Which schools have bad undergrad but good grad programs?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Ivy Grad, you are, as always, incorrect...as is the PR. As a matter of fact, fewer than 4% of Michigan classes are taught by TAs/PhD students. The remaining 96%+ classes are taught by full time professors. And over 70% of Michigan classes have fewer than 30 students. That too is a fact. Nice try, quoting the always innacruate PR as if it were accurate. The book is a joke. It is good toilet material. Excrement! </p>

<p>Michigan's undergraduate education is as good as Brown's or Dartmouth. Different, yes, but just as good.</p>

42

<p>UCs undergrads are ranked high because so many top students go there, and USNWR bases a lot of its rankings based on SAT scores. Just because a lot of good students go tehre doesnt make it a good school, there are a lot of good students who go there because it is cheaper than better schools that they could go to.
Nobody doubts that there are a lof of smart kids who go to berkeley and UCLA and UCSD, BUT, nobody doubts that UC undergrad education is all about teaching assistants and large lectures, overcrowded classes, unguaranteed housing, and a totally impersonal feel because the universities are so large. Also, UCs are meant to be graduate universities! its in their master plan! If you asked a UC regent if berk or la or even santa cruz or any of those is a better graduate or undergraduate school, tehy would unabashadly say its a better graduate school. its where their strength comes from.</p>

43

<p>TheCity, relativity has nothing to do with quality. Is Cal better at graduate education than undergraduate education? Sure. Cal is one of the top 3 or 4 graduate schools in the World. But it is also a top 10 or 15 undergraduate institution in the nation. The two are not mutually exclusive you know. You may not know about it, but I do. I can tell you for a fact that Cal is one of the top 10 or 15 universities in the country. That fact is not really open for discussion, no more than 1+1=2. It has been proven and universally accepted by anybody who matters. Every person who could possibly affect the life of a recent graduate and who is in a position to judge the quality of undergraduate education will agree that Cal is phenomenal.</p>

44

<p>Alexandre, you have unwittingly confirmed exactly my point.</p>

<p>In your own words, Cal's Grad programs are better than its undergraduate program (at least on a relative basis) - i.e. Cal's grad program is arguably in the top 5 (if not higher) vs. its undergrad program which is top 15-20.</p>

<p>Both admirable rankings by any measure, but, clearly the graduate school is > undergrad (on a relative ranking basis).</p>

<p>By the same measure, U of M's grad programs > than its undergrad - with a higher level of deviation b/n the quality of its grad program vs. its undergrad (the level of deviation, however, is not the point). You would have to agree (though the actual ranges are a matter of semantics) that Mich's grad program (similar to Cal's) ranks higher (say, top 10) vs. its undergrad which is probably somewhere south of the top 25-30 (whatever the number it is certainly nowhere near the top 10 - given that you have listed the top 10 undergrad programs before and even you would admit that UM does not belong there).</p>

<p>Compare that to:
- Harvard
- Stanford
- Yale
- Columbia
- UPenn</p>

<p>Which generally enjoy much less deviation vs. the top public Uni's in the general debate of the quality of a respective school's grad progam vs. undergrad program. Any one of the above schools (regardless of whether one is discussing its grad or undergrad program) would generally be regarded as top 5-10 (with HYS arguably comfortably in the top 5 for either).</p>

<p>But let's not lose the forest for the trees. Because my point IS NOT about Ivies > than Public U's (though due to my handle people just ASSUME they already know what I am posting before they actually read my posts). What is the point? That although the elite large research oriented Public U's (Cal, Mich, etc.) deservedly have strong reputations as world leading GRAD schools, the undergrads are not as strong (which is not a knock on them - they are still extremely sound and one will receive a solid education at anyone of these programs) but the fact is simply that the undergrad programs largely "piggyback" off of the reputation of it's grad programs and this is reflected in the rankings of publications such as USNWR (where you will see schools such as U of Washington as high as it is - when in reality a case maybe made for some of its grad programs (say its Medical program) it lacks credibility to say that its undergrad programs should be ranked as high.</p>

<p>Alexandre, on a final note, I believe there have been instances where I have acknowledged a point you make (though we will certainly disagree on many more points than we agree) - so for you to state that I am "incorrect as always" offers very little room for debate does it not?</p>

<p>I mean this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. All we are doing is discussing and debating. Every time I make a point here or there (particularly when it refers to U of M, you seem to take it personally).</p>

<p>To quote Michael Corleone "it's not personal, strictly business". The business of discussing and debating.</p>

<p>As for references to feces, do you really need to go there? I mean no need to get nasty Mr. Moderator, I mean anyone has the capacity to type garbage, but frankly, it shows a lack of class at the end of the day.</p>

45

<p>I never said that graduate school rankings and undergraduate rankings are itdentical. I said that universities who are excellent at the graduate level are also excellent at the undergraduate level. </p>

<p>And Michigan is a top 10 -15 undergraduate institution. You say Michigan's undergraduate is somewhere around 28-30? Not really. It is somwhere between #8 and #18, depending on what you value. If you value academics and reputation, it is closer to #8. If you value small classes and talent of student body, it is closer to #18. But ranking Michigan as low as #30 is incorrect. And yes, I take it personally because you are misleading students. I could not care less what you think of Michigan. But when you come here and distort the truth and act like you know what you as saying, you are misleading impressionable students who are looking for guidance, not someone's opinion. Tell me, which authority has ranked Michigan out of the top 20 academically speaking? Show me an ACADEMIC ranking that has Michigan ranked out of the top 20. Hell, show me one that has Michigan ranked out of the top 10.</p>

46

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>It's ironic (if not completely hypocritical) that you would have the balls to charge me on the grounds of being "biased" or "misleading".</p>

<p>Anyone who comes to this site (or has spent any time on it) can do a quick search of your previous posts and will find that a high percentage (>50%) of your posts will have one of the following:</p>

<p>1) mention U of M
2) defend U of M
3) site or refer to a leading U of M statistic
4) praise U of M
5) U of M, U of M, etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>It's almost as if the world according to Alexandre is "the academic world revolves around Ann Arbor" while running around like a slightly mad scientist screaming like a chicken with its head cut off: "LOOK EVERYONE, IT'S PLAIN AND CLEAR: PEER ASSESSMENT!! PEER ASSESSMENT!! Why the hell doesn't anyone else see this obvious fact?? It must be maddening indeed.</p>

<p>Misleading? "Physician heal thyself" comes to mind.</p>

<p>The fact is U of M is an elite Public university (with excellent Grad programs).</p>

<p>But as for its undergraduate program, I'm sorry to tell you what 99.99% of the educated population already knows: U of M is not at the top 10 level, frankly its lucky to be considered a top 20 school. Period. Nothing you can say will change that perception or reality. Not 10 posts, not 1,000 posts. (and certainly not calling people names!) </p>

<p>How many HS Valedictorians graduate saying "my first choice is definitely Harvard, Stanford or... Michigan". How many hollywood films have the unlikely underdog highschool student who "gets the girl" AND somehow "gets into" .... MICHIGAN!! OMG wake the neighbors!?</p>

<p>Want some more harsh reality? Sure, I'll say it, why not, its a free country and as long as we are getting to the cold harsh truth, when people mention Michagan, they are more likely to think of "Wolverines" rather than Rhodes Scholar - deal with it.</p>

<p>More people will associate Michagan with Ohio State rather than Yale - deal with it.</p>

<p>More people will associate Michigan with the Heisman Trophy or Rose Bowl rather than a Nobel Laureate winner or CEO of a Fortune 500 co.- deal with it.</p>

<p>Why do you think whenever there is a biography of some sort you always read something like "Harvard educated" or "Yale educated" or "Stanford educated" ... but you never come across "Michigan educated" - doesn't have the same ring, gravitas or credibility does it?</p>

<p>Now, I'm not saying that one does not or cannot receive a top quality undergraduate education at UMich, but let's keep it REAL - stop playing like Michigan is fully interchangeable with the very elite universities. </p>

<p>Sorry that I have to be the one to show the Wolverine Emporer that you have no clothes on.</p>

47

<p>Nice try Ivygrad. 10 for effort...0 for content.</p>

48

<p>Sorry pal, the VERITAS hurts doesn't it?</p>

49

<p>Yes, the truth can hurt. But your words don't even scratch the surface. As always, I give you enough rope and you manage to hang yourself!</p>

50

<p>Alexandre and Ivy_Grad - I enjoy your literate and information-filled posts on these boards so often. But this isn't one of those times. You are both letting your egos rule over your common sense with these "point counter point" arguments over minutia. University of Michigan, Princeton, and Penn are wonderful schools with great attributes in so many areas. Be gracious and slow down (or stop) the personal attacks on each other. I acknowledge you both as helping so many students with your well-researched and extensive responses. Keep that out, and cut out this current bluster.</p>

51

<p>Oops - On the last line I meant "Keep that up" and not "out".</p>

52

<p>Don't worry Lonestardad, a little ego bruising won't hurt either one of us and will give students a look at some of the realities of the real world! hehe Ivygrad gets on my nerves sometimes, but I do not hold a grudge. And I respect Princeton and Penn a great deal. I do not recall ever disrespecting either one of those two academic leviathans.</p>

53

<p>Lonestardad,</p>

<p>You are absolutely right.</p>

<p>Alexandre is a very well-informed guy and I guess his jabs have tended to get under my skin.</p>

<p>I apologize for my last post (#46), in fact, in hindsight, I'd ask Alexandre or another moderator to kindly remove it.</p>

54

<p>I'd just like to give an anecdote.</p>

<p>JFK often referred to Harvard as "The Michigan of the East." That should tell you something. What does it tell you? I don't know, I just like the story. :p</p>

55

<p>I don't think anyone would say that ug at Cal is better than its grad program, but that's not what this thread is about. Its about schools with great grad and horrible undergrad. Honestly, people can have whatever opinion they want, but saying that Cal or UCLA has "horrible" undergrad programs just shows how clueless you are. People here have an all or nothing attitude where if a school isn't ranked number one or two in the word then its useless and horrible. Lets say USNews is right and Cal is ranked 20th or whatever. As people love to point outm those rankings are based solely on UG education. The 20th best Universtiy is horrible? C'mon! So by that measure everything that follows Cal in those rankings are horrible too, right? Please, do your best to check your ignorance before you log on.</p>

56

<p>What a ridiculous post...having served on graduate ad-coms for departments at Cornell and the University of Miami, I can tell you that applicants from Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford (list any highly ranked US News School here) are all considered equal (assuming similar grades and test scores). In fact, students at a place like Berkeley are often at an advantage to students from smaller privates (e.g. Brown, Dartmouth etc.) because of incredible array of reserach opportunities available to students at Berkeley. Furthermore, letters of recommendation play heavily in graduate school admissions, and I can tell you that reading a letter from a member of the National Academy of Sciences at Berkeley can be very persuasive. Bottome line, if you want to impress some pompous ass (or a hot girl) at a bar, going to Harvard may be better than going to Berkeley. If you're a serious scholar and are actually interested in going to grad school for reasons other than impressing people, than Berkeley (or UCLA or UT Austin or Washington...I could list another dozen public universities) are all at the same table with Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Cornell etc.. I think most high-schoolers here will learn rather quickly that it's how you distinguish yourself at your school (through research and becoming a dynamic, active member of your college community) that gets you into graduate school. Not whether you went to old money ivy U, or progressive public U.</p>

<p>cheers,
CUgrad</p>

57

<p>Could you repeat that on every forum in CC, once a day, until it sinks in?</p>

58

<p>I don't disagree on balance with what CUgrad wrote - to the extent that at the graduate admissions level - the individual applicant's accomplishments, grades, standardized test scores, recommendations, etc. play a much more important weighting vs. where that applicant went to undergrad, assuming we are talking about top 25 universities (e.g. Cal/Mich grad vs. Yale/Harvard grad).</p>

<p>At the same time, however, we need to ask ourselves why elite schools are elite (at both the undergrad and grad levels)? It is simply because they attract, retain and graduate the very best students, faculty and other resources on a consistent basis - year in, year out - over a long period of time. There are tangible benefits to graduating from an elite school - which is entirely different from saying that one does not (or can not) receive a high / top quality education from dozens of institutions across the US.</p>

<p>Put simply, when someone says they went to, say, Yale or Stanford for undergrad or that they chose Harvard Law or a Wharton MBA - they are less likely to get the question "why did you choose to go there?" At least to the extent that people would be curious as to "what the benefits" of attending such an institution are - in other words, the "elite" institutions don't need explanation. They are simply known to be the best. I'd go far as to say that your average Harvard / Yale grad doesn't do a lot of explaining throughout his/her life as to "why" they went there vs. say, a graduate of a "lesser" recognized school.</p>

<p>Why do people buy Mercedes, BMWs or Porsches?</p>

<p>Is it to simply make an arrogant "old money" statement? I guess the answer can simply be "Yes, it can be that superficial". That is one cynical way to look at an owner of such a car. </p>

<p>But there are at least as many (if not the majority) of the people who do their research look at the alternatives across a broad range of options and are in an elite catergory to the extent that they have the ABILITY TO CHOOSE whichever car they want to buy. And perhaps the choice to select a luxury / high quality car has to do with its engineering, design, durability, responsiveness, safety, etc. - just a thought.</p>

<p>Why is it easier to work at McDonald's vs. McKinsey? And why does the applicant with a Harvard degree have a distinct advantage vs. the Slippery Rock U grad? What are the distinguishing characteristics at play?</p>

<p>Life is competitive. It's that simple. Not everyone is going to be able to get an acceptance and graduate from Harvard. Not everyone is going to graduate from college and be able to land a high paying job at Goldman Sachs. Not everyone is going to be able to afford to drive a Porsche 911 Turbo. Not everyone is going to live in a high rent neighborhood. But then again, not everyone wants to. AND - and this is important - this is certainly not a "be all and end all" measure of success (although we do live in a very "money" culture in the US - just take a look around you and the messages that abound about "money = success"). </p>

<p>No success can be defined on SO MANY DIFFERENT levels. Whether its a person who chooses to teach for a living - a person who decides to work for a non-profit organization or raise a family. etc. etc. </p>

<p>That is, however, quite different from saying that all things are equal. They are most certainly not. What are the costs / benefits of "this vs. that?" - that is up to the individual to decide.</p>

59

<p>At least the guy at McDonald's produces a useful product--can't really say that of Mckinsey or Goldman.</p>

60

<p>I completely agree with you Ivy_Grad.</p>