<p>actually, 28 and 30 is a huge difference. and alexandre, just because u chose Michigan over Chicago economics does not make the decision right. think about it, if you went to chicago, perhaps u would not be on this board. (perhaps on some other discussion board that serves people of your age)</p>
<p>Sam Lee, when I talk about peer assessments or peer ratings, I'm not talking about US News rankings, which are not conducted by the academic community but rather by a publication that develops its own criteria for determing the strength of a university. It has a very limited insight into "peer assessment". Rather, I'm talking about rankings and polls entirely determined by the academic community like NRC's rankings. UIUC is rated better than Northwestern in every engineering department, most aspects of business, and quantitative fields. Northwestern is slightly better in the social sciences and humanities. By saying that Northwestern is better because US news ranks it better in 5 out of 6 areas of humanities even though UIUC is better in the sciences seems like you're quite biased toward certain fields. Point is, the academic community thinks more highly of UIUC than Northwestern in more academic disciplines than it does vice versa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
actually, 28 and 30 is a huge difference. and alexandre, just because u chose Michigan over Chicago economics does not make the decision right. think about it, if you went to chicago, perhaps u would not be on this board. (perhaps on some other discussion board that serves people of your age)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NYao,</p>
<p>Do you plan on saying anything substantial anytime soon?</p>
<p>NYao continues to make a fool of him/herself.</p>
<p>By the way, I may not know the hard sciences particularly well, but I know the social sciences.</p>
<p>Michigan is a top contender in political science (it's one of the true heavyweights in the field), sociology, and history. It is easily a peer of Chicago's in each of those three fields.</p>
<p>I think I did ok for myself NYao. Not that I need to explain myself, but when I graduated from Michigan, I had the choice between going on to getting a PhD in Economics from Columbia or Carnegie Mellon or working as an analyst at Lehman Brothers in London or Goldman Sachs in NYC. I decided to work and went for Lehman Brothers because I wanted to live in Europe. </p>
<p>And the only reason I am here is because I actually like helping students out.</p>
<p>chibearfan,</p>
<p>I hate to break you but you seem to resort to making dishonest statements and if that's the case, that's pretty bad.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>By saying UIUC being better in "most aspects of business", you automatically raise a flag and serious suspicion. UIUC is never considered anywhere close to the top in business and is ranked all the way down to 27th by US News while Northwestern is generally considered among the best in the US. So I looked up the 1993 NRC ranking (does that surprise you?). THE TRUTH IS NRC DIDN'T RANK BUSINESS! The only thing that looks close is econ and Northwestern was ranked 9th vs UIUC being 28th.</p></li>
<li><p>The 1993 NRC ranking placed Northwestern higher in industrial engineering and material sciences, so UIUC is better in most but not "every" engineering department. </p></li>
<li><p>My point in my previous post was to dispute your claim that UIUC is better "across the board" which, in retrospect, is so far from the truth that I can't help to question your integrity. I supported my point by showing Northwestern is ranked higher in medicine, law, business, communication, and social sciences/humanities (wow, that covers a lot!) by US News. I didn't say "that Northwestern is better because US news ranks it better in 5 out of 6 areas of humanities even though UIUC is better in the sciences". Don't put words into my mouth please...</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I'd like to believe they are honest mistakes. But if it's not the case, please do us a favor and don't resort to making dishonest statements just to have others submit to your point of view. </p>
<p>Regarding your implication that US News ranking gets no input from academic community, the following is quoted from the US News for rankings in social sciences/humanities:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rankings of doctoral programs in the social sciences and humanities are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to academics in each discipline...Questionnaires were sent to department heads and directors of graduate studies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's pretty self-explanatory.</p>
<p>In graduate studies, Michigan grad students are on par with the best in the nation, it is perfectly acceptable to attend michigan over Harvard/Chicago/MIT. However, at the undergrad level, there is a substantial difference in the caliber of students. This is a fact that Alexandre and u guys are trying to twist. But facts remain that Michigan's average SAT is below Chicago's and other elites. It is fine to say that Michigan's a public university and the SAT score is pretty high for a state university. But, it doesn't change the fact that it's still lower than its "peers". The difference between ACT of 30 and 28 is the difference between going to an elite school, and going to a top 50 school, which is what Michigan is. </p>
<p>Not to mention that there are tons of applicants with high SATs and GPAs that don't even get into the private elites, but they will get into Michigan because Michigan does not take into consideration the quality of the essay, extracurricular, all the things that are critical for admission to the likes of UChicago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but they will get into Michigan because Michigan does not take into consideration the quality of the essay, extracurricular, all the things that are critical for admission to the likes of UChicago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Care to back up that claim?</p>
<p>And since when was top 25 not elites?</p>
<p>NYao, I never said the Michigan student body was, pound for pound, equal to the students at Chicago. I said the difference is not substantial. I always make sure to clarify that the bottom quarter of Michigan's student body simply wouldn't get into the likes of Chicago or Cornell or Brown or Northwestern etc... But the top half of Michigan's student body is good enough and the 75%ile-50%ile is comparable to the bottom quartile of the students at its smaller private peers. In short, with the exception of the bottom quartile at Michigan, Michigan's student body is pretty much identical to the student body at much smaller private elites, and that's natural and perfectly acceptable. If you look at the quartiles, you will quickly see that. </p>
<p>The top Quartile at Michigan graduate from high school with 3.9-4.0 unweighed GPAs, top 1% class rankings and SAT scores over 1400. Those students are, on average, equal to the top half of the students are shools like Chicago, Duke, Penn, Brown etc... </p>
<p>The second quartile at Michigan graduate from high school with 3.8-3.9 unweighed GPAs, top 3% class rankings and SAT scores between 1330-1400. Those students are, on average, equal to the 50%ile-25%ile of the students at schools like Chicago or Cornell etc... </p>
<p>The third quartile at Michigan graduate from high school with 3.6-3.8 unweighed GPAs, top 5% class rankings and SAT scores between 1250-1300. Those students are, on average, equal to the bottom quartile of the students at the smaller private elites.</p>
<p>Those are facts, not opinion. Look it up if you don't believe it.</p>
<p>But I have two major problems with what you claim:</p>
<p>1) That Michigan is not selective. Although not as selective as much smaller elites, Michigan is still considered to be "most selective". According to the USNWR, it is one of the 25 most selective universities in the nation. For a school that takes in over 5,000 students each year, that's amazing. </p>
<p>2) That Michigan is not on par with other top 20 universities and is, rather, merely a "top 50 university". Most people in the academic world (including the presidents of Stanford, MIT and Princeton) to the corporate leaders (including CEOs and recruiters at Fortune 500 companies) would disagree with you. Michigan is generally considered one of the top 10 or top 15 universities in the nation by society's elite. I think their opinions matter more than ours.</p>
<p>It is impressive for a class of 5000 people, but this has nothing to do with how impressive it is given how many people are in the school. If there existed a school with 20,000 people per class, it would be impressive if they had a 1200 SAT average. But, this university would not be called selective. Yes, we are comparing it to the smaller elites(which includes Chicago).</p>
<p>We do not know what the CEOs and recruiters think of a Michigan grad. I would think that they'd know that it is easier to get into Michigan than Chicago/Columbia/JHU,etc. And that they'd have a higher chance of landing a top talent by recruiting from the smaller elites, than a diploma meat market. Stanford University president once said that Umich should be ranked among the top half dozen, as an overall university, true, the research output of Michigan is admirable, research expenditure, etc.</p>
<p>Again NYao, you are downplaying Michigan. On an absolute scale, the average Michigan student is excellent. The top 75% of Michigan students, as the statistics clearly show, have similar credentials to the overall student bodies at its smaller private peers. At Chicago, Cornell, Brown, Columbia, Northwestern and so on, the SAT range is roughly 1250-1600, with the mid 50% range being somehwere in the 1300-1500. At Michigan if you look at the top 75% of the students, the SAT range is also 1250-1600, with the mid 50% range of those students being somwhere between 1300 and 1500. </p>
<p>And we actually do know what CEOs and corporate recruiters and academe thinks of Michigan. There are countless corporate ratings out there and Michigan is always rated as one of the top 10 hunting grounds. The largest employers of undergrads at the University of Michigan are the major Investment Banks (JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs each hired more than 20 undergrads), Management Consulting Firms (BCG, Booz Allen and McKinsey each hired at least 5 undergrads, which is a lot considering those types of companies only hire MBAs), the Pharmaceuticals and Biotechs (Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Medtronic each hired at least 10 undergrads) and the manufacturing giants (Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, GE, Boeing, Proctor and Gamble hired hundreds of Michigan undergrads). The starting salaries of Michigan students are among the highest. Michigan BBAs and BS Engineering students start, on average, with packages that exceed $50,000, which competes with the starting salaries of Cornell Engineering and Wharton BBAs. I know all of this because as an HR director, I did much of the hiring at Ford and later on at Eaton (another fortune 500) company. As such, I was privy to the hiring information from other industry leaders. </p>
<p>Academe gives Michigan a 4.5/5.0 rating for undergraduate education...good for 11th place. That's what the top officials at the top universities think of Michigan as an undergraduate institution. When Stanford's president said that Michigan should be ranked among the top 10 universities in the nation, he was specifically speaking about undergraduate education since his comments were directed to the USNWR undergraduate rankings. </p>
<p>Jack Gourman ranks Michigan 3rd in the nation at the undergraduate level. Edward Fiske gives Michigan's undergraduate level education a ***** rating, one of only 20 research universities and 13 LACs to get that lofty rating. Last year, 15 Michigan students got into Wharton. Only 6 other universities sent more students to Wharton. According to the WSJ, Michigan has the 17th highest ratio (as a percent of its total student body) of students from universities (LACs not included) enrolling at top 5 Medical Schools, top 5 Law Schools and top 5 MBA programs. I am sorry to say, a university simply doesn't have the 17th highest ratio of student placement into top 5 graduate schools if it doesn't have an excellent student body. </p>
<p>Michigan is no "diploma meat market". A meat market generally implies that out of thousands of grads, only a select and lucky few actually succeed. From Michigan, each year, over 500 Michigan students enroll into top 10 graduate schools and another 500 or so get jobs at some of the most exclusive companies in the World. 1,000+ highly successful students out of 5,000 is not a "handful", it is one of the best ratios to be found anywhere. Another 1,000+ students get into respected graduate programs (not top 10, but top 50) and another 2,000+ students find respectable, well-paying jobs at stable and well regarded companies. In other words, out of 5,000 graduates, well over 4,000 get at the very least, well paying jobs at decent companies or get into top 50 graduate schools.</p>
<p>How could anyone in their right mind state that Michigan is a diploma meat market? How outrageous?</p>
<p>It has consistently been a top 3 public university for years with an impressive peer assessment. They have top ranked programs in many disciplines. The data is out there.</p>
<p>If one prefers a smaller university, so be it. At the same time, you must acknowledge that Michigan is a mjor contributor to the workforce, research and top grad schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
U ask the majority of people at Michigan and they'll tell you their college choices were Michigan, Michigan state or Central Michigan
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your information is incorrect.</p>
<p>Actually, the U (as opposed to "U", heh) has asked people what their college choices were. Try Penn, Northwestern, Cornell. MSU does make the list for residents because it's a good strong safety for instate students, but very few nonresidents apply there.</p>
<p>Among residents, Central is not #2. </p>
<p>I may not be one of the vaunted "Five People on CC who know what is going on", but I know that much. Someone is feeding you poor information.</p>
<p>could you provide information to backup your claim? I don't believe u.</p>
<p>I personally do not have official information on cross admits. However, from personal experience, I know that Michigan applicants often apply to Cornell and Northwestern. As Hoedown also points out, many in-state applicants also apply to MSU as their backup. However, I'd say the number of students who chose MSU over Michigan for non-financial reasons is about as high as the number of students who chose Michigan over Harvard. Central Michigan simply does not belong. </p>
<p>On a side note, last year, of the 31 students in the United Arab Emirates (most of which were children of expatriates working in the UAE) who got accepted into Michigan, 16 decided to enroll at the University. I know this because I am the UAE point of contact for Michigan admits. I cannot give too many details, but last year, Michigan went 10-6 vs top 20 Universities. Some of the schools they turned down in favor of Michigan included Cal, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, McGill, Northwestern, NYU and Penn. Most of the 15 students who turned Michigan down opted to return to their home countries to complete their university education. Also Michigan did lose students to a couple of US universities, including Duke, Rice and Stanford. None of the UAE students who got into Michigan got any money from Michigan since they are all international.</p>
<p>I realize this is a tiny sample size and one cannot draw many conclusions from such a small sample size, but from my exposure to Michigan students over the years, last year's UAE crop is pretty typical of Michigan's overall out of state student body.</p>
<p>Also, the Fiske guide has an interesting little section at the bottom of each university's write-up. He lists schools are "often", "sometimes" and "seldom" chosen over the university in question. In the case of Michigan, if I recall, many applicants consider and "often" chose Brown over Michigan. Many applicants consider and "sometimes" chose Cornell and Northwestern over Michigan. Finally, many applicants consider and "seldom" chose MSU over Michigan. I do not recall seeing Central in the mix.</p>
<p>
[quote]
could you provide information to backup your claim? I don't believe u.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure if the correct response would be "touche" or "pot, meet kettle."</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>Was the "back up your claim" thing directed at me? I don't see what's so "touche'" about it. The University conducted an ASQ Plus survey via the College Board--do a search on "ASQ Plus" and you'll see that the survey collects precisely this information. The competitor analysis summarizes responses as to where students applied, where they were admitted, and so on.</p>
<p>I cannot point you to a report because there are no public reports. I'm willing to provide certain kinds of information when they can help inform a topic, but I cannot and will not release proprietary and advisory information. You'd have to trust me, I guess. I don't know what I'd have to gain by lying about our participation in the survey or falsifying results. I've been around a while; I think longtime readers can vouche for the fact that I don't tend to make up data to prove things. If I have to guess, I make it pretty clear I'm speculating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure if the correct response would be "touche" or "pot, meet kettle."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pot? kettle? Not quite. I don't mean to impugn his credentials, but some things at Michigan are known through pretty specific sources. I can look around and see that he or she isn't sitting here in my office. Granted, maybe s/he's sitting at the College Board and broke into the U-M file (naughty!) . But no, when I check U-Ms data I see it contradicts his claims. Therefore, I feel pretty confident in concluding that his information is not from the studies the U has done on cross-admits. Wherever he's getting it, it's from an unreliable source. Sorry, that's how I see it. If you think that makes me a hypocrite, I don't follow, but you're entitled to your opinion on that.</p>
<p>hoedown,</p>
<p>It was directed at NYao. That's why I quoted him and not you.</p>
<p>No worries.</p>
<p>MichiganAnn Arbor has acceptance rate of 62% which is higher than schools like Jackson State Univ, NorthEASTERN univ, univ of Tennessee, univ of Delaware, univ of Arkansas, Kansas State Univ, San Diego State Univ, Alabama A&M Univ, Florida International Univ, Stevens Institute of Technology, univ of Pittsburgh, Univ of South Florida, Tennessee State Univ, Univ of Central Florida, Illinois Institute of Technology among many other schools. Although at Michigan, the percentage of first year students at top 10% of HS class is 90% FAR MUCH HIGHER than all of the aforementioned schools, even higher than Dartmouth/Duke/Stanford/Columbia/Cornell So, how could the acceptance rate be so high? There are 4 main factors that affect the acceptance rate: the number of applications, the size of the school and most importantly, the pool of applicants and admission criteria. It is no coincidence that Michigan receives much smaller number of applications than many other schools for the simple fact that its tuition is extremely high for a public school that doesnt pamper its students! In fact, even its in-state tuition is by far the highest of all public schools and its out-of-state tuition is close to private schools like Stanford and Princeton! So it is no wonder why many applicants think twice about applying to a Public School that charges the same amount of money as a private one while scoring low at the pampering factors private schools usually excel at.</p>
<p>Stanford engineering Graduate school has an acceptance rate of 35%, which is higher than schools like Univ of Kentucky, Buffalo, Louisiana State, Univ of Pittsburgh, Univ of Cincinnati, Missouri State, Central Florida, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan State, and many others. Of course, Stanford has one of the top 3 graduate engineering programs anywhere in the world and as such it attracts far more superior engineering applications than these schools, however, if we are to look naively at the acceptance rate as an indicator of the schools selectivity then we are to conclude that Michigan State in East Lansing (11% acceptance) is far more competitive in terms of admission than Stanford!!!</p>