Why does UMich seem like a safety for everyone here?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>
[quote]
Take a look at the matriculants at Harvard Law. I note that there are more students at Harvard Law than came from Williams or Amherst than came from Michigan. Now, I agree that there is some geographic skewing here... The same can be seen in the classcard information at Harvard Business School.

[/quote]

It's not quite fair to use Williams and Amherst as examples. These are the top two LACs with admission stats rival those of HYP. And geographic skewing is a real factor.</p>

<p>To really prove your point, you should look at the LACs in the lower half of the top 10 or even the top 20. And picks schools that are not on the east coast. For example, how many students at Harvard Law or Business came from Carleton, Pomona, Claremont McKenna and Grinnell. Or we can turn it around, how many grads from Bowdoin, Haverford, Wesleyan, Smith and Colgate got into Stanford Law and Business. And compare them with Michigan.</p>

<p>I don't have the answer and I'm too lazy to look it up. May be you are still right ... but at least we are comparing at the same level.</p>

62

<p>Well, maybe if you exclude Pomona- it is considered the fourth best LAC, or in the top four, after all. Also, Claremont McKenna is considered to be pretty close to those top few, as is Haverford, but it might work as an example. Swarthmore also comes to mind (as one to exclude), maybe also Wellesley.</p>

63

<p>I often must remind Sakky that comparing Michigan to Amherst or Williams (or most elite East coast LACs) where graduate school placement is concerned isn't possible. </p>

<p>1) There is a definite East coast bias and historic tie-ins between Amherst/Williams and Harvard/Yale. The bias goes both ways. Most Amherst/Williams students wish to remain in the East coast for their graduate studies. Michigan has no ties to Harvard or Yale and its students tend to prefer staying in the midwest. Lest we forget, 60% of Michigan undergrads hail from Michigan and another 10% from other midwestern states. Only a third of Michigan undergrads come from the East Coast, South or West Coast.</p>

<p>2) Almost 100% of Amherst and Williams students major in a traditional subject like History or English or Math. Those students usually have no choice but to pursue further studies, generally Law or Business. At Michigan, 40% of the students major in Engineering, Business, Nursing, Education, Architecture, Kinesiology and Music. Those majors often tend to be terminal and if students in those majors end up going to graduate school, they often tend to be in a field related to their undergraduate studies. I'd say only 50% of Michigan students wish follow a path that will rationally lead to graduate professional school. Schools like Cal, Caltech, Cornell, Michigan and MIT will naturally send fewer students to top Law, Business or Medical schools than schools like Amherst, Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Harvard, Swarthmore, Williams and Yale. That's not because they aren't as good but rather, because their students have no desire to pursue such careers.</p>

<p>3) Amherst and Williams do not have their own graduate schools. Michigan has top 10 graduate schools in Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine. Actually, some would argue that Michigan is among the top 5 in Business, Engineering and Law. Each year, 250 Michigan students enroll into one of those 4 graduate professional programs. I am pretty sure even Sakky would admit that Michigan's graduate professional programs are on par with the very best. So whereas to Amherst or Williams students typically must leave their own college to attend graduate school, top Michigan students have the option of staying on for another 2-4 years of graduate school without having to move, or without sacrificing their quality of life or education.</p>

<p>4) Even then, Michigan does suprisingly well against small elite East Coast LACs when it comes to placement into top graduate professional programs. According to a 2004 WSJ survey, powerhouses such as Bowdoin, Middlebury and Wesleyan send barely a higher ratio of their students to top 5 graduate professional programs than Michigan. Michigan's ratio also practically equalled those at Chicago, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Penn.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
I'd say only 50% of Michigan students wish follow a path that will rationally lead to graduate professional school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The numbers of students with graduate degree aspirations is more like 70%, although it's been awhile since we've directly surveyed students about this. Maybe not all of them follow a path that "rationally lead to grad and/or professional school, but a lot of them plan to go.</p>

65

<p>Hoedown, that may be true if you ask students. But many of those are BBA and Engineering undergrads who will be earning 6 figures by the time they are in their late 20s and they will simply not want to go to gradsuate school. And many others may indeed wish to complete graduate studies, but in fields such as Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, Engineering and Music. I repeat, in the end, only 50% or so of Michigan students will find themselves in a position worth going to graduate professional programs.</p>

66

<p>How can you cite engineering as one such field? At a top program like Mich's, don't many engineers go into 1) business and later get their MBA or 2) get there masters of engineering, a great degree for your average engineer to have in the field? What about PhDs for engineers that want to teach or do research, or both?</p>

67

<p>Drab, I wasn't very clear. I was refering to the WSJ report that only included top graduate Business, Law and Medical programs, leaving out Engineering graduate programs. Yes, many Engineers go on to get Business degrees and some even go on to Law or Medical school, but the majority of Engineers never go back to graduate school because their degree is practical, highly employable and leads to relatively affluent careers. Furthermore, Engineers that do go to graduate school, usually go for a MS or PhD in Engineering. As such, schools with large Engineering programs, like Cal, Caltech, Cornell, MIT and Michigan will not send as high a ratio of their students to graduate Business, Law and Medical programs...at least not nearly as much as students who major in the humanities or social sciences.</p>

68

<p>Well, I'm sure you've read about why the WSJ is questionable, including which schools were selected and their location, amongst othre things. But thanks for clarifying.</p>

69

<p>That was the point I was trying to make. If the WSJ included a few more top graduate programs (in the Midwest, West Coast and South) and also inlcuded top Engineering graduate programs, we would get a much better and more accurate picture.</p>

70

<p>becuase it's close to Ivy-ish standards.</p>

<p>great academics
great athletics
great environment
great engineering
honors college
ROLLING ADmissions
PUBLIC</p>

<p>oh, and did i mention, FREAKING cheap if you live in mich. (like me)</p>

<p>it's a lot easier then the Ivies but the education is almost just as good.</p>

71

<p>Let's all be honest. People who attend Ivy League schools are simply much better people than everyone else. They deserve more happiness and success, as well.</p>

72

<p>^ lol good post.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Michigan is among the top 5 in Business, Engineering and Law

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Negative in all three</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Almost 100% of Amherst and Williams students major in a traditional subject like History or English or Math. Those students usually have no choice but to pursue further studies, generally Law or Business. At Michigan, 40% of the students major in Engineering, Business, Nursing, Education, Architecture, Kinesiology and Music. Those majors often tend to be terminal and if students in those majors end up going to graduate school, they often tend to be in a field related to their undergraduate studies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with you when it comes to law and medicine.</p>

<p>But when it comes to business, I have no choice but to conclude that the bias is in favor of business. Just look at engineering alone. Like I said before, something like 25%-30% of students at the top MBA schools did their undergrad in engineering (and at the MBA program at MITSloan, it's more like 40%). Compare that to the fact that, nationwide, only 5% of all bachelor's degrees conferred out are engineering degrees, and you will see that MBA programs are heavily weighted in favor of engineers, and would hence be weighted in favor of those schools with large and strong engineering programs, which Michigan is obviously one. Naturally, this bias stands against schools that don't even offer engineering, like many of the top LAC's, notably Williams and Amherst, or have very small engineering programs, such as Swarthmore. </p>

<p>In fact, looking at the HBS classcard information again, I look at all of the students who did undergrad at Michigan, and roughly speaking, about half of them were engineers at Michigan. </p>

<p>I would surmise that if Williams and Amherst were to actually offer engineering, or Swarthmore were to actually expand its engineering program, then they would be getting more students into top MBA programs, including HBS, and certainly into MITSloan. </p>

<p>One could also say the same thing about UG business. I see that quite a few of the Michigan undergrads who are at HBS were Ross undergrads. Most LAC's don't even offer UG business. </p>

<p>Let's face it. Statistically speaking, a guy who gets a degree in engineering or in UG business is more likely to later get an MBA than a guy who gets a traditional liberal arts degree. That fact is born out by the fact that the top MBA programs admit highly disproportionate numbers of people who have undergrad engineering or business degrees. </p>

<p>After all, look at it this way. You say that people who get liberal arts degrees have little choice but to get a graduate degree. This is true of law or medicine, but not really for business. After all, just because you want a top MBA doesn't mean that you can get one. You almost always have to get good work experience to get into a top B-school. Honestly, who is more likely to get good work experience, a typical guy with an engineering degree or UG business degree, or a typical guy with a liberal arts degree? I think the odds are clearly in favor of the former. Again, this is why engineers (from all schools) are so unusually successful in getting into B-schools, relative to the liberal arts grads. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Amherst and Williams do not have their own graduate schools. Michigan has top 10 graduate schools in Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine. Actually, some would argue that Michigan is among the top 5 in Business, Engineering and Law. Each year, 250 Michigan students enroll into one of those 4 graduate professional programs. I am pretty sure even Sakky would admit that Michigan's graduate professional programs are on par with the very best. So whereas to Amherst or Williams students typically must leave their own college to attend graduate school, top Michigan students have the option of staying on for another 2-4 years of graduate school without having to move, or without sacrificing their quality of life or education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obviously Michigan's graduate schools are very good, but at the level of Harvard? I think you would agree that even with the cheaper in-state tuition, HBS probably wins the cross-admit battle with Ross. HLS probably wins the cross-admit battle with Michigan Law. Obviously it doesn't win ALL of the cross-admits, but it probably wins the majority. To be blunt, a lot of students who are getting MBA's at Ross were simply not good enough to get into HBS. A lot of students at Michigan Law were simply not good enough to get into HLS. Put another way, there are more Michigan MBA or law students who would rather be going to Harvard but didn't get in than there are Harvard law or biz students who would rather be going to Michigan but didn't get in. </p>

<p>The point is, I agree that there is still some bias in favor of the LAC's here (because, as you said, the LAC's don't even have graduate programs at all), but when you're talking about Harvard grad school, the bias is not as strong as you would think. We're not talking about some no-name graduate school here, in which case I would agree that most Michigan undergrads (and everybody else) would strongly prefer to go to Michigan instead for graduate school. We're talking about Harvard here. Frankly speaking, HBS is better than Ross, HLS is better than Michigan Law, such that even old Michigan undergrads tend to prefer Harvard. </p>

<p>Your other points, I have already agreed are true and are biases against Michigan. But I think you have to agree that Michigan also has sheer numbers on its sizes. Yes, the tiny LAC's are geographically tied into Harvard, and don't have graduate programs of their own. Yes, the liberal arts education is highly conducive to producing future lawyers or doctors (but not really future MBA's, as I have said). </p>

<p>Even if all of these other biases are true, it's hard for me to see how they can supercede the sheer numbers that Michigan has on its side. Come on, 25000 undergrads vs. 2000.</p>

<p>However, again, let me be clear. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that Michigan is bad. In fact, I think Michigan is quite good. But so are the top private schools, including the top LAC's. Michigan's problem is the same as any large public university's, which is that there basically is a long tail end of undergrads who just aren't very good and aren't going to do much of anything. The best Michigan students are obviously top notch, but the bad ones really drag down the averages. If Michigan is anything like Berkeley (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), then that means there is a large and conspicuous subset of students who simply aren't interested in studying or developing themselves and are not particularly mature or responsible. Sadly, many of the students at Michigan (and Berkeley and other public universities) don't want to work hard and are more interested in hanging around and goofing off than actually learning anything. Sad but true.</p>

75

<p>Sakky, you speak as if such people do not exist at the top private schools at all.</p>

76

<p>Sure, they exist everywhere. But the point is, there are a whole lot less of them at the private schools, as a percentage of the population.</p>

<p>For example, the vast majority of lung cancer cases out there are caused by smoking. True, some cases have nothing to do with smoking (i.e. caused by household radon or other factors). Nevertheless, the fact is, if you want to reduce the number of lung cancer cases out there from a public health standpoint, the most effective way to do that is to discourage smoking. If you want to reduce the incidence of problems, you have to attack the places where the problems are the most prevalent.</p>

77

<p>sakky said (sorry, can't do the cool boxes):</p>

<p>"After all, look at it this way. You say that people who get liberal arts degrees have little choice but to get a graduate degree. This is true of law or medicine, but not really for business. After all, just because you want a top MBA doesn't mean that you can get one. You almost always have to get good work experience to get into a top B-school. Honestly, who is more likely to get good work experience, a typical guy with an engineering degree or UG business degree, or a typical guy with a liberal arts degree? I think the odds are clearly in favor of the former. Again, this is why engineers (from all schools) are so unusually successful in getting into B-schools, relative to the liberal arts grads." </p>

<p>sakky: I think you are confusing output with input. While more MBA students may originate from undergrad b schools or engineering schools, how do you know we just don't have self-selection -- perhaps engineers just hate their field after five years and want to do something different? What is missing is the number and % of liberal arts applicants to top MBA programs -- perhaps they love thier fields, whateve they may be, and just don't apply to B-school as much relative to engineers. Of course, undergrad B-school majors are obviously self-selecting.</p>

78

<p>[ quote ] This is how you do the cool boxes. [ /quote ]</p>

<p>Now eliminate the spaces (between "[" and "q," "e" and "[" and "/," and "e" and "]").</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
sakky: I think you are confusing output with input. While more MBA students may originate from undergrad b schools or engineering schools, how do you know we just don't have self-selection -- perhaps engineers just hate their field after five years and want to do something different? What is missing is the number and % of liberal arts applicants to top MBA programs -- perhaps they love thier fields, whateve they may be, and just don't apply to B-school as much relative to engineers. Of course, undergrad B-school majors are obviously self-selecting

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, I don't see that as relevant. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter WHY lots of engineers get their MBA's. It may be because they hit a career ceiling. It may be because they find out that they hate engineering. But it doesn't matter why. All that matters is that, for whatever reason, lots of engineers end up in B-school. So then when you look at the alma maters of the top B-schools, there is obviously a bias for those undergrad schools that happen to have large and prominent engineering programs, and a bias against those undergrad programs that don't even have engineering.</p>

<p>Look at it this way. It has been asserted by others here (and I agree) that liberal arts grads tend to go to law school or med school because a liberal arts degree really isn't that marketable. Hence, lots of libarts grads head off to law school in order to make themselves more marketable. Hence, I agree that a school that happens to graduate a lot of libarts grads will tend to have a disproportionate number of people in the top law schools. Hence, I agree that the LAC's have something of a bias towards them when you are looking at Harvard Law. But not HBS. </p>

<p>The point is, if you agree that a bias exists for the LAC's with respect to law school, then you must also agree that a bias exists for the large engineering shcools with respect to business school. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter why certain things are biased in certain ways. For example, it doesn't matter why engineers often times end up in B-school, just like it doesn't matter why political science students often times in law school. The fact that it happens is the only thing that matters here.</p>

80

<p>sorry, sakky, your logic on this one excludes you.</p>

<p>If 90+% of applicants to MBA schools are engineers, they will be well represented, no?</p>

<p>And, no, I don't agree that a bias exists for LACs with respect to law school for the exact same reason.</p>