<p>chickenandwaffle, Michigan is very similar to most elite research universities, private or public in that the faculty is very involved in research. However, lite research universities, like Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Michigan, Penn,Stanford etc... all have huge freshman classes (200+ students) taught by professors who really don't want to teach. Those classes are broken into smaller smaller discussion groups of 15-25 students and that's where the graduate students come in. When your sister says that she is taught by graduate students, she is probably referring to her discussion groups, not to the actual class lectures. Only 3% of classes at Michigan are actually taught by graduate students, and those are usually intro-level classes in Mathematics, English writing and foreign languages. But this problem is one shared by all the major research universities listed above and a few more.</p>
<p>ok so bottom line is that schools like uva, michigan, and berkely are comparable and competitive to ivy leagues like princeton, correct?</p>
<p>Not Princeton. Princeton is better than any state university. Princeton, along with Harvard, MIT, Stanford and Yale, is in a league of its own. I'd say Cal, Michigan and UVA are comparable to top private research universities like Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn.</p>
<p>ok cool</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>and im jsut wondering, nbut which ivy's did you turn down and why?</p>
<p>I was admitted into the following 4 Ivy League schools and turned them down for the following reasons:</p>
<p>Brown University: Loved the campus and the atmosphere, but limited offerings in my chosen major and relatively weak international reputation. Given the fact that I intended to work in Europe after graduation, I really wanted a school with a strong reputation in Europe. Brown was the toughest Ivy for me to turn down.</p>
<p>Columbia University: I didn't like NYC and felt that the campus was too serious. My mom's an alum and she felt Columbia's culture is not the best for undergraduates.</p>
<p>Cornell University: I liked the campus but I did not like Ithaca all that much and felt that the setting was too isolated. Ironically, I did my graduate studies at Cornell and loved it there too. </p>
<p>University of Pennsylvania: Loved the campus and the atmosphere, but the school was too urban and I did not like Philadelphia all that much.</p>
<p>I'm not stating opinion, rather than numbers. If Michigan is top 15, then so would UVA, Berkeley, NYU, and like 20-30 other colleges. This of course, cannot happen in a "top 15". </p>
<p>Though Ross is Michigan's best program, a look at the humanities and other concentrations shows that Michigan lacks what other top 15's have. </p>
<p>Your stats have not proven that Umichigan's enrolled student body is as qualified as other top 15's such as Uchicago or Northwestern. </p>
<p>Therefore, Umich is not a top 15 as an undergrad because it lacks the selectivity and prestige of such a top 15.</p>
<p>PS: Look at the cross-admits between umich and lower ivies. They are astronomically in favor of the ivies and such data holds true even for other top 15's such as UChicago and the like.</p>
<p>Cal is also a top 15 university. UVA is borderline. NYU doesn't beloing. It has neither the resources, faculty, reputation, links to the corporate world etc... </p>
<p>I personally fail to see what makes Michigan LSA (not including Ross mind you) is weaker than other top 15 universities. When I use the word "fact", I mean the following: </p>
<p>1) Michigan is significantly wealthier than all but 6 universities in the nation. Michigan's endowment, the 7th largest in the nation, currently stands at $5 billion. Penn follows with $4.4 billion. The gap between Michigan and Penn is growing. Michigan's endowment has been outgrowing all other universities in thenation over the last 20 years and there is not sign of slowing down.</p>
<p>2) Michigan's undergraduate reputation rank among academics is anywhere between #7 and #12. The peer assessment score of the USNWR validates that conclusion, as do the Fiske Guide and several other recorgnized and respected ratings. In his criticism of the USNWR ranking of undergraduate institutions, Gerhard Casper (Yale alum, Chicago professor and recently retired Stanford University president) wrote a letter to the editor of the USNWR expressing his belief that both Cal and Michigan are legitimate top 10 universities. In fact, that was the cornerstone of his argument as to why the USNWR is flawed...and most respected members of academe would agree with him. </p>
<p>3) Exclusive corporate recruiters hire Michigan students by the hundreds.</p>
<p>4) According to a reliable study conducted by the WSJ, Michigan placed 156 students into top 5 Law Schools, top 5 Medical Schools and top 5 MBA programs. Only Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford placed more students into top 5 graduate programs. As a ratio of total students, Michigan #17 among universities, right behind #16 Caltech, #15 Cornell and #14 Northwestern. And by the way, UVA and Cal were #19 and #21 in that survey, so I have no idea why you think UVA and Cal are better than Michigan. Obviously, Michigan students are very highly respected by elite graduate schools. </p>
<p>In no way have you substantiated that Michigan doesn't belong in the top 20. All you do is state opinion. I personally care nothing for opinion. I want the facts. SAT means are certainly important and over 60% of Michigan students have SATs in the 1300-1600 range, as opposed to 80% at schools like Cornell, Brown, Columbia etc... If that's what is bothering you, fine. But that does not make Michigan weaker. One can easily point to the fact that Michigan reports SAT differently and that Michigan also has a college of Art, Music, Nursing and many future NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB all-stars attending their classes. Those may not have the same high-powered SAT scores and excellent GPAs, but they are talented in their own ways and add much to the Michigan culture.</p>
<p>Consider it, which has been posted by someone.</p>
<p>Michigan = # 67 in the rank</p>
<p>college, estimated percent of fulltime undergrads with over 1400 SAT(Old), estimated number of fulltime undergrads with over 1400 SAT(Old)</p>
<p>1 caltech 89 800
2 mit 77 3178
3 harvard 75 4932
4 yale 75 3940
5 harvmudd 70 505
6 prince 67 3176
7 stanford 67 4390
8 middleby 67 1573
9 pomona 66 1036
10 dartmout 65 2630
11 amherst 65 1069
12 washingu 61 3679
13 swarthmr 61 907
14 duke 58 3631
15 columbia 58 3700
16 chicago 58 2621
17 rice 58 1718
18 williams 57 1115
19 penn 54 5130
20 northwst 53 4159
21 brown 53 3074
22 mckenna 50 562
23 wesleyan 50 1383
24 johnshop 48 2401
25 cornell 47 6443
26 grinnell 47 723
27 carleton 46 910
28 carnmeln 45 2404
29 vassar 44 1076
30 emory 43 2704
31 tufts 43 2131
32 notredam 42 3564
33 georgtwn 42 2708
34 bowdoin 42 701
35 washlee 42 742
36 wellesly 41 894
37 haverfrd 41 480
38 reed 40 51
39 macalstr 37 690
40 vandbilt 35 2229
41 usc 35 5565
42 brandeis 35 1116
43 davidson 35 616
44 whitman 35 509
45 berkeley 34 7437
46 wmmary 34 1929
47 colby 34 622
48 oberlin 34 950
49 scripps 34 279
50 bard 34 490
51 tulane 33 2062
52 colgate 33 937
53 barnard 33 749
54 georgiat 32 3487
55 uva 31 4241
56 hamilton 30 538
57 bates 30 538
58 rpi 29 1435
59 kenyon 29 476
60 casewest 28 939
61 wakefrst 27 1094
62 urochstr 27 1186
63 nyu 27 5028
64 bostonc 27 2484
65 brynmawr 27 351
66 ucla 26 6417
67 michigan 24 5901
68 illinois 24 7121
69 trintyct 24 519
70 conncoll 24 453
71 unc 22 2892
72 bostonu 22 3686
73 wpi 22 625
74 peperdin 21 575
75 richmond 21 640
76 myholyok 20 425
77 colradoc 20 399
78 lehigh 19 864
79 wisconsn 19 5159
80 smith 19 507
81 bucknell 19 665
82 furman 18 508
83 dicknson 18 417
84 rhodes 18 289
85 ucsandgo 17 3602
86 uflorida 17 5284
87 frnkmrsh 16 322
88 occident 16 307
89 yeshiva 14 396
90 umiami 14 1397
91 lafayete 14 314
92 holycros 14 406
93 sarahlaw 14 173
94 union 12 277
95 skidmore 12 306
96 uwashing 11 2752
97 syracuse 11 1264
98 upittsbg 11 1791
99 depauw 11 260
100 ucsanbar 10 1784
101 ugeorgia 10 2378
102 rutgers 10 2522
103 texasam 10 3296
104 ucirvine 9 1792
105 sewanee 9 127
106 gettysbg 9 232
107 ucdavis 8 1815
108 ohiost 8 2918
109 pennst 7 2558
110 purdue 6 1905</p>
<p>^^ I dunno what that link is but my facts are</p>
<ol>
<li>Umich loses in undergrad yield to every top 15 </li>
<li>Umich's acceptance rate is over 60% and its avg SATs are below other top 15s</li>
<li>Umich's avg gpa is below other top 15s</li>
<li>Recruiters hire a lot of Ross and maybe engineering grads, but I can't seem the find the same high avg salary nor Goldman Sach type recruiting from its normal college</li>
</ol>
<p>Lastly, look at the posts on this board. I can show you many examples where a person has chosen a top 15 over Umich OR gotten rejected from a top 15 but gotten into Umich but the situation is rarely reversed. Demand (yield), selectivity, and avg gpa/SAT are what separates Umich undergrad from the top 15.</p>
<p>So back to the original topic ...</p>
<p>Princeton's strength comes from its undergrad focus. It doesn't have any real proffesional schools and the student body size is relatively smaller than at top colleges. As Alexandre pointed out- for what areas Princeton is strong at- it is truly world class and as good as anywhere :)</p>
<p>And the rankings in individual areas are most likely Graduate and prof. rankings for which don't exist at Princeton. Hope this helps.</p>
<p>ps- Michigan is great school :)</p>
<p>Julius, I am referring to quality of the institution, not mean SAT scores and % accepted. In that domain, Michigan cannot compete with smaller schools. But then again, smaller schools cannot compete with Michigan when it comes to faculty and academic quality. </p>
<p>AcceptedtoCollegeAlready, exclusive companies hire more students from LSA than they do from Ross. And the majority of those hundreds of students who get into top 5 graduate programs are LSA students, not Engineering or Ross students.</p>
<p>And I can name you dozens of students on this forum who picked Michigan over the likes of Northwestern, Chicago, Brown, Cornell etc... and it wasn't for financial reasons.</p>
<p>Do so please? I bet I can find more than you :) Whoever wins this wins the argument?</p>
<p>Also you did not address my point that all the top 15's have higher SAT, better yield, higher GPA, etc.</p>
<p>ACA, I have already won this debate. The peer assessment score and corporate recruiter's rankings are far more accurate and meaningful than your (or my) opinion. Michigan is one of the top 15 universities in the nation, and that's a conservative ranking. According to most corporate recruiters and legitimate academics, Michigan is one of the top 10 universities in the nation.</p>
<p>You have lost because Top 15 schools beat Umich in every aspect even post-graduate (non-Ross). </p>
<p>Just because Ross is a top school doesn't mean Umich should be. (Look at NYU and Stern). </p>
<p>Focusing on one part of an university does not mean that university is better. Let's all just focus on selectivy then, wow I guess Northeastern >>>>> Umich since Northeastern accepts 40% vs 60%.</p>
<p>Fact is, I called your bluff, you are not choosing to go through it because you know I can find more posts that show more students picking top 15's over Umich undergrad. </p>
<p>I am not dissing your alma but you know you are being biased here by ignoring every aspect of the rankings except "peer" assessment scores.</p>
<p>How about gpa/sat/yield/acceptance rate of top 15s? Why do you continue to ignore discussion about them?</p>
<p>Also I'm pretty sure recruiters think of Umich in the top 10 as a GRADUATE school, not undergraduate. You really think Umich beats places like Cornell and Brown for undergrad? That is pretty ridiculous.</p>
<p>I never said Michigan is better than Cornell or Brown. But as an alum of both Cornell and Michigan, I can say with complete neutrality that those two schools are virtually equal.</p>
<p>As for your criteria, I have already addressed them:</p>
<p>1) GPA: Michigan's mean unweighed GPA is 3.75. That's as high as it gets. Very few schools have mean unweighed GPAs over 3.6. </p>
<p>2) Class rank. 70% graduated among the top 5% of their class. 90% graduated in the top 10% of their class. That's comparable to most top 20 universities.</p>
<p>3) SATs. Michigan, Cal and UVA only repot the highest score in one sitting. That's why their average is 1330. It wouldbe slightly higher (1370 or so) if they reported SAT scores as their private peers do. I realize there is almost no difference between 1330 and 1430, let alone between 1330 and 1370, but I guess it means a lot to you, so there you have it. But even then, considering the fact that Michigan has 5,000+ freshmen, a mean SAT score of 1330 is pretty decent.</p>
<p>4) Yield. What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, Chicago, Caltech, Northwestern and Johns Hopkins all have lower yield rates than Michigan. And by the way, according to statistics, there is a close to 50/50 yield rate between Michigan and Cornell, Michigan and Penn and Michigan and Northwestern. So Michigan does not lose when face against all top 15 universities.</p>
<p>5) Acceptance rate is meaningless altogether. I guess you think Northeastern is as good as the University of Chicago since both accept 40% of their applicants. And by the reckoning, USC and NYU are as good as Cornell and better than Chicago eh? </p>
<p>And pray tell, how are any of those criteria above related to academic quality? </p>
<p>And what bluff are you talking about? That you can find a few students on this forum who would pick other schools over Michigan? How does that prove anything? Why don't you tell me what academe at large thinks? Or what corporate recruiters think? It is you who is constantly ignoring the facts. You aren't qualified to rate universities. Nobody on this forum is. Only deans and professors at peer institutions and corporate recruiters are qualified to do so, and in their eyes, right or wrong, Michigan is one of the top 10 or top 15 universities in the US. By the way ACA, when I say Michigan's reputation among recruiters is top 10, I meant as an undergrqaduate institution. This is an undergraduate forum and I only include information that is relevent to undergraduate education.</p>
<p>You said "According to most corporate recruiters and legitimate academics, Michigan is one of the top 10 universities in the nation."
Brown and Cornell are not even top 10. This implies you think Umich is better than Brown or Cornell.</p>
<p>Your second point. "1) GPA: Michigan's mean unweighed GPA is 3.75. That's as high as it gets. Very few schools have mean unweighed GPAs over 3.6. </p>
<p>2) Class rank. 70% graduated among the top 5% of their class. 90% graduated in the top 10% of their class. That's comparable to most top 20 universities."
Um, berkeley and UVa have avg unweighted gpa in the 3.9's. Your statement is false. Look at UChicago too. Umich is comparable but its stats are consistently lower than top 20's and even top 25's (look at UVA and Georgetown).</p>
<p>Finding students who would choose top 15's proves that most students would choose a top 15 over Umich undergrad. That means a lot since if an university cannot find quality students to fill its student body, then what good is it? </p>
<p>This is the case with Umich as you can see its student body is lacking when compared to other top 15's and its selectivity is another reason why the quality of its undergraduate student body is comparatively low.</p>
<p>I am not qualified to rate universities but looking only on peer assessment is erroneous. Selectivity and yield out of anything should consist of how good a university is. There are REASONS top students choose certain universities over another. </p>
<p>Also, can you please post some links where corporate recruiters would take umich undergrads (non-ross) over top 15's? I believe a majority would rather recruit at the Top 15's such as Cornell/Brown. </p>
<p>Finally, the point of yield is that you have to make sure the students who choose michigan aren't doing so because they are IN-State. </p>
<p>That is why I suggested we pick a random sample of TOP STUDENTS and where else to find them other than Collegeconfidential.com? That is why I suggested we look at top students on here and see whether they are from michigan or not and see if they pick top 15's over michigan. </p>
<p>Overall I know peer assessment is important but not everything. Academic quality should be more reflective in the quality of the STUDENT body. In this area, Umich lacks when compared to even top 20's and top 25's such as Georgetown and UVA (looking at SAT scores and gpa).</p>
<p>Edit: I think our main dispute is whether peer assessment should be the main criteria of how good a college is and if we can settle this dispute, I believe we can either respectfully agree to disagree and move on or one of us might change our minds. Perhaps future discussions could focus on this and why peer assessment is so important (should be the main reason) when ranking universities. </p>
<p>I also don't believe recruiters (non-Ross) would pick Umich grads over top 15 grads (since top 15 schools include Brown/Cornell).</p>
<p>I dont' really know why I am arguing so hard about this since I am already in college but I think the point that you are arguing that a 60% acceptance rate public college with ALL of its prestige in graduate programs and a avg of 1300+ SAT and 3.7 gpa is somehow top 15 or even top 10 undergrad is pretty ridiculous. Does anyone else think this is absurd? What about UVA with its 3.9 uw gpa avg and its 1380 avg SAT score? </p>
<p>I just really think this is insane and I'm really tempted to pay 15 bucks for usnews just to see the actual peer ratings and Umich's other stats. Did you see how I guessed that Michigan was your alma mater? (Post #35) How did you think I knew that? The bias is pretty apparent here.</p>
<p>Why don't you all just stop compensating and stop flaming this thread.</p>