I agree. However, Michigan has fully disclosed its tuition rate structure. It is up to media like USNWR and CollegeBoard to present the full picture. Btw, USNWR does report for schools like Texas that “…these rates vary by college.” For Michigan, it reports that “tuition varies by each school and college”, which unfortunately is wrong. It should have just presented the fresh/soph tuition and the jr/sr tuition.</p>
<p>CollegeBoard is the sloppy one as it presents only one tuition rate for Michigan. It could have presented a tuition range with a footnote. I found the CollegeBoard data rather sloppy and at times inaccuracy. It is not my favorite source of information.</p>
Surely you cannot mean that. The answer is so obvious I hate to even say it, but here goes since you need it. Because even a large school can be highly selective and take only very high SAT scoring students. If what you say is true, then why is Michigan’s (or Berkeley’s or UVA’s) SAT average more above the national average than many schools with 1000-2000 students? It is so obviously a false premise that it hardly bears debunking.</p>
<p>fallen, I think we’re talking past each other here.</p>
<p>Consider a hypothetical school that enrolls more and more students, its average SAT scores will approach the national mean. There are only so many top SAT scorers in the nation to boost the average above the mean. Unless, the school offers something to attract a higher proportion of high scoring students.<br>
<em>However, my listing is only looking at a cohort of the Top 75 National universities - hardly the full 4,000 or so college campuses across the country</em> </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because the large school offers something tangible (through quality of product and value) that attract a large share of top students. It’s harder to boost average SAT scores for a campus of 50,000 versus a campus of 500 above the national average.</p>
<p>hawkette, did you consider that Michigan treats Standardized Tests differently from WUStL? In case you did not know, Michigan does not treat SATs exactly the way WU@StL does.</p>
<p>SELECTION OF STUDENTS</p>
<p>Secondary School Record
UMich - very important
WU@StL - very important</p>
<p>Academic GPA<br>
UMich - important
WU@StL - very important</p>
<p>Standardized Tests
UMich - important
WU@StL - very important</p>
<p>Basing on the admissions system of both schools alone, it’s expected that WU@StL would have higher SATs for their students as that’s what they demand from their applicants. However, Michigan does not weigh SATs as much as WU@StL does. Therefore, to use SATs as the basis of student quality for both schools is flawed.</p>
<p>Basing on the admissions system of both schools alone, it’s expected that Stanford would have higher SATs for their students as that’s what they demand from their applicants. However, Caltech does not weigh SATs as much as Stanford does. Therefore, when Caltech’s SAT score range is higher than Stanford’s… it shows that your source is NOT RELIABLE. =)</p>
<p>We all know that Caltech, like MIT, is unique. Its applicants are self-selective. People with poor SATs don’t apply to Caltech, do they? So, we have a complete pool of applicants with almost-perfect-to-perfect SATs scores for Caltech. As a result, Caltech looks for anything else other than standardized test scores to make its student body as diverse as possible. </p>
<p>With regards to WU@StL’s case, it voluntarily chose to employ an admissions system that weighs standardized tests scores very heavily, which to me, simply means that the school is a very SAT conscious school. If the school would change its admissions criteria to favor HS GPA more, I’m sure we would be seeing a different stats recorded for the school. In the same way that if Michigan only had chosen to weigh SATs more important than HS GPA, then I’m certain that we would have been seeing a totally different statistical data for UMich than what’s actually been recorded. </p>
<p>My point is, certain schools treat certain measures differently. So, my idea is to first establish the schools’ admissions criteria and the rationale behind such criteria. </p>
<p>For example, two very well-established companies were on a hiring spree. Company A (Goldman Sachs, for example) asked all their applicants to take the company’s entrance exam and then hired applicants based on the top performance of the given test. Company B (McKinsey) did not ask for an entrance exam and instead relied on the applicants’ undergraduate transcripts (summa cum laude) and an excellent interview.</p>
<p>“it voluntarily chose to employ an admissions system that weighs standardized tests scores very heavily, which to me, simply means that the school is a very SAT conscious school.”</p>
<p>Sure…cos it’s WUSTL. And when those ppl with 2400 get waitlisted or rejected, they accuse WUSTL of protecting its yield. I get your point, RML. There is nothing else to be argued here.</p>
<p>Well, I guess that would be a little unfair to WUStL then. I personally would not say such a thing. I think the school has reached to a point that it can afford to reject some students with perfect stats simply because almost every applicant of the school has sterling stats. I agree that WUStL is a little underrated on CC. But my point is, subject strength is not defined by the quality of the students alone, but rather by the quality of teaching, research, faculty, facilities, opportunities and other resources (and the abundance of these that are) DIRECTLY associated with the program. </p>
<p>So, for someone who is gutsy enough to make a conclusion that school A is significantly superior to school B on the basis of a generalized data and insufficient information, is just here to flame. For example, just because everyone at Caltech is a genius makes Caltech’s computer science program significantly superior to CMU’s computer science program.</p>
<p>Well, GoBlue, from the information Michigan sent me, the tuition is actually $41000, which is higher than the $39000 from WUSTL. But considering the fact that Michigan offered me a ten-month-study plan, and WUSTL only has 9 month, so we might estimate the cost difference is $1000, which WUSTL>UMich</p>
<p>I think WUSTL is a better investment in the long run unless you plan on going into Ross. Even though it plays the US News game very well and is overrated by them, it is still Michigan’s superior in both academics and reputation (in the States). This cannot be disputed. The weather is also a lot more bearable.</p>
<p>Honestly Recharge, you have to appreciate that without statistical support here, your opinions really don’t carry any weight. Though attending a campus day may give you the impression you know the university, perhaps wait until you’ve actually taken a class at Michigan before making such sweeping statements. </p>
<p>“I think WUSTL is a better investment in the long run unless you plan on going into Ross. Even though it plays the US News game very well and is overrated by them, it is still Michigan’s superior in both academics and reputation (in the States). This cannot be disputed.”</p>
<p>So as someone who actually is a student at Michigan, I’ll just offer a couple points on both sides of the issues even though I usually avoid these debates because everybody ends up not painting an accurate picture. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>People know Michigan over Wash U. If you go to Michigan, people will have more knowledge about the school and feel more comfortable with it, and thus it’s more likely to give you an advantage in hiring or with the “wow” factor or whatever. Helpful prestige inherent in your degree is something you give up when you go to a smaller private school like Wash U. </p></li>
<li><p>The students at Wash U are smarter than those at Michigan, and it’s pretty noticeable. If you’re the type of student who gets into Wash U, you’ll find probably half of the student body to be fairly mediocre. However, intelligence doesn’t really bear out in your day to day interactions with people because, as my experiences visiting schools and my friends who did choose to go to HYPS, most people won’t “act smart” on a daily basis. So while your peers probably won’t impress you in the classroom until you take upper-level courses, the general vibe of the students at Michigan tends to be appreciated more than at a lot of the smaller private schools. And at a larger school you’re more likely to find people you vibe with. Also, Wash U isn’t Harvard or Yale and from my experiences with it, isn’t a particularly intellectual campus so the whole student body things probably bears out even less. Additionally, the professors at Michigan are far superior to those at Wash U, so if you go to office hours consistently you can stand to gain a lot more from them. </p></li>
<li><p>The class size statistic is misleading for those studying non-econ social sciences and humanities for students of high caliber. If you actively utilize the honors program, enter with advance standing, and proactively contact professors (as many high caliber students will) you likely won’t see an appreciable difference in class sizes between any major research university. (What I mean is, whether a lecture is 100 people or 200 people, if you don’t get much out of a big lecture format you aren’t going to go). At all research universities, including Stanford and Yale, first year class sizes for intro classes are large, impersonal, and a mixed bag. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>From my experiences here, I’ve had as a freshman 3 giant lectures (two econ courses and a Great books course), one lecture with under 30 students on one of the top professors in his field, and 5 seminar-style courses with less than 20 students on a professor. Next year as a first semester sophomore (junior standing) all but one of my classes will be 25 students or less on a professor and my other one a 400-level lecture with under 75 people. </p>
<p>The only place where size bears out is in how willing the school is to spend on students. However, if you demonstrate that you know what you’re doing they’ll let you do most things you want. </p>
<p>Just a few things on this thread I thought I might be able to clear up. You may resume this debate about percentiles and PA scores :)</p>
<p>“Well, GoBlue, from the information Michigan sent me, the tuition is actually $41000, which is higher than the $39000 from WUSTL. But considering the fact that Michigan offered me a ten-month-study plan, and WUSTL only has 9 month, so we might estimate the cost difference is $1000, which WUSTL>UMich”</p>
<p>Soundwave, Michigan’s academic year is 8 months, not 10 months. It would appear that what you saw what the cost of attending the two main semester and one of the two spring/summer terms.</p>
You are not reading the information correctly. </p>
<p>Michigan’s normal academic year (2 semesters) is 8 months [Sep 4-Apr 30]. WUSTL’s normal academic year (2 semesters) is almost 9 months [Aug 26-May 20], but that is because it has a month-long winter break.</p>
<p>I presume Michigan’s 10-month plan includes two regular semesters plus a summer term. Thus you are comparing apples to oranges.</p>
<p>Michigan has already published its estimated 2010-2011 tuitions. For Fall/Winter 2010-2011 (Sep-Apr), your tuition/fees is about $34,937. I can’t find WUSTL’s 2010-2011 tuition rate.</p>
<p>WUSTL is $27,000 more expensive than Michigan over 4 years.</p>
I have a couple of questions about this. If the students at Wash U are smarter than those at Michigan by a “pretty noticeable” amount, then are you saying far more than half the student body at Michigan is fairly mediocre? What does someone do to “act smart” on a daily basis?</p>
<p>
Besides being a tortured and difficult to understand sentence, I would love to know how you have a clue that WUSTL is not a “paticularly intellectual campus”. What nonsense.
<ol>
<li>No, I’m saying that less than half of the student body at Wash U is also mediocre. And I think the question as to how someone “acts smart” is a bad one. </li>
</ol>
<p>My point was that from my experiences with students at elite universities, the extensive conversations I had with many students at elite universities as a prospective student deciding where to attend, from the words of my fairly large sample of friends who attend said universities, all from the perspective of someone admitted by the university in question, there isn’t as notable a difference in the perceived intelligence level of the student body in daily interactions as one might expect. </p>
<p>So the idea that the fact that the Wash U student body has higher SAT scores than almost any college in the country translates into this ultra intellectual student body where you can feel that these students are smarter than those at other elite schools with lower scores doesn’t really pan out in reality, based on above experiences. </p>
<ol>
<li>I’m sorry that my hasty construction of that sentence troubled you to the point that you had to comment on it; I’ll be more careful from now on…</li>
</ol>
<p>The blunt version is: I found Wash U’s campus, and other students confirmed my sentiment, to be slightly anti-intellectual. </p>
<ol>
<li>This is the one point where I don’t think you were simply questioning my opinions and anecdotes. The faculty at Michigan is indisputably stronger than the faculty at Wash U as evidenced by higher departmental scores, PA scores, USNews teaching scores (whatever those mean), history, reputation. I don’t get why even Wash U’s biggest fan wouldn’t cede that it doesn’t have as strong a faculty. Wash U isn’t trying to be a Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, or a Michigan.</li>
</ol>
<p>While I do not doubt that Michigan has better professors, the class size at some of the lectures is rather large. Especially for a field such as economics, the OP will probably find a more personal experience - which he seems to value - at WUSTL. </p>
<p>Generally speaking, the difference between these colleges is small enough that the OP would be equally wise in choosing either one. It just depends on his personal preference, or his “feel.” I don’t think it is necessary to argue the superiority of one over the other.</p>
<p>With that said, Soundwave should give this a little more thought if post #196 is accurate.</p>
<p>Sparkeye7, don’t worry - I’m sure more than one reader on this thread understands Chinese. Me, for one. You’re right; WashU is an excellent institution =)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To the poster who wrote this- have you visited UMichigan before? I’m a WashU student, and yes I agree WashU students are incredibly smart / brilliant (and my peers often make me feel like I’m not achieving enough) but I’m sure there are lots of smart students at Michigan as well.</p>
<p>Alexandre, or GoBlue, whoever asked the question about WashU’s international programs with China:</p>
<p>WashU has at least two longstanding, well-funded programs. The first is the McDonnell Scholars Program, which connects China as well as several other Asian countries with WashU. The second is a between Washington U. and Fudan University, Shanghai. </p>
<p>To Tyler09:</p>
<p>I’d also like to say that from my experience, the professors at WashU are not only great lecturers, but great mentors as well. Office hours will exist at any university, but WashU professors not only help their students with the course material, but mentor and advise their students on career plans and other life issues. Some professors even invite their students to their house for a BBQ or dinner. Of course, their accessibility is unique and special as they are leaders in their research fields as well. At least 22 Nobel Prize winners have done the majority of their work at Washington University in St. Louis. Douglas North, a recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics, actually teaches at the undergraduate level. Because WashU is one of the topmost institutions that receives research funding money, WashU students benefit greatly; 60% of the undergrads participate in independent research.</p>
<p>Tyler09, I don’t want to disagree with you that Michigan professors aren’t wonderful. But I do want to correct your point about professors at WashU, who are phenomenal both at teaching and at research. </p>
<p>Again, both WashU and UMichigan are excellent and laudatory institutions of learning. Both have many strengths.</p>