<p>Do you mean that Michigan has much in common with certain schools all the while not having much in common to those schools’ … own peers? How can Michigan be a peer of Wisconsin, Penn State, UCLA, UIUC and be a peer to Columbia which has little to nothing in common with Wisconsin, Penn State, UCLA, or UIUC? What kind of groupage is that?</p>
<p>Columbia, Northwestern, Penn should not be grouped with Michigan’s peers like Cal, Texas-Austin, UCLA, UIUC, UVA, UNC, Penn State, and Wisconsin-Madison. Since you know it so well, add Cornell to the group you prefer. It is the only one that combines some of the attributes of the Ivy League schools and some of the attributes of the best public universities such as Michigan and Cal.</p>
<p>xiggi, Cornell’s statutory colleges (Agriculture, Human Ecology and Industrial and Labor Relations) have nothing in common with Cal or Michigan. Indeed, Cal and Michigan do not offer programs in any of those three fields. </p>
<p>As was obviously intended in my post, the grouping of peer schools to Michigan was not merely a function of quality but also of how universities approach research and academics. Private or public affiliation does not enter the picture in this case. </p>
<p>In my opinion, from what I have seen, Michigan has as much in common with Cornell, Northwestern and Penn as it has with Cal, Texas-Austin, UIUC and Wisconsin-Madison.</p>
<p>Oops, my mistake, Alexandre. I erroneously assumed the the context of your post was the same as what has been discussed previously, namely rankings of schools. </p>
<p>Now, that you have cleared up that your grouping was not based on academic quality or general attributes of the schools, I understand the whimsical nature of your groupings a lot better. </p>
<p>I’m assuming most people would consider peer colleges to be near in quality, and provide a somewhat similar experience. All the schools you listed are strong academically, but being at a very big school like Michigan or Cornell is going to be fairly different than at the smaller elite universities such as Columbia or Rice. </p>
<p>Alex, I’m interested to hear how you would describe the approach to research and academics, and what differences you see between say, NW and Rice, or Michigan and Cal.</p>
<p>“Now, that you have cleared up that your grouping was not based on academic quality or general attributes of the schools, I understand the whimsical nature of your groupings a lot better.”</p>
<p>No xiggi, I don’t think you understood. I was precisely grouping schools according to academic quality and general attributes and clearly stated as much in my post above. What I said was that the grouping was not based on public/private affiliation or membership to an athletic conference. </p>
<p>And I was not aware that comparing Cornell, Northwestern or Penn to Michigan qualified as “whimsy”. Then again, we each have our sensitivities I suppose.</p>
<p>Tufts undergraduate sciences is really good and sends a lot of kids to good med schools. Plus they are known for pre-vet, pre-dental, and pre-med.</p>
<p>Yet they are REALLY known for International Relations. The Fletcher School anyone?</p>
<p>You people quibble over rankings. They don’t matter until you have a legit job at which point no one cares at all about rankings.</p>
<p>Almost 20,000 of those are grad students, though…If anything, that suggests we’re both wrong in its “approach to research and academics”…the 8,000 undergrads is closer to a JHU or a NW than Michigan’s 26,000…</p>
<p>You’re now saying you were grouping on precise academic quality, that seems to suggest you are now saying that U of M and its “peer group” are decidedly better than the other schools you listed…</p>
<p>DJEureka, whether universities care to admit it or not, graduate students are very much part of the student population. They occupy the same space and take time from faculty. Columbia does not merely have 8,000 undergrads, it has 28,000 students. Michigan does not merely have 26,000 undergrads, it has 41,000 students. Harvard does not merely have 7,000 undergrads, it has 23,000 students. Cornell does not merely have 14,000 undergrads, it has 20,000 students. Penn does not merely have 10,000 undergrads, it has 20,000 students…etc…</p>
<p>And I did not mean to say that the grouping was based on precise academic quality, I mean to say that my grouping was precisely about academic quality. There is obviously a range of academic quality within that group and not all universities within the group are of precisely equal academic quality. UT-Austin is obviously not quite on par with Columbia. But they are both major research universities of the highest calibre.</p>
<p>Finally, I do not think that Michigan and peer group are “decidedly better” than the other schools I listed. The other schools included Brown, Dartmouth, Georgetown and Notre Dame, all of which are brilliant. I will agree that in terms of pure academics, the research powerhouses will have the edge. But in terms of undergraduate experience, all the universities I listed in both peer groups (including BC and Michigan) are outstanding in their own way.</p>
<p>Hmm…I can see where you’re coming from separating say, Brown and Michigan, but I’m not sure I agree with research universities having higher academic quality. If anything, I would give that title to LACs, just on the basis of their smaller class sizes. The research university part seems better for opportunities to research, and a draw for big name professors. Like you said, outstanding in their own ways.</p>
<p>On the subject of grad students, it may be due to being at a school where a third of the grad students are on another campus, but for the most part, undergrads seem to overwhelmingly be who I see on campus. It could just be a school difference.</p>
<p>LACs would constitute another group altogether if you ask me. </p>
<p>Undergrads at WUSTL make up 50% of the total student population, compare to just 30% at Columbia. That’s a substantial difference. But regardless of whether you feel their presence or not, graduate students still drain a university’s resources, with many of them occupying the same space as undergraduate students.</p>
<p>I’ll agree that LACs are their own group. But there’s definitely research universities providing a “pseudo-LAC” undergrad experience, like Brown.</p>
<p>Michigan has ~60% undergrads. Would you say there’s some “critical mass” where the size of the school changes the focus? Berkeley has almost 70% undergrads, but I think most can agree that its best quality is the graduate education and research.</p>
<p>““DolorousEdd, in the Northeast, I think BC and Michigan exchange leads depending on the area. For example, in Maryland and Virginia, I think BC has a slight edge, but in PA and NJ, I think Michigan has the edge. Michigan also has the edge in DC and NYC. I don’t think either school is particularly prestigious in the South. In New England, BC wins out by quite a margin while in the Midwest, Michigan has a significant advantage over BC. Michigan has a very strong reputation in the West Coast, while BC’s is not quite as pronounced over there. Overall, both schools are highly regarded, but Michigan’s reputation seems to travel better.””</p>
<p>There are a lot of "I think"s and assumptions in there, Alexandre. The truth is is that BC is much more well known and respected across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. I live in New Jersey, Michigan doesn’t come near BC here. I wouldn’t argue about the Midwest, but California is the fourth most represented state at BC, whether their reputations out there compare I wouldn’t know, so I won’t comment on that.</p>
<p>Just wanna point out that some of the things here are quite fallacious. For example the claim that Columbia has 28,000 students competing for the same resources. Well this does not make sense because half of the 28,000 students are in the professiional schools who have different faculties and are even located at different locations and use different resources.</p>
<p>Columbia Arts and Sciences students will not be sharing faculty with the medical school or law school or anything like that. Even though on the surface Michigan and Columbia might have a huge number of students they would be a totally different environment for undergrads whether one likes it or not.</p>
<p>sefago, a university’s endowment belongs to the entire university, not just to undergrads. And although many graduate students belong to programs that do not offer undergraduate degrees (law, medicne, business etc…), several thousand graduate students belong to the college of Arts and Sciences.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I clearly understood your post, and decided to answer in a “soft” manner. I notice that, in your subsequent posts, you saw the incongruity of lumping Michigan and Columbia together. As they say in Texas, bless your heart!</p>
<p>I also note that your latest posts again veer away from the context of this thread, which I believe is about the upcoming release of the USNews, to include discussions about the impact of graduate education at research universities. Except for the much maligned Peer Assessment, there is no relevance of this shared “experience” in the rankings. But I will grant you the point that students who measure the various type of education offered should be aware of the potential dilution of precious resources at universities with the deadly combination of a large graduate student body, diminishing financial resources, and especially a deliberate lack of attention and dedication to the education of … undergraduates.</p>
<p>To come back to your groupings, I assume that your definition of academic quality makes complete abstraction of the divergent selectivity of the student body, and fall in the usual trap of confusing overlaps in the applicant pool with overlaps in the admitted pools. Simply stated, there is litttle to none of the latter when measuring universities that have a definite local and regional draw (and mission) and others that are admitting the best students on a national basis. And very little overlap between schools that have single digit admissions or … admit about 1 out of every 2 applicants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is, obviously, nothing whimsical in comparing Michigan to Cornell, Northwestern or Penn --and Columbia, as you first did. The whimsical part appears when pretending that it is a comparison of equals --again in the context of THIS thread. </p>
<p>Does the exercise of measuring the relative size of the graduate student body bring much light to … this conversation?</p>
<p>Why is it so important to make Aesop happy with more Ox and Frogs tales? Is it really important to seek to go beyond the recognition given to Michigan as (arguably) the second best public university in the United States, and a world-class research university?</p>
<p>bronovan, I do not diagree with your statement. In most parts of the East Coast, BC is better known than Michigan. I disagree that it is so in all parts of the East Coast though. Michigan has a long history with the tri-state area, NJ, NY and DC.</p>