rjkofnovi, why must we rehash the same arguments on every thread? Michigan is the ultimate safety school for high school seniors rejected from USNWR top 25 schools. Blah2009’s link shows that it is not even in the same league as Cal in terms of desirability, a college you and Alexandre frequently like to compare U of M to.</p>
<p>If a properly constructed revealed preference study existed that was applicable to today’s college admissions world, Michigan might not even crack the top 40 if we included LACs in the mix.</p>
<p>“Michigan is the ultimate safety school for high school seniors rejected from USNWR top 25 schools.”</p>
<p>Proof? So according to your worldly knowledge, every student on the planet who got accepted to a so called top 25 school was a safety admit for Michigan. Another ridiculous, superlative, and nonsensical statement by goldenboy.</p>
<p>“Blah2009’s link shows that it is not even in the same league as Cal in terms of desirability, a college you and Alexandre frequently like to compare U of M to.”</p>
<p>Actually I think Cal is a bit better academically than Michigan, and have stated it many times here on CC. Michigan is more pf a peer of Duke in that regard. :-)</p>
<p>“It happens once in a while but its extremely rare. Emory is the only schools of the top 20 privates where high school seniors seem to routinely pick UCLA or Michigan over instead. Have you ever seen a thread on CC where a student is deliberating between Columbia and Michigan or UCLA and Duke when the costs are equal? You haven’t because such a situation almost never happens.”</p>
<p>I don’t think the numbers bear this our goldenboy. The fact is, each year, 1,500 or so students enter Michigan with stats that would place them in the top 50% of the freshman class at most private elites. Last year’s freshman class at Michigan included 1,500 freshmen that had SAT scores over 1460 ( M+CR) or higher and/or ACT scores 33 or higher. I find it hard to believe that only very few of those were admitted into private elites or that all of them are in-state students. It is in fact safe to say that a significant chunk of those were OOS students who are paying full tuition. How many of those chose Michigan over private elites? It is hard to say without generalizing, but it is likely enough not to make such an occurance “extremely rare” as you claim.</p>
<p>“Alexandre is the only out of stater I’ve heard of in the world to turn down 5-6 better privates for a top 5 public school.”</p>
<p>“In the world” eh? Wow. You actually know for a fact what 7 billion people do and think? I did not choose Michigan over a single school that I would consider “better” overall. In terms of pure academics, Cal, Chicago and columbia were all slightly stronger, but I did not feel like they were the “total package”. The remaining schools I chose Michigan over were no better academically. And I know many fellow OOS and international students (not surprising given Michigan’s global reputation) who had made similar choices too. It was in fact very common.</p>
<p>i hold Caltech in a very high regard, as do many on this forum, and the wider academic community. But Caltech lacks the reputation of the others. There’s a reason why it’s HYPSM and not HYPSMC (even though the ‘c’ is occasionally added.)</p>
<p>Caltech’s reputation not matching it’s quality isn’t new. Compare the THE rankings which rank Caltech #1 in their world university rankings:</p>
You’re putting too much weight on the numbers Alexandre. The most selective private schools could fill up their entire freshman classes with 1500+ SAT scorers but they evaluate holistically and care more about leadership and extracurriculars after a certain point.</p>
<p>Michigan’s applicant pool doesn’t really overlap with any other “elite private” besides perhaps Cornell and Northwestern. Most Michigan admits are deciding between USC, NYU, Boston College, Emory, Tufts, GW, etc. and not the Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Caltech, and Chicago.</p>
<p>Blah2009’s link is very telling; I suggest you read over the data carefully. In 2010, Barnard won 91% of cross admits with Michigan and its not even considered a top 5 LAC. You can only imagine how Michigan does vis-a-vis the top 10, 15, 20 private schools.</p>
<p>
Let me demonstrate to you how rare it really is. Here are some matriculation numbers to Michigan from elite NYC boarding schools that provided data for the number of admitted students as well.</p>
<h1>Admitted to Michigan in Past 5 Years (2008-12): 62</h1>
<h1>Enrolled: 6</h1>
<p>Just from these two high schools, it seems that the students are even picking places like GWU, BU, and NYU consistently over Michigan.</p>
<p>
Public schools like UCLA and Michigan had a leg up in international reputation over good private schools back in the 1980s and 1990s before these elite private schools started establishing partnerships and joint academic programs overseas. However, they are mostly caught up now.</p>
<p>Every once in a while though, you will see a confused Chinese lad who thinks that Berkeley is on par with Harvard and Michigan/UCLA are on par or better than Penn or Duke since they look at international rankings that have nothing to do with undergraduate education and moreso with research.</p>
<p>The lack of data is what gets to me though. It just seems to specialized to hold much weight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it isn’t.</p>
<p>Barnard is a liberal arts college for women only. The cross admit data is limited to this one school. So essentially Michigan loses 91% of cross admit battles when it competes with people who want to go to a women’s only LAC. That tells you very little about how Michigan fares wrt other schools (the point which you, no doubt, seem to be implying.)</p>
<p>For all we know, the applicants simply might have chosen Barnard simply because Michigan was too large of a public school (they did pick the LAC after all) and for those who picked UCLA or Berkeley, they might have simply done so for the thrill of living in California/Los Angeles, or the opportunity to go to the best public university respectively.</p>
Then, why do the same people who intend to go to a women only LAC overwhelmingly choose Columbia, Penn, or Georgetown instead when given an option to attend those universities? These high school girls are clearly not as set on going to a women only LAC as you imply. Columbia and Penn are large research universities as well but when given the chance to attend one of these schools, admitted Barnard cross admits choose to enroll at these places.</p>
<p>UCLA is no better than Michigan so it doesn’t really make sense why UCLA seems to fare much better with Barnard cross admits. I suspect what you say has something to do with it (thrill of living in LA), but then what does say about the appeal of U of M? The environment offered by a university is part of its cachet without a doubt.</p>
<p>To corroborate goldenboy, my D is accepted by Cal, UCLA, Wellesley, and Georgetown among other leading schools. She quickly ruled out Cal and UCLA, and eventually chose GT over Wellesley, although I really wished she would have chosen the latter. And Wellesley’s financial aid is somewhat better than GT’s. She didn’t apply to UMichigan, though because it is not in her consideration set.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think UMich is a joke to get into… a lot of the top students in my high school applied to UMich just as a safety school cuz most get in with 1800-1900 SATs… unless your applying to Ross… now that’s a whole new story</p>
<p>“Then, why do the same people who intend to go to a women only LAC overwhelmingly choose Columbia, Penn, or Georgetown instead when given an option to attend those universities?”</p>
<p>Barnard: EAST COAST/LARGE CITY/URBAN
Columbia: EAST COAST/LARGE CITY/URBAN<br>
Penn: EAST COAST/LARGE CITY/URBAN<br>
Georgetown: EAST COAST/LARGE CITY/URBAN </p>
<p>It’s a mindset. If I wanted to attend any of these types of schools; those that are small to medium sized privates, those that have an urban location in a large metropolitan area, or those located on the either one of the coasts, then Michigan wouldn’t necessarily enter into the equation. That it does, in spite of it’s location, is just a testament to the quality and reputation of the school.</p>
<p>goldenboy, Michigan shares nothing in common with Barnard, which is why I am surprised that Blah used it as a basis for comparison. Barnard is urban, coastal, private, small. Michigan is none of those. Students who apply to Barnard are unlikely to take Michigan seriously. Cal and UCLA at least have the urban factor going for them, as well as the coastal and weather factors. Georgetown, Northwestern, Penn, Columbia are urban (or close to urban), private and smaller, all characteristics they share with Barnard. </p>
<p>Barnard would share too small a sample size with Michigan to make any sort of educated estimate. Who knows how many students were counted in that cross admissions data, and how many of those were admitted ED to Barnard. Let us not forget that a whopping 40% of Barnard students were admitted ED.</p>
<p>At any rate, Michigan is definitely not the most popular school among high school students. It does not matter, as long as the University can attract several thousand highly accomplished students annually. I do not see how popularity among high schoolers determines the quality of a university. It certainly does not impact the ability of a university to attract top faculty and corporate recruiters, nor does it hinder its abilty to place its students into good graduate programs.</p>
<p>“Honestly, I think UMich is a joke to get into…”</p>
<p>" …a lot of the top students in my high school applied to UMich just as a safety school"</p>
<p>So what? Did every single one of them get accepted? The acceptance rate at Michigan is currently in the mid 30% range. There are many great students who are/were not accepted this past year. I am sure they don’t feel that it was a joke to get into at all.</p>
<p>Just like the LAC, all of those universities are private. I agree with Alexandre saying that these girls probably just wanted small private universities, and probably had no intention of seriously enrolling in Michigan, and probably just applied to it because Michigan is a ‘good school.’ However, while they prefer a smal, private, environment they might be willing to sacrifice that for the excitement of living in an exciting city (UCLA), or going to a mega-prestigious university (Berkeley), or both (Columbia)</p>
<p>Look at student’s responses in the college hopes and worries survey. The responses are either in a big city:</p>
<p>LA (UCLA, USC), NY (Columbia, NYU)</p>
<p>or are HYPSM</p>
<p>the only odd one is brown, but it’s still a member of the ivy league, so still very prestigious.</p>
<p>Back to the original topic. I have not heard of any major changes to the USNWR methodology. As such, it is unlikely that any university will move more than 1-2 spots, if at all. The 2013 USNWR ranking should remain the same.</p>
<p>^ I hear they’re going to 100% peer assessment like they did in the 80s after all the manipulation of test scores and “objective” data. Michigan will be restored to its rightful place in the ranking…either tied with or just above Duke to spite the goldenboy. :)</p>
<p>On a more serious note, look for Fordham University to break the top 50 this year and come in at 49-50. They have moved up 30 spots in the last several years, for good reason. Restoring the once proud Rams (Vince Lombardi era) to the ranks of one of the top Catholic Universities in the United States.</p>
<p>In 2011, USC’s retention went up; admit rate decreased; endowment grew by a billion; graduation rate increased; SAT scores increased; and alumni giving definitely went up. </p>
<p>Although I am pretty sure USC may stay the same at #23, it may tie with Geogretown. </p>
<p>Next year, however, with the stats from 2012, a rise in the ranks will happen. USC 2012 stats are almost identical to Cornell 2011. I’m not saying USC will climb up to 15, but I am saying that I would bet on a rise of at least 1 or 2 spots.</p>
<p>^ Endowment size is not incorporated into the rankings. It is something USNWR calls “financial resources”, which is 10% of the ranking.<br>
</p>
<p>A lot of college admit rates fell, increased alumni giving and improved SAT scores. This is due to large demographic cohort of kids entering college called Tidal Wave II (children of baby boomers).</p>
<p>This makes a whole lot more sense imho!!! Because, institutions could have a large endowment; however, some have chosen to hike their tuition annually instead of offering additional financial aids even with “decent” profit-return on their fortune, and continue to have their student body cry uncle!!</p>