<p>
[quote]
Michigan and Wisconsin have nearly identical student bodies, with their ACT range of 26-30
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Michigan middle 50%
SAT: 1220-1420
ACT: 26-31</p>
<p>Wisconsin middle 50%
SAT: 1180 to 1350
ACT: 26-30</p>
<p>slipper1234: "Wisconsin's "terrific" Undergrad business program doenst come close to UCB, UCLA, UNC, UVA, and Ross. Its not even as good as Texas, Ohio State, or Indiana for that matter. This is exactly what I am talking about, Wisconsin is overrated on these lists."</p>
<p>First of all, UCLA doesn't have a business program for undergraduates. Secondly, Texas is far above UNC and UVA in business. hmph. just protecting my future school :)</p>
<p>FYI- a very small number of UW-Madison students submit SAT scores so that is not a statistically significant number and the ACT range for Michigan adding that mysterious "31" is new to this year. Look for Wisconsin to increase their range very soon. But as per the latest US News I saw, Michigan: 26-30, Wisconsin: 26-30. One point on a LARGE band of scores says little as to painting a picture on the entire university, lol (which is a larger range, calling into question how we evaluate the statistical significance of the scores)</p>
<p>May I still remind you that both schools admit similiar amount of 4.0s, and have the same break down in unweighted GPAs, too. (although UM calculates differently)</p>
<p>Well over half of Michigan students submit SAT scores... and is preferred in most areas of the country</p>
<p>Also, I feel SAT averages are perhaps more precise since 1 point on the ACT is rather significant... </p>
<p>For instance, 1 point on the ACT encompasses as many as 40 points on the SAT.</p>
<p>If you translate Michigan's middle 50% SAT scores to ACT scores, it would be 27-32.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Wisconsin's remains exactly the same... 26-30.</p>
<p>Wisconsin and Michigan both have out of state applicants from the east and west coast. I strongly believe they submit the majority of SAT scores. Unlike Wisconsin, however, Michigan does not have reciprocity with another upper-midwestern state, as Wisconsin has with Minnesota. Nearly 90% of the student body will be represented by WI, MN, and other midwestern states. It does not surprise me that Michigan has a larger national view, especially when it charges nearly 40,000 dollars for tuition. It is a backup school (as Wisconsin is) for coast students who are rejected from top 25 privates, and those who wanted a "midwest" expierence. Therefore, the SAT is a better representation of the Michigan student body, while not accuratley portraying the less-SAT using UW-Madison student body.</p>
<p>It's also invalid to compare SAT into ACT, otherwise if that were the statistical representation of the Michigan student body, they would have a 27-32 score range, when they do not. Irrelevent if half the country uses it, if it is more preferred, etc. It simply doesn't translate well into this study, as my stats prof would say.</p>
<p>I think that Michigan has a 6% lower admissions percentage (something close) and so it may be reasonable to draw the conclusion that for a fraction of cases, Michigan will be harder to get into. I think Wisconsin is slightly larger, though, which also skews the "median" student. </p>
<p>The median student for Michigan would have a slightly higher ACT range, yet the GPAs remain rather similiar. At the point where you are comparing two schools, these "hairs" that we are splitting to find a difference between the two only show how these remain 1) peer institutions 2) makes other things about the university (say cost, quality of the departments, social life, etc) more important when two students choose over the two. My argument has been that they are <em>nearly</em> identical, and so when people use this very sterotypical lumping of "elite publics" based off admission standards, always including (as it should) Michigan, yet excluding Wisconsin, I always found that to be very funny, especially since the schools are too similiar. These trivial one point differences only furthur the point I am making in their similiarites.</p>
<p>Yes, I believe the SAT is a better indicator of Michigan's student body. Also, Michigan historically has admitted anywhere from high 40% to low 50% of its applicants. Wisconsin admitted like 67% this year if I recall correctly... I'm not sure if that has changed in recent years.</p>
<p>I'm also curious as to what methodology USNews uses in creating its selectivity ranking.</p>
<p>I had a subscription to last year's rankings, and Michigan was 18th in the country overall in selectivity. I believe Berkeley was 13, and UCLA was 16. Virginia was somewhere in the low-mid 20's I believe. I don't recall where Wisconsin was. </p>
<p>I'm inclined to believe that perhaps they have access to more detailed and specific admissions statistics that we don't have? Perhaps you could enlighten me here? Michigan seems to have a reputation (at least on this board) of being less selective than its peer schools simply because of its higher admissions rate. </p>
<p>Can we shed any light on this?</p>
<p>I cannot provide the answers to your (un)important questions. I am sorry. I can say however, that yes Michigan does have that reputation and I find it to be interesting. I've always been shocked on this website how many people forget that it costs 40,000 a year and it seems that money is of little issue. But anyway...</p>
<p>The selectivity % of any school, 40% 50% or even 60% really matters little if you're trying to compare the STUDENT BODY. You must look at the students enrolled. If a school has more students, it will a) admit more and b) if a larger school has more students, with the same GPAs and ACTs as another, well that just means it is a school with more kids who are smart :) That's a bad argument. It's the ACTs the GPAs that matter, not the number of those present at the school. Failing to address the size of Madison (almost 200 more seats!) is important when we are splitting hairs of less than 8% difference in admissions selectivity and 1 point on the ACT.</p>
<p>When comparing the "top publics" as this thread was intended to do, I believe my point has been established that Michigan and Wisconsin are peer institutions. They have reasonably similiar admission standards, student bodies, atmospheres, top departments, and styles of undergraduate education (two of the worlds premier reserach univeristies). My intention was to point out that I find it flawed when UM is grouped and UW excluded, or UNC grouped and UW excluded, or even UCLA grouped and UW excluded. Interestingly: Michigan, UNC, and UCLA all find the University of Wisconsin-Madison a peer institution both on undergraduate and graduate reserach levels. This is the best way to determine the best schools, not simply splitting hairs about a few points of admissions or arbitrary, often regional bias based, arguments about certain departments.</p>
<p>Well I break it down like this. For publics,</p>
<p>Selectivity: Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, W&M, and Virginia are slightly above the rest.</p>
<p>Program rankings: Berkeley and Michigan clearly stand out here and are a tier above the rest. UCLA and Wisconsin are the next tier.</p>
<p>Reputation: Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, UCLA. (peer assessment)</p>
<p>Research: Michigan, Wisconsin, UCLA, and Berkeley are the powerhouses with the highest expenditures.</p>
<p>For the record, I agree that Wisconsin is a peer of the top publics and doesn't get the respect it deserves.</p>
<p>Then I guess we agree. Happy ending</p>
<p>Guess no one cares about lil' ol' texas</p>
<p>kcirsch, I hear it's an awesome school! Be proud you get to go there, it's such a good value for you, too. I hope you're happy there.</p>
<p>It just makes me nervous about going there, that's all, since i'm applying to washu, bu, and yale too. I guess it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the university's #52 undergrad ranking and #5 undergrad business ranking - will employers distinguish? like "oh you went to TX" or "OH you went to McCombs!"</p>
<p>just excel, and you'll be fine in the job market and grad school admissions</p>
<p>It should be very easy to answer who recruits at UT. They should have a detailed placement report for business majors. Most school do this annually.</p>
<p>"Selectivity: Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, W&M, and Virginia are slightly above the rest."</p>
<p>You forgot UNC, for OOS</p>
<p>Honestly - Texas is good, but its more a regional school than some of these others.</p>
<p>Can you really justify that? Compare it to the regionality of UC Berkeley or UCLA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People tend to forget that Ga Tech and William & Mary are public. Silly question but where are the W&M grads??? I have never met one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>still recovering the entirely too many C's they got during they're 4 years at school</p>
<p>really though, W&M is a lot smaller than other top public schools, so obviously the alums are fewer and farther between. I imagine there are pockets of alums basically where other schools have concentrated groups as well, favoring the region where the school is. The DC area is a popular destination, and I would imagine as are other major East Coast cities. A lot of W&M students (err... grads) do nonprofit work as well.</p>
<p>just curious... for those who do go to a public/state university, can you tell me about the geographical diversity from your own experience there? </p>
<p>i go to UCLA, and i've met people from oregon, texas, arizona, illinois, new york, nebraska, massachusetts, and probably a couple more, plus many international students (mostly canada and asia/pacific rim). it's probably not the geographical diversity you get at a private, but i'd say that's a good collection of out-of-state students that i've met here.</p>
<p>I'm not sure, but I think the UCs in general tend to be a bit more regional. For example, at UCLA, 58.2% of the Freshman 2004 class was either from LA or Orange County. 93% are in state. </p>
<p>Michigan has 57% for all of Michigan, and 33% out of state. Virginia has a 31%out of state enrollment. Texas is 5% out of state. UNC is 19%, and only has 6% of students in counties adjacent to the university.</p>