That’s the thing about prestige, hawkette. In general, people wouldn’t dissect schools when assessing their prestige. Most of the time, they are judged as a whole. </p>
<p>I’m sure you’ve heard of Yale and you’ve find Yale a highly prestigious school. I’m sure you’ve heard of Yale SOM too, the business school of Yale, and you’ve heard that it is nowhere near the level of prestige attained by Yale undergrad or Yale law. But when someone will tell you he went to Yale, you’d probably say, “wow”, regardless of the program or level he has attended at Yale. That’s the mechanics of prestige. That’s how prestige works. In general, people would not say, “you’re crap dude because you went to Yale SOM and Yale SOM is such a joke!” </p>
<p>This specific thread was exactly asking for that - school prestige. The OP was curious what the general prestige of Michigan is and how it is perceived as a more (or less) prestigious academic institution relative to UNC. The OP wasn’t asking for the quality of instruction at Michigan and how it is comparable (or not) to UNC. School Prestige and Classroom Instructions are two different things. They are not one and the same even if they relate to and overlap with each other, in the context of academics.</p>
<p>Not in my case, RML. If I ask you where you went to Business School, an answer of Yale doesn’t do a thing for me. If on the other hand you say Stanford, or Wharton, then I’m impressed. </p>
<p>For a Lawyer, or B-school grad, whole school prestige is pretty meaningless, and your Yale example is a perfect case in point wrt MBA … not top 10, never been top ten, not on the radar. Yale in the MBA world is in the same basket as Cornell, UCLA, Virginia.</p>
<p>When I think of Umich, I think of UVa and UNC, when I think of UVa, I think of Umich and UNC, when I think of UNC, I think of Umich and UVa… so in this regard, they are the same in prestige as wholes.</p>
<p>Let me give you another example to better illustrate why prestige is a relative thing, sometimes deceptive and does not always relate to classroom standard/academic standard. Let me use Cambridge University as example as I’m sure you’ve heard of it and think of it very highly. </p>
<p>Cambridge is collegiate university. It has 29 colleges all in all. Some are big, prestigious and have more renown alumni. Some are small but considerably less prestigious. One of the most prestigious colleges at Cambridge is King’s College. It’s a famous college in the UK and the college gets a lot of hypes within and outside the university. One of those “less prestigious” colleges at Cambridge, in my personal opinion, is Murray Edwards College. I think that’s partly due to its age, which is one of the youngest colleges at Cambridge. But people in America (or anywhere outside of the UK) don’t really care whether it’s Murray Edwards or King’s College. They do know that they’re both Cambridge colleges, so they command respect automatically. </p>
<p>The same is true for Michigan. People “outside your world” don’t really care whether it’s undergrad or postgrad. All they care is what was written on that small parchment of paper hanged on your wall. When one reads it’s University of Michigan, then its wow, period. That’s how prestige works generally.</p>
<p>Good for you, DunninLA. (Why do you always have to be so careful and correct!) Unfortunately, not everyone is like you. Not everyone knows that Yale SOM does not have as high regards as its undergrad school and law schools have. So, I’m guessing that when we will do a survey here on CC, or in your neighborhood or city, on which business school to pick between Yale SOM and Kellogg, I’m almost certain that Yale would win because it is Yale.</p>
Relative to the very topic of this thread, I would have to politely disagree with that observation. I think that the only thing that UNC is weak in is professional programs. I think that if UNC’s business school, law school and med school would improve 2 notches above then UNC’s general prestige would increase significantly. I think that explains why Columbia is more prestigious than Brown or Dartmouth even though they’re all ivy league schools.</p>
<p>RML,
Sorry, but I just don’t find your prestige examples compelling. I accept that prestige may be important for Asians, but Americans don’t necessarily see it the same way and certainly don’t accord the same levels of prestige to various colleges that you in Asia do. </p>
<p>IMO, quality is quality, but prestige and quality are not the same thing. And what I would care about as a student or as an employer is quality, not prestige. What I care about is reality, not hype. What I care about is MY experience, not what is going on in some far-off lab that has almost zero to do with the average undergraduate student. </p>
<p>For example, it’s a fact in America that U Michigan or UC Berkeley are back-up schools for most non-Michigan/non-California applicants who prefer many more highly regarded privates. Asians may not grasp that fact, but that is their problem, not mine. I would tend to trust the judgments of those who are directly experiencing and recruiting from the entire system of great American colleges, and not just default to a few of the large brand names that are internationally known due to their graduate programs. We know that there are material differences in the quality of the undergraduate student bodies and the environments in which they learn and we can see and appreciate those differences. </p>
<p>Finally, re your business schools examples, I think that Yale has carved out its own academic and placement niche in public policy areas and less in the traditional placement hotbeds of finance/investment banking. Somebody has to save us from all of the avarice going on in NYC so I’m glad that Yale has staked out this position, even if someone like you finds it less prestigious. As for the differences in student quality at Kenan-Flagler or Yale and MBA programs like Ross, Haas, Darden, Anderson, Fuqua, Columbia, etc, they are tiny and you’ll find very good people coming out of all.</p>
<p>How much further do they have to improve? Law, business, and medicine are already first tier in most publications. Obviously Carolina Law isn’t going to compete with Stanford Law or an Ivy League law school, but for a public university Carolina’s graduate programs are still very impressive. </p>
<p>I don’t think comparing UNC’s programs to those of Brown, Columbia, Yale etc. is realistic. UNC’s academic rivals, as far as I’m concerned, are other top publics like Michigan, UVa, William & Mary, etc.</p>
<p>I know that US News rankings aren’t everything, but they are a good indicator of prestige, if nothing else. That being said, Michigan and UNC are #4 and #5, respectively. So, they are both pretty high up there. As everyone else has said, each school is more prestigious than the other in certain areas. Both are very hard to get into from out of state, although UNC is probably a bit harder to get into from out of state because its OOS student body % is much lower than Michigan’s. Coming from the east coast, Michigan is generally better known in places like NJ or NY in my personal experience.</p>
<p>That being said, Michigan ranks in the top 10 in virtually every subject, so I would say that it is slightly more prestigious overall. Not to mention, the Ross school of business is like right behind Wharton for undergrad. Also, UNC sort of has to operate under the shadow of Duke, which is more reputable than either Michigan or UNC. They are both great schools.</p>
<p>If we’re talking about undergraduate, the prestige advantage of Michigan over UNC isn’t enough to make a very big difference later on. For a student in-state in NC, I think it would be absurd to go to Michigan because it has a bit more prestige.</p>
<p>Let’s face it: in the US, these are both generally known as “good schools.” If you asked Americans for a list of “prestigious schools,” they probably wouldn’t be mentioned.</p>
A lot further up, because the lead between UNC and the top tier schools for most professional programs is significant. As a matter of fact, for these programs, both schools don’t even share applicant pool. Michigan share applicant pool with the very best schools. UNC with the lower tiers. </p>
<p>
I would not say UNC is tier 1 for those programs. If you don’t believe me, post this inquiry to professional schools forums. </p>
<p>For law, there is such a thing as T14. For business, they have M7 or Top 9. And even the T14 can even be classified into 2 tiers: Tier 1 includes YHS, and Tier 2 composes of 4.Columbia 5.NYU 6.Berkeley 7.Chicago 8.Northwestern 9.Michigan 10.Penn 11.Cornell 12.Duke 13.Virginia, and 14.Georgetown. </p>
<p>The M7 can also be classified into 2 tiers. Tier 1 includes H, S, Wharton. Tier 2 comprises of 4.Kellogg 5.Sloan 6.Chicago, and 7.Columbia. Both 8.Haas and 9.Tuck would round up the top 9. So, you see. Even the elite of the most elite business schools are grouped separately just to designate where they truly belonged. </p>
<p>For law school, Michigan is a legit part of the so-called, T14. UNC is not. And it’s not even close. There are at least 5 schools that are said to superior law schools than UNC’s in terms of academic prestige and brand power. So, if Michigan isn’t tier 1 for law despite the fact that it already is a part of T14, then UNC Law must not be tier 1. For law, the real tier 1 are: Yale, Harvard and Stanford. If you want to stretch that, then you will have T14. But most people in the law profession would not stretch that list any further. Therefore, any law school not in the T14 list isn’t tier 1 law school. </p>
<p>For business school, it’s very clear that Ross is superior to Kenan-Flagler. Ross is a strong brand name in the banking and finance industry, or the business world, in general. It is known world-wide. It has a superior student body than UNC’s. (They don’t even share applicant pool.) In general, Ross’ peer schools are Stern, Yale-SOM, Fuqua, Darden and Johnson. They would fall under one group together and they’re not even considered tier 1. And then there is another group of business schools that is stronger than Kenan-Flagler’s league in terms of brand power. This group would comprise of Anderson, Tepper and McCombs. So, obviously, Kenan-Flagler isn’t a tier 1 business school. If US News says it is, then USNEWS sure has its own definition of tier 1, which is quite different from the people in the business, as well as, the academic world. </p>
<p>
Then that’s where UNC has got beaten up by Michigan, because Michigan strives harder to compete with the best. It has not been successful in doing so however, but it has the will and loads of guts to compete with the best of the best. </p>
<p>Berkeley is anything like UNC, which is a public school. But it already has beaten some ivies in the general prestige race. Whether that’s partly due to its stronger grad education is beside the point. The point is - it has achieved such status already and beaten a few ivies which other State Us like UNC think is inconceivable to achieve. Berkeley’s business school, which ranked #6 this year has already beat out 4 ivies (Dartmouth-Tuck, Columbia, Yale and Cornell) according the USNews. And, there are only 3 ivies that are better than Berkeley for law, one of which, Columbia Law, isn’t even clearly a better law school than Boalt. </p>
<p>And, boy(!) needless to say that Berkeley has beaten all the ivies (including the Big-3: Harvard, Yale and Princeton) in engineering. </p>
<p>So you see, being a State U is not a hindrance to becoming an academic powerhouse. It may be is a quite difficult goal to set, but it is not at all impossible to achieve. </p>
<p>
For undergrad, I would admit UNC is quite competitive. But other than that, Michigan would beat UNC to the ground. (Pardon my words if they sound too deriding.) </p>
<p>UNC is better grouped with W&M, Rice, Notre Dame and the like, as a whole. Michigan with UVa, but does sometimes overlaps with Berkeley. Berkeley falls in the group of Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Northwestern, JHU and the like, for the most part. But it also has compelling reasons to compete (and win) against HYPSM.</p>
True, but it’s worth noting that you admit that it’s only at the professional level. </p>
<p>At the undergraduate level, it shares an applicant pool with the very best schools (if it does) primarily because it is a good school with (formerly rolling) early admissions that admits 1 of every 2 applicants. For most qualified Ivy applicants, Michigan is a safe match.</p>
<p>
Berkeley has yet to “beat” any of the Ivies in prestige, either individually or collectively. While it is certainly stronger as a whole than most (perhaps any) of them, as you yourself noted, there is something of a disconnect between prestige and academics.</p>
<p>There was a survey about that before, and Michigan did better than some ivies. UNC wasn’t mentioned favorably, however. Sadly, I don’t have the link to it now, but it’s there if you care to believe my words for it.</p>
I most certainly do not care to take your word for it, particularly since you are wrong. I’m well aware of the survey you’re describing, and in fact I was hoping you would bring it up.</p>
<p>24% Harvard
11% Stanford & Yale
6% MIT
4% Berkeley & Notre Dame & Princeton
3% Duke & Michigan & UCLA
2% Ohio State & Penn & Penn State & UNC & TAMU & UT
1% **Brown & Columbia & Cornell & Georgetown & UVA<a href=“&%2014%20others”>/b</a></p>
<p>So what, though? More Americans likely know Michigan because a) it’s the name of a state that everyone knows – our cars used to come from there, b) they watch football, and c) only those people who care to inform themselves really know about the Ivies. </p>
<p>RML, we’re really tired of your lack of understanding as to how Americans view colleges. The prestige differences that get obsessed over ad nauseum on CC (and in Asia, apparently) just aren’t all that relevant to the majority of Americans, or even employers, on a daily basis.</p>
<p>Prestige is not something chartable or calculable. As defined by Merrian Webster:</p>
<p>Prestige:
1 : standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion
2 : commanding position in people’s minds</p>
<p>In the eyes of people (the general public mind you), UMich and UNC are equal. No one cares about the specific program rankings or whatnot. Just because Michigan Business School is ranked higher than Yale Business School doesn’t mean Michigan has more prestige than Yale. The general public would think Yale has a better business school anyway, it’s just how it works.</p>
<p>So overall, they’re both excellent top 5 public universities. UMich = UNC in terms of prestige (even though I stated earlier that prestige isn’t calculable O.o )</p>
<p>As much as it smacks of elitism, which as a country we Americans tend to distrust (almost as much as Australians do), in other parts of the world rank orderings and historic positions of influence are extremely important.</p>
<p>Go into any large city in Asia. The exterior signs of wealth or importance are worn like neon signs: what kind of shoes? what kind of bag? what kind of watch? and if the clothing is informal, what isnignia is on the shirt? If a women, does she have a very expensive hair style to maintain? A person sees a stranger and sizes them up very quickly in terms of these exterior signs of wealth or importance. What did Bill Clinton’s Dad do? Do we care in America? NO!</p>
<p>Those things are not as important in the US, where a son of a baker or laborer can rise to prominence in business or politics, and one is less impeded than in some countries by a common-person lineage.</p>
<p>So, basically, it is what it is. We don’t have to like the elitist trappings, but in other parts of the world they are calling cards.</p>
<p>RML,
Sorry to burst your bubble (and that of other Asian/non-US readers), but for Americans thinking about undergraduate education, UC Berkeley and U Michigan are well down the list in terms of their general prestige. As hunt notes above, they both fall in the category of “good schools, but not especially prestigious.” In addition, the severe economic and budget troubles that surround their states/universities add to the American public’s unease about what the future holds for these and other public institutions. </p>
<p>Broadly speaking, I think that informed Americans expect most of the publics to experience larger class sizes, higher student/faculty ratios, less academic advising, less financial aid, higher tuition rates for IS and especially OOS and internationals, maybe fewer or less frequent course offerings, more miscellaneous fees, etc. Add all of this up and if you think that that results in a superior undergraduate learning environment, then go for it. </p>
<p>For individual economic reasons in today’s challenging financial climate, many Americans may be more inclined to select publics over privates. But this effect is going to be strongest by far for home-state students, not for the publics with high OOS tuition rates. If you aren’t already aware, the two most expensive publics for OOS students are UC Berkeley and U Michigan. </p>
<p>I think it would be unfair to say that these problems are solely the province of the publics as many privates have also been hard hit by endowment losses and liquidity squeezes and many have or will soon have to make adjustments and cuts. But financial and other resources at the top of the private school pyramid (roughly privates in the USNWR Top 20-25 for both nat’l unis and LACs) are pretty impressive and undergraduates are still likely to receive a considerably higher touch environment that what’s on offer at even the premier publics.</p>
<p>“Go into any large city in Asia. The exterior signs of wealth or importance are worn like neon signs: what kind of shoes? what kind of bag? what kind of watch? and if the clothing is informal, what isnignia is on the shirt? If a women, does she have a very expensive hair style to maintain? A person sees a stranger and sizes them up very quickly in terms of these exterior signs of wealth or importance. What did Bill Clinton’s Dad do? Do we care in America? NO!”</p>