<p>"I'll also disagree with you about how UVA, Michigan, and UCB are better than a school like Vanderbilt. These large public schools are more focused on graduate studies."</p>
<p>All schools on that list focus on graduate studies. Even the privates. Being private does not make a University any better, it just makes it more expensive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being private does not make a University any better, it just makes it more expensive
[/quote]
Not true, the best public's cannot compare to the best private universities, but even some privates have problems with professors being too graduate/their own studies focused (Harvard). I'm planning on attending a smallish LAC-type school, where some classes are under 5 kids and professors will dine with you. THAT is something you get at a private school. Public schools are too numbers driven, they have to be because of the number of applications. Private schools can look into the character of the applicant more. This is not to say publics are bad, but to each their own. You can't say private schools are teh same thing as public schools except that they cost more.</p>
<p>Good point wilmingtonwave.</p>
<p>LAC's are not in this topic, I don't think. I do not personally like LAC's, but yeah, they are different. To tell you the truth, I do not want to ever dine with my professor.</p>
<p>Anyway, at research universities, the focus will obviously be graduate. That's just common sense.</p>
<p>Also, I disagree with your premises that being numbers-driven is bad. I hate the SAT as much as the next person, but the alternative is probably worse. Looking into the "character" is just so ripe for abuse.</p>
<p>The funny thing is, Michigan looks into just stats and still gets raped in terms of selectivity, yield, and prestige for ugrad.</p>
<p>It simply cannot afford to look into "character" and must take the top students as well as mediocre students. Unfortunately, most top students go on to better universities and Umich ugrad is left with the mediocre instate/out of state applicants.</p>
<p>Rolling admissions is seriously a major inefficiency of Ugrad Umich.</p>
<p>ACA, you are now questioning the character of students at the University of Michigan? LOL So you are telling me that the Adcoms of small private universities can actually determine the character of an applicant simply by looking at the application form? </p>
<p>You say:</p>
<p>"The funny thing is, Michigan looks into just stats and still gets raped in terms of selectivity, yield, and prestige for ugrad."</p>
<p>SELECTIVITY:
-According to the USNWR: #24, right behind the University of Chicago, Northwestern and Johns Hopkins, and slightly ahead of the University of Virginia, Vanderbilt and Carnegie Mellon.
-According to Newsweek: Most selective (the highest selectivity rating)
-According to Princeton Review: 98/100</p>
<p>In terms of unweighed GPAs and class rank, Michigan competes with the best of them. Like most state universities, Michigan's SAT is lower than its private peers. That's primarily because of its size, its obligation to the state and the way it reports its SAT scores. Michigan, like Cal and UVA have much better students than one would think merely by looking at SAT scores. That's because many of their students never really prepare for the SAT and because taking the highest score in one sitting is not as flattering as taking the combined highest score in individual sections. </p>
<p>Now don't get me wrong, selectivity IS Michigan's Achilles Heel. No doubt about it. It is Michigan's weakest trait. In all other ways, Michigan is ranked among the top 10 or top 15 in the nation. Selectivy is the only criteria in which Michigan ranks out of the top 20. But that does not mean Michigan isn't selective. Michigan is as selective as most universities ranked between #15 and #30 in the USNWR.</p>
<p>YIELD:
University of Pennsylvania = 62%
Columbia University = 61%
Brown University = 56%
University of Notre Dame = 56%
University of Virginia = 54%
Cornell University = 50%
Dartmouth College = 50%
Georgetown University = 47%
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor = 45%
Duke University = 43%
Northwestern University = 41%
University of California-Berkeley = 41%
Rice University = 40%
California Institute of Technology = 37%
Emory University = 37%
Vanderbilt University = 37%
University of Chicago = 34%
Washington University = 33%
Johns Hopkins University = 32
Carnegie Mellon University = 23% (ouch!)</p>
<p>I would say Michigan's yield is just fine, considering that it does not really give much merit scholarships, meet 100% of need-based aid or hound applicants like many other universities on this list do. Obviously, Michigan cannot compete with the big boys (H,P,S,Y and M), but then again, as the list above clearly demonstrates, neither can most other top 20 universities</p>
<p>PRESTIGE:
I guess this depends on one's definition of "prestige". If you want to impress 16 and 17 year old students, then Michigan is probably not your best bet. Personally, I think prestige means that a university is respected in powerful and influential circles. In other words, what academe and industry thinks. In those circles, Michigan is one of the very top universities, definitely one of the top 20, arguably among the top 10. This is clearly demonstrated in the USNWR Peer Assessment score, where Michigan is generally ranked around #10 (give or take a couple), the WSJ "Feeder" rating, where Michigan places more students into top 5 professional programs than all but 4 universities in the nation. To me, that's prestige. What 16 and 17 year old high school students think does not really matter to me. When I applied to graduate schools, it wasn't high school students who were evaluating my application form and when I interviewed with exclusive companies like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, those interviewing me weren't high school students either. </p>
<p>You also say:</p>
<p>"most top students go on to better universities and Umich ugrad is left with the mediocre instate/out of state applicants"</p>
<p>I am not so sure about this. I mean, last year, the top 1,500 students entering Michigan had 4.0 unweighed GPAs, top 1% class rankings and SAT scores over 1400. The mid 50% (3,000 students) of students entering Michigan graduated with 3.6-3.9 unweighed GPAs, top 2%-top 5% and SAT scores that ranged between 1250 and 1400. And like I always say, those SAT ranges are based on averages in one sitting. If Michigan reported SAT ranges the way private universities do, its SAT ranges would improve by close to 50 points. I don't think Michigan is settling for mediocre students. Only the bottom quarter of Michigan students graduated with unweighed GPA under 3.6, class ranks worse than top 5% and SAT scores under 1250. Most of those students are professional level athletes or students in the colleges of Nursing, Architecture and Design, Natural Resource Management or Kinesiology. Those students are very gifted in whatever studies they are pursuing and add a great deal to the intellectual, social and academic community, but they aren't the most academically inclined and do not go to class with students in the college of LSA and Engineering.</p>
<p>We're talking about Umich here and how it doesn't compare with top 20's. Listing other schools that are not top 20 is seemingly irrelevant.</p>
<p>Checking GPA's is irrelevant as well as OMG UNC HAS A 4.5 AVG GPA! You have to check out the state GPA as well and how the state works.</p>
<p>You've really gotten bitter about this for some reason and I dont' know why you care so much about convincing others Umich is a top 15 or top 20 for Ugrad. </p>
<p>Obviously you do somewhat care what these "16 and 17 year olds" think since you post with such fervor and intensity.</p>
<p>I think the best thing to do is just to agree to disagree. :)</p>
<p>PS: I know we focus on Usnews a lot, how about other rankings?</p>
<p>************** gives Umich academics a B+, UVA and Cal both get A-</p>
<p>Princeton review has Umich listed as #7 Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses
Princeton review also ranks: </p>
<p>Umich's selectivity at 95.
Berkeley's selectivity is 98. </p>
<p>Umich 50% SAT:
1160-1380 SAT</p>
<p>UVA 50% SAT:
1230 - 1430 </p>
<p>Laissez Faire ranks :
Berkeley as #38,
UVA/CMU #42
Michigan is #81</p>
<p>Some of these rankings have some issues but can you disagree with all of them? Can you find ONE national ranking out there that places Umich in front of Berkeley and UVA?</p>
<p>ACA, it is you who sounds bitter for some reason. I merely addrewsse some of your points. Clearly, where selectivity, prestige and yield are concerned, Michigan is very highly rated. You don't have a leg to stand on. </p>
<p>The Princeton review numbers you posted are old. The new ones, although admittedly unreliable (PR is known for being inaccurate), give Michigan a selectivity rating of 98. And Michigan's mid 50% SAT is 1240-1400, that's well documented. </p>
<p>And I am not comparing Michigan to Cal and UVA. I think all three of those schools are underrated. As far as national rankings go, Cal is ranked among the top 10 according to almost every respected ranking. Michigan is ranked among the top 10-15 and UVA is ranked in the top 20. The Laissez Faire rankings are a joke. But if you insist on a ranking that places Michigan above Cal and UVA, I'd have to go with Gourman, which is actually more respected than Laissez Faire... which isn't saying much. The USNWR ranks all three of them between #20 and #25. Hardly a difference there. </p>
<p>UNC's reported GPA average of 4.5 is the weighed GPA average. When you take the unweighed GPA, it equalizes things. </p>
<p>As for having too many TAs teaching undergraduate courses, Michigan is no different from any top research university. Exactly 3% of Michigan classes are tought by TAs. Obviously, some students at Michigan like to complain, and that's because Michigan students expect nothing but the best. However, it does not mean that Michigan has issues with professors teaching classes.</p>
<p>You still haven't told me what 20 universities you think are better than Michigan. I am waiting for that list.</p>
<p>I think the top 20 is our current top 20 except with Georgetown up there instead of vandy/emory and also put Berkeley up there. So far, the stats even show that every current Top 25 UsNews college has better 50% SATs than Umich except maybe UCLA. </p>
<p>I see your age is 32 and I'm wondering what the discrepancy here is. Perhaps things were different back then? Why would Princeton Review rank Umich as having too many TAs? Is it just based on student surveys? (I'm not familiar with Princeton Review's methods)</p>
<p>"Obviously, some students at Michigan like to complain, and that's because Michigan students expect nothing but the best."</p>
<p>I find this a bit... biased. Unless you are currently at Umich, how would you know what current students are like (especially ones that are almost half your age)?? </p>
<p>I mean look at the avg 50% of SAT for UVA/Umich:
Umich 50% SAT:
1160-1380 SAT</p>
<p>UVA 50% SAT:
1230 - 1430 </p>
<p>They are 70 points apart at the 25% and 50 points apart at the 75%. Even with such differences, I'm willing to concede that Umich is about equal to UVA just because of the peer assessments and all the other facts you've posted. However, comparing Umich to the current Usnews top 20 is a stretching it.</p>
<p>Finally, how would we explain the fact that no other national ranking puts Umich ahead of Berkeley/UVA?</p>
<p>...are we still beating the dead horse this issue with Michigan... it's a solid institution no doubt... but,</p>
<p>"prestigious"?... i'm not sure that's the first word that pops into mind when someone mentions UMich...</p>
<p>i think one of the problems Michigan suffers is its prominence on the NCAA stage (whether it's football or basketball) - i mean when you see that classic Blue and Yellow "M" do you think, world class academic institution or do you associate it with the Wolverines, the Rose Bowl and its famed rivalry with the Buckeyes of Ohio State?</p>
<p>in fact, i just saw a Big Ten "rap" commercial just now on ESPN - paid and sponsored by the Big Ten! ... sure it appeals to "urban" America and that its a "hip" place to be, but "prestigious"?</p>
<p>why wouldn't you see a "rap" commercial by HYPSM (or the any of the Ivies/ elite LACs for that matter) anytime in my lifetime, and what does that say about Michigan and its association with the Big Ten...</p>
<p>Anticipated response: "Ivies are a joke when it comes to sports, that's why!"</p>
<p>Exactly. Because the focus at a true elite academic institution should be ACADEMICS and sports should be an afterthought - not the other way around. </p>
<p>When your athletic program is an unstoppable juggernaut like at Michigan you run into inherent and undeniable conflicts of interest (the politics of the drawing power of NCAA $$$, recruiting, etc. etc.)</p>
<p>And it's this (NOT the minutiae of a single USNWR rank or selectivity or peer assessment or SAT scores or yield, etc., etc.) that is the TRUE Achilles heel that will always dog Michigan.</p>
<p>Hush...don't tell it to the Duke alum, especially not in March...or the Devil will be upon you...</p>
<p>Don't tell it to the Cornell hockey fans either... or the Stanford athletes...</p>
<p>ACA,
If you are gonna make a comparison, you should at least try to look up the data.</p>
<p>Michigan
(<a href="http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html</a>)</p>
<p>mid-50% of the 2005 freshman class:
SAT I total of 12401400 (single sitting)
22% with a 4.0 GPA (UW)
44.4% with 3.9 or higher GPA (UW)</p>
<p>That's practically the same as UCB
(<a href="http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp%5B/url%5D">http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp</a>)
SAT I-v: 590-710
SAT I-m: 630-740</p>
<p>ACA, Michigan's mid 50% SAT range is 1240-1400, not 1160-1380. I am not sure who told you Michigan's mean SAT score was 1160-1380, but whoever told you that is either clueless or lying. </p>
<p>UVA's mid 50% range is indeed 1230-1430.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.virginia.edu/stats&facts/%5B/url%5D">http://www.virginia.edu/stats&facts/</a></p>
<p>Unless Umich and UVA are lying, it would appear that the SATand ACT ranges at those two are identical. </p>
<p>Cal's range is 1200-1450. Like I said, those three schools have identical SAT ranges and all three of them have ranges that are deceptively low because of the way they report and calculate their averages. If you want to compare those brilliant state schools to their private peers, add at least 40 points to their ranges and means.</p>
<p>You seem to ignore almost everything I say. It isn't only the SAT ranges, which I know I have posted for your benefit a few times already, but I just mentioned a national ranking that ranks Michigan above Cal and UVA. The Gourman Report ranks Michigan at #3 in the nation at the undergraduate level. Another ranking that puts Michigan above Cal and UVA is the Atlantic Monthly. Neither one of those is reliable mind you...not are the PR, Laissez-Faire and Revealed Preferences. Personally, I don't believe Michigan is better than Cal or UVA though. I think all three are awesome and underrated. </p>
<p>Yes, the Princeton Review is 100% student-based. And I know Michigan students are very critical of Michigan because it has always been the case. Michigan students, like Harvard students, are whiners! LOL That's an endearing quality, but rest assured that Michigan students are very loyal to their school, even if their constant whining hurts the university they love so much. But back to that point. Michigan does not have many classes tought by TAs. It stands at 3% of classes. Those are all 100 level classes such as Calculus I and II, English Writing and some 100 level language classes. The remaining 97% of classes are taught by professors. </p>
<p>At any rate, I don't think schools like Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Washington University and Emory can be considered better than Michigan, Cal and UVA. Their student bodies are not better (not when you properly analyze reported SAT ranges vs real SAT ranges), their peer assessment score are weaker, their graduate school placement rates aren't as good and they simply do not have the same calibre faculties or departments. In short, they aren't better. Georgetown is amazing if one is interested in diplomacy or Law, but leaves much to be desired otherwise. Georgetown's current endowment of $800 million makes it one of the poorest elites and that is hindering its ability to keep up with the rest of the pack. </p>
<p>And you continuously change your stance. First you say that Michigan's yield isn't good and that it isn't prestigious. When it is made clear that Michigan's yield is as good as any top 20 university and that its prestige in the eyes of the academic world is clearly raned in or around the top 10, you move to say that Michigan's SAT range is 1160-1380 when it clearly is a little higher than that. </p>
<p>Let us quickly analyze the important criteria that makes a university great:</p>
<p>Peer assessment score:
Cornell University: 4.6/5.0 (tied with a couple of universities at #9)
University of Chicago: 4.6/5.0 (#9)
Johns Hopkins: 4.6/5.0 (#8)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 4.5/5.0 (tied with Penn at #13 in the nation)
Brown University: 4.4/5.0 (tied with Dartmouth at #15)
Northwestern: 4.4/5.0 (tied with Brown and Dartmouth at #15)
University of Virginia: 4.3 (tied with UCLA at #18)
Washington University: 4.1/5.0 (tied with Rice at #24)
Emory University: 4.0/5.0 (tied with a few universities at #27)
Vanderbilt: 4.0/5.0 (tied atg #27)
Notre Dame: 3.9/5.0 (with with USC at #33)</p>
<p>Selectivity ranking (according to the USNWR):
Washington University: #6
Brown: #13
Georgetown: #15
Cornell: #16
Emory: #16
Chicago: #19
Johns Hopkins: #19
Northwestern: #19
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: #24
University of Virginia: #25
Vanderbilt: #28</p>
<p>Graduate school placement:
Brown: #9
Chicago: #13
Northwestern: #14
Johns Hopkins: #15
Cornell: #16
University of Michigan: #18
University of Virginia: #19
Notre Dame: #20
Emory: #21
Wahington U.: #24
Vanderbilt: Out of the top 25.</p>
<p>Endowment:</p>
<h1>1 University of Michigan: $5 Billion</h1>
<h1>2 Washington U. $4.3 Billion</h1>
<h1>2 Emory: $4.3 Billion</h1>
<h1>4 Northwestern: $4.2 billion</h1>
<h1>5 Chicago: $4.1 billion</h1>
<h1>6 Cornell: $3.8 billion</h1>
<h1>7 Notre Dame: $3.7 billion</h1>
<h1>8 University of Virginia: $3.2 billion</h1>
<h1>9 Vanderbilt: $2.6 billion</h1>
<h1>10 Johns Hopkins: $2.1 billion</h1>
<h1>11 Brown: $1.8 billion</h1>
<p>Like I said, in most cases, those universities have very similar stats. I really fail to see how you figure that Michigan clearly and definitely isn't a top 20 university when the rest of the academic and corporate worlds seem to think otherwise.</p>
<p>Finally, what does my age have to do with anything? I have always helped students apply to universities and I am more up to date with universities today, Michigan included, than I ever was.</p>
<p>Ivy_grad, you call Michigan a "solid institution"? To me, solid is a word I would use to describe a school like George Washington or Penn State. Maybe even schools like UT-Austin and Vanderbilt. I wouldnot use it to describe a school like Michigan. Michigan is prestigious where it counts. Maybe not to you, but to the majority of exclusive companies and certainly in the eyes of academe. Don't think for one second that simply because Michigan has an above average athletic program that its academic programs are weaker. True, Michigan athletics are undeniably top 10 in the nation...but in all honesty, its athletics do not come close to competing with its academics.</p>
<p>vanderbilt better than berkeley or virginia or michigan?.. haha laughable</p>
<p>You can not use the Peer Assessment rating in this argument, do you honestly think it is really THAT reliable. Anyway stop comparing these schools, its unfair to. Anyway we can say that Michigan is a top 3 Public School without any argument :)</p>
<p>Yes, the peer assessment score is reliable. Why wouldn't it be? It asks thousands of university presidents, deans and top faculty, to rate universities. There may be some biases and inaccuracies, but by and large, it is reliable and accurate. Why is it unfair to use the peer assessment score? And I am not using the peer assessment score on its own. I am using a lot of difference criteria. But the peer assessment score measures "prestige" in academe.</p>
<p>If Ivy Grad would read any books about the history of higher education in the US he would not look so stupid. UM has long been considered one of the leading universities in the US. Period. Many of the Ivy schools do not even compete at the same level due to a lack of graduate programs and research leadership.</p>