<p>Michigan was my safety school. I'd much rather the environment of a private school. How am I being silly?</p>
<p>Michigan was my safety too. You're not being silly.</p>
<p>Michigan was my safety as well...UVA over NYU though? No way.</p>
<p>Stern? :) :)</p>
<p>"Michigan was my safety school. I'd much rather the environment of a private school. How am I being silly?"</p>
<p>Good for you.</p>
<p>Doesn't meant the rankings should be any different. The public schools deserve to be higher.</p>
<p>i would take UVA over NYU any day, UVA has more of a private feel than NYU, which is LARGER</p>
<p>Why? Because you said so?</p>
<p>Back up your arguments on why they should be ranked higher.</p>
<p>Well, I don't know. I am just sure that your reasons (that you personally dislike them) are not good.</p>
<p>If you sort by peer assessment, by the way, Berkeley becomes #6 and Michigan is like #13. Yeah, they have higher acceptance rates, but this does not mean any lack of prestige or quality of education.</p>
<p>"I am just sure that your reasons (that you personally dislike them) are not good."
-- How are you sure? Do you know me?</p>
<p>I just came from a political science class with 12 people. I have eaten lunch with my professor and I know every kids name in the class. We have become close friends and the class has a "family-like" feel. The intimate size allows well-guided and intelligent discussions. </p>
<p>Am I still wrong to prefer this environment over larger public schools? Please enlighten me.</p>
<p>You are not wrong. What does that have to do with usnews rankings?</p>
<p>I was attacking your claim that "your reasons (that you personally dislike them) are not good. </p>
<p>I was simply wondering, why you believe my personal reasons are unjustified?</p>
<p>I believe he was just pointing out the fact that because a person would rather go to A than B, that doesn't mean A should be ranked higher. Different strokes for different folks. Some of Cornell's classes can run in the hundreds, but that doesn't mean it's any worse than Rice. Some people prefer large classes- that's why they went to a large school instead of a LAC. :)</p>
<p>Umich's peer rating comes mostly from its Graduate programs and professors.</p>
<p>Would people be upset if say Notre Dame/ Vandy/ Emory/ UVA/ Berkely/ and Michigan all tied for say 18?... so i guess my question is do people actually think those publics are better than ND/V/E or just want to see them become "top 20" schools?... there is a difference</p>
<p>"I was simply wondering, why you believe my personal reasons are unjustified?"</p>
<p>They are justified. I never said they weren't.</p>
<p>"I believe he was just pointing out the fact that because a person would rather go to A than B, that doesn't mean A should be ranked higher. Different strokes for different folks."</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>If a mediocre university was able to obtain the best professors in its field but was public and had a 90% acceptance rate I think most elite students would still have hesitations about enrolling in the school. Why? After all, in my hypothetical the professors are the best in their field.</p>
<p>Although most will never admit this, I think people like to get into schools that other people cant. I think it is part of human nature. Also -- I think private schools try to build well-rounded classes and public schools seem more numbers orientated. If a kid had lackluster ECs with a 2100 SATs and a 3.8 GPA, he could easily be rejected from an elite private. However, I think he would be nearly guaranteed acceptance at his state school. I think that the student body at Vanderbilt and Notre Dame would be better-rounded than at Michigan.</p>
<p>I think selectivity and quality of the student body needs to play some role in distinguishing the elite. In defense of this, Michigan students will often cite a school like University of Chicago is more well-regarded than Wash U. I believe this is one of the few aberrations and if you disagree tell me what other elite schools have acceptance rates over 50%. When I looked at schools like Vanderbilt and Notre Dame their acceptance rates were in the low-30% while Michigan was around double 60%. Since Im an Arts & Science major, the data according to the Common Data Set shows that the incoming (25%-75% percentile was 1300-1470). [Source: <a href="http://virg.vanderbilt.edu/virg/option1/virg1_flash.htm">http://virg.vanderbilt.edu/virg/option1/virg1_flash.htm</a> . Michigan has ACT composite scores of (26-30) and (1210- 1400). So while both schools have elite kids (say ACT 29+ or 1350+) Michigan accepts a lot more kids with lower scores when compared to Vanderbilt or Notre Dame. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, my predilection and assertion of Vanderbilt over Michigan was considered silly with neither poster giving reasons. The private schools will continue getting more selective at a faster rate than the publics. The private schools are winning the cross-admit battles for a reason and I believe that the rankings are correct with having privates like Notre Dame and Vanderbilt ranked over Michigan.</p>
<p>I thought a big reason to go to a college was the quality of the professors? If I want to just hang out with smart kids I can move to Princeton and do that for free.</p>
<p>People that teach at a place like UM have to be among the best in their field. Can you say that about ND and even Vanderbilt?</p>
<p>I haven't been to Notre Dame but I can honestly say my Vanderbilt professors have been excellent. And the smaller enrollment allows me to actually meet them.</p>
<p>Agreed. I'd rather have a slightly less famous professor but with 100% of their attention on undergrads. Also, if anything has shaped my life its been the quality and depth of the network I am a part of as an Ivy alum.</p>