in fact a very thin line that separates classes with fewer than 20 students and classes with 20 or more students. Yes, over 70% of NU classes have fewer than 20 students compared to 45% of Michigan classes. But 70% of Michigan classes have fewer than 30students compared to 80% of NU classes. Classes are larger at Michigan, no doubt about it. However, the difference is not as large as one would think.</p>

<p>In short, like most criteria in the USNWR, the faculty resources rank is hard to read.</p>

95

<p>I think you are ahead of me at this point about the nuance of how various universities count faculty and any actions the administrators of those schools may or may not be taking to play the numbers game. It is an easy charge to make and probably a much more difficult one to prove. As I don’t have specific knowledge of illicit or immoral practices, I don’t leap to the conclusion that this happens. Nor do I take a view that any one institution, public or private, is any more pure than the next. I just don’t know and I suspect neither do you. </p>

<p>I am surprised that you find the USNWR criteria “hard to read.” If you feel that certain of the criteria are unclear or unfair, I hope you will explain further or, better yet, participate in a discussion that I initiated on “College Admissions” that asks if public universities are helped or hurt by the USNWR methodology. As you might guess, I believe that public universities are net beneficiaries of the methodology that they employ. In that thread, I explain my reasoning for that position.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
As for playing games with the numbers, every school, including U Michigan and Northwestern, has this option. For U Michigan, one difficulty of your thought to do this is that it takes money to accomplish this. Given that U Michigan already ranks 69th in resources dedicated to Faculty, it would appear that the school does not have the financial and operating room to execute this. As already disclosed, Northwestern ranks 9th in this measure and would appear to have plenty of financial and operational flexibility to do this if that were an institutional priority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yeah, it's not as simple as just "capping classes," doing that requires hiring more faculty, providing more available space, etc. Any school would favor smaller classes over larger classes if it could accomplish it, michigan is not simply 'choosing not to act,' that's a ridiculous argument</p>

<p>although i will agree with you that the difference is not as profound as it is often made out to be, people create a false perception that going to a state school you will be wading through a sea of enormous lecture halls, while at a private university you practically engage in one on one tutoring sessions. That is not the case. The only places that REALLY have different, more intimate classroom environments are liberal arts schools, where the stereotypes may be more true and compared to which, northwestern (and even harvard, any of the top universities) look like "state schools."</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
it isn't a smear Hawkette, just an unfortunate reality. For example, in determining student/faculty ratio, private universities include research faculty and other faculty who don't teach undergraduate students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>all faculty members at northwestern are required to teach at least one undergraduate class</p>

98

<p>This is a Jessica Alba vs. Denise Milani debate...no conclusion possible.</p>

99

<p>^^didnt know who was denise milani was before i googled her, perfect analogy. do you like big or small? its just like private vs. public. nice analogy tour guide..and thanks for making me google her. damn...</p>

100

<p>TourGuide,
I llike what you are trying to do, but I might suggest a different analogy. For me, it might be between Brian Dennehy (U Michigan) and Denzel Washington (Northwestern). :)</p>