<p>How would you compare the two schools overall?</p>
<p>Huge state university in a state with decreasing financial support for higher ed, versus elite private university not too badly affected by the economic downturn? You can do the math.</p>
<p>In truth, both have excellent academics. The difference is that at UM, the excellence is buried under a lot of mediocrity, while at UofC excellence is more uniform. </p>
<p>Culture? Huge versus small. Urban versus suburban/small town. Big time sports versus Div III. Viable greek system versus UofC frats?</p>
<p>Only you can figure out what works for you.</p>
<p>Endowment figured for 2010 (note Michigan v. UC):</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-michigan-ann-arbor/840859-new-endowment-figures-out.html?highlight=endowment[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-michigan-ann-arbor/840859-new-endowment-figures-out.html?highlight=endowment</a></p>
<p>While many universities are making serious cuts to faculty, Michigan is actually looking to hire somewhere around 100 new profs. in the next five years. </p>
<p>“the excellence is buried under a lot of mediocrity”
ummm…what?!</p>
<p>hat,</p>
<p>“planning” 100 over 5 years means maybe 20 per year. And how many are being cut?</p>
<p>By mediocrity, I am referring to the fact that in large institutions like U Mich, you have a higher percentage of classes taught by TAs, by adjuncts, part timers and such. You also have larger average class size. </p>
<p>Financial support? Since you’re a U Mich expert, you tell us how the state appropriations for higher ed are trending? up, down, sideways? Maybe the state of Michigan is better off financially than I thought?</p>
<p>It’s dumb to have a sissy fight over this. Michigan and Chicago are both world-class universities built on very different models. Declining state support has hurt Michigan, but state support has been declining there for decades. At this point it constitutes about 7% of the university’s budget, and maybe 15% of its educational budget. That’s still significant, but it’s not going to go to zero anytime soon, and in the meantime Michigan’s finances look an awful lot like those of a private university.</p>
<p>And, sure, Michigan has lots of students doing lots of things, some of them not so intellectual. (Some of them will earn tens of millions as professional athletes, for example, and some of them – gasp! – study business as undergraduates.) OK, I like Chicago’s model better, but that’s a minority position. I know people around here (a long way from Michigan) who positively adore Michigan.</p>
<p>It depends on whether you’re an in-state resident or not. If you’re an in-state resident who only has to pay in-state tuition (and UChicago does not offer much financial aid), then I would say go to Michigan.</p>
<p>If UChicago offers financial aid such that you have to pay less than you do for Michigan, then I would say UChicago is the better deal. Both are great schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People love to make the assumption about large institutions, but with them, the key is to realize they are so big that generalization is bound to failure. There are SO many cases when this is not true for instance at Berkeley. The average class size has little bearing on one’s decision when one doesn’t actually have to take a class with large class size. </p>
<p>Chicago is one of the strongest schools in the country for the traditional intellectual undergraduate experience. It’s also home to some of the most incredible faculty in areas that I myself am partial to. I do know, though, that its style is hardly for most people.</p>
<p>There is something worth looking out for. This anecdote applies to Berkeley, not Michigan, and I have no idea whether it’s generalizable beyond Berkeley (although I think it’s clearly generalizable within Berkeley).</p>
<p>Anyway, my daughter’s high school BFF was applying to PhD programs this year. She was, it’s clear, a fabulous candidate: great undergraduate training in her field, great recommendations from well-known scholars, relevant non-classroom experience, very specific, focused, and sophisticated ideas about what she wants to study and where she fits into the academic map of her field, and on top of all that a peach of a personality that anyone would be happy to have around for half a decade or so. Based on all of that, going into the process Berkeley was her top choice – it had the people she wanted to work with, the projects she wanted to work on, and the orientation she liked. They thought the same thing, apparently, because they called her up and accepted her less than a month after she applied, no interview or nothing.</p>
<p>Then came the financing issue. Three months after accepting her, Berkeley still hadn’t produced a formal commitment, and it was clear that her department was not going to be able to guarantee funding beyond one year. After a lot of back and forth, she wound up committing to another brand-name program she liked a little less (but only a little less), but where she had a full multi-year funding commitment. It was a sad decision but a supremely rational one.</p>
<p>Repeat that a few hundred times a year across multiple fields, for a few years, and Berkeley will be a MUCH less attractive place to study. Top grad students are a big part of what a top university offers. If it doesn’t recruit top grad students, then it isn’t going to stay a top university.</p>
<p>On the Princeton board, PrincetonGrad2000 has an analysis of the new USNWR rankings of graduate programs. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/908952-2010-usnwr-graduate-school-rankings-news-item.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/908952-2010-usnwr-graduate-school-rankings-news-item.html</a>. It provides a pretty good snapshot of what the elite US universities really are, or at least the comprehensive ones (i.e., not MIT or Caltech). </p>
<p>Chicago and Michigan show very well there. One of his charts shows the average program score, on a 5-point scale, of every university whose programs ranked within the top 50 in all 12 of the core academic areas surveyed. Chicago, Columbia, and Michigan are tied, right behind HYPS and Berkeley. Chicago and Michigan are also tied for number of top-10 programs, and number of top-5 programs. That gives you a good sense of the academic equivalence between the two universities.</p>