<p>"I thought Michigan State University was the top Big Ten school."</p>
<p>Northwestern is the most prestigious university in the conference, no matter how you look at it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know when you went to Wisconsin, but having only one class where you couldn't approach a professor and stuck with a TA is hard to believe.
[/quote]
That's not what I said. I had TA's in my discussion/lab sections but none in my lectures. Except for freshman English, I had a professor teaching in every one of my classes. </p>
<p>This is generally true in most of the top research universities. The only courses without a professor are some of the intro courses, typically in math and foreign languages. But don't take my word for it. Look it up in the timetable; check out the instructors and see what kind of courses have TA's teaching the lectures(Office</a> of the Registrar - University of Wisconsin-Madison)</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the UW you will have a TON of TA's, not to say UMN won't, but it is much more prevalent at the UW.
[/quote]
[quote]
As for TA's I'm going off of the experiences of friends and family who have attended Wisconsin.
[/quote]
But how could you conclude that the TA situation is more prevalent in Wisconsin. I don't have any data, but since the two universities are so similar, I would venture to guess that the TA situation are about the same. By the numbers Wisconsin also has an edge here:</p>
<p>Wisconsin is the same size as Minnesota but has a smaller student/faculty ratio (13:1 vs. 15:1). It may be more logical to conclude that Minnesota has to use more TA's.</p>
<p>Overall, Wisconsin does have stronger faculty and stronger programs. The numbers all confirm that.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I agree that Minnesota is an excellent school and the OP can get the same high level of education from either. I just want to make sure our discussion is based on facts and not hearsay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure the UW has a slight edge on the strength of student that attends, but when you have CSOM and IT at the "U" I feel it's a wash.
[/quote]
[quote]
IT is one of the more selective colleges at the "U". That is where you get your B.S. in Computer Science. Being in one of the better colleges there doesn't help compared to being in the Liberal Arts area (CLA) of the school?
[/quote]
My mistake. I thought you were referring to MIS in Carlson. But I still don't understand why CSOM and IT would balance out a slightly weaker student body at Minnesota. Are you saying that Carlson is better than UW business, and IT is better than UW engineering? You are aware of course that all the rankings suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and that probably will continue as Minnesota's new cut-rate OOS tuition rate will attract a lot of new apps from OOS students
[/quote]
You have a good point there. Why do you think Minnesota can afford that especially in the current environment?</p>
<p>My take, having been a student at both schools (and a TA at MN!)</p>
<p>Regarding the campuses, my impression is that UW has an elegant core and the natural beauty of the lakeshore but UMN is somewhat unplanned and a hodge-podge of buildings split across multiple sites.</p>
<p>Let me add that "brain drain" has been a concern at Madison since I was a student there in the '70's and somehow it has at least maintained its reputation. And, as a MN resident, I have no sense at all that U of MN is "improving" -- certainly the state keeps reducing the revenue it sends the U's way. But, as has been mentioned, the biggest drawback UMN has is the somewhat fractured nature of its undergraduate experience. A fairly large percentage of its students are commuters. "Spirit" is much more easily found at UW.</p>
<p>I don't think an ACT average of 26 in anywhere near close to over 28 average. GPAs will vary from state to state and school to school but the ACT is the same everywhere. Also while there have been news stories of UW slipping, the facts are not supportive. UW has moved UP in total competitive research funding from around 5th to 1st (not counting the JH Federal funded national labs). It's faculty still are winning top awards at rates among the best for all universities (223 v 101 compared to Uminn). Same for NAS members and AAAS members. State funding has gone up far more than at Michigan, UVa and many other schools over the same period.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi</p>
<p>I know my top choices but may not get accepted into neither... and I'm also having second thoughts about some.</p>
<p>But barrons, Michigan still has a huge endowment compared to Wisconsin and I believe it like number three in the U.S. in research funding. Michigan hasn't relied as much on state funding for the past 30 years when they saw the writing on the wall.</p>
<p>I don't have much interest in entering the argument about which school is better. As a Wisconsin grad I'm certainly partisan, but I also think all the Big Ten universities are great institutions, and objectively that's hard to deny. </p>
<p>What I DO want to know is how a Wisconsin grad picks the name "GoBlue81" for a posting moniker. Blasphemy! :)</p>
<p>Many bright high school students in these two states are faced with the same decision. My wife was and she chose UW Madison. Her reasons were that Madison was walkable and didn't require a car the way that the Twin Cities might. She also liked the cohesiveness of the campus (though admittedly it has a couple of big streets running through it). It's a tough decision as they both are excellent in many academic fields and both have a strong tradition of excellence. I chose Madison but I chose based on the depth of instruction in Microbiology and the wide variety of languages available, I double majored in Hebrew. Best of luck in your decision.</p>
<p>MilwDad. I've always wondered the same thing about GoBlue81. :-)</p>
<p>
<p>Well, the simple fact is that most OOS students at Minnesota right now are from the tuition reciprocity states/provinces of Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Manitoba. They already pay in-state rates, so they're not affected by the new OOS rate. Cutting OOS tuition should bring in a lot of non-reciprocity OOS applications, allowing the university to be more selective, thus boosting the credentials of its entering class. And to the extent those new OOS applicants are admitted and enrolled they'll be displacing either Minnesotans or students from the reciprocity states, thus bringing in more tuition revenue--$4K per year for each additional enrolled OOS. Of course, the per-student differential would be higher with a higher tuition, but there would be fewer OOS applicants and fewer of the accepted OOS applicants would actually enroll. I assume the university ran the numbers on this and calculated a $4K differential between in-state and OOS was the optimal point to achieve the dual goals of increasing selectivity and raising revenue.</p>
<p> [quote=barrons] I don't think an ACT average of 26 in anywhere near close to over 28 average.
</p>
<p>Yes but I believe for 2008 the ACT average at Minnesota overall was a 27 which is getting awfully close to 28. At Minnesota's Carlson School of Business it was 29 and at the Institute of Technology (Engineering) it was a little over 29. In the College of Biological Sciences it was 30. There was a significant jump from in these numbers from the 2007 entering class to 2008, and that was before the new OOS tuition policy kicked in. I'd expect to see those numbers continue to creep up to fully match Wisconsin's within the next couple of years. The question is, can they pass Wisconsin's numbers?</p>
<p>No, it was 26.2. You are confusing admitted and enrolled.</p>
<p>Michigan HAD a great endowment. It has probably lost nearly half it's value due to heavy use of risky alternative investments. </p>
<p>UW's is down too but not nearly as much. I'm not sure about WARF which is an independent UW endowment and not counted in the UW numbers but was about $2 Billion at the end of 2007. It might have been more into higher risk stuff too. But UW has around $3-4 Billion right now and UM about $4-5 Billion so thjey are much closer than they were. UM is just behind UW in research funding. UMinn is well behind.</p>
<p>Sure barrons, you expect me to believe that Michigan's endowment took a bigger hit than Wisconsin's without proof? Where are you seeing these figures? I live in Michigan and I haven't seen any numbers to support your contention.</p>
<p>Michigan lost about 2 billion off it's endowment, which leaves it around the 5.6 billion mark. Still only a couple billion more than Wisky.</p>
<p>Here. It shows heavy (over half) invested in non-market high risk securities. Also reports that losses in same cannot be reported yet. Most are valuing such assets at 50% or less today. </p>
<p>Barrons. I just checked out some endowment numbers and for the life of me I have no idea where you can claim that Wisconsin has a 3-4B dollar endowment. When times were good last year they might have have 2 billion according to what I read. Now that they have lost at least 30 % or more, I figure Wisky might have an endowment around 1.4B. Hardly in the range of Michigan at all. I am no expert at understanding financial data, but I can't see how you can be so certain that Michigan has lost more than half of its endowment by that small article that you posted.</p>
<p>You forgot WARF--Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation which is soley for UW Madison. There are a couple others but that is the big one. </p>
<p>As of 2008, WARF had an endowment of nearly $2.0 billion. A majority of WARF's income, around 70%, comes from Vitamin D.</p>
<p>Wisconsin</a> Alumni Research Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>WARF</a> - Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation</p>
<p>Since its founding in 1925, WARF has:
Processed approximately 5,600 inventions created by UW-Madison faculty and staff
Obtained 1,820 U.S. patents on these inventions
Completed over 1,530 license agreements with companies all over the world
Given $915 million to the UW-Madison to fund research, programs and initiatives
Since 1928, the first year of the WARF grant, the university has used these monies to:
Support more than 53,010 research projects, including 1,500 in 2006-2007
Sponsor scores of named professorships, including 40 in 2006-2007
Fund thousands of graduate fellowships, including 145 in 2006-2007
Help retain top faculty
Partially or fully pay for the construction of nearly every research facility on campus, a total of more than 50 projects at last count
WARF today:
Manages over 856 pending and 933 issued U.S. patents on UW-Madison technologies, as well as 2,300 foreign equivalents
Offers more than 1,000 technologies for licensing
Maintains more than 940 active commercial license agreements, as well as 460 academic and commercial licenses on human embryonic stem cells
Has completed over 30% of it's license agreements with Wisconsin companies
Holds equity in 40 UW-Madison spin-off companies
In 2006-2007, WARF:
Processed over 410 invention disclosures made by UW-Madison faculty and staff
Filed 300 U.S. patent applications on UW-Madison technology
Obtained nearly 115 issued U.S. patents
Gave $50.0 million to the UW-Madison to support research
Signed 60 new license and option agreements
Took equity in 3 new UW-Madison spin-off companies</p>
<p>So Wisconsin is still about 2B behind Michigan. That's about right. And when the market turns around, the difference will be huge once again. My understanding is that WARF funding now has been expanded to the entire University of Wisconsin system of approx. 173,000 students. Michigan has about 40,000 on it's campus.</p>