<p>“Do you think that people on CC are so stupid as not to see this as a duplicitous presentation? Come on, Alex, I expected more from you than this ridiculous attempt. Heck, there are dozens of schools (including many of U Michigan’s true private and public peers, including BC, Lehigh, Case Western, Rensselaer, Tulane and U Illinois and U Wisconsin) where if you averaged their 75th percentile with the top score, they’d look Princetonesque too.”</p>
<p>Hawkette, those schools you list also have strong student bodies. I never claimed otherwise. Your point was that Michigan’s student body was too inferior to those at private elites to compete with them as an academic institution. In fact, that arguement has ben the cornerstone of your entire case for why Michigan and other public elites are merely “fine”. The fact is, and the statistics bear this out, there is virtually no difference between the top 50% of the students at Michigan (or Cal, UVa and other public elites) and the top 75% of the students at those private elites. And yes, students at schools like BC, NYU, UIUC and Wisconsin are also excellent and not far behind the private elites. Of course, the quality of a student body cannot be measured statistically because different schools publish statistics differently. Even if all schools adhered to one basic system, comparing students through statistics would be inconclusive as there are varrying opinions on the matter of quantifying intellectual ability through testing. </p>
<p>Now you stated that only 25% of Michigan students are of nnon-HYPM elite quality. That means that only 25% of Michigan students are of Brown, Columbia, Cornell or Penn quality. For that claim to be true, that would mean that 100% of students at those private schools graduated in the top 1% of their high school class with straight 4.0 unweighed GPAs and 1440+ SAT scores or 32+ ACT scores. Even Harvard doesn’t come close to that. Those figures are like the top 40% at Brown and Cornell, the top 50% at Columbia and Penn and the top 65% at Harvard. You should be careful when you make a sweeping statement like that. Had you said that 50% of Michigan students are of such calibre, compared to 75% at private elites, I probably would not have had an issue, although that would obviously not have the same impact on your argument.</p>
<p>Like I said many times in the past, student quality does not determine the quality or reputation of a university. Quality of faculty, contributions to the advancement of humanity through path-breaking research, size of endowment, contribution of funds from the state to the universities, overall reputation of the school, school spirit, availlability of on-campus artistics, social, political and athletic activities, alumni size, affluence and influence etc… play a much larger role. But none of those criteria can be measured effectively.</p>
<p>“Well, I guess whatever you need to boost that self esteem…keep repeating it to yourself and maybe it will come true…”u Michigan is elite”…”u Michigan is elite”….”u Michigan is elite”……Sleep tight, sugarplums.”</p>
<p>I sleep well regardless Hawkette. Insomnia has never been a problem. In the last 5 years, I have helped dozens of students chose Michigan over other elite universities such as Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Penn. So far, many of those students have graduated and communicate with me until this day, thanking me for the great advice I gave them. </p>
<p>“Can we get back to the original purpose of the thread, which was to talk about the undergraduate environment from the student’s perspective? Selectivity is but one aspect of that and I think we’ve pretty well beat that issue to death.”</p>
<p>And yet you continuously bring it up when in truth, as I have proven numerous times, it is hardly a differentiating factor. Perhaps you should walk away from this point since it is truly a non-issue.</p>
<p>“Shall we move on to other things that will impact the average undergraduate student’s college environment, ie, things like class size, faculty teaching commitment, institutional support to undergrads, etc….and whatever else you think would be appropriate to discuss and compare?”</p>
<p>Gladly, schools like Cal, Michigan, UVa and other top publics all ranked among the top 15 for teaching in the latest USNWR. Admitedly, such a ranking is meaningless since commitment to instruction and quality of in-class teaching cannot be measured. </p>
<p>Class sizes vary very little from one research school to another. Typically, intro-level classes will be large (over 150 students at smaller private elites, over 200 at larger private elites and over 250 at larger public elites), intermediate level classes will generally be manageable (40-60 students) and advanced classes will be small (fewer than 30 students). </p>
<p>Some universities will offer more “special” seminars than others, thereby raising their over number of “small” classes to the 60% or 70% mark whereas others will not, thereby keeping their number of “small” classes at the 40%-50% range. </p>
<p>As for “institutional support”, elite publics cost less than $15,000 in tuition to over 70% of their students. Schools like Michigan, UIUC and Wisconsin now virtually guarantee high profile research opportunities for nearly 100% of freshmen who seek them. Libraries and computer labs can now service 100% of students at virtually any public flagship university. </p>
<p>All of this beckons the question, why aren’t any of those schools in your top 20 list of undergraduate institutions? They have the endowment, they have the talented student bodies, they have research activity that is open to undergraduate participation, they have the facilities, they have the reputation, they have the alunmni networks, they have corporate America recruiting madly on their campuses and, most of all, they have some of the best faculities in the country.</p>