<p>^ RML, just re-read your first sentence. You characterize BOTH Michigan and W&M as “very prestigious schools with superb academic offerings”. So what would be the rationale to spend $100K more on the OOS school?</p>
<p>I am not categorically saying that an OOS public school is never worth any higher price. If for example you want a strong engineering program (or perhaps a strong business program) the best values may very well include OOS public universities. What I am saying here is that, in comparing these two schools, I see no objective reason to pay double for the OOS alternative.</p>
<p>I like the small classes in W&M which I took several. Williamsburg has a great small town felling. For Undergraduate, W&M is a better choice. But Michigan has the best research facility which cannot be ignored. For OOS Mich vs Instate W&M, W&M is a no brainier.</p>
<p>No classes are taught by TAs at W&M (a lab may be lead by a TA), I’m not sure that’s the case at UM. Supposedly the biggest class at W&M is also a little over 200 people (intro to Biology) I’m sure that’s not the case at UM. At William and Mary the professors are teachers first, researchers second. </p>
<p>OP, I think what you should take from this is that prestige is not a reason to choose one of these schools over the other. If you are in-state in Virginia, then you should look for a really good reason to go to Michigan over W&M.</p>
<p>Michigan has no betters, but it certainly has peers. Aren’t we all familiar with the acronym? Harvard, Yale Princeton, Stanford, Michigan? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly shouldn’t, but could a compelling argument be made that Michigan is more prestigious than W&M? Due to its age, W&M is one of the most important universities in the history of the country. It peers, in terms of importance might only include Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mean, we’re not talking about Michigan vs Texas Tech University here. We’re comparing Michigan to what’s, at least, the second oldest institution of higher education (if not the second oldest university) in the United States. That surely has to count for something. Sure, Michigan probably has the edge in international rankings due to faculty and research. But in the U.S., I, at least, would not consider Michigan to be more prestigious than W&M. I think it would be difficult for anyone to make an argument against them being anything but equals.</p>
<p>Here’s a good way to imagine your choice - Someone hands you a suitcase full of money, $250K, and grants you two options. One, you can go to Michigan and walk away with a degree, debt-free, and an empty suitcase. Or two, you can go to W&M and walk away with a degree, debt-free, plus $180K in the suitcase.</p>
<p>Not many non-engineers are going to take the Michigan option.</p>
<p>“No classes are taught by TAs at W&M (a lab may be lead by a TA), I’m not sure that’s the case at UM.”</p>
<p>That is not the case at Michigan, but the difference in approach is not that great. At Michigan, TAs teach very few intro level classes, particularly in the languages and Mathematics. Altogether, TAs teach approximately 3% of all undergraduate classes at Michigan. Most TAs at Michigan lead labs and discussion sessions. That is the case at any university with a large graduate student population. How else can graduate students earn their free tuition and stipends? </p>
<p>“Supposedly the biggest class at W&M is also a little over 200 people (intro to Biology) I’m sure that’s not the case at UM.”</p>
<p>That is definitely not the case at Michigan, or any other major research university. Michigan has several classes with 400-500 students. </p>
<p>“At William and Mary the professors are teachers first, researchers second.”</p>
<p>Professors at Michigan vary. Most enjoy teaching, but some clearly do not. However, from experience, most of the professors I had genuinely cared about the quality of their teaching and made an effort to help undergrads.</p>
<p>Like I said above, there is definitely a difference in academic philosophies between those two universities. The difference does not make one better or worse, simply different. If there is a significant difference in the CoA, going to the more affordable option is the way to go, unless money is no object. If CoA is not a concern, then one should choose based on fit.</p>
<p>"“I believe academically Michigan is better than W&M in virtually every comparable discipline.”</p>
<p>@rjk - do you think any school in the U.S. (or the world/universe) is better than UM?"</p>
<p>That remark was in response to another poster who stated that W&M was stronger than Michigan academically. I have never stated that Michigan is the best school in the U.S. There are schools that are considered academically stronger than Michigan. W&M just doesn’t happen to be one of them…along with UCLA.</p>
<p>If you can get into both schools from OOS, and can afford the tuition, then I think the decision should be made on the basis of which school has the best fit. Prestige is in the minds of your friends, your parents’ friends, and whomever winds up reading your resume. I don’t see a clear-cut answer as to which school is more prestigious. Even if we could quantify prestige, one school is not enormously more prestigious than the other (except to their individual partisans). </p>
<p>The atmospheres could not be more different. If you want engineering or a Big 10 sports scene or a vast alumni base or access to many research programs, you should choose U-M. If you want a school that places more emphasis on undergraduate teaching than research, that doesn’t have a Big 10 sports scene (not everyone wants that), that has a more intimate campus environment, then you should choose W&M.</p>
<p>Except the original question was W&M from in-state vs. Michigan from OOS. Big difference between evaluating them as both OOS vs one in-state and one OOS. </p>
<p>If it were reverse, Michigan in-state vs. W&M (or UVA) OOS, I’d have a hard time not recommending Michigan in most cases. The in-state tuition option throws a big-time monkey-wrench in evaluating the schools.</p>
<p>For me, it helps to live in a state that the flagship is kinda-sorta not so good - not bad, but not outstanding either.</p>
<p>I completely agree that either instate option for an instate student is the better option, unless money is absolutely no object. The first post didn’t clarify that she is instate, and I missed that she’s instate for W&M in her subsequent post. It seemed to me that the conversation had started to meander to comparing the two schools in various circumstances. </p>
<p>These differences aren’t nearly as big as some posters here suppose. Michigan has roughly as many small (<20 students) classes (45.7%) as William and Mary (48.8%), and Michigan has a slightly higher freshman retention rate and a slightly higher 6-year graduation rate. And it’s simply not the case that you need to take mega-lectures in your intro-level courses at Michigan. To some extent it depends on one’s chosen field of study, but Michigan offers a variety of options including a well developed honors program and the Residential College, in effect a small residential LAC within the larger university where students take small classes with fellow RC students from the outset. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have much confidence in this measurement either, but I’d say the difference between 3rd and 12th out of 3,000+ undergraduate institutions for quality of undergraduate teaching is a trivial difference; both earn gold stars.</p>
<p>Michigan is also by far the wealthier institution. Its endowment is roughly 12 times the size of W&M’s, for a student body (undergrad & grad) roughly 5 times the size. On top of that, Michigan has a research throughput of well over $1 billion annually; all that research spending supports faculty, grad students, labs, even undergrad research assistants to some extent, so it’s a major element in Michigan’s financial strength, and it means Michigan’s endowment dollars go even farther because so much is paid for out of research grants.</p>
<p>That said, while Michigan is truly a national school with over 40% of its entering class now coming from OOS, it draws relatively few Virginians. The obvious reason is that Virginia is one of the few states whose own public universities are competitive with Michigan academically. I suppose if I lived in Virginia, I’d have a hard time justifying sending my kids to Michigan when high-quality, lower-cost in-state options were available. In most other states, the cost v. quality trade-off would look quite different, and obviously very large numbers of students and their families are deciding Michigan is worth the higher OOS tuition because they’re putting their money and attending. (Oh, and by the way, the University of Michigan recently made a commitment to the goal of meeting full need for all undergrads, in-state and OOS; they’re not there yet, but they’ve launched a capital campaign one of the principal goals of which is to raise additional funds for need-based FA to meet that institutional goal, and they’re quite confident they’re going to get there).</p>
Isn’t the time spent in large classes (>50) a more relevant figure to use when assessing undergraduate focus because my definition, the larger the class the student credit hours will be allocated to those lectures rather than the smaller seminar-like courses? This number is ~18% for UMich and ~9% for William & Mary, significantly in the latter’s favor.</p>
<p>frazzled’s post best answers the OP. I would only add that if cost is a concern and one costs significantly less than the other, then the more affordable option is the way to go. In the OP’s case, being a resident of VA makes W&M the obvious choice.</p>
</p>