<p>
[quote]
I don't need facts to prove this, its common sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Facts are meaningless in the face of NYao's awesome common sense eyebeams! Yargh!</p>
<p>This is like when creationists say, "Evolution is false because I say it is!"</p>
<p>NYao, as an Economist, I am definitely a great admirer of the University of Chicago. And in some fields, such as Physics and Economics, I would definitely agree that Chicago is better than Michigan and indeed up there with the likes of MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Harvard. But overall, as an undergraduate insitution, Chicago is not on par with the Big 5 (H,M,P,S and Y). It is not far behind mind you, but it is not quite up there. Chicago is roughly equal to Brown, Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern and a couple other universities. That's not just me speaking mind you. Just look at the Fiske guide (Michigan is one of 30 universities and LACs to get the ***** academics rating), the Gourman Report (Michigan is ranked #3 at the undergraudate level), the USNWR peer assessment score (like I said, Michigan gets a rating of 4.5/5.0. Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern etc... all get ratings of 4.4-4.6), the Wall Street Journal placement ratings etc...</p>
<p>To a degree you are right, Michigan attracts a wider range of students than Chicago, but like Chicago, Michigan is also known for having a limited range of applicants. But where you are wrong is your assessment that Michigan is not selective. Like I said before, according to the Princeton Review, Michigan gets a selectivity score of 98 (99 is the highest). According to the USNWR, Michigan is the 22nd most selective university in the nation. According to Newsweek, Time Magazine and other major publications, Michigan is rated "Most Selective" (the highest selectivity rating awarded). In short, although Michigan is not as selective as the smaller private elites, it is still pretty damn selective. </p>
<p>And I am not quite sure where MSU, Michigan Tech and Central Michigan come into the picture.</p>
<p>Michigan and Chicago are both really good schools, but you cannot compare them. They both have their strengths. For instance, Michigan has the 3rd best business program in the country, so why would a personl like me ever go to Chicago over UMich.</p>
<p>It's not just the B school Knows. Chicago also doesn't have a college of Engineering whereas Michigan has a top 7 or 8 Engineering program. Also, in some subjects, like Political Science, Psychology and the Biological Sciences, Michigan has slightly more to offer than Chicago. Chicago on the other hand is slightly better than Michigan in Economics and the Physical Sciences. By and large though, both universities are amazing in most fields of study, especially in the humanities and social sciences. However, it is their campus environment and school cultures that are completely opposite and it is based on those differences that one should pick her/his school of choice.</p>
<p>U know there is a problem when u cite the prestigious Princeton Review Ranking as one of your sources, which brings up another thing, the PR during the golden era is 100 times better than this board. The only reason people came to CC is because of PR's format change. CC has maybe 5 people total who knows the DL of whats going on, and then u have trolls like Alexandre who make supposedly sound argument about the greatness of Michigan.</p>
<p>U ask the majority of people at Michigan and they'll tell you their college choices were Michigan, Michigan state or Central Michigan, very unprestigious.</p>
<p>NYao knows about Lansing... but he doesn't know where Ypsilanti is...</p>
<p>
[quote]
CC has maybe 5 people total who knows the DL of whats going on
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read: People who agree with me, because I'm always right</p>
<p>
[quote]
and then u have trolls like Alexandre who make supposedly sound argument about the greatness of Michigan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At least he's given sources for his arguments. So far, you've been more a troll than he has.</p>
<p>"U ask the majority of people at Michigan and they'll tell you their college choices were Michigan, Michigan state or Central Michigan, very unprestigious."</p>
<p>NYao-</p>
<p>you obviously have NO IDEA what you are talking about. if you're gonna say unfounded crap like that, why don't you just get off this board.</p>
<p>Every argument you make has absolutely NO support. You suck at debate.</p>
<p>MSU and Central aren't very prestigious, but where do you get the idea that Michigan isn't?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You suck at debate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He lost at life.</p>
<p>Yeah...umm...I'm not exactly Alexandre's greatest fan, but his command of the facts is unmatched. NYao, your command of the facts is non-existent. Here on the UM board, we give respect to those who deserve it. Alexandre may be a bit of a partisan for UM, but he is a respectful and articulate member of our community. I doubt that anyone would say the same about you Nyao.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't need facts to prove this, its common sense. Nobody in their right mind would choose Michigan over Chicago OOS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess I'm not in my right mind then. My peers and professors generally beg to differ, however.</p>
<p>That makes two of us Chibearsfan. I picked Michigan over Chicago...and I knew I was going to major in Economics!</p>
<p>
[quote]
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...).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Michigan's SAT would be up by 50 points had they adopted the way privates calculate their SAT such that their average SAT would be within 20 points of the average of schools like Chicago, JHU, Northwestern. Because when I look at the ACT scores which privates don't "recalculate" if I am not mistaken, the difference seems to translate to more than 20-point difference in SAT: </p>
<p>Michigan ACT: 91% over 24, 35% over 30
Chicago ACT: 93% over 24, 61% over 30
Northwestern ACT:97% over 24, 68% over 30
JHU ACT: 94% over 24, 54% over 30</p>
<p>While those with over 24 are not very different, the privates have significantly higher % with scores over 30. I'd bet the difference between Michigan's mean ACT and those of others you mentioned is probably 2 or 3. That's definitely more than 20 on the SAT scale. I think when people take SAT the second time, they usually improve in both sections.</p>
<p>But don't get me wrong. I don't think the difference in quality is significant even if the diference is 40 or 50 points. I agree pretty much with everything you said. </p>
<p>chibearfan,</p>
<p>I find that it's a little hypothetical and contradictary of you because you said in another thread that Northwestern's students aren't of Chicago's caliber (you went on to say Northwestern was "intensely" overrated and UIUC was better in academics; I often find it funny when some 18 yo makes such strong statement about a whole institution and other people (most of them are wrong in rating BUT NOT ME). Northwestern average SAT/ACT are very much the same as Chicago's. If you think Northwestern's students aren't of Chicago's caliber, then you should agree with NYao's position about Michigan students as compared to Chicago (which I don't agree) since there is clearly some difference in Chicago's and Michigan's average SAT/ACT; however, that doesn't seem to be the position you are taking.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, the way state universities report mean SAT scores is known to knock off, on average, 40-50 points from the way private universities report mean SAT scores. It is no secret that students applying to private universities are told to take the test twice, once focusing purely on the verbal and the second time focusing purely on the math. I did it, all the people I know who applied to privates did it. I got an 800 on the math and a 620 on the verbal the first time and a 760 on the math and a 740 on the verbal the second time I took it. According to the way Michigan measured my SAT, I had a 1500. According to the way the private schools I applied to measured my SAT, I had a 1540. That was back in 1991, so times have obviously changed, but if one focuses purely on one section in the first sitting and then purely on the other section in the second sitting, chances are, that person will do better on the sections she/he focused on than if that student had to focus equally on both sections of the test. </p>
<p>As for the ACT, I am not sure how it is recalculated. However, I agree that on average, Michigan's mean ACT score is anywhere from 2-3 points lower than at the elite privates.</p>
<p>Overall however, my point was not to quantify the quality of a student body merely by looking at mean SAT/ACT scores. That cannot be done. My point is that Michigan's student body is not much unlike that of any elite university and that altough not as selective as its much smaller peers, Michigan is still pretty selective.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, you make correct observations but your argument falls apart at a crucial point. It's obvious to me that the student bodies of UIUC, Michigan, and Northwestern cannot compare academically to Chicago (per capita). However, I think that UIUC, Michigan, and Chicago are all better schools than Northwestern, not for their student bodies, but for their faculties, dedication to cutting-edge research, facilities, and high peer ratings across the board in academic fields whereas Northwestern is somewhat limited in its specialties. Chicago has by far the most interested and talented students out of all the institutions, and Northwestern's are great too, but this is not all that makes a university great. Thankfully, universities are ranked aside from the talent of their student bodies. I think Michigan's student body is vastly underperforming in comparison to the resources it offers its students, making it a great school with a good, but not specatcular, student body. You will find this viewpoint consistent in all my poists.</p>
<p>Chibearsfan, I would not go as far as saying that Chicago, Illinois and Michigan are better universities than Northwestern. In fact, Illinois is definitely not better (or even as good) as Northwestern if you ask me. I would agree that they are more committed to research, but that does not make them better universities. Northwestern has a very gifted student body, and excellent, multi-disciplinary faculty and of course, incredible resources ($4.5 billion endowment and a campus in America's thrid biggest city). From a purely academic point of view, I would say that Chicago, Michigan and Northwestern are all excellent and whatever quality differences exist between those schools is insignificant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I think that UIUC, Michigan, and Chicago are all better schools than Northwestern, not for their student bodies, but for their faculties, dedication to cutting-edge research, facilities, and high peer ratings across the board in academic fields whereas Northwestern is somewhat limited in its specialties.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>chibearfan,
"faculties and dedication to cutting-edge research" are difficult to measure and quantify and I don't claim to be an expert on it and I don't believe you have enough knowledge to judge either, not when you seem to have a pretty distorted view in "peer ratings" (see below). </p>
<p>I don't know what "peer ratings" you are talking about; as far as US News goes, UIUC doesn't appear to be as good as Northwestern. If "peer ratings" means "peer assessment", Northwestern is quite a bit above UIUC in the college ranking. At the grad level, Northwestern has higher ranked law, business, and med schools. In social science and humanities, the online version ranks 6 fields and UIUC is ranked higher ONLY IN ONE (psychology). Illionis has a communication school and while not surveyed in US News, it's generally considered not nearly as good as Northwestern's. Illinois is ranked higher generally in sciences/engineering but that seems to be the only area Illionis has better "peer ratings", not "across the board in academic fields" like you claimed. If you haven't done a simple 10-min research and found what I just listed, you are simply way way over the top to claim to be an expert and judge what schools are "INTENSELY overrated", "limited"..etc. and what not.</p>
<p>Sam Lee -
There is another inherent problem with your observations about ACT scores. Michigan is a public score so has more students taking the ACT than any of the other universities since they are private and have many more students coming from out of state.</p>
<p>Actually Northwestern/Chicago have substantial number of applicants submitting ACT. But you raise a very good point that I missed considering. Since Michigan oos students tend to have high scores and an overwhelm majority of them take SAT instead of ACT, they may drive the mean SAT, but not ACT, close to those for privates. It's a possible explanation for the "discrepancy" I pointed out earlier. At the end of the day, there's really not much difference whether its 28 vs 30/31 (ACT) or 1350-80 vs 1390/1400 anyway. I could easily score 50 points less on a bad day. ;)</p>