Which one should I choose? UMich or WUSTL

College Search & Selection
161

<p>“I know that the U Michigan fanatics love to believe in their school, but the reality is that, for the vast majority of students at a place like Wash U, U Michigan is a back up college. You can quote all of your PA scores and foreign newspaper rankings and what not, but that’s the reality. Sorry.”</p>

<p>Not really Hawkette. Although it is admittedly “easier” to get into Michigan than it is to get into WUSTL, I have not seen any cross-admit data that would suggest that students admitted to both would decline Michigan is much greater than numbers than they would decline WUSTL. A “back up” would suggest that given the choice, the majority of students would pick “the other” school.</p>

162

<p>alex,

</p>

<p>Unless you’re privy to stuff that I’m not for the broad universe of entering students, you could make similar statements about almost any college pairing. We don’t have the specific college choice data to know which students were accepted to which colleges and which they chose. So we have to use other factors and our brains. </p>

<p>I’ve got plenty of anecdotal examples, but I try not to rely on them as everyone has a story about a relative or a friend. Lol. My position would be more data-based as the Wash U student body has a much stronger statistical profile. </p>

<p>Consider the following. The differences are pretty vast. </p>

<p>SAT CR 25-75
680-760 Wash U
580-690 U Michigan</p>

<p>% Scoring 700+ on CR
64% Wash U
22% U Michigan</p>

<p>SAT Math 25-75
700-780 Wash U
640-740 U Michigan</p>

<p>% Scoring 700+ on Math
77% Wash U
46% U Michigan</p>

<p>ACT 25-75
31-34 Wash U
27-31 U Michigan</p>

<p>% Scoring 30+ on ACT
85% Wash U
44% U Michigan</p>

<p>Top 10% students
96% Wash U
92% U Michigan</p>

<p>Like I said and as the numbers attest, for the vast majority of Wash U students, U Michigan would be a back up college.</p>

163

<p>hawkette, everyone on this furom knows that WUStL has higher average SATs than UMich. It even has higher SATs than Stanford. But what about your claim that WUStL is academically superior to UMich for undergrad economics and politics? I think the OP is more interested to know that more than your never-ending love and admiration for SATs and think of it as an absolute academic quality.</p>

164

<p>^^ you forgot another key word beside economics and politics…and that is UNDERGRAD.</p>

165

<p>RML,
Is there a credible way to measure academics? The research reputation of ABC College does not have much do with the student experience for the average undergraduate. So, what factors should we be looking at?</p>

<p>I’m suspect that we’ll disagree on this, but I think it is much more informative and objective to compare the environments that each student will encounter. IMO, Wash U provides the stronger learning environment for their undergrads.</p>

<p>I should also add that I think a lot about the 150+ hours each week that a student spends outside of the classroom. For that aspect, places like U Michigan could have a decided advantage as they can offer a very broad and multi-dimensional undergraduate experience (academics, social, athletic, etc.). IMO, that is one of the strongest arguments that places like U Michigan and the other top publics can make vs many of their private school competitors.</p>

166

<p>Hawkette, the numbers mean very little. We are talking about whether cross admits would consider Michigan the inferior choice and flock to WUSTL in significantly greater numbers. Just because one school is more selective than another does not mean it will appeal more to cross-admits. Caltech and Stanford have a slight SAT difference too (100 points out of 1600), but students admitted to Caltech and Stanford generally chose Stanford.</p>

167

<p>I have heard from my friends currently studying at UMich that its Economics department at the undergraduate level is one of the most poorly managed departments at the school i.e. not a lot of faculty interaction with students, large classes, students have problems registering for classes, research opportunities are hard to come by, class quality is watered down since the smartest business-oriented kids are at Ross, etc.</p>

<p>Wash U has a much stronger student body, offers better access to research opportunities, more beautiful campus, better undergraduate teaching and a higher quality of life than the University of Michigan.</p>

168

<p>alex,
No surprise I’m sure, but we disagree. But I’m sure you realize the flimsiness of your argument,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Would you make the same argument if the choice was between Wake Forest and UNC Greensboro? </p>

<p>There is fairly high correlation between selectivity and perceptions of educational quality and their impact on student choices. In addition, U Michigan’s 26% OOS yield doesn’t do much to dispel this. </p>

<p>The numbers give us a pretty darn good idea of the quality of student that is going to Wash U. I doubt that there are many (any?) there who would not have been admitted to U Michigan. </p>

<p>As for U Michigan, only its top quartile is statistically competitive with Wash U. I would concur that, for Michigan residents and the large cost differential, the choice would be more difficult. I don’t know how many of U Michigan’s top 25% are Michigan residents. Do you?</p>

169

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>Unfortunately, UMich does not have nearly the same name appeal as Northwestern or Notre Dame, let alone the academic juggernaut that is Stanford. Caltech’s admissions policy is a numbers-based meritocracy and therefore, the students it accepts do not necessarily possess the interpersonal and leadership skills that Stanford values as highly as academic prowess. If Stanford wanted to, it could assemble a class of all near perfect scorers on the SAT but it chooses not to because it wants each class of students to represent a diverse array of talents, interests and backgrounds.</p>

<p>Michigan cannot emulate Stanford’s admissions policy because high schoolers don’t see UMich as anything more than a backup to every top 20 private school if they are out of state. Therefore, UMich accepts primarily based on numbers alone like Caltech, but loses a TREMENDOUS amount of its superstar admits to better ranked private universities and thus ends up with an enrolled student body with an overall statistical profile that is much lower than the top 20 private schools.</p>

<p>I would argue that being surrounded by smarter kids is more important than being taught by more accomplished faculty. At the undergraduate level, the OP will be learning basic intro concepts that can be adequately taught by both a graduate student or a Nobel Laureate. It doesn’t make one iota of a difference. However, if all of your classmates are high academic achievers in the classroom and are constantly pursuing opportunities like research and independent study, then you will want to do all those same things in order to maintain the same footing in the university.</p>

170

<p>I did this ranking using Hawkette’s data a while ago. It adjusts SAT score for UG student population. The rationale being a larger school will have an SAT average closer to the national mean as it gets larger. This ranking shows which universities are overperforming and underperforming enrolling top students for their size compared to their peers.</p>

<p>Actual SAT Avg, UG Student Pop., Predicted SAT Avg., Difference (Actual - Predicted), School
1485, 6678, 1364, + 121, Harvard
1490, 5277, 1373, + 117, Yale
1515, 921, 1398, + 117, Caltech
1485, 4981, 1375, +110, Princeton
1460, 6985, 1363, +97, WUSTL
1445, 8476, 1354, +91, Northwestern
1465, 5065, 1374, +91, U Chicago
1470, 4153, 1379, +91, MIT
1455, 5667, 1370, +85, Columbia
1340, 25151, 1256, +84, UC Berkeley
1425, 9756, 1346, +79, Penn
1400, 13846, 1322, +78, Cornell
1325, 25994, 1251, +74, Michigan
1440, 6496, 1366, +74, Duke
1290, 31417, 1219, +71, Illinois
1270, 34654, 1199, +71, Florida
1435, 6532, 1365, +70, Stanford
1345, 21269, 1278, +67, NYU
1370, 16608, 1306, +64, USC
1230, 40212, 1167, +63, Ohio State
1430, 6095, 1368, +62, Brown
1440, 4147, 1379, +61, Dartmouth
1280, 30750, 1222, +58, Wisconsin
1410, 8363, 1355, +55, Notre Dame
1430, 4774, 1376, +54, Johns Hopkins
1415, 6837, 1364, +51, Vanderbilt
1230, 37389, 1183, +47, Texas
1420, 5044, 1374, +46, Tufts
1290, 26536, 1247, +43, UCLA
1425, 3154, 1385, +40, Rice
1400, 7092, 1362, +38, Georgetown
1245, 32557, 1212, +33, Minnesota
1405, 5214, 1373, +32, Emory
1210, 37988, 1180, +30, Penn State
1275, 26431, 1248, +27, Maryland
1395, 5998, 1369, +26, Carnegie Mellon
1330, 15208, 1314, +16, Virginia
1235, 30912, 1222, +13, BYU
1190, 38430, 1177, +13, Texas A&M
1335, 12973, 1327, +8, Georgia Tech
1300, 17895, 1298, +2, North Carolina
1340, 9060, 1350, -10, Boston College
1370, 3196, 1385, -15, Brandeis
1215, 29397, 1230, -15, Washington
1255, 22518, 1271, -16, UCSD
1345, 5850, 1369, -24, William & Mary
1270, 18534, 1295, -25, Boston U
1225, 25467, 1254, -29, Georgia
1335, 6749, 1364, -29, Tulane
1335, 5394, 1372, -37, Rensaleer
1200, 28031, 1239, -39, Rutgers
1150, 36337, 1190, -40, Michigan State
1260, 17427, 1301, -41, Pittsburgh
1325, 5355, 1372, -47, U Rochester
1285, 10422, 1342,-57, U Miami
1320, 4476, 1377, -57, Wake Forest
1205, 23567, 1265, -60, Virginia Tech
1315, 4876, 1375, -60, Lehigh
1280, 10590, 1341, -61, George Washington
1150, 31761, 1217, -67, Purdue
1150, 31626, 1217, -67, Indiana
1310, 4356, 1378, -68, Case Western
1205, 20823, 1281, -76, Iowa
1195, 22122, 1273, -78, UC Irvine
1175, 24209, 1261, -86, UC Davis
1230, 14713, 1317, -87, Clemson
1200, 18892, 1292, -92, UC Santa Barbara
1210, 16384, 1307, -97, Delaware
1280, 3252, 1385, -105, Worcester
1200, 16765, 1305, -105, U Conn
1245, 6240, 1367, -122, Southern Methodist
1225, 7994, 1357, -132, Fordham
1170, 13651, 1323, -153, Syracuse
1230, 3404, 1384, -154, Pepperdine
1155, 15135, 1315, -160, UC Santa Cruz
1210, 3044, 1386, -176, Yeshiva </p>

<p>WUStL does very well enrolling top SAT scorers.</p>

171

<p>WUSTL does indeed have high performers, that is obvious. But as much as I usually agree with hawkette (or maybe hawkette didn’t do this and UCB did the calculations based on size. It isn’t clear from the post), the rationale that larger universities would be closer to the national average and therefore you can adjust for size is just not right. These are not random events, but very controlled. Besides, size of the school for this kind of analysis is meaningless. A given student can only interact with so many other students, and most universities are of sufficient size that the critical mass where it is impossible to “know everybody” is easily exceeded. It would be more relevant, and simpler, to just take the average SAT scores at a school, not adjusted for size, and compare them to the national average or to another school in which a student might be interested. Even more telling would then be to see how tight the bell curve is for that school; in other words what percentage of the student body falls within 1 and 2 standard deviations of that mean. Then you would really have a good indication as to your chances of consistently interacting with high level students, assuming you accept that SAT scores serve as a proxy for intellectual prowess. If you don’t, then the whole thing is meaningless anyway.</p>

172

<p>

That is actually not slight, it is highly statistically significant.</p>

173

<p>fallenchemist, </p>

<p>Of course it’s not random…I was comparing the colleges to the mean for Top 75 USNWR universities (i.e. within their cohort).</p>

<p>I don’t think the ranking is meaningless. It shows which colleges do a better job attracting top student talent to their campuses…either by academic reputation, financial incentives, or a combination of two. Several anomalies can be explained:

  1. Stanford is low because it uses more holistic admission criteria.
  2. “Lower” UCs underperform because top UCs and other privates within the state cannabalize the best students.
  3. Strong public universities (particularly states with one flagship campus) do well - cheaper option for in-state students.</p>

<p>

Why isn’t the rationale correct? As you increase undergrad student population, SAT average would have to approach national averages the bigger the school gets…</p>

174

<p>fallen
Don’t worry about it—you’re on the right track. I posted the data, but ucb restructured it for his presentation. The conclusions that he presents above are his. </p>

<p>Re Alex’s hopeful characterization of the 100-point SAT difference as “slight,” you have to understand where he is coming from. In comparison to the top privates that he would love to associate with, it’s obvious that his school is not particularly selective so he seeks to diminish such differences. Take schools approximately 50-100 SAT points lower than his (think Boston U, U Pittsburgh, BYU, Clemson, U Georgia, etc.) and I doubt he’d rush to accept the differences as slight and that the student bodies are on par with U Michigan.</p>

175

<p>Sparkeye7,
My post is in response to people who claimed that nobody in China have heard of Michigan. If this were the case, how could they explain the fact that Chinese students make up the largest international population on campus? And my apologies for lumping the Taiwanese students in the statistics.</p>

<p>hawkette,
It is not exploitation since the different tuition rates are clearly listed and the students know that coming in. It merely reflects the differences in cost supporting upper level courses. Some universities charge different rates for different majors, same logic. So let me restate again:</p>

<p>WUSTL will cost $27,000 more in 4 years than Michigan.</p>

<p>

So you think the OP may still have a chance for financial aid after he has been admitted? That is real generous.</p>

176

<p>^^ GoBlue,
**
For the second or third time, the OP has noted that because he is international, the cost between UMichigan and WashU will be very slight, with WashU costing $1000 more. **</p>

<p>Thus, the financial issue becomes moot.</p>

<p>Also for the matter on international students in China hearing about UMichigan, that’s wonderful. There are a lot of international students from China at WashU also, along with students from 90 other different nations. So the conclusion is that both WashU and UMichigan are known by international students, and high-caliber students at that I’m sure. Of course, the level of renown, we can’t quantify **nor does the OP care. **</p>

<p>The OP may or may not have an opportunity for FA once he matriculates. To determine this, he may perhaps contact the FA department. I do know WashU is a very generous school when it comes to FinAid.</p>

<p>Lastly, the OP has ALREADY CHOSEN A SCHOOL. Come on guys, do we still have to debate about this if it’s of no help to Soundwave?</p>

177

<p>GoBlue81, no sweat! I can be politically over-sensitive sometimes!! :p</p>

<p>Am I the only person who can read chinese / kanji here?? Go to baidu (chinese version of google), type in 美国牛校 (chinese slang for Top U.S. Colleges) and search. You will find that WUSTL is not often mentioned if at all, regardless whether is at undergrad or graduate level, whereas HYPSM, Cal/UCLA/USC, Big Ten and Chicago…,etc. are almost always on the list. Truth be known, WUSTL - the Harvard of the Midwest IS an excellent institution of higher learning that I’ve visited a few years back; however, over-shadowed if not often confused with the more popular UDub - Seattle outside of the United States of America. Come to think of it, the scenario of UM vs. WUSTL does resemble a bit of Case vs. TOSU imho. :p</p>

178

<p>goblue,
The higher by $2500 rate for Juniors/Seniors may be disclosed on the website, but I know it’s not in major information sources like USNWR or collegeboard or the many college guidebooks that you see in the bookstores. </p>

<p>IMO presenting only the Freshmen/Sophomore discounted cost in major information outlets is deceptive marketing and understates the true cost differential with other colleges that one may be looking at.</p>

179

<p>zenith,
The total cost difference (tuition/fees+room/board) between Michigan and WUSTL is $27,000 for 4 years. Convince me with numbers. Perhaps you can show me with real data how the difference is merely $1,000 per year?</p>

<p>

I have no doubt that WUSTL is known among aspiring international high school students; they read USNWR too. But the fact remains that WUSTL does not have the same presence internationally, especially in China. Perhaps you can cite some examples of WUSTL’s joint programs with academia in China? The real difference is name recognition in the business world in a country like China. Michigan is particularly strong because of its strong industry and alumni networks.</p>

<p>I know it might not matter to the OP but it might be important to other international students reading this thread.</p>

180

<p>

I think most of them got bored about 8 pages back. They’d rather read the glossy brochures - decreased risk of getting accidentally smacked in the frenetic waving of Michigan pom poms that way.</p>