Alumni Connection

College Search & Lists
41

<p>

</p>

<p>Er, it’s 4.0 UC GPA–that means it’s weighted and capped. So the other UCs with averages of 3.9 actually have UW averages of 3.4-3.5 or so.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s called a UC GPA, which means it’s weighted but capped. In this way, it’s harder to get a higher weighted GPA. One reason is that UC has to approve honors courses if they are given weight; in contrast, any honors course for OOSers is considered weighted in UC’s viewpoint. Another reason is that UC does not allow more than 8 semesters (4 year-long courses) of added points to your GPA; this is to make the comparison of GPAs easier.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And the majority of honors courses are not approved. It’s typically a high-level course; oftentimes, the approved honors course is a replacement for an AP course.</p>

<p>So really, you haven’t proven anything.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmmm…It appears to have started with a ■■■■■ post from kyledavid and a response to that post from rjkofnovi…</p>

<p>If Cal was thrown into the mix, I’d suggest the OP go there…especially as an international…:p</p>

<p>Anyways this thread is a mess…we even got UF boosters in here.</p>

43

<p>I had only mentioned Berkeley’s larger alumni network (as a correction of the fact that Michigan has the largest alumni network). The real comparison to UCs and such started with HansTrojan’s referencing UCLA.</p>

44

<p>kyle, I recall reasong somewhere that Call had 350,000 living alums, which would be lower than Michigan’s 420,000. I am not sure if that is correct, but I have never seen data that would suggest that Cal’s alumni network is larger than Michigan’s.</p>

45

<p>GoBlue81,</p>

<p>As you mentioned, Michigan never ranks lower than UCLA in USNWR overall ranking despite lower selectivity rank. Why? Because Michigan’s endowment size always has been greater than that of UCLA, which was founded in 1919. At least, admissions selectivity rating compiled by The Princeton Review delivers compelling messages. </p>

<p>Michigan: 96 (on a scale of 60-99)
UCLA: 98
Rice: 98
USC: 98
Chicago: 98
Cornell: 98
Johns Hopkins: 98
Northwestern: 98
Notre Dame: 98
Emory: 98
Virginia: 97</p>

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>I still believe Michigan’s 2008-09 acceptance rate of 40% is insanely high. Rice is a better deal without a doubt. I would appreciate it if you could explain why Michigan’s out-of-state tuition has to be higher than that of Rice.</p>

46

<p>HansTrojan, you have a flare for the dramatic. How does a selectivity score of 98 as opposed to a selectivity score of 96 “deliver a compeling” message? Sounds about as “compeling” as UCLA having a selectivity rank of #19 vs Michigan’s #23. In other words, not very compeling at all. And none of this changes the fact that on average, students at all the schools listed above are roughly of equal calibre…as are their academic reputations and their overall academic excellence. Here are several angles to consider:</p>

<p>PEER ASSESSMENT SCORE:
Cornell University: 4.6/5.0
Johns Hopkins University: 4.6/5.0
University of Chicago: 4.6/5.0
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 4.5/5.0
Northwestern University: 4.3/5.0
University of Virginia: 4.3/5.0
University of California-Los Angeles: 4.2/5.0
Emory University: 4.0/5.0
Rice University: 4.0/5.0
University of Southern California: 4.0/5.0
University of Notre Dame: 3.9/5.0</p>

<p>According to the academic community, all of those schools are roughly equal. Clearly, Michigan’s “insanely” high acceptance rate does not hurt its reputation among academics.</p>

<p>FISKE ACADEMIC RATING:
Cornell University: *****
Northwestern University: *****
Rice University: *****
University of California-Los Angeles: *****
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: *****
University of Virginia: *****
Johns Hopkins University: *<strong><em>1/2
Emory University: *</em></strong>
University of Notre Dame: ****
University of Southern California: ***1/2</p>

<p>Again, clearly, Michigan’s “insanely” high acceptance rate does not seem to dampen its academic environment and academic excellence.</p>

<p>WALL STREET JOURNAL FEEDER SCORE:
Back in 2004, the Wall Street Journal rated universities according to their placement success into top 5 Medical Schools, top 5 MBA programs and top 5 Law Schools. The study was admittedly biased toward East Coast schools, so Midwestern, South and West Coast universities suffer a little here. The ranking I provide below reflects how those universities did vis-a-vis other research universities. I removed LACs from the equation. And the percentage next to the institutiuon indicates the percetage of students from the graduating class that enrolled into one of those top 5 Law Schools, top 5 Medical Schools or top 5 MBA programs.</p>

<h1>10 University of Chicago: 6.2%</h1>

<h1>13 Rice University: 3.8%</h1>

<h1>15 Johns Hopkins: 3.5%</h1>

<h1>16 Cornell University: 3.2%</h1>

<h1>18 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 2.7%</h1>

<h1>19 University of Virginia: 2.6%</h1>

<h1>20 University of Notre Dame: 2.3%</h1>

<h1>21 Emory University: 2.2%</h1>

<h1>32 University of California-Los Angeles: 1.3%</h1>

<p>University of Southern California: Unranked, but it should be around the 1% mark. </p>

<p>Again, clearly, Michigan does not suffer that much from having such an “insanely” high acceptance rate. Graduate school adcomes obviously really like Michigan students.</p>

<p>ENDOWMENT:
University of Michigan: $7.1 billion
Northwestern University: $6.5 billion
University of Chicago: $6.2 billion
University of Notre Dame: $6.0 billion
Emory University: $5.6 billion
Cornell University: $5.4 billion
Rice University: $4.7 billion
University of Virginia: $4.4 billion
University of Southern California: $3.7 billion
Johns Hopkins University: $2.8 billion
University of California-Los Angeles: $2.3 billion</p>

<p>Michigan’s endowment has grown by a total of 2,700% over the last 20 years. No other university comes close. Notre Dame and UVa grew by a total of 1,400% and 1,200% respectively. No other university on that list had an endowment that has grown by more than 1,000%. </p>

<p>Again, it seems like Michigan’s “insanely” high acceptance rate isn’t hurting its ability to improve its financial situation.</p>

<p>Personally, I don’t see a major difference between all those universities you listed. They are all excellent. Attempting to somehow marginalize one of them is futile.</p>

<p>To the OP, I recommend you go for fit. Do your homework and figure out which school suits you best. From an academic and graduate and professional placement point of view, all of your choices are excellent. You cannot go wrong.</p>

47

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I still believe Michigan is a great institution of higher education. However, as I indicated before, it is my point that acceptance rate of Michigan is excessively high for a prestigious university like Michigan, especially much higher than schools I listed above. You still haven’t answered my question. Why is Michigan’s out-of-state tuition higher than that of Rice? Would you choose Michigan over Rice if accepted to both schools?</p>

48

<p>Personally, I would chose Michigan over Rice. For undergrad, I chose Michigan over Brown, Cal, Chicago, Columbia (my mom’s an alum), Cornell (I went there for graduate school), Duke, Georgetown (my dad’s an alum), Northwestern and Penn. I paid OOS tuition and it was perfectly justified given the quality of the University. </p>

<p>And I am not sure I understand your question about cost of attendence. Should Michigan be cheaper to attend than Rice? Michigan and Rice are peers and costs of attending Rice and Michigan are virtually identical. In fact, all top 25 universities cost roughly the same for OOS students. </p>

<p>Michigan:
Tuition: $32,500
Room and Board: $8,500
TOTAL: $41,000</p>

<p>[University</a> of Michigan Office of Financial Aid: Cost of Attendance](<a href=“http://www.finaid.umich.edu/Financial_Aid_Basics/cost.asp]University”>http://www.finaid.umich.edu/Financial_Aid_Basics/cost.asp)</p>

<p>Rice:
Tuition and Fees: $30,500
Room and Board: $10,700
TOTAL: $41,000</p>

<p>[Untitled</a> Page](<a href=“http://financialaid.rice.edu/main.aspx?id=46]Untitled”>http://financialaid.rice.edu/main.aspx?id=46)</p>

<p>And Michigan is not more expensive than its fellow elite state universities either:</p>

<p>Cal:</p>

<p>[Tuition</a> Costs & Fees](<a href=“Tuition Costs & Fees - Berkeley Graduate Division”>Tuition Costs & Fees - Berkeley Graduate Division)</p>

<p>UCLA:
Tuition and Fees: $27,000
Room and Board: $13,000
TOTAL: $40,000</p>

<p>[UCLA</a> Undergrad Admissions: Fees, Tuition, and Estimated Student Budget](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/budget.htm]UCLA”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/budget.htm)</p>

<p>All of those schools are a bargain when you consider that schools like Boston University, George Washington, NYU and USC are charging close to $50,000.</p>

49

<p>Oftentimes at large research universities, the undergrad is not as good as the grad program because professors are so busy doing their own research, and a lot of undergrad classes are taught by TAs. So, I would say you should consider class size and whether classes are taught by real professors. And, if you are going to get an MBA, you will build plenty of alumni connections. However, you should never count on grad school when choosing an undergrad college. You never know what will happen in your life.</p>

50

<p>At most elite research universities, Michigan included, over 90% of classes are taught by professors and most classes that are taught by TAs are intro-level classes, such as Calculus I or Intro to English writing etc…</p>

51

<p>Alexandre,</p>

<p>Your message has been well conveyed. I still respect Michigan as a great research institution of higher education.</p>

52

<p>Yeoldstudent,</p>

<p>Contrary to your belief, I have heard that at Berkeley and UCLA, large research universities and the fellow state universities of Michigan, entire introductory courses are taught by professors or lecturers and TA teaches supplementary discussion sections of those introductory courses. If professors at large research universities are busy engaging in research, professors at small private research universities are busy engaging in research as well.</p>