<p>Actually, SAT scores and GPA have been going up with each class. However, if there were only 4000-4500 students instead of the 5500-6000 that are currently enrolling each year, then it could go up even more.</p>
<p>Chriscap, according to the latest USNWR, Michigan's selectivity rank is #23 and JHU's is #24. And it is neither unbelievable or misleading. Here's the breakdown of their 2006 Freshman classes:</p>
<p>Michigan:
Graduating in the top 10% of their HS class: 90%
Graduating in the top 25% of their HS class: 98%
Average High School GPA: 3.8
Mid 50% ACT 27-31 (mean 29)
Mid 50% SAT range: 1210-1420 (mean 1315)</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins
Graduating in the top 10% of their HS class: 80%
Graduating in the top 25% of their HS class: 95%
Average High School GPA: 3.7
Mid 50% ACT 28-32 (mean 30)
Mid 50% SAT range: 1290-1490 (mean 1390)</p>
<p>With the exception of the SAT range (Johns Hopkins superscores, Michigan does not), Michigan and JHU have very similar statistics. </p>
<p>Are you in-state? Are you actually chosing to attend JHU at $45,000/year when you could be attending Michigan for $20,000/year?</p>
<p>Anybody have the business school rankings? It seems that USNWR has too much traffic.</p>
<p>I'm betting the top 3 are the same again like the last millennium of b-school rankings.</p>
<p>So what. If we move up a few spots we will be in the same range as 'elite' schools like Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt. I would pick a big public school like Michigan or UCLA over one of these schools any day. The rankings don't really bother me.</p>
<p>^^ not to mention 'elite' schools such as Emory, Rice and Notre Dame too.</p>
<p>"Why the drop?"</p>
<p>It's not much of a drop, really. There is always some movement on the list, so an institution may change several places without undergoing any real change in its quality, or how it is perceived, or how students experience the place. That can be because another school moved up, or because USNews altered the formula slightly.</p>
<p>That said, I expected that the addition of the pell grant recipient percentage to the expected grad rate calculation might depress Michigan's ranking. It didn't seem to.</p>
<p>In the future, thanks to a change in the State of Michigan high school testing program, every resident applicant will have an ACT score. I'm not sure what effect this will have, since many of them submitted one anyway, but it's something I'll be curious about.</p>
<p>bahamutscale, you're right that the top 3 business rankings rarely change. But Ross was #1 tied with Wharton in 1999. It was #2 for a while as well. These recent years it's just stayed at #3, rightfully behind Wharton and Sloan, which are nearly untouchable.</p>
<p>Redhare, Ross and Sloan are pretty equal. Wharton is untouchable.</p>
<p>michigan's high acceptance rate and recruiting of drastically under-achieving minorities in their (assisted education or w/e it is called) are pulling UMICH down. Trying too hard to be diverse. ugh</p>
<p>Every year students with 3.8's and 22's are given full rides to UMICH just because they are from DPS.</p>
<p>Yep, that's absolutely true. But having a 22 from DPS puts you 6 points higher than the average DPS student. That's potential if you ask me.</p>
<p><---- DPS. 3.8, 28 ACT, no full-ride.</p>
<p>You are happy with your decision and that's all that matters. Best of luck to you.</p>
<p>There are numerous factors that could be 'pulling' a school up or down. For example, Mich has a great peer assessment score, and that's what really keeps it in the top few public schools. However, peer assessment scores are always measures of a school's graduate performance (which Mich excels in), because those 'assessing' universities only have familiarity with what a school does in the academic world. The actual bearing on the ranking of undergraduate schools isn't that big. At the same time, though, there are those justifiably unfair factors already discussed here that are 'pulling' Mich down. In the end, no one should really care about the BS they calculate in these rankings, and just from reading the news it seems like more and more people aren't trusting USNWR anymore every year, thankfully.</p>
<p>sv3a, you are right that each university is hurt (and helped) by different factors. Michigan is helped by the PA, student selectivity (#23 and above all but two state universities) and financial resources (#29 and among the top 3 or 4 publics). Even graduation rate, which is one of Michigan's eak points, is still ranked around #25 in the nation. </p>
<p>What hurts Michigan is alumni donation rates and faculty resources. An improvement in those two could propel Michigan in the top 20, even the top 10. Seeing what Cornell and JHU have done in the last year or two tells me that Michigan could easily improve its faculty resources rank. Alumni donation is ridiculous and will probably be dumped in favor of another critireon in the future.</p>
<p>Yeah, alumni donation rate isn't the best measure, but the point I was getting at was PA, at least at that much weight (25 percent), doesn't make that much sense either when talking about undergraduate rankings. So it's possible that while there areas where Mich is unfairly being put down, there are also areas where Mich does real well in, even if those criteria shouldn't be given that much weight in deciding which is the so-called 'best' undergrad institution. Of course, this can be said for any school. My school, Virginia, has weaker academic grad schools than Mich (not counting professional schools like medicine), and it's peer assessment score is 4.3 as a result. I assume even a .2 difference in PA scores makes a pretty big difference given the amount of weight to PA. However, we benefit somewhat from arbitrary factors like alumni donation giving rate. Neither is really indicative of the undergraduate experience/education UVA (or UMich) has to offer.</p>
<p>sv3a, one thing you must understand and accept is that the PA does NOT measure academic excellence. It measures academic reputation. Big difference. A low PA does not signify poor academic offerings. It signifies weaker reputation. So the PA is in fact measuring opinion rather than fact. But that opionion matters considering whose opinion is being sought. And I think given the fact that close to 50% of students at top universities, including UVa and Michigan, intend to pursue graduate studies at one point or another, the PA is of real importance...whether we chose to accept it or not is another matter altogether. And I personally don't see a difference between a 4.3 and a 4.5. But I agree that the USNWR takes those little differences and blows them way out of proportion. If it did not, the top 25 universities would be virtually equal and nobody will by the magazine.</p>
<p>That said, I am not sure PA is related to quality of graduate programs. Princeton's graduate programs are weaker than Stanford or Harvard and yet, it as the same PA. Dartmouth's graduate programs are much weaker than UT-Austin and yet, UT-Austin has a lower PA than Dartmouth. I think PA is related to a university's overall reputation. And whether or not we like it, it matters.</p>
<p>Yes, the PA is pretty much like a "prestige" rating. If you sorted the ranking by PA score, the list would still make a lot of sense, putting many schools where they belong based on perception/reputation. For example, Berkeley definitely deserves to be well into the top 10. Michigan would probably be top 15. Note that the departmental rankings (engineering, business, etc.) are based solely on PA.</p>
<p>In terms of PA rankings, Cal has always been ranked between #4 and #6 and Michigan between #7 and #12.</p>
<p>Yes, PA is a measure of overall prestige, but the majority of a school's prestige comes from its academic recognition. Deans and presidents are often asked to give PA scores for schools that they are barely familiar with. Yes, exceptions like Princeton exist, but, especially when talking about a public school, the PA still ends up translating to graduate academic excellence, even if it is supposedly more about reputation. The two are equatable in a sense. </p>
<p>For example, UMich is a great school, but it is NOT the number 7 school in the country for undergrad, or number 12 for that matter, given the quality of the top private institutions (which, unfortunately, will always outperform publics 'cept UCB). That kind of ranking makes more sense for some of Mich's grad schools, which is what is generally reflected in PA. Berkeley could easily be a top 10er, but even with its excellent undergrad academics it would be hard seeing it ranked over Cal Tech, Chicago, etc. Berkeley's amazing PA is clearly due to the fact that its name appears non-stop in the academic world, given the high quality of their graduate programs.</p>
<p>And just look at William and Mary's PA score: 3.7 I believe (while schools like UVA has a 4.3). The same as OSU and Indiana, and less than Penn State. Is that really a fair assessment of a school that excels in undergrad academics? No, it isn't, and schools like W&M are getting hurt in the rankings because of it (but, of course, W&M also may have certain 'unfair' scores going in its favor).</p>
<p>I guess you just have to take what you can get in these rankings. Yes, UM does get shafted, especially by some of these private schools that are ranked from 15 onwards, but it also gets great advantages over other schools thanks to the flaws of PA.</p>
<p>"For example, UMich is a great school, but it is NOT the number 7 school in the country for undergrad, or number 12 for that matter, given the quality of the top private institutions (which, unfortunately, will always outperform publics 'cept UCB)."</p>
<p>I agree that #7 would be a tad high, but 12 sounds about right. In what way do more than 12 private universities outperform Michigan? </p>
<p>"Berkeley could easily be a top 10er, but even with its excellent undergrad academics it would be hard seeing it ranked over Cal Tech, Chicago, etc."</p>
<p>Cal is not much better than Michigan for undergrad. I don't see how you can agree that Cal is top 10 but Michigan isn't top 15.</p>
<p>From a personal level, Cal should be in top 10 and Michigan between 10-15. Despite Berkley being slightly better than Michigan from a academic perspective, I feel that their campus atmosphere is much more intellectually provoking than that of Michigan's. Calis a very unique and distinct university that is hard to emulate through statistical comparisons. I think that they can easily compete with the other top 10 universities, certainly with all the Ivies up until they tie with Columbia or even Penn.</p>
<p>Now in terms of Michigan: I think any student here can easily say that we're able to match, if not beat, Emory, Vanderbilt, and those schools at that level in the rankings. Unfortunately, the weak point of Michigan comes from the fact that 1)admissions is insanely easy and 2)this causes a downward pressure on the quality of high school students admitted. If we went private, however, we can easily beat the schools in 15-20 to reach the 10-15 level. Berkley, likewise, can beat out the 10-15 (ex. Washington, Brown, Cornell, etc.).</p>