<p>I remember when USNWR first started ranking, Michigan was like #10 in the entire country. Now it's ranked below Wake Forest and USC. Meanwhile most of it's graduate, undergrad, and professional programs are in the top 10. Am I missing something here? I think it has more name recognition than USC, Wake Forest, Tufts, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, and Washington University.</p>
<p>Flagships have a mission to educate their residents. Therefore they are more likely going to accept students that the elite privates would reject.</p>
<p>Flagships schools are also usually much larger than privates, so they have to put a number of “average students” in their seats. Flagships also often include majors that often don’t necessarily correlate with high stats.</p>
<p>Name recognition has little to do with rankings.</p>
<p>If USNWR had continued to measure by Peer Assessment score alone, Michigan in recent years would have ranked about the same as Duke and Brown. Instead, the magazine added other measurements to the PA scores. These include measures for selectivity, average class sizes, faculty resources, financial resources, graduation rates, etc.</p>
<p>[Methodology:</a> Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2]Methodology:”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2)</p>
<p>For better or worse, these additional measurements have tended to lower the rankings of respected public universities, including Michigan, relative to the highest-ranking private schools. Compared to the Ivies (Chicago, Duke, WUSTL, Northwestern, etc.), Michigan has higher admit rates, lower average test scores, bigger classes, and lower 4-year graduation rates.</p>
<p>These measurements (and the formula to put them together) are controversial. Some people think USNWR applies the wrong criteria or assigns arbitrary weights. Others think the very idea of ranking colleges (or at least the idea of assigning precise integer ranks) is fundamentally wrong-headed. Still others think the approach is on the right track, but is corrupted by problems in the data-collection.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A major driver of graduate department rankings is research productivity (sometimes measured by the volume of articles published per faculty, or the number of times they are cited). Ten or so private universities do roughly as well as Michigan by such measures, but they and a few other schools also do better in the factors USNWR has added.</p>
<p>Michigan’s ranking still is not “low” at 29, considering how many universities are out there.</p>
<p>It should also be noted that public universities report data differently from private universities. For example, Michigan includes graduate students in its student to faculty ratio while most schools ranked ahead of it do not. Private universities also have special freshman programs, such as seminars, that greatly increase the number of classes with 2-9 students. Those classes are definitely interesting, but they do not enhance the quality of undergraduate education. Those “initiatives” truly boost the faculty rankings at private universities but not in any real or meaningful ways. I also have yet to figure out how financial resources rankings are determined, but I think financial aid contributions put public universities at a major disadvantage as they are already heavily subsidized. Don’t get me started on alumni donation rates. When you add all of those factors, it makes a significant difference in the the final outcome.</p>
<p>Like the posters above have said, the USNWR is not a ranking of academic quality or reputation, it is a ranking of a specific methodology. If you agree with the methodology, then the ranking is valid, albeit not perfect since it is statistical, and unless the data is properly audited for accuracy and consistency, the outcome will not be accurate.</p>
<p>Mom2collegekids, Michigan is in a different position than most other state flagship universities. Michigan State is also a large state university, so Michigan has always had the opportunity to take the students with better GPAs and test scores, and those who did not get in could still go to a large state university (MSU). Out of my Michigan high school class (30 years ago), 11 of the top 12 students went to Michigan. My nephew applied and did not get in (so went to MSU); my best friend from Michigan’s kids have all applied to both – 1 got into Michigan and went, 1 did not so went to MSU, and 1 is applying this year (and will be crushed if he does not get to be a Wolverine). While there are a few exceptions (sometimes for money, sometimes for specific majors like hospitality or ag related), generally Michigan has been able to take the top students and not have to educate all comers.</p>
<p>What Alexandre said. Public universities are at a disadvantage based on USNWR’s criteria. Not that rankings matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think small classes with a high level of engagement (discussions, writing assignments, essay-based exams) do enhance the quality of undergraduate education, as long as students arrive well-prepared and highly motivated to participate. On the flip side, some students may prefer to listen to professors lecture rather than hear other students talk.</p>
<p>Presumably the “financial resources per student” category refers to endowment per student. I think it’s fair to say that this number can have a very real impact on the quality of educational resources (faculty, facilities, aid). For example, the set of top 50 schools by EPS is very similar to the set of 50 or so need-blind, full-need schools.
[Thoughts</a> on Education Policy: Top 50 Endowments Per Pupil](<a href=“http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2012/01/top-50-endowments-per-pupil.html]Thoughts”>Thoughts on Education Policy: Top 50 Endowments Per Pupil)
[url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission]Need-blind”>Need-blind admission - Wikipedia]Need-blind</a> admission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href=“Note%20that%20the%20University%20of%20Michigan%20is%20one%20of%20the%20few%20state%20schools%20on%20the%20latter%20list.”>/url</a></p>
<p>Of course, other factors besides endowment (such as state aid, research funding, and local operating costs) also affect annual budgets. UofM has one of the highest levels of research expenditures in the country. This should be a good thing for students and faculty alike, but it may not be captured by the USNWR “financial resources” category.</p>
<p>I’m more interested in Michigan’s rank relative to its elite public peers. Michigan being ranked lower than Berkeley isn’t really a surprise. But why are UCLA and UVa ranked higher than Michigan?</p>
<p>Michigan academic rankings</p>
<h1>10 medicine #7 pharmacy #12 social work #8 engineering #10 law #12 education #13 business</h1>
<p>Notre Dame Academic rankings</p>
<h1>24 business #22 law #15 philosophy</h1>
<p>Advantage Michigan</p>
<p>ND13 michigan 6. Go Irish!</p>
<p>Michigan is ranked number one in Social Work.</p>
<p>Michigan is in a different position than most other state flagship universities. Michigan State is also a large state university, so Michigan has always had the opportunity to take the students with better GPAs and test scores, and those who did not get in could still go to a large state university (MSU)</p>
<p>UMich isn’t in a “different position” than other states’ flagships. Many states have a flagship plus another big univ (often the ag/state/a&m school). UT/TAMU, IU/Purdue, Cal/UCLA, UNC/NCSU, PSU/UPitt, UAz/ASU, USC/Clemson, UGa,GT, Iowa/Iowa St, UFlorida/FSU, and so forth…</p>
<p>UMich gets about 40,000 apps…it admits about 16,000 and puts about 15,000 on the waitlist, so not many are actually rejected. It has to fill about 6200 seats in its frosh class…that’s typically a LOT more than other top privates. </p>
<p>46% of the frosh class has an ACT between 18 - 29. You won’t see that at a top private. That is a strong indication that as a public, it does feel that its mission is to educate “the masses”. (80% of its frosh submit ACT scores).</p>
<p>Very Important</p>
<p>Academic GPA
Rigor of secondary school record</p>
<p>Important</p>
<p>Application Essay
Character/Personal Qualities
First generation college student
Recommendations
Standardized Test Scores</p>
<p>Like many state schools, GPA is considered more heavily than test scores. That is done so that their schools aren’t mostly filled with upper-middle class/privileged students. Giving more weight to GPA allows them to accept the student with a 3.8 GPA and a 24 ACT from a school in a disadvantaged area. </p>
<p>Private schools can use any criteria they want for admittance. Publics tend to have to set up something objective otherwise they can be taken to court…so they give more weight to GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure about what public universities tend to do, but the UC system, in particular, has ‘holistic admissions.’ They can (and do) deny applicants for ‘not being holistic enough’ even if those applicants have great GPAs and high SAT scores. Holistic admissions are greatly a benefit to public universities because it gives them a ton of flexibility. UCLA, for example, has 39% pell grant recipients; Berkeley has 38% Virginia on the other hand only has 13%</p>
<p>Many universities have been sued for ‘discrimination’ based on their admissions policies, including private universities. Harvard and Princeton are currently being investigated by the US Department of Education for alleged discrimination among Asians; And currently UTexas is being taken to the supreme court to see if its admission policies, which are used to promote ‘diversity,’ constitute discrimination. </p>
<p>I think UCLA and Berkeley are well defended against lawsuits however. If anyone tried to sue them, they could defend themselves based on competitiveness. They’d also probably be able to defend holistic admissions as in the interest or the larger public good. (which it’s in their interest to promote as public universities.)</p>
<p>You’re overestimating the UCs’ holistic admissions policies. The reason they have a lot of Pell students is because they use GPA primarily, not primarily holistic methods. </p>
<p>If the UCs truly used holistic methods, they wouldn’t have such high ORM numbers. </p>
<p>URMs make up nearly half of California’s graduating seniors, yet the UCs only have about 24% URMs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Columbia has nearly 30% PGRs; USC has nearly 25%. Those are high numbers for any elite school. (“elite” being defined as in top 25 [that’s US NEWS’ definition, not mine.]) By itself, that doesn’t show an overevaluation of GPA over SAT scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, i don’t know what ‘truly holistic’ means. But holistic admissions means that they take the whole applicant into consideration when deciding whether to admit them or not. So they don’t just look at GPA/SAT scores or whether the applicant is an ORM, but other factors. Was the applicant born in a poor neighborhood with lack of access to educational resources? Were they battling cancer or some other disease while trying to complete their studies within high school? Are their bad grades the result of a drug addiction they strugled with and have since overcome? Things like that are considered within holistic admissions. ORMs may less frequently fall into the first category, but i’ve met several that have fallen into the second and third.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That could be blamed on a number of things, including Proposition 209.</p>
<p>Either way, the UCs mission isn’t to educate URMs, it’s to provide some of California’s most scholastic students access to high quality, low cost education. It enrolls high amounts of URMs in an effort to promote ‘diversity.’ I’m in agreement with them that there’s much more diversity out there than merely racial diversity. And, imo, they do a good job of seeking a balance between the both of them.</p>
<p>“UMich gets about 40,000 apps…it admits about 16,000 and puts about 15,000 on the waitlist, so not many are actually rejected.”</p>
<p>mom2collegekids, Michigan rejects most, if not all, waitlisted students. That is not unusual. Harvard habitually places over 1,000 students on the waitlist and rejects most of them. </p>
<p>“46% of the frosh class has an ACT between 18 - 29. You won’t see that at a top private. That is a strong indication that as a public, it does feel that its mission is to educate “the masses”. (80% of its frosh submit ACT scores).”</p>
<p>That’s a very misleading statement. Only 5% of Michigan students scored less than a 24 in the ACT. The majority of Michigan students who score less than 30 on the ACT are concentrated in the 26-29 range. Michigan’s mid’s 50% ACT range is 28-32. At Brown and Cornell, it is 29-33.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Uh, that was my point. The UCs don’t use a true holistic method. That’s why the White & Asian enrollment numbers do not reflect the Calif population. The UCs use mostly an objective admissions formula …with a little bit of some subjective influence. If the UCs were to stray off the objective admissions formula, then residents would be filing anti-AA lawsuits against them because qualified students were being rejected to make room for other students admitted using methods that were too “holistic” (subjective). </p>
<p>By heavily using GPA to determine admittance, it guarantees that at least the top few % at all high schools (even the crummiest ones) will get admitted to at least a low-tier UC. </p>
<p>If the UCs weighted GPA and test scores the same (or gave more weight to test scores), the 3.9 UC GPA student with the ACT 21 wouldn’t get admitted to a UC unless he was an athlete. </p>
<p>For example, 52% of students at (low tier) UC-R have an ACT 23 or below. It also has a high URM enrollment…45%. While at (mid-tier) UC-I, there are only 26% URMs…even though UC-I is not that far away from UC-R. </p>
<p>Holistic methods can’t really be quantified, have a lot of wiggle room, so they don’t work well for publics. Privates can do whatever they want because they don’t have to explain their policies to any court. If they end up with 90% OOS students, that’s totally ok.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re confusing holistic admissions with affirmative action. They’re not the same thing. Proposition 209 was a blow against affirmative action; URM enrollment went down as a result of it (at least at top schools like UCLA and Berkeley) while Asian enrollment increased. AA is ‘discriminatory.’ ‘Holistic admissions’ is not discriminatory. Holistic admissions doesn’t try to systematically promote URMs at the expense of ORMs. The whole point of holistic admissions is that it’s supposed to be personalized based on the whole applicant. They’re easy to confuse with each other. However their distinction provides a small, but nevertheless important, political point for the universities that engage in these practices. For example, it would be illegal for UCLA to engage in affirmative action (due to prop 209) however it’s not illegal for them to use holistic admissions.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean that this argument goes unchallenged. </p>
<p>[UCLA</a> accused of illegal admitting practices - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/30/local/me-ucla30]UCLA”>UCLA accused of illegal admitting practices)</p>
<p>Now, maybe holistic admissions doesn’t do as good of a job as AA (which is what i assume you’re trying to argue) but that was never it’s intended purpose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, those lawsuits are rare. The vast majority of the people who apply to publics aren’t people who exactly have the spare income to get a lawyer to sue the university. Of those that do, if they were denied from the public, they were probably admitted to a better private, and hence don’t care. But even when these lawsuits do take place, the university can easily argue that it simply felt that student x wasn’t as good of a fit for the university as some student Y. This can be defended through something that isn’t quantifiable like a personal essay. Now, whether they’ll continue to be able to do that in the future is something that’s going to be debated by SCOTUS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, that is a meaningless factoid. (UC’s own statistics show that most California URM’s who graduate high school in California are not eligible for UC.)</p>
<p>All of the top public universities have dropped in the ranking over the last 15 years because of changes in methodology and reductions in state funding. </p>
<p>Also, US News gives points for the percentage of alums that contribute each year financially. Privates typically have higher giving rates than publics. If you want your public university to go up in the ratings, make at least a token donation each year and encourage your fellow alums to do the same thing.</p>