US NEWS 2007 Predictions

College Search & Selection
141

<p>Alex you make good points.</p>

<p>I got the SAT avg from one of the ranking sites i was looking at so I guess they were outdated there.</p>

<p>I think your age matters in speculating current students and saying things like "Michigan students only expect the best so that's why they complain more..." etc. </p>

<p>I'm a pretty firm believer of the invisible hand and the concept of supply and demand. A huge majority of rankings place top 20's above Umich and a huge number of students (both college and pre-college) believe that Umich is "solid" but not "prestigious". Sure there are idiots out there who think NYU >>>> Princeton or something but general opinion among ELITE STUDENTS is something we cannot disregard.
These students on CC.com and students on college *******'s surveys as well as on <a href="http://www.xo%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.xo&lt;/a> xo hth dot com are the nation's TOP pre-college and CURRENT college students. </p>

<p>Saying elite pre and current college students are not rational is quite the mistake as the avg "consumer" therefore would be irrational as well and the study of Economics as we know it would CRASH and BURN.</p>

142

<p>
[quote]
Many of the Ivy schools do not even compete at the same level due to a lack of graduate programs and research leadership.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey idiot, the fact that some Ivies DON'T have large scale graduate programs YET top the lists every year - year in and year out - consistently attracting and retaining the best highschool applicants - year in and year out - only serves to prove how exceptionally STRONG the Ivies are. </p>

<p>Not the other way around dumbass.</p>

<p>Take my alma mater, Princeton, for example - which has NONE of the big "3" professional grad schools (business, law or medicine) - but noone here with half a brain cell would argue that "lack of grad programs or research" at Princeton has anything to do with the fact that Princeton's undergrad program is tops in the nation.</p>

<p>Your backward-ass logic only serves to underscore your own stupidity.</p>

<p>Stop embarrassing yourself.</p>

143

<p>ACA, I think very highly of 16-18 year old students. If I didn't, I would not be on this site, contributing as much of my time as I do. I believe that the potential of the young adult is unlimited and I genuinely enjoy interacting with and sharing the little I know with them. However, I do not think I am out of line when I say that 16-18 year old students aren't qualified to pass judgement on universities. I just think that's best left to the experienced academic and corporate recruiter.</p>

144

<p>Ivy<em>grad and Barrons, there is no need for abusive language. Ivy</em>grad, I think what Barrons is trying to say is that from 1870-1970, Michigan was widely considered one of the top 5 universities in the nation and that Michigan isn't knew to being a top rated and prestigious university. This haven't changed much since then. Michigan dipped a little in the late 80s and early 90's but has since regrouped and is pretty much back where it started.</p>

145

<p>That would rule out the elite kids and posts on CC and the like. How about Usnews and other rankings like Princeton review or laissez.</p>

<p>Surely Usnews/Princeton/Laissez do not employ 16-18 year olds? :)</p>

146

<p>Neither do Washington Monthly, Gourman or Atlantic Monthly, all three of which rank Michigan very highly. But none of those are that respected. The most accurate ranking of undergraduate education is the peer assessment score of the USNWR. The rest is all a marketing gimmick.</p>

147

<p>Alright, I guess I'll concede to you that Berkeley/UVa/Umich are all about equal (even though it pains me to do so since from my own experience, I was ACCEPTED by Umich last year but would've been hardpressed to get into Berkeley). The thought of being rejected by Berkeley obviously makes me, and several other students, think of Berkeley as a better institution. </p>

<p>However, with this concession, I do not believe Umich can be compared (ugrad) with most other top 20's(excluding Emory/WUSTL/Vanderbilt). Why? Because of selectivity and the fact that Umich/Berkeley/UVA are publics.</p>

<p>I feel publics can never reach their FULL potential as they are always forced to admit the "idiots" from in-state. Come on we all know these "idiots" who get into UVA 'cause they're from the south or get into Umich because they had a 3.3, 1250, was instate, and applied 1st for rolling admissions. </p>

<p>PS: I think you tend to disregard other factors too much. Selectivity is important. Without selectivity, what is the difference between Harvard and say... Michigan State?</p>

<p>Is it not that BETTER students get admitted into Harvard that makes Harvard what it is? Is it not that Harvard rejects almost all of Michigan State's applicants why Harvard is seen as the pinnacle of American education?</p>

<p>Selectivity does matter and I hope you implement such factors ALONG with peer assessment.</p>

148

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>I normally don't resort to "name-calling", but in this instance, I'm merely returning the favor.</p>

149

<p>"Without selectivity, what is the difference between Harvard and say... Michigan State?"</p>

<p>I sure HOPE there's a big difference. Otherwise, we've got a lot of people wasting $46K/year.</p>

150

<p>Yea imagine if Harvard started accepting 60%. It would drop like a fly in the rankings and Yale/Princeton/Stanford/MIT would be your new top schools.</p>

151

<p>If Harvard started admitting 60%, it wouldn't have anywhere to put them...</p>

152

<p>I am not taking any stand but merely reporting what most books on the history of higher education in the US would say. Have you, Ivy Grad, ever read a single book on the history of higher education in the US? I have read at least half a dozen.
Now this goes well beyond some magazine undergrad ranking but is the overall importance of an institution in the history of higher education and its quality in the eyes of others in higher education.
You might want to read the President of Stanford's statement on the US News rankings. I think he knows more than you.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

153

<p>Ignore Barrons, he thinks Ohio State is better than Brown. He is rationalize his own decision making since he went to a good state school that he thinks is much better than it is.</p>

154

<p>barrons,</p>

<p>with all due respect, is this thread entitled "higher education in America: an historical perspective?"</p>

<p>and so you've read a half a dozen books on the "history" of education. what's your point? i've read my share as well. woopee.</p>

<p>you go back far enough and everyone was running from T-Rex and crapping in the woods.</p>

<p>you insist on cutting down the Ivies, and I insist on defending them.</p>

<p>on that front, i'd beg to differ that "history" is decidedly on my side.</p>

<p>Ivies were elite institutions as far back as you care to go - and they continue to be so today.</p>

<p>Can you name a significant period in American "history" when Ivies were ever considered "inferior" academic institutions (much less compared to Michigan)?</p>

<p>What's that? You can't think through all of those books you've read that makes such a claim?</p>

<p>Thank you. </p>

<p>Check mate.</p>

155

<p>I'd have to agree with slipper and Ivy_grad here. </p>

<p>Back in the old days, CUNY Baruch > NYU, Upenn was a safety, etc.</p>

156

<p>Ivy_grad:</p>

<p>"Ivies were elite institutions as far back as you can go."</p>

<p>Well, although this is a true statement, it carries very little weight in this argument because of the changing definitional meaning of the term "elite."</p>

<p>Prior to the 1960s, Ivies were considered "elite" institutions in the sense that sons of rich, patrician, and exclusive WASP families attended them.</p>

<p>Today, Ivies are considered "elite" institutions in the sense that men and women with the most academic talent, merit, and ability attend them.</p>

<p>Therefore, it is very sensible that institutions like Michigan could have been better in the second (anachronistic) meaning of the term "elite", while in lagging in the first meaning of the term "elite". </p>

<p>I suggest that you read the first chapter of Bobos in Paradise by David Brooks, which makes this distinction quite nicely.</p>

157

<p>ACA, selectivity is not an indicator of quality...quality of student body at least measures something...but selectivity doesn't. For every qualified Harvard admit, you have 2 equally qualified Harvard applicants who are denied. Like I said earlier, you have to have great students, but whether a university accepts 10% or 50% does not make a difference. Columbia accepts 10% of its applicants and Chicago accepts 40% of its applicants. Is Columbia better than Chicago? I think not. </p>

<p>Furthermore, whether 80% or 60% of the students in a school are excellent also doesn't matter, provided the university and its faculty does not compromise its standards. </p>

<p>But I do agree that the quality of the student body counts for something. I'd say peer assessment is worth 40%, resources are worth 20%, corporate connections are worth 20% and quality of student body (not selectivity) is worth 20%.</p>

<p>Anyway ACA, you seem to at least think that Michigan is now worthy of a top 25 ranking and as long as you are not discouraging students from taking Michigan seriously, I do not care to debate this point further. If you believe the feeling of knowing that you got into a university that is an exclusive club is of value to you, that is your prerogative. To me, education is about learning in the best possible environment, not about taking solace in the fact that I got in where others didn't.</p>

158

<p>Ignore Slipper--his entire identity is based on the college he attended. </p>

<p>Now that makes for an informed debate.</p>

<p>As to my citing of histories--well this is certainly a reasonably recent quote form an expert--the President of Stanford:</p>

<p>" I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27. "</p>

<p>Checkmate yourself.</p>

159

<p>
[quote]
" I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27. "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While running the risk of getting pulled into a meaningless discussion going absolutely nowhere,</p>

<p>what in the world did that above referenced quote have to do with supporting your claims about Michigan's historical place in America's educational system? (either backing up your claims or countering my claims - either will do)</p>

<ul>
<li>Here are any relevant references to Michigan:</li>
<li>It is one of the very best universities in America.</li>
</ul>

<p>OK, so where is this great "historical" debate you keep going on and on about. Are you possibly referring to the fact that the "last three year" ranking numbers are mentioned??? Please do not tell me that this is your definition of "history"... Those last three years tells the reader what exactly???</p>

<p>I think any intelligent reader will agree that the point the author was trying to make was that despite these RECENT (note: VERY RECENT) rankings paint an unflattering picture of Cal and Michigan, they are in fact great universities.</p>

<p>Wow. I agree. I never said they weren't great universities.</p>

<p>BUT WAIT. That wasn't the point, was it?</p>

<p>What about all of these "books" you have read. What about the "great historical debate."???? In fact, what in the WORLD are you talking about?</p>

<p>Do you even have a point or can you even keep track of the random points you make from thread to thread?</p>

<p>Good Lord, this is what it must be like conversing with someone who has an acute case of ADD.</p>

160

<p>
[quote]
selectivity is not an indicator of quality...quality of student body at least measures something...but selectivity doesn't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry Alexandre, should point out that this statement is incorrect. Or I i guess, you're actually referring to a different term. 'Acceptance rate' is less of an indicator of quality, but 'selectivity' is highly correlated with the quality of the students.</p>