<p>Alexandre, I believe acceptance rate of an institution of higher education has something to do with prestige. When did Michigans applicant pool become self-selective? Michigans acceptance rate of 40% is still ridiculously high for a prestigious university like Michigan. It is an obnoxiously high acceptance rate if specifically compared to UCLA, which received close to 56,000 applications this year and reportedly admitted around 20%. I bet you know that average GPA and SAT score of UCLAs freshman class have always been higher than those of Michigan have. I would say Michigan is not near Rice in terms of academic quality and undergraduate experience. Do you really believe that alumni connection plays a significant role in job placement?</p>
<p>University of Florida has a very strong Alumni base:</p>
<p>[List</a> of University of Florida people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Florida_alumni]List”>List of University of Florida alumni - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>The average SAT scores at UCLA are LOWER than UM by a fair amount. Last time I looked they were under 1300 m+v.</p>
<p>The number of applicants rejected is about the worst way to determine the quality of a college. If any school wnated to drum up applicants they could do was Wash U did and mass mail nearly all hs kids.</p>
<p>Actually 1276 m+v</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/Statistics/admissions/NewFreshmenGPASATFall2007.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/Statistics/admissions/NewFreshmenGPASATFall2007.pdf</a></p>
<p>
Always higher? Let’s exam the facts:</p>
<p>2006-07 enrolled class (based on CDS)
UCLA: SAT 1180-1410; ACT 24-30
Michigan: SAT 1210-1420; ACT 27-31</p>
<p>2005-06 enrolled class
UCLA: SAT 1170-1410; ACT 24-30
Michigan: SAT 1220-1420; ACT 26-31</p>
<p>HansTrojan, you really should check your facts before stating your opinions so forcefully.</p>
<p>
How do you define undergraduate experience?</p>
<p>How do you measure academic quality? Do you count strengths of faculties, resources, facilities, and research prowess? How much would you count the wealth of choices in courses and opportunities for inter-disciplinary studies and research? Do you really think that Michigan’s engineering professors will jump at the opportunity of a similiar position at Rice?</p>
<p>Can you really compare these two schools? Rice with only 3000 undergrads is more the size of a LAC. I can’t imagine any student will like both schools equally.</p>
<p>Both are excellent education institutions. Let’s leave it at that.</p>
<p>The reason why UCB and UCLA receive so many applications is that their instate applicant pool is not self-selective. With one application you can apply to all the UC campuses. So you have an extra $60…</p>
<p>I have some difficulty believing that with 30,000 applicants, Michigan’s pool is “self-selective.”</p>
<p>Berkeley’s and UCLA’s applicant pools are very un-self-selective; the same can be said of Harvard’s, Stanford’s, etc.</p>
<p>barrons, GoBlue81, </p>
<p>Let’s get the facts straight.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>The following may answer your question.</p>
<p>2006-07 enrolled class (based on CDS)
UCLA: GPA 4.14; Middle 50% SAT 1180-1410, ACT 24-30; In top 10% of HS class: 97%
Michigan: GPA 3.72; Middle 50% SAT 1210-1420, ACT 27-31; In top 10% of HS class: 90%</p>
<p>With 50,729 freshman applicants (in 2007), UCLA remains the most popular university in the nation. More than 22,600 applicants had GPAs of 4.0 or above.</p>
<p>[New</a> UCLA Admissions Data Show High Academic Quality for Students Admitted for Fall 2007 Freshman Class / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“Newsroom | UCLA”>Newsroom | UCLA)</p>
<p>In 2007, UCLA rejected 11,162 applicants who had GPAs of 4.0 or above.</p>
<p>[UCLA</a> Undergrad Admissions: Profile of Admitted Freshmen, Fall 2007](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof07.htm]UCLA”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof07.htm)</p>
<p>barrons, GoBlue81, Alexandre,</p>
<p>Historically and statistically speaking, Berkeley and UCLA have shared the same applicant pool because they are flagship public universities in California. Tell me which universities and liberal arts colleges except Berkeley and UCLA in the nation have rejected more than 10,000 applicants who had GPAs of 4.0 or above.</p>
<p>At least we agree that Michigan students have higher average SAT/ACT scores than UCLA. This is the only level platform for comparison as both schools use single-sitting.</p>
<p>You can’t compare weighted GPA (California style) with unweighted. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>As for top 10% of HS class, California is not known for its stellar high school system so the comparison is again not that meaningful.</p>
<p>UCLA’s yield is only 39% (compared to 44-45% for Michigan). You are losing most of your high end admits.</p>
<p>A California 4.0=3.0 elsewhere. Obvious from their weak test scores.</p>
<p>GoBlue81, </p>
<p>Do you really believe the difference between yield rates of 39% (UCLA) and 44% (Michigan) is significant? Do you really believe weighted GPA is a California style? Why do you think US News ranked UCLA (#19) higher than Michigan (#23) in terms of selectivity rank in 2007?</p>
<p>barrons, </p>
<p>If you believe that California 4.0=3.0 elsewhere, I have to question your intellect. Only moron can make such an argument :-)</p>
<p>
Detroit schools aren’t spectacular either…</p>
<p>Interesting. This thread started with a discussion about four non California schools. It ended up being a discussion on two California schools that are very difficult to get into mostly because they are in a state that have over 10% of the population of the entire country. Face it, the reason they get so many applicants, especially UCLA, is because they have so many people in one state looking to enter a flagship public school.</p>
<p>Look at the average test scores and gpa’s at the other UC’s. Nearly 4.0 grades and they can’t get over 1200?? Seems odd.</p>
<p>
Preciously, high schools do not have the same standards across the nation. That’s why this is not a good measure of the quality of the student body. And to say 97% is better than 90% based on an imperfect measure is not very meaningful. I wish it were…for then we can say Michigan has better students than Caltech(88%) and Rice(87%), Northwestern(83%) and Chicago(80%), certainly much better than CMU(75%) and NYU(67%)…</p>
<p>Do you ever wonder why all the UCs have over 95% of their students in the top 10% of their HS classes… not all, Riverside comes in last at 94%. Do you believe that the lower UCs have better students than the schools above?</p>
<p>
There is weighted GPA and then there is California weighted GPA. The UCs have their own way to calculate weighted GPA which is custom fit for CA high schools.</p>
<p>“Honors Courses: The University assigns extra points for up to eight semesters of University-certified honors-level and Advanced Placement courses taken in the last three years of high school: A=5 points, B=4 points, C=3 points. No more than two yearlong UC-approved honors level courses taken in the 10th grade may be given extra points.”</p>
<p>To earn extra points, the H/AP courses need to be “University-certified”. Not sure how that works for OOS applicants. Also, honor courses is weighted the same as AP.</p>
<p>Well, many students on CC claimed that they took nothing but honors/AP courses. For those students, earning a 4.0 CA-weighted GPA is not much better than 3.0 unweighted.</p>
<p>
That’s because of its artificially high “acceptance rate” score and “top 10% in HS class” score.</p>
<p>UCLA’s high number of applications and hence low acceptance rate is due more to the size of California…and the fact that one application allows you to apply to all the UCs.</p>
<p>UCLA is also the school with the highest number of transfers. In 2006-07, UCLA admitted 3,286 transfers compared to 4,810 freshmen.</p>
<p>Besides since you mention USNWR, in overall ranking Michigan never ranks lower than UCLA.</p>
<p>People, I think we are drifting away from the original question. Should the OP pick Michigan or Rice? I have no idea why the UCs were dragged into this discussion. The OP isn’t considering UCs. </p>
<p>The OP should not worry about issues of selectivity or pretige in this case. Both Rice and Michigan (and UCLA and Cal for the UC supporters) are extremely selective and prestigious. In terms of Peer Assessment score (prestige in the academic community), Michigan and Rice are both considered top universities, on par with other top 25 universities. In terms of selectivity, both Rice and Michigan have talented student bodies, capable of challening a student both in and out of the classroom.</p>
<p>I really like those two universities, so I can see why the OP is torn. I think he should go with his gut.</p>