<p>“Why are factors like reputation(academic?), faculty and resources/facilities more important than the strength of your peers? This is your opinion but you insist on masquerading your value judgment on this website like it’s a fact.”</p>
<p>lesdiablesbleus, one chooses her/his peers. If one wishes to take classes with and befriend highly driven and accomplished peers, all one need do is take advanced and difficult classes. This is as true at Duke as it is at the University of North Carolina. On the other hand, one does not choose or have control over the faculty, curriculum, facilities or reputation of a university. Those are driven by the university itself, not its students. </p>
<p>And you are right lesdiablebleus, this is purely my opinion. But my opinion does not lead me to believe that my school is superior to other peer universities.</p>
Reading over recent post, I agree. With the comparison of Duke to HYPSM typically one will choose between those universities based on preference and fit as opposed to HYPSM and George Mason University.</p>
<p>For instate students study abroad is often twice as much as a year at their US school. With travel and other typical expenses many programs (9 mos) run well over $30,000 up to $40,000. Instate total costs with dorms etc,. can run around $20K or less.</p>
<p>I also think that universities with many students (over 30%) enrolled in very structured programs (Art, Architecture, Business, Engineering, Music, Nursing etc…) will have fewer students (as a ratio of the overall student boady) joining study abroad programs than students enrolled at a college where Arts and Science majors make up 80% or more of the total student population. For example, Michigan’s student body is, on average, one of the wealthiest. However, with 35% of the students enrolled in very structured programs, it is unlikely that a high percentage of students will find the time for a study-abroad program. I would expect students at universities like Cal, Cornell, MIT and Northwestern to face a similar challenge in finding the time for studying abroad.</p>
About family wealth, this could be true when citing that New York University leads in study abroad. Though you should also consider that New York University is located in a world class city, one of the largest cities in the world, and one of the most diverse cities with citizens from everywhere across the globe. But Michigan State University also tops in study abroad, it’s not a expensive public school nor located in a dynamic city like NYU. From my understanding student backgrounds from both schools can differ largely. To sum it all up, both universities have a campus in United Arab Emirates. Refering to the moderator Alexandre again, I question if he have seen or heard anything about the schools campuses there.</p>
<p>fallen,
No need to be so gloomy about the data or the discussions. When people don’t like what the data is saying, then they frequently seek to knock it down (the U Michigan posters are Exhibit A of this). That doesn’t mean that they’re right to do so or that the data is illegitimate. They’re just trying to divert attention away from information that doesn’t place their favorite school in the best light. The many intelligent readers on CC can see this and make their own judgment on the strength of the arguments presented for this or that piece of data.</p>
<p>As for the value of these “debates,” it’s not often that you will move another poster to abandon his/her viewpoint. But people will evolve as their understanding increases. And there is a great benefit to broadening the awareness of less followed schools such as your favorite, Tulane. </p>
<p>The historical elites will get their due, but the Tulanes of CC-world rarely do and so need intelligent opiners like you to post and educate. You won’t always win the “debate,” but CC’s readers are almost always better off for having a variety of viewpoints presented. </p>
<p>Alex,
For your retort to LDB, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess it depends on which colleges you define as peers to your U Michigan. I suspect you are referring to the subjective PA scoring in which case your statement is technically accurate. However, in the many legitimate comparisons that involve objective data and which relate to the undergraduate environment, U Michigan and Duke would rarely be valued as peers. There are large statistical differences between these two colleges, nearly all of which are strongly in Duke’s favors. </p>
<p>For the quality of the student body, while you might wish it, U Michigan’s peer group certainly is not the Dukes of the collegiate world. Much more accurate private college peers of U Michigan’s student body would be NYU, Boston College, Tulane, U Rochester, Lehigh, etc.</p>
<p>I would expect that [perhaps wealthy] people who attend teeny colleges in boring areas are most likely to study abroad, because otherwise they will be terminally bored at their little colleges that they outgrew after the first year.</p>
<p>The problem is, once they go and live in an interesting, dynamic place for a year they might hate their little school that they are bored with even more when they come back.</p>
[NYU</a> > Study Abroad](<a href=“Studying Abroad”>Studying Abroad)
Read elsewhere also bout NYU prestigous study abroad programs.</p>
<p>Michigan State University articles:
[MSU</a> among top universities for study abroad participation, international student enrollment | MSU News | Michigan State University](<a href=“http://news.msu.edu/story/7115/]MSU”>http://news.msu.edu/story/7115/)
Among public schools
<p>“I guess it depends on which colleges you define as peers to your U Michigan. I suspect you are referring to the subjective PA scoring in which case your statement is technically accurate. However, in the many legitimate comparisons that involve objective data and which relate to the undergraduate environment, U Michigan and Duke would rarely be valued as peers. There are large statistical differences between these two colleges, nearly all of which are strongly in Duke’s favors.” </p>
<p>I was actually referring to the quality of the faculty, abundance of resources, availlability of state-of-the-art facilities, quality of academic departments, breadth and depth of curriculae, overall quality of institution, reputation in both academe and corporate world etc… In all those regards, Michigan and Duke are peer institutions.</p>
<p>“For the quality of the student body, while you might wish it, U Michigan’s peer group certainly is not the Dukes of the collegiate world. Much more accurate private college peers of U Michigan’s student body would be NYU, Boston College, Tulane, U Rochester, Lehigh, etc.”</p>
<p>Hawkette, I see no difference in the quality of student bodies at any of those universities. I have made it clear several times in the past. The quality of a student body cannot be captured statistically. A 100 point difference (out of 1600) in SAT ranges (or a 2 point difference in ACT ranges) does not really prove anything.</p>
<p>“When people don’t like what the data is saying, then they frequently seek to knock it down (the U Michigan posters are Exhibit A of this). That doesn’t mean that they’re right to do so or that the data is illegitimate. They’re just trying to divert attention away from information that doesn’t place their favorite school in the best light. The many intelligent readers on CC can see this and make their own judgment on the strength of the arguments presented for this or that piece of data.”</p>
<p>Really Hawkette? You accuse me of “knocking” data because I don’t like what it is saying? I knock data because it either measures nothing of value or because it is manipulated/measuring different things.</p>
<p>So tell us:</p>
<p>1) what is Harvard’s student to faculty ratio according to the “data” you provide?</p>
<p>2) exactly how did Harvard calculate that ratio (provide actual numbers please)?</p>
<p>3) what is Caltech’s student to faculty ratio according to the “data” you provide?</p>
<p>4) exactly how did Caltech calculate that ratio (provide actual numbers please)?</p>
<p>5) what is Michigan’s student to faculty ratio according to the “data” you provide?</p>
<p>6) exactly how did Michigan calculate that ratio (provide actual numbers please)?</p>
<p>Alex,
Do you think that the student body at Duke is a peer to Harvard? </p>
<p>The only way your argument survives is if, regarding Duke and Harvard, you “see no difference in the quality of student bodies at any of those universities.”</p>
<p>Most would say that there might be some overlap between the student bodies of Duke and Harvard, but conclude that Harvard is stronger. For the record, that is my view. Maybe you’d reach a different conclusion and say that Harvard and Duke are the same… </p>
<p>And that Duke and U Michigan are the same…</p>
<p>And that U Michigan and Ohio State are the same…which means that…</p>
<p>Ohio State and Harvard are the same. </p>
<p>Given this determination, I’m sure that you’ll join me in a cheer of “Go Buckeyes!” :)</p>
<p>Yes, I think Alex is making a mistake when he says that 100 points is essentially no difference. Not only is that statistically significant, but for large groups it represents a large difference in abilities. Sure, I concede only a certain type of ability, but an important one to universities. He is right that for any one individual, it might not mean so much in comparison to another individual. But when you look at an entire student body, such as a Harvard vs. Wake Forest, and even ignoring everything else and looking at SAT scores only, if Harvard averages 100 points higher than Wake, that would tell anyone that the Harvard class is academically superior. The actual number that would tell me that is less than 100. A 100 point average difference out of 1600 over a 2,000 student sample (each school, give or take) is huge. If it weren’t the SAT would be meaningless, and despite the howls that it is in fact meaningless, universities have found these kinds of tests useful for consideration for decades.</p>
<p>Now of course admissions looks at much more, and maybe that is his point. But the 100 point statement is either misleading or just distracting, because it makes little sense.</p>
<p>Hawkette, the difference between Duke’s and Harvard’s student bobies is non-existant. It is harder to get into Harvard because the applicant pool is larger and better and they accept far fewer (thanks to its incredible yield), but when it comes to the student bodies at those two universities, they are identical. I have always said as much. In most other ways, Harvard is superior to Duke. As I often say, what determines the quality of a university is its faculty and resources, not its students.</p>
<p>There is a difference between Ohio State and Michigan or between Michigan and Duke when it comes to student bodies, but the difference is not very significant.</p>
<p>There is a very significant difference between OSU and Harvard.</p>
<p>A difference of 250 points on a 1600 scale is significant. A difference of 100 points is not.</p>
<p>Not that in the matter much in the context of this thread, but I believe you might want to do a bit of fact checking before posting statements such as “No such formalized program exists at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT. I’m sure these universities have more than enough resources to allow their students to have these same type of opportunities but it would take some initiative on part of the students since no organized structure for domestic/international civic engagement exists at these schools.”</p>
<p>While it is a given that HYPSM will not offer a program called Duke Engage anytime soon, there always exists the “slim” possibility that similar programs do exist. For all you know, they may even have been offering similar programs well before the wealthiest Duke alum decided to share her good fortune with civic-minded students at Duke.</p>
<p>Fwiw, as many learn when attending a particular school, there are many opportunities for INSIDERS that do not appear on public websites, or if they do, they tend to only show the tip of the iceberg. I happen to know that your statement is DEAD WRONG for at least one school on your list. I would not be surprised if the statement was incorrect for everyone of them. </p>
<p>Again, it does not really matter. The Duke Engage seems to be a remarkable program. It does not, however, reflect any kind of superiority. Heck, smaller schools with much shallower pockets than the Gates Foundation seem to have done more and for a much longer period of time!</p>
<p>Statistical significance means that the difference is very unlikely to be a result of random variation. It doesn’t mean that that difference is meaningful in the more general sense.</p>
<p>Well, now we’re making some progress, hawkette. Because my contention all along has been simply that top-caliber students can enroll at a school like Michigan—and perhaps there are others—and get basically an Ivy-caliber education, with small classes, highly qualified peers, and knowledgeable professors who are at the top of their field and are also skilled, committed, and effective teachers. That’s certainly true for kids who enroll in the Honors Program. And that hasn’t changed since I attended; if anything, both the students and the faculty have gotten slightly stronger since my day. </p>
<p>We seem to agree on the criteria. And you seem to acknowledge–here at least–the possibility that I’m right about the caliber of students enrolled in Michigan’s Honors Program, together with the size of classes, the quality of the faculty, and so on. Yet my impression—and correct me if I’m wrong—is that in the past you’ve been persistently dismissive of the quality of the educational experience at Michigan, pretty much across the board. </p>
<p>I think the mistake you and many others on CC make is to focus on what you imagine to be the experience of the median student; or worse, to assume that those at the top are somehow dragged down to the level of those at the bottom of the class. But the reality is that at a school as big, diverse, and resource-rich as Michigan, experiences vary widely. Top academic performers tend to cluster together in opportunities like the Honors Program, where they take the most challenging classes alongside their most capable peers, and not by chance, are exposed to many of the most skilled and engaging professors. And they’re advised to move on quickly from there to the most advanced upper-level and graduate-level classes. If they’re motivated, the sky’s the limit on the academic challenges and opportunities that are available to them as undergrads, because it’s not at all unusual for these kids to rocket into predominantly graduate-level classes by their junior and senior years, at what is universally acknowledged to be one of the premier institutions of graduate-level instruction in the nation. Is that the experience of everyone at Michigan? Of course not. But the reality is, there are more 1400+ SAT CR+M scorers at Michigan than at Harvard. And if you enroll in the Honors Program at Michigan, essentially your entire undergrad career will be spent, if you so choose, in classes with kids at that level (whereas at Harvard roughly 1/4 of the students will be below that level). A kid enrolling at Michigan and taking honors math and philosophy classes from the outset just won’t be affected one whit by the capabilities of the kids in the non-honors section of that same class, much less by those starting out in a less advanced class in the same field; they could just as well be in Timbuktu. </p>
<p>Given those extraordinary opportunities, it seems to me to be pretty irresponsible to advise smart, capable students to steer clear of schools like Michigan lest they be tainted by the “average” or the low end of the class—people many of whom they’ll never even meet, and with whom they are likely to have few if any classroom interactions. That does the top students a huge disservice. </p>
<p>It’s not for everyone, and as I said, individual experiences may vary. But for a lot of smart and talented kids, the Michigan Honors Program is a handsome educational opportunity, indeed, and it merits serious consideration alongside the Ivies and other outstanding undergraduate opportunities.</p>