<p>Saying that Michigan admissions is insanely easy is quite a big exaggeration. I know dozens of qualified kids from my high school that couldn't get in.</p>
<p>But many more are rejected from the other universities so we're right where we deserve to be in terms of admissions. 50 something % isn't considered very difficult especially since we accept so many people.</p>
<p>It is much easier for in state students to get in as opposed to out of state. The OOS kids are just as smart as the kids in some of the most elite universities. I would definitely not call Michigan insanely easy, or even easy for that matter. I admit that its not as hard for OOS kids to get in Michigan compared to other publics such as UCB and UVA, but nonetheless you need to be a really well qualified student to get in.</p>
<p>If Mich was rated that highly then UVA, UNC, and several other top public schools with similar academics would also need to be that high. While Mich is certainly better than schools like Notre Dame, and is only ranked lower because of the advantages private schools have, I would not say the undergrad at any public school compares to an Ivy like Cornell or Brown, except, like we said, UCB. UMich, UVA, and UNC undergrad barely even compare to Berkeley undergrad academically. Also, I think the greatness of undergrad academics at schools like Emory and Rice are being underestimated here- Michigan (and uva, unc, etc) is at best tied with them. I can't see how Mich would be better than them unless we were talking about engineering/grad programs.</p>
<p>Then again, if WUSTL is rank 12 I guess any of those schools could be if they were as big stat suckers as that school is.</p>
<p>sv3a, you still haven't explained why you think Cal is so much better than Michigan for undergrad, or why you think UNC is as good as Michigan. </p>
<p>bahamutscale, Michigan's campus has an intense intellectual and academic feel. The only schools I have visited that I felt had a more intense intellectual and academic feels were Chicago and Columbia. Cal does not have a more intense academic atmosphere. And you underestimate Michigan's student body. In terms of unweighed GPA, class rank and ACT scores, Michigan is on par with Brown, Cal and Cornell. In terms of placement into top graduate schools, again, Michigan has similar stats to Cal and Cornell. In terms of ranking of individual departments, Michigan is up there with the likes of Columbia and Cornell. Overall, I think it is fair to say Cal is a definite top 10 university and Michigan a definite top 15 university.</p>
<p>I think Cal's academic environment is one of the very best in the country. I think Michigan's may be equal, but not superior to Cal's. Also, the ACT scores are similar, but keep in mind that many more students submit the SAT to the UC system, rather than the ACT, as it is more common on the west coast. Therefore, ACT scores may be a bit lower, because if one performs well on the SAT (which most students take first), they aren't as likely to take the SAT, because more kids submit the SAT anyway. Overall, I agree with you Alexandre: "Cal is a definite top 10 university and Michigan a definite top 15 university."</p>
<p>"I think Cal's academic environment is one of the very best in the country. I think Michigan's may be equal, but not superior to Cal's."</p>
<p>I agree VC08. I was merely saying that Cal's academic environment is not superior to Michigan's.</p>
<p>oh I agree, I was just making my own point, not necessarily disproving yours. They are different environments, but both very studious at the same time.</p>
<p>I do not understand how some of you consistently argue that Michigan is a better school than many of the top private universities. </p>
<p>The fact is that a smaller school, with more money, more ground-breaking research, more elite connections, more famous academics and well-known graduates, a significantly more diverse student body, and smaller class sizes, which lacks the massive bureaucracy needed to manage a student body of 30000 students WILL CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORM ANY large public institution.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong-- Michigan is a great school and I, myself, almost attended. However, it does not deserve to be ranked in the top 10, nor the top 15. Michigan students receive a great education, but they do not receive a UNIQUE education. Tell me one thing I can get at U of M that I can't get a UVA, UNC, UCLA? Not much, eh? Now tell me something I can get at an IVY that I can't get at U of M. The list is endless. Michigan is not so much academically stimulating as it is a mainstream approach to making a large mass booksmart.</p>
<p>Then again, it's U of M culture to say their school is better than all the others out there. How many U of M students does it take to screw in a light bulb? 50. 1 to screw it in, 49 to say they did it better than an Ivy Leaguer.</p>
<p>Reading back over this post, I decided that the "mainstream approach to making a large mass booksmart" was a little more harsh than what I had intended. All I meant is that it is hard to make things intellectually stimulating and challenging for each individual when you are dealing with such a huge student body.</p>
<p>Anyway, the school does well considering what it has and the student body it must educate. But just doing well doesn't entitle it to a top 10-15 place. It really has to go above and beyond to get there. Kids devote their entire lives to getting into top 10-15 universities. Of course U of M applicants are devoted, but undeniably to a lesser extent than some of the IVY applicants. U of M should be proud to be ranked where it is, strive to be better, but not be foolish in thinking it competes with the most elite private universities in the world.</p>
<p>Anyone else noticing that some of the people in this thread who are most against considering Michigan a top 10-15 school happen to go to schools that are currently ranked ahead of Michigan by US News (specifically UVA and JHU)?</p>
<p>What do you expect, students from the top schools to argue that a lower-ranked school should overtake them? Or do you expect students from schools ranked lower than U of M to suddenly stand up and say U of M is so great that it deserves to overtake all of their academic superiors? If you want to be promoted at work, do you think the person whose job you were about to take would be saying "Sure, c'mon, take my spot!"</p>
<p>I'm the only Hopkins student on here voicing my opinion. This has little to do with where I go, but a lot to do with what I think.</p>
<p>"The fact is that a smaller school, with more money, more ground-breaking research, more elite connections, more famous academics and well-known graduates, a significantly more diverse student body, and smaller class sizes, which lacks the massive bureaucracy needed to manage a student body of 30000 students WILL CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORM ANY large public institution"</p>
<p>Ignorance is bliss. Let us compare Michigan to Johns Hopkins:</p>
<p>Let us break your statement down shall we?</p>
<p>"smaller school, with more money,"
ENDOWMENT:
Johns Hopkins University: $2.4 billion
Michigan: $5.7 billion</p>
<p>STUDENTS:
Johns Hopkins University: $18,000
Michigan: 40,000</p>
<p>ENDOWMENT PER STUDENT:
Johns Hopkins University: $133,000
<a href="http://www.johnshopkins.edu/glance/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.johnshopkins.edu/glance/index.html</a>
Michigan: $142,000</p>
<p>Either my math really sucks, or Michigan is wealthier than Johns Hopkins, both in terms of overall wealth and in terms of endowment per capita. Don't underestimate Michigan's wealth Chriscap. Michigan's endowment of $5.7 billion now statds as the 7th highest among US universities. Only HYPS, MIT and Columbia are wealthier and at the current rate, Michigan could overtake Columbia soon. And let us not forget that Michigan gets $300 million/year from state funding, which is HUGE!</p>
<p>"more ground-breaking research"</p>
<p>Very few universities can boast to have a heavier impact on research than Michigan. Johns Hopkins certainly does where Medicine and Biology are concerned, but in most other fields, Michigan has the edge. In terms of overall research, Michigan is one of the top 3 or 4 in the nation. In terms of overall research spending, Michigan has an $800 million research budget, which compares to that of UCLA, UDub and Johns Hopkins. </p>
<p>"more famous academics and well-known graduates"</p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean here, but I doubt any university other than Harvard, Princeton, Yale and perhaps Stanford beat Michigan by any significant margin where this is concerned.</p>
<p>"more elite connections"</p>
<p>Huh? How do you quantify this? Care to show me proof that Michigan's alumni network is somehow not "elite". I am pretty certain that the thousands of Michigan undergrads who enroll into top 10 graduate schools or join major exclusive companies each year do well down the line. I am also pretty positive that alums of Michigan's top ranked graduate programs do very well for themselves too.</p>
<p>"a significantly more diverse student body"</p>
<p>Michigan is pretty diverse. Yes, 65% of the students at Michigan are in-state, but Michigan has a large undergraduate population from NY/NJ/PA/MD (over 3,000 combined) and from CA/TX (over 2,000 combined) and from overseas (over 1,300 international undergrads). Minorities make up 30% of Michigan's student body. </p>
<p>"considering what it has and the student body it must educate"</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins University:
80% graduated among the top 10% of their High school class
Average cumulative unweighed high school GPA: 3.7
Mid 50% ACT range: 28-32
Mid 50% SAT range: 1290-1490 (superscored)</p>
<p>Michigan:
90% graduated among the top 10% of their High school class
Average cumulative unweighed high school GPA: 3.8
Mid 50% ACT range: 27-31
Michigan: 1210-1420 (highest SAT in one sitting)</p>
<p>I don't know Chriscap, looks like Michigan and Johns Hopkins have similar quality students. </p>
<p>Chriscap, just because the USNWR, primarily because of highly questionable and often manipulated data, ranks Michigan out of the top 15 does not mean that it is not a top 15 university. Remove the alumni donation rate and "tweak" the faculty resources rank as Cal, Cornell and Johns Hopkins have in the last year or two and you will find Michigan ranked around #15. You should be more respectful of Michigan and not be insulted when one compares it to a great university such as yours.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I think UM should actually start tweaking those numbers so some of these people can shut up. I never really cared about US News rankings because I lived in 6 different countries and I knew the kind of amazing international exposure UM had around the world (yes even more than Johns Hopkins, Emory, Notre Dame, and some of those private schools ranked ahead of UM in the US news) but I am kinda getting annoyed at all these people (I am not talking about this message board) giving me crap for how UM is only ranked 25th best in US. So I personally think UM should tweak some of those numbers to place in the top 15, and why not? as horrible the US News ranking is, lots of people, sadly, judge the universities based on these stupid rankings so it will only make UM look more prestigious to the uninformed crowd.</p>
<p>But then again, it's not the "uninformed crowd" that will be interviewing you for a job in the corporate world or evaluating you for graduate school.</p>
<p>An excellent point redhare317, Michigan's academic reputation for grad/med/law/business school and recruiter reputation for the workplace show that those in the know respect Michigan as the cream of the crop.</p>
<p>I just don't understand why you guys are so uptight about being ranked 25, that's it. Considering the thousands of universities in the US, Michigan is undeniably a first tier school, and that is something to be proud of. The main things I am criticizing are the inherent drawbacks of being in a school of 30,000 undergrads. That said, however, I do feel that the admissions process at the top privates is more holistic and therefore more selective than that of Michigan, where a certain GPA and SAT/ACT almost ensure admission to the school.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't understand why you compared the University of Michigan to Johns Hopkins. Personal attack? If all I cared about was rankings, I would've gone to the University of Chicago, where I was also accepted. I chose to go to Hopkins because I wanted a small student body, one-on-one attention and a school that boasted the best national programs in International Relations and Public Health Studies. I am also a very devoted pre-med and know that Hopkins offers opportunities and support for me to pursue a Medical Degree. Had I wanted to be an engineer (anything other than BME or ChemBE), I would've chosen Michigan, regardless of its 25 ranking.</p>
<p>So since I brought up the University of Chicago and I now have to reply to your personal atacks, lets talk about how it ranks. Consider for a moment that the University of Chicago tends to have lower stats than many of the top private universities, i.e. it admits many students with lower GPA/SAT who prove themselves promising in other qualitative ways. Yet you yourself admitted that the UChicago is academically superior to the University of Michigan. This is because of the admissions process, and this admissions process is similar to that of Hopkins. In fact, you might like to know that the University of Chicago founded its academic system on that of Johns Hopkins. You might also like to know that the three schools most well-known for their abnormally difficult and demanding cirriculums, and their grade deflation, are the University of Chicago, Cornell, and Johns Hopkins. Interesting you find one of those superior to U of M, but 2 of them inferior. Michigan does not and cannot look at applicants in a highly holistic manner, because of the sheer volume of applicants they have. They look at GPA, they look at ACT, and 90% of the admissions process is over.</p>
<p>Anyway, the fact is that Hopkins ranks on average at about 15. We are arguing that Michigan should/shouldn't be in the top 10-15. So if you were trying to prove that Hopkins has little edge over Michigan, then logically you have shown that Michigan does not deserve to be ranked in the top 15.</p>
<p>Either way, however, this is pointless for me to argue. In all of your threads, Alexandre, I have never seen you admit to a weakness of the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>Also, having lived in 3 different countries myself, I can tell you that the majority of private schools are more well-known than U of M, UCB, UCLA, UVA, etc. Am I subsequently saying that U of M isn't well know? Absolutely not. The difference between 10 and 25 in USNWR rankings is MINIMAL, and it's ridiculous to complain about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet you yourself admitted that the UChicago is academically superior to the University of Michigan.
[/quote]
Alexandre admitting that U of Chicago is "academically superior" to the University of Michigan??? Wow, you got me sitting up and digging through the entire thread.</p>
<p>But wait, where did Alexandre say that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, having lived in 3 different countries myself, I can tell you that the majority of private schools are more well-known than U of M, UCB, UCLA, UVA, etc.
[/quote]
Well, I live in Asia and my business used to take me to Europe quite often. I can tell you that many people here can't name all the Ivies, much less the majority of the other private schools. I can also tell you that Michigan and UCB are well known ... and yeah, so is the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Page 3, bottom.</p>