<p>KB, I agree that it means something to high-strung high school students who are insecure and want to show off.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I second your statement and might add; I agree that it means something to high-strung high school PARENTS who are insecure and want to show off.</p>
<p>Because UVa is so much better than Michigan :)</p>
<p>Seriously, though, in the end it does not matter that much where you go to school. Assuming money as the metric of success, I would probably think the major you chose determines your success more than what school you go to. </p>
<p>One thing to think about, however, is that Michigan does not have that much grade inflation. Law and Medical school admissions are based more on stats than the name of the school. Meaning a 4.0 from Wayne State is much more valuable than a 3.5 from Michigan - even though the guy from Wayne State may not be smarter.</p>
<p>admit rate is important for everybody, Ivy League schools don't have 60% acceptance rates. u can't compare Umich to CHicago, Chicago's students are different. Michigan simply isn't selective, they should decrease class size and do more marketing.</p>
<p>That's where you are wrong NYao, most people in the real world don't even look at acceptance rates. As for Michigan not being selective, that isn't exactly true. Michigan is usually regarded as "Most Selective" and is one of the 25 most selective universities in the country according to most surveys/reports.</p>
<p>NYao: "Chicago's students are different"?... please. At least give me some specifics. UChicago has a very high acceptance rate as well. So how do you explain that? Perhaps it's the same reason that Michigan's acceptance rate is so high. The applicant pool is generally very qualified.</p>
<p>I honestly don't get why it matters. What, you want to go to a school just so you can brag to your friends about how hard it was to get into and how you beat the system?</p>
<p>UCLA's admit rate is much lower than Michigan's. That doesn't make UCLA a better institution.</p>
<p>Forget UCLA. At least UCLA is a great university in its own right. </p>
<p>There are dozens of mediocre universities (not even top 100) with sub 25% acceptance rates. For example, the LAC with the lowest acceptance rate isn't Williams (19%) or Amherst (21%) or Swarthmore (25%). It is Lane college, with an acceptance rate of 14%! In fact, Swarthmore doesn't even have one of the 10 lowest acceptance rate among LACs. But Talladega College (23%) in Alabama and Paine College (24%) in Georgia, along with Lane College all have top 10 status in terms of lowest admit rates among LACs. Well, you can be sure that none of those three LACs is rated among the top 50 in the nation. </p>
<p>Among research universities, College of the Ozarks (15%) beats out MIT, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown!!! </p>
<p>Altough better than mediocre, schools like Tufts, USC and Washington University all have lower admit rates than Chicago, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan and Northwestern, although the latter 5 are undeniably more prestigious than the former 3. </p>
<p>In short, admit rates are completely insignificant. I think many people confuse admit rates with student quality. Those are completely different. Student quality at Michigan is extremely high. The mean SAT score in one sitting at Michigan is 1330. If Michigan used the same method of calculating mean SAT scores as its private counterparts, the Michigan mean would be 1380 or so (withn 20-30 points of the mean SAT of much smaller schools like Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern etc...). 90% of Michigan students graduated in the top 10% of their class and the mean unweighed high school GPA of Michigan students is close to 3.8.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>You should know by now that facts don't stand in the face of the CC board's student's fears of being "smart." :p</p>
<p>alexandre: you should consider making this thread a sticky... lots of useful facts</p>
<p>ok, sit here and u guys can feel good about being the best. Who the heck would even ask me why they would even need details, Chicago attracts high caliber nerds. u got just got owned.</p>
<p>ya, Chicago is a better school for undergrad, i'm not arguing that. but the same principle is behind UM's high admit rate. And as for your last sentence, it's obvious you're not one of these "high caliber nerds".</p>
<p>
[quote]
u got just got owned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What, did you get picked on at school lately?</p>
<p>....I'm at a loss for words. Comments of that level of idiocy are reserved for MSU. You're at the wrong place NYao. Lansing is that way.</p>
<p>Lansing? Try Ypsilanti.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ok, sit here and u guys can feel good about being the best. Who the heck would even ask me why they would even need details, Chicago attracts high caliber nerds. u got just got owned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>'Cept that you didn't like...I dunno... give us facts to back up your assertions. Plus, you still haven't shown how admit rate is a terrible important factor. </p>
<p>No pwnage yet, my friend. But keep trying.</p>
<p>Actually UMRunner, Chicago is not a better overall undergraduate school than Michigan. In some ways it is better, but in other ways, it is weaker. Overall, I'd say Chicago, Michigan and Northwestern are the top 3 undergraduate universities in the midwest. They have similar peer assessment scores (4.6, 4.5 and 4.4 respectively) and similar professional and graduate school placement statistics. All three are equally prone to having huge Freshman classes, professors who are very involved in their research and plenty of GSI's leading discussion groups. With those three schools, I would say it really boils down to fit.</p>
<p>exactly what i'm talking about, NO !! alexander the great, Chicago IS a better undergraduate school than Michigan. Chicago's peers are top half of the Ivy League, MIT, caltech. Michigan's peers are the lower half of the ivy, the Prestigious Michigan State University, Michigan Tech University and the awesome Central Michigan University. Michigan attracts everybody, there shouldn't be any excuse for its high acceptance rate. It's simply not selective. Chicago attracts a distinct type of student. I don't need facts to prove this, its common sense. Nobody in their right mind would choose Michigan over Chicago OOS. </p>
<p>And Yes, alexandre, people in the real world knows whats a better school. It clearly is Chicago, I don't know why i have to even explain this, its common sense.</p>
<p>NYao has no idea what he's talking about. Oh, I won't prove it - *it's common sense! *</p>