I agree ProudWolverine. Vast improvement is overstating matters. We have improved, but not vastly. Let us hope we can finish strong. Even if we don't win, I want us to look decent. We looked bad against UIUC and Purdue.
^We were comparing UM football to UNC basketball, and the OP wasn't concerned about how how the chicks were at either UM or UNC, quite frankly, I don't think the OP was concerned about which school's sports' tradition was better either.
This said, I do not believe that Michigan is a program on the decline. Last year was the bottom and we are now recovering. I'd give it at least another two-three seasons before passing judgment on the program.
That's definitely true. It's good to wait a couple of years before passing judgment on something like UM football. Despite their shortcomings in football, UM has gotten surprisingly better in college basketball. As a person who grew up near East Lansing, MI. It used to be that Michigan dominated in football, and Michigan State dominated in college basketball. While the latter is still true, I think that UM's basketball program has vastly improved over the last couple of years. I was shocked when they beat Duke last year.
I wanted to know the pros and cons of each school. (Campus, social life, school in general)... p.s. i intend to double major in communications and economics. And Business in general.
Michigan's ROSS school of Business is only slightly better than the Kenan-Flagler business school at Chapel Hill. The USNRW rankings put Michigan at No. 4 and UNC at No. 6 in terms of undergraduate business programs. UMich's business program at the graduate level is considerably better than UMich's. Also, UMich is superior to UNC in terms of economics. But if you're interested in communications or journalism, UNC has a better program for that. All things considered, I'd go to UMich. If you're in-state UMich would also be better financially. Also, it is very tough to get into UNC OOS. People say that it's easier to get into Duke OOS than it is to get into UNC OOS. The only thing you would miss from UNC is warmer weather, and the nation's top basketball team. Both campuses are comparable in terms of social life and campus. I know students who attend UMich and I know others who attend UNC and both say they are having a great time.
"UMich's business program at the graduate level is considerably better than UMich's."
That's reassuring to know. It's also nice to see that UNC is better than Michigan in two areas. Of course one of those, journalism, isn't available at A2. For just about everything else academically, Michigan>>UNC.
How do you know the OP doesn't want to know about hot women Harambee? If it is a guy, he probably does. Business week has Ross at 4 and UNC around 12 I think.
The OP specifically asked about certain majors (communications, economics, and business) not about which school had hotter women. Also, I used the USNRW rankings, and said that ROSS was better than UNC's business program anyway. People have different tastes anyway, I might consider someone hot, and the OP might not even consider going out with that same person.
I have a hard time believing Michigan has stronger/smarter top students, or more "high-octane" students, than does Carolina. Carolina is home to the most prestigious and most selective merit scholarships in the nation (Morehead-Cain, Robertson).
Since Alexandre likes statistics, let's compare the number of Rhodes scholars:
Michigan (about 26,000 undergrads) - 26
UNC (about 17,000 undergrads) - 30
Morehead-Cain Scholars (between 40 and 50 per class) - 27 (over the past 50 or so years)
So out of a class of 50 (which is probably much higher than the average Morehead class size), the Morehead scholarship itself has produced more Rhodes scholars than Michigan has over a much longer period.
I do not think it's fair to say Michigan has smarter students at the top. Maybe more competitive, less well-rounded, and more grades-focused, but certainly not any better.
OldWell, I'm sorry Michigan doesn't have to pay top students to come to its campus. Look at your own numbers (which are wrong, by the way, as UNC has had 39 Rhodes Scholars)- only 12 non-Morehead students have been Rhodes Scholars from UNC, meaning that, without a program that pays full tuition plus summer research funding, the University--and this is in your bogglingly myopic calculation that # of Rhodes Scholars=a good student body--has a decidedly lackluster student body outside of those Morehead students. Regardless, I think it's unfair to categorize the Morehead students with the rest of the student body, which is something I've heard true of the program in practice, as they mainly spend their time with other Morehead-Cain recipients. Next time you try to belittle a college's student body, I implore you to use less specious reasoning.
To add: coming out of high school, I had the choice between UM and UNC. I chose UM without hesitation, but had I gotten the Morehead Cain scholarship I would have certainly taken it. It is certainly among the best scholarship programs in the country, and every year the Morehead Cain program takes ~60 students who would have otherwise attended other, better schools than UNC. My choice would have thus had nothing to do with UNC as a school, so I think your use of the program to aggrandize UNC's student body is faulty.
Your arguments have nothing to do with the fact that the pure numbers suggest UNC's student body, specifically the top students, is NOT inferior to Michigan's (a statement made multiple times in the thread). Notice I didn't say UNC's student body is better. I simply said Michigan's is NOT better.
And you are taking extreme offense to the point of ad hominem attacks. You're arguing like a ten-year old: "I'm sorry Michigan doesn't have to pay top students." Look at the SAT ranges. They're almost identical.
The top students at Michigan are NO BETTER than the top students at Carolina. Period.