<p>Thealbatross…my daughter went to Michigan. Her boyfriend went to Michigan.</p>
<p>You’re going to get a great education at Michigan. The social life is excellent at Michigan. You are going to have a great time. You’re going to work hard too.</p>
<p>You can take grad courses…my daughter knew her professors. The limitations are your limitations…there are going to be super bright students at Michigan.</p>
<p>You are obviously a very capable person…take threads like these with a grain of salt. </p>
<p>I never went to Michigan, but when I visited…I thought what a fantastic
place to go to school. The place has so much energy. Ann Arbor is a great college town. Well…the weather isn’t the best…</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I really have nothing to prove here. Dartmouth, Duke, Yale, Berkeley are all very great universities. I assure I will go “wow” when you tell me face to face you graduated from one of these universities. I’m NOT here to promote any university. I’m here to help and give facts. The FACT is that Dartmouth, Duke, Yale, and Berkeley are excellent and prestigious universities. To even more so rank them is just ridiculous.
If you still want to rank them, look at US News (Many professors I’ve visited in these universities including Yale and Harvard have explicitly told me that rankings are meaningless, I kid you not). Look at PayScale (The ranking I value. In fact, according to this ranking, I know people who value Dartmouth and Duke higher than Yale, so there; They also believe Princeton is the number 1 Ivy, and why shouldn’t it? I respect their beliefs).</p>
<p>If you go around complaining Berkeley and UMich are low, well, that that. Deal with it. They’re still good universities.</p>
But UCB is more renowned than Duke in almost ALL disciplines. So if you have no idea what you want to major in, wouldn’t it make sense to pick a school that offers more breadth and depth and is excellent in all areas? Furthermore, what if you discover that you really like chemistry where Duke ranks a dismal #43; or computer science where UCB has a clear advantage. What if you decide to study business (or chem engineering, pharmacy, sport management, music performance, etc) which is not available at Duke?</p>
<p>
Your world is too small. Most kids are not interested in working on The Street, especially since the financial melt down.</p>
<p>^Please forgive lesdiablesbles. This user must be one of the Duke ■■■■■■ JohnAdams warned me about.
I admit Berkeley may be renown in its departments, but I honestly don’t think this matters in the undergraduate level. Please leave out these rankings for grad placement only. And please pick schools that better fit your needs and wants and instincts.
I’m sure a Berkeley student interested in “The Street” is just as capable as any other if he puts his mind into it. Also, most people in Berkeley aren’t interested in Wall Street, as you say so yourself.</p>
<p>Despite being repeated ad nauseam by “interested” parties, the superscore differences are not necessarily as important or relevant as they would like them to be. In addition, there is no evidence that a school that does not superscore for admission purposes does NOT elect to report the superscores. Schools tend to use the data that make them look better! </p>
<p>Anyway, since there seems to be a doubt about the SAT and the superscores, why not look at the ACT data to eliminate the “superscore” crutch:</p>
<p>MIT: Compo 32-35 Math 33-35 English 31-35
DUKE: Compo 30-34 Math 29-35 English 31-35
MICHIGAN: Compo 27-31 Math 27-32 English 27-33
PRINCETON: Compo 31-35 Math 31-35 English 32-35</p>
<p>Funny how that did not work out as expected! The differences are even more profound when comparing the non-superscored ACT. Michigan’s 75th percentile on the composite ACT does not reach Princeton and MIT 25th percentile.</p>
<p>Actually, my comments were addressing the commonality of ENROLLED students, based solely on overlap in comparative SAT ranges presented in post #323. If you looked at GPA/rank, you’d see a similar overlap.</p>
<p>Of course the admit rates at HYPSM are much lower than the admit rates at Michigan and Berkeley. Nevertheless, the differences in score and grade profiles are not nearly so great. How could they be? Grades and scores are way up all over the map. The average freshman entering UCSD (not Berkeley, not UCLA) had a hs GPA of 3.96.</p>
<p>Now, how great are the differences in other, significant characteristics? I don’t think anyone knows for sure. First, we’d have to agree on what is significant. But do we really think that only 2 or 3 hundred Michigan freshmen, out of a class of 6000, would fit in just fine as Dartmouth or Harvard freshmen? Many more than that (easily a couple of thousand) have grades and scores virtually indistinguishable from the average enrolled Ivy freshmen. Among sought-after applicants in that category, Ivy admissions is down to deciding whether they prefer an oboe-playing soccer captain or a triple legacy from an underrepresented state. No doubt the Ivy process results in somebody’s idea of a very talented, interesting freshman class. Some people think it is worth paying an extra $30K/year to be part of that experience. Some don’t.</p>
<p>If this is about what we THINK, I can tell that I would answer YES without the slightest hesitation. I THINK that you’d be hard pressed to find 200 or 300 students from Michigan --or Cal for that matter-- that WERE accepted at Harvard. </p>
<p>The fact that they “could” have been accepted is not relevant. 93% of Harvard’s 30,000 applicants could have been accepted on the basis of test scores and GPAs, but they weren’t. If such a scenario would be possible to implement, your 2,000 or 6,000 students would be competing with thousands of similarly qualified (and probably better qualified) for one of the few hundreds of spots that go to the bottom quintile. But heck, do not let numbers get in your way of a feel-good story. </p>
<p>as for the top 50 CEO’s the odds of any applicants becoming a CEO of a top 50 company are so vanishingly small, its hard to see why that is particularly meaningful.</p>
<p>xiggi, you don’t think that any of that 93% could have been accepted on the basis of more than test scores and GPAs? You don’t think adcoms are making agonizingly fine distinctions among thoroughly well qualified applicants? </p>
<p>I don’t doubt there is a difference in the caliber of students at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. The intense competition is sure to result in a greater concentration of certain kinds of talent at these schools. But the fact that other students could have been accepted is absolutely relevant when there are far, far more well qualified applicants than spaces.</p>
<p>^I posted the CEO link in response to RML that both Dartmouth AND Duke were excellent universities in the area of business and Wall Street jobs.
But yes, in the long run, it is meaningless. So is this conversation comparing Berkeley to Duke, MIT, and Princeton. They’re all great schools. I believe we’re all sticking to undergrad, yes?</p>
<p>A right I think someone who has been a student at both Duke and MIT has a right to do. His opinion is more credible on the matter than most of the other people on this forum.</p>
<p>Obviously, I know that 93 percent of the 30,000 applicants were accepted on the basis of MORE than tests scores and GPAs, including a deeper and comparative analysis of the validity of regional GPAs. </p>
<p>Aren’t you the one who used scores to “qualify” several thousands students from Michigan? My point remains the same about “that” number being a low three digits one.</p>
<p>But again, if you THINK differently, power to you!</p>
<p>^ Because some dogs just can’t let a good bone go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm. xiggi, your second sentence here does not quite work, so I’m having a hard time understanding YOUR point. Maybe you meant to say “evaluated” (or some such) instead of “accepted”.</p>
<p>Anyway … yes, the number of Michigan students who actually were accepted to Harvard cannot be more than a low three digit number, if that. But this is not just about Harvard, is it? How many were accepted to other T5, T10, or T15 private schools? Of those rejected by Harvard (Yale, Princeton, etc.), how many were rejected by the narrowest of margins that turned on “class crafting” issues? How many Michigan or Cal students are truly exceptional kids who did not want to subject themselves to the Ivy admissions process at all, because they were content to attend a great university, one with a more predictable admissions process, for less than half the cost? </p>
<p>I can appreciate the limits of what I “think” versus what I “know”. So if you have some good data to enlighten us, please share. Nothing I’ve yet seen in this thread, or in the CDS numbers, persuades me that a couple thousand Michigan or Cal freshmen are not Ivy-caliber students.</p>
<p>^I cannot statistically prove UMich and Cal students not being equal to Ivy students. But, I do have plenty of personal evidence (IvyPlus rejects going off to Cal, UCLA/USC rejects going to Cal, etc), but they aren’t as strong as statistical evidence. So sorry, I cannot offer anything of significance.</p>
<p>TheSaiyans, I don’t think the point that was being made is that students at Cal or Michigan are equal to Ivy League students top to bottom. I think the point is that the top quarter at Cal or Michigan is equal to the top half at the Ivy League (not including HYP) and the top half at Cal and Michigan is equal to the top 75% at the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Not that it matters really. This sort of distinction/p!ssing contest matters only to the very young (15-25 year olds) and insecure. Being admitted into a mega selective university like the Ivy League is only impresive as far as “getting in” goes. Where “getting out” is concerned, there is no distinction between Cal or Michigan and most Ivy League universities. Students at all those universities will face the same demanding graduation requirements and academic standards…and once equipped with a degree from their respective universities, will be treated identically.</p>
<p>You claimed Duke places much better on The Street and in other lucrative business positions than Berkeley. Yet the links you provided says otherwise. Therefore, between the two of us, you are the one who’s ■■■■■■■■ on this thread not me.</p>