<p>^But where are you getting that information? Just because you say so doesn’t mean it’s true. Is it just your personal feeling? (Not the Yale part, the other part)</p>
<p>It comes from personally talking to dozens of friends/professionals working in the industry and listening to the thoughts of many informed posters on this site and Wall Street Oasis. All of them seem to agree on a certain pecking order based on their personal experiences in the recruiting process.</p>
<p>Let’s take a closer look shall we?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bus.umich.edu/pdf/EmploymentProfile2009.pdf[/url]”>http://www.bus.umich.edu/pdf/EmploymentProfile2009.pdf</a>
UBS only hired 1 full time? Deutsche only hired 3? Where is Goldman Sachs? Where is Barcap? Where is BoA Merrill? Where is RBC? Where is RBS? JPM, Citi and MS to an extent seem to do a decent bit of recruiting at the school but way too many banks are no shows for Ross to be a “top 5 banking feeder” or whatever Alex calls it. Now, I’m sure there are some seniors who work at some of the other banks who didn’t report their internship/job placements to the Career Center but the numbers can’t be significant.</p>
<p>Look, Michigan is a top school and Ross is definitely one of the 5 best undergraduate business schools. I guarantee you that places like Columbia and Dartmouth pick up 10 hires from basically every major bulge bracket bank though which Michigan doesn’t do.</p>
<p>“I guarantee you that places like Columbia and Dartmouth pick up 10 hires from basically every major bulge bracket bank though which Michigan doesn’t do.”</p>
<p>Not in 2009. Like Ross, which is recruited as highly as Columbia and Dartmouth, and most other highly recruited programs would have struggled to place many of their undergrads into BB IBanks in 2009. Typically (between 2004 and 2008), Ross places between 6 and 14 into most of the top 10 BB IBanks, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citi, Deutschebank, Credit Suisse, UBS etc… In 2009, there was a sharp drop in IBanking recruitment activity on most campuses.</p>
<p>Harvard, Princeton and Wharton are the only three schools that were not that greatly affected by the financial meltdown. Even Wharton felt the pinch last year. For example, in 2008, Goldman Sachs hired 36 Wharton students, compared to 14 in 2009. JP Morgan hired 15 Wharton students in 2008 and 11 in 2009. UBS hired 15 Wharton students in 2008 and 6 in 2009. Overall, the 10 most active BB IBanks recruited 120 Wharton students in 2009 compated to 170 in 2008. But that’s Wharton, which is arguably the #1 campus/program for IBanks.</p>
<p>What about all of the other disciplines and majors Michigan excells at? The whole world isn’t just I-Banking and business. Michigan has no weaknesses academically in it’s huge array of offerings. Most of the schools listed above them in USNWR cannot say the same thing.</p>
<p>Yes, Michigan has no weakness. That’s why its USNWR rank is 27, PA score of 4.4, and its counselor rank is 4.4.</p>
<p>And it’s World University Rank is #18 in the US. #22 worldwide. Not shabby. At least that ranking is based on some facts and outputs and not just measuring some random inputs.</p>
<p>^^^I might add Wisconsin is ranked properly there too.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi isn’t a good representation of Michigan students. Certainly there are others like him, with poor logic and etiquette, at such a large school. But do not take what he says to represent the Michigan student body. </p>
<p>While I think Michigan and Cal are under-ranked, I’m not surprised Michigan has been going down in the rankings. With over a 50% admit rate and the increasing competitiveness of private colleges, it’s an entirely different ball game and Michigan hasn’t been competing. Nonetheless, I think US News should adjust it’s measures for scale (while a school with 7,000 undergrads IS more desirable than one with 27,000, it is not 4 times so), as well as consider whether things like alumni giving assess the same qualities in public universities as they do in private ones. </p>
<p>However, I don’t think we can pretend that size is the only thing holding Michigan back. USC, for example, has risen dramatically through the rankings with an enrollment of 17,000 undergrads and significantly weaker grad programs and peer assessment than Michigan or Cal. Michigan admits far too many students, offers far too little aid to out of state applicants, is too large to offer the same degree of advising and personal attention, and as a result ends up with a student body of a significantly lower caliber (on the whole) than many of the other schools in the top 20. Michigan is a fantastic schools but it has some major flaws that it needs to attend to if it wants to continue to be considered an elite undergraduate institution. Michigan can’t ride on past success for another decade. </p>
<p>I think Michigan is easily a top 25 school and Cal easily a top 20. I don’t think either of them unequivocally deserve to be ranked 10 spots higher because one can make a strong and, by the measures of USNWR, conclusive case for many other schools to be ranked ahead of them. A better criticism of the rankings would address the fact that, by nature, we think anything ranked ‘29’ is subpar even though there are thousands of schools in the country.</p>
<p>Maybe the limited OOS aid is why they have to admit so many?? Yet the actual stats for enrolled students continues to improve. Who cares what the % admits is s olong as they are getting better students? Really it’s among the dumber things ever said here. US News looks way too much at inputs and zero on outputs.</p>
<p>UM faculty have won 240 major national awards over the last 5 years. Higher ranked UVa a paltry 93. Even Wisconsin crushes UVa with 202 awards. USC had a paltry 85.</p>
<p>The large state schools need to go over to US News together and kick some ass. Their ranking sytem is what is declining.</p>
<p>“rjkofnovi isn’t a good representation of Michigan students. Certainly there are others like him, with poor logic and etiquette, at such a large school. But do not take what he says to represent the Michigan student body.” </p>
<p>Thanks for your ringing endorsement Tyler09. Please enlighten me what I have said that incorrect about Michigan? I was talking about “academics.” I wasn’t discussing the quality of the student body or advising.</p>
<p>“I think Michigan is easily a top 25 school and Cal easily a top 20.”</p>
<p>I happen to agree with you Tyler. Some on these boards don’t.</p>
<p>Alexandre-are you separating the undergrads from the MBAs when presenting your numbers?</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>As a whole package, those schools carry as much academic prowess as anywhere else. I think of UVA, Berkeley, and Michigan as the elite of the public schools. They can honestly coincide with the top privates. But it is true that as a public school, all of these schools are required to admit in-state students that might be on the lower end - of top students I mean. It is their duty to the state that helps finance them - I see no problem in that. I would bet that the upper echelon of students at UM/UCB/UVA as well as almost every good public school in the country can compete intellectually with any top school. Heck, so many people go to top public schools for financial reasons, distance issues, etc., etc… Not to mention the academic programs at those top public schools (usually in grad. programs, but there is a trickle-down effect for sure) are some of the best. Most of the time people on CC place so much delusional weight on the power of an UG degree. The truly intelligent people will find success; if you go to a good public school and perform tremendously, you CAN get into the top law schools, business schools, medical schools, yada, yada, yada! I despise the people on this thread who think that a certain degree will automatically carry you through life. WRONG. It is the person whose name is on that degree that will matter in the end. The most talented people will find success.</p>
<p>But please respect me when I say that the “entire school” is not like this. As a public that would be nigh impossible. Academic prowess does not necessarily correlate to the power of the student body as a whole. I like to think of public schools as a bell curve shifted to the higher end. But heck, what top school isn’t?</p>
<p>“Alexandre-are you separating the undergrads from the MBAs when presenting your numbers?”</p>
<p>Yes I am. I was presenting purely undergraduate placement figures for Ross. I did not include figures of undergraduate placement from LSA or the CoE and I did not include MBA figures either.</p>
<p>Being an incoming freshman i also think the UM is a great school and was dissed, however i do agree with the fact that it is accepting a very high number of students, they even had to turn some of the northwood apartments into dorms this year. but lets look at some of the reason why they are accepting so many students, there are only a few really good schools in michigan, in my opinion two, UM and MS. and last time i checked we are still in a recession, this means more students are going to college, especiallly in my area of detroit, so they wont find themselves in the same position many of their parents are in now, under or unemployed, but dont have the funds to pay double for out of state tuition. also u of m is offering up alot of scholarship money this year, almost everyone in my high school class who got int UM, about 25 of us, got $40,000 michigan tradition scholarships. and these are only some of the reasons why they are accepthing so many people and like Entertainer said its not like their admissions standards have dropped. i am not saying that UM admitting so many students is a good or bad thing, just that before we make judgements we should consider the reasons why.</p>
<p>^Fair enough. </p>
<p>However, it’s delusional to think that UM is able to accomplish that mission of helping Michigan students (a mission which private schools do not have) without sacrificing anything in terms of quality. It sacrifices a lot for undergraduate students not “helped”.</p>
<p>
I did not read any of the posts in this thread and I am sure this has been touched on.</p>
<p>However, why is the theme after these rankings “even Wake FOREST is ranked higher than ____.”?</p>
<p>Granted, I am a very proud alum of Wake Forest, so I am more sensitive to this than others, but it is very pretentious and even obnoxious to make remarks like that. My classmates and I worked very hard to get into Wake Forest and are proud to have attended the school. I would never make the same comment about Michigan or whatever, because I recognize it is also a very good school.</p>
<p>This is why I also think that the schools should be ranked in tiers. And yes, I would probably have from like Vanderbilt to Tufts all on the same tier. Frankly, I don’t think there is much of a difference among the top 30 schools or so save Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Cal Tech overall. The difference arise, when you are examining certain programs (SAIS, SFS, Wharton, etc. etc.) or the reputations of schools in different regions.</p>
<p>ww,
Nice comment and exactly what I’d expect from a Wake grad. Fair, balanced, respectful and without a sense of entitlement. That’s how I’ve always seen Wake and its students. Clear contrast to the undermine/malign comments one reads far too often, not to mention an even sharper contrast to the fierce (and sometimes blindly fierce) promotions of some colleges. </p>
<p>My longtime wish and goal on this forum has been to spread the idea that places like Wake Forest deserve greater credit and respect as undergraduate destinations. We are blessed to have so many great colleges around the USA. If USNWR can finally begin to communicate this reality, I’m hopeful that readers of CC are also realizing this.</p>
<p>The annual publication of the USNWR rankings has been a fun part of my time on CC and I have always looked forward to and enjoyed the spirited discussions that precede and follow its publication. This year I didn’t participate as, in the last ten days I have taken a new job and moved. As a result of this, I’m taking a break from CC. Hopefully I’ll have the time to check back in occasionally, but I won’t be here nearly as often. </p>
<p>Godspeed to all of you and thanks for the interactions. It’s been a lot of fun….bye.</p>
<p>^I think that’s the function of US News. You can argue that its “wrong and fails to account for ____.”
But it exists and is widely used. (However, I guess I agree public institutions are at a disadvantage…so I prefer excluding them and use a different ranking criteria for them)</p>
<p>Tier 1 (100-98)
Harvard, Yale, Princeton</p>
<p>Tier 2 (93-90)
Columbia, Stanford, UPenn, Caltech, MIT, Duke, Dartmouth, and UChicago</p>
<p>Tier 3 (85-89)
Northwestern, WUSTL, Cornell, JHU, Brown</p>
<p>If you want to be more realistic, then put tiers in (90-100) and (80- 89)
You’ll have a bigger group that way.</p>
<p>Good point The saiyans666, except I think you had a typo. You accidentally put Duke in Tier 2 instead of Tier 1.</p>