Alexandre

Mnozzi, I can only think of 5 research universities that are better than Michigan at the undergraduate level. After those five, there are roughly 10-15 universities of equal caliber, and Michigan is one of them. I do not include LACs because they are totally different.

atomicfusion

Mnozzi makes excellent points.

This thread is almost laughable and was doomed to be so from the very beginning. You can't make a thread about a school on its own forum and expect unbiased discussion.

Put this in "College Search and Selection" and see how many people agree that Michigan is a top 15 school, on par with the ivy league.

Alexandre

Another thing Mnozzi, you say you know many students with 25 ACT scores who got into Michigan. But they are truly a minority. Only 25% of students who enroll into Michigan have ACT composites below 27 (so wqe can safely assume that far fewer than 25% have ACT scores below 26 and you can be sure that the percentage drops far more when it comes to students admitted. Generally speaking, the students who get in with sub 27 ACT scores are URMs or athletes.

Michigan student body is very gifted. It may be easier for top students to get into Michigan than into smaller private schools, but the caliber of the students is not worse. If it were, Michigan would not place the same percentage of its students into top 10 graduate schools and exclusive companies as universities like Cornell, Chicago, Northwestern, Penn etc...

GoBlue81

mnozzi, I think you misunderstood my point. I was referring to your statement above, and I agree that there are in-state students who make Michigan their #1 school as it is a good bargain for them. For this group of students, if they have a high GPA (on a vigorous curriculum) and get a good ACT score the first time, chances are they won't take the test again to try to improve their test scores. And this includes some of the top in-state students who are capable of getting a higher score the second time.

I am claiming that this may have an impact on Michigan's ACT range. And it is a direct result of Michigan putting more emphasis on GPA/curriculum than test scores. That's all the point I was making on my previous post. It's all quantitative - GPA/curriculum vs. test scores.

It doesn't mean that Michigan is not looking at the entire person. Michigan switched to the holistic approach in 2003, and I am definitely seeing a difference in the admission trend in the last couple years.

GoBlue81

If you think Michigan doesn't take into consideration your curriculum or the competitiveness of your high school, you can't be more wrong.

mnozzi

Alexandre --

Scores of 25/26 -- Those that I know are not URM. Most are legacy with a sprinkling of athletes. They do exist. 25 or less, that's a lot of people, close to 1500. (Info from the CDS for 2003-2005 shows the 25 -75% to be 26-31).

Referring to your reference on top feeder schools -- it rates MI 30. Morehouse is rated 29. Does that mean Morehouse is a better school than MI? Comparing MI to some of the other schools you mentioned -- UM (2.73), Chicago (6.22). Penn (5.49) and Northwestern (3.69). This means Chicago has 2.3 as many ‘scholars’, Penn 2.01 and NW 1.4 times more. Statistically I would say these are big discrepancies.

What is gifted? Maybe we should also be looking at PhD’s and not just law, MBA, and med school admittance. (I think I read somewhere that in MI, Kalamazoo College has the highest % of students receiving PhD’s not MI).

Schools like Chicago and Northwestern send a higher % of students to PhD programs than MI. It's possible because of this their numbers on the feeder school chart are reduced. Do you have counts that combine all graduate programs? (I bet the discrepancies would increase, possibly dramatically).

Alexandre, your quote --

I can only think of 5 research universities that are better than Michigan at the undergraduate level. After those five, there are roughly 10-15 universities of equal caliber, and Michigan is one of them. I do not include LACs because they are totally different.

Your rankings defy those of most educators and for that matter the granddaddy of all rankings USNWR. MI RARELY IS LISTED IN THE TOP 20 NATIONAL UNiVERSITES. You can’t exclude LAC’s when calling MI one of the top '15’ schools in the country. That’s like saying I am the top golfer at a division 1 school when there are 4 people at division 2 schools that post better scores. By most standards that would make me #5. Unless I qualified my statement by saying #1 in division 1.

DStark

Yes I know what you mean. But I disagree. I think because the entering student is more cerebral at Penn, with more experiences, Penn is a more intellectual and sophisticated community.

Also I have been told, but do not know for sure, that MI looks at composite ACT's while schools like Penn look very closely at the individual scores. Your sub scores must fall within an acceptable range just like the composite score. This ensures a specific academic level is always maintained.

LOL -- I can top your friends. I have a cousin in engineering at UM now and an Uncle (in-law) and cousin who graduated from Penn.

My cousin at UM had a 3.9 GPA from a decent public MI high school. A few honors classes (2) and 3 AP's. ACT 28 or 29. He played football and wrestled. Never held a leadership role. Only other activity -- NHS.

My cousin who went to Penn graduated from a top private HS in NJ. He was a NMS, took all honors and AP's with a 3.9 GPA. He had SAT's over 1500. AP scholar. Captain of the lacrosse and forensic teams. Played in the jazz and concert bands. Hundreds of volunteer hours. Plus membership in all those misc clubs like NHS. He told me that although he was probably in the top 10- 15 in his HS, he was the norm at Penn, at the most one notch above the norm.

As you said there is a big difference in the caliber of the student being admitted. Why wouldn't it permeate through the entire educational process?

Using Alexandre’s top feeder school theory – UM rates 30 at 2.73% and Penn rates 16 at 5.49% -- twice as many admits. Do you really think they are equal?

Another thing to think about -- as my uncle has often said. He would not get into Penn today. The IVY's use to be all male and probably were going co-ed just about the time you were entering college. There were no women to compete with. It was a lot easier to get in those schools 30-35 years ago. Also they were expensive, there wasn't always aid so if you had money it increased your chances to be admitted. Possibly we should not compare people in your age group with the kids there today. Maybe MI and Penn were more on par back then, certainly Brown was. Much has changed.

GOBLUE81

Your statement -- I am claiming that this may have an impact on Michigan's ACT range. And it is a direct result of Michigan putting more emphasis on GPA/curriculum than test scores. That's all the point I was making on my previous post. It's all quantitative - GPA/curriculum vs. test scores.

That may be true. But what’s to say that this does not occur at other schools. Even if a school puts more emphasis on test scores and you test in the upper range – using your reasoning there would be no need to retest either. Wouldn’t this affect the scores the other schools report also? I think we are splitting hairs.

All ---

I think we keep forgetting the thread. Does Michigan have any weaknesses? Are we really qualified to say Chicago is better is than UM or Penn is less intellectual? I laugh at some of the things we write. Between family and friends, we know people who have gone to most of the Ivy’s and the 7 sister schools, Chicago, NW, MIT, Bard, Bucknell. Lehigh, Georgetown, the little Ivy’s, MI , UC Berkley, etc, etc. One of the smartest is my mom’s cousin who graduated from St. Bonaventure and then St John’s law school. (He got a scholarship undergrad and worked through law school). One of the most successful is his wife -- went to Seton Hall both undergrad and law school (at night). She fell into a niche in the legal system and is considered an authority in her field. Long term it’s the individual not the school.

Alexandre

Mnozzi, like I said earlier, Michigan is not a good fit for you. You are looking for a different setting. That does not mean that because Michigan isn't right for you that it is inferior to a university that is. I do think that several of your points are severely flawed:

1) Morehouse is a university that is made up of URMs. At Michigan, like at most of the other universities that make up the top 50 schools in the Feeder ranking, only a small portion of the student body are URMs. I don't think I need to explain further here. And remember, East Coast school will enjoy a slightly higher ranking in the Wall Street Journal Feeder ratio because 75% of the gradsuate programs examined are East Coast schools...most of those being Ivy League graduate programs.

2) LACs and research universities are very different. One cannot compare them to each other. In some ways, top research universities destroy LACs and in other ways, research universities don't even come close to the top LACs.

3) You say that "Your rankings defy those of most educators and for that matter the granddaddy of all rankings USNWR. MI RARELY IS LISTED IN THE TOP 20 NATIONAL UNiVERSITES." You couldn't be more wrong Mnozzi. Most of the rankings you refer to, ESPECIALLY the "grandaddy of them all" aren't ones made by "educators". They are those made by highly prejudiced and not-so-educated organizations, purely driven by profit.

There are several educators who rank universities, and most of them rank Michigan among the top 15 undergraduate institutions in the nation, uncluding the USNWR. That's right Mnozzi, Educators have their say in the USNWR, in the Peer Assessment Score, where Michigan has been ranked between #7 and #12 for the last 20 years. Edward Fiske is another educator who ranks Michigan among the very best, making it one of just 20 or so research universities that gets the ***** academic ranking. Gerhard Casper (a Yale educated scholar, ex-dean of the Chicago Law School and president of Stanford University from 1990-2000) never ranked universities, but he had that to say:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-pr...6gcfallow.html

Notice what he uses as his "Prima Facie" (first or primary evidence...axhibit A as it were)? "I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27."

Jack Gourman (even though I concede that his rankings are majorly flawed) is yet another educator that ranks Michigan among the top 15 in the nation. Clearly, "educators" think a great deal more of Michigan than you do.

Mnozzi, you and I aren't as far apart as you think. I agree that Michigan should be slightly smaller and a little harsher when it comes to admissions. But that does not mean the university is weaker. The university provides all the resources, challenges and opportunities necessary to excel, including one of the top 5 faculties in the country, access to some of the most advanced facilities (labs, classrooms, alumni association and libraries) on Earth and the full attention of the country's top graduate schools and most exclusive employers. Attending Penn or Brown over Michigan will not open more doors or provide one with a sounder or more respected education.

mnozzi

Alexandre --

I don't have time to write more now, but that article's 11 years old. A lot of schools have come on strong since then -- Notre Dame, MIT, WUSL, Rice. Contributions by major benefactors in the last 15-20 years have changed the face of education and colleges. Maybe with Ross' contribution, Ross business may surpass Wharton someday -- but it's not there yet.

I never said UM is inferior. I have always said it is a great school. You asked does it have weaknesses, which is a subjective question. I am just giving you my opinion with supporting arguments.

You are taking this personally. This is becoming a duel. Because this is a subjective question for every positive quote you can find I can probably find a negative supporting argument.

tank

Alexandre, do you know how the school of public policy ranks nationally?

Alexandre

Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy is ranked among the top 10 nationally. It was ranked #8 the last time the USNWR ranked Public Policy programs back in 2004.

samtheman89

Beyond the rankings can anyone give more information about the public policy school or anyone comment about the new BA in Public Policy offered at Michigan or the MPP? How do the degrees offered at UMich match up with other schools? Thanks for any info!

redhare317

I think the BA program was a good move. It's a public policy degree but in a liberal arts context, so you cover many different areas of social science in it without too much specialization. That's why it's still a BA degree.

It is a new program, but I think it will be a very solid. You get in after your sophomore year after some prerequisites. They're only taking about 50 kids, so it's going to be selective.

Weasel8488

Which five are you referring to, and what are the primary factors that make one university better than another?

Christine123

I just came back from an information session on the new BA program in public policy. It offers a lot of stuff that I'd be interested in specifically, like more opportunities to do things directly applied to analyzing policies, but it also seemed a bit limiting because it's new. There isn't a lot of selection to fulfill major requirements and it doesn't seem like they want to implement a program that allows you to double major in public policy and something in LS&A.

Alexandre

Weasel, the 5 I was referring to at Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. Those 5 universities have great reputations, larger endowments and more talented students. No other university in the country beats Michigan on all three fronts. Michigan's reputation, as evidenced by the Peer Assessment score, is on par with most other top 15 universities. Michigan's endowment is practically tied with Columbia at #6 or #7 in the nation. And in terms of student bodies, Michigan's may not be as talented as some of its peers, but it is not far behind. But when it comes to the five universities I mentioned above, they truly are in a league of their own.