Concerns about UMich

[GoBlue81]

<p>

“Originally Posted by dilsky
At most top schools, many top students take graduate courses their senior year (if not sooner). Those are going to be the classes that should interest you the most, and be most relevant to what you want to go into. Would you rather they be at a top 10 graduate program with some of the top students in the country, or at a lesser graduate school with students that had to settle for a lesser graduate school?”</p>

<p>Reply from ring<em>of</em>fire in post #30
Yes, I would like to be in a top graduate program with the top students in the country. Unfortunately, those students aren’t found in Michigan for the large part.

I don’t get it. Most of the students in a graduate class are graduate students. You would expect that the smartest graduate students are attracted to the top ranked programs in their fields. As Michigan has more top ranked departments than most of the elite universities, it’s logical to say that Michigan has some of the smartest graduate students in the country. In general, you can expect to find plenty of smart classmates when you take a graduate course at Michigan and you will be taught by some of the most respected professors in their fields.</p>

<p>When I was in Michigan, I had at least half a dozen of juniors in seniors in all my graduate computer engineering classes. I don’t know their SAT scores but they were all plenty smart; they were the ones who gave me a run for my money.</p>

<p>What was your experience with your graduate classes at Duke?</p>

[keefer]

<p>Something I always find interesting/baffling is that people always seem to say “Michigan is better for grad school”, I’ve taken a number of graduate level classes in my junior and senior years, and I didn’t think they were better than my “undergraduate” courses, most of them were pretty much the same, except the material is a little more focused/specific. And for these graduate classes I took, the undergrads(NOT graduate students) were the most competitive, and I’ve had this opinion confirmed by a number of graduate students, even some professors recognized this in office hours. Unless of course you are talking about the research oriented degree, the PhD, but how many people actually go for a PhD?</p>

[morewaffles]

<p>Michigan’s awesome! =)</p>

[ring_of_fire_1]

<p>

@GoBlue81

What was your experience with your graduate classes at Duke?

I’m taking my first graduate class next semester actually. Is it common for undergrads to take lots of graduate class at UM? Most private schools like Duke aren’t very generous with AP credits and have a strict core curriculum so it’s a rarity to be taking grad classes.</p>

<p>

@dilksy

There’s really not much emphasis put on it at Michigan. Last year I don’t think any of our graduating seniors (including an NSF Fellow and NSF honorable mention) bothered taking it.

I seriously doubt that and if it’s true, it’s a really poor excuse IMO. I know for a fact that UMich has some solid math students because there were kids in my high school and nearby high schools that performed very well on the MMPC and the AMC competitions. If you’re a serious math student, you’re probably going to take the Putnam.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>ring<em>of</em>fire, I took 8 APs in high school, got 5s in all of them and received just 16 credits. Michigan does not give a lot of AP credits, but it does allow students to place out of certain classes. As such, many students end up taking a handful of graduate classes their senior year. </p>

<p>As for Math, Michigan is typically considered one of the top 10 or so programs in nation, and it is extremely undergraduate focused. Michigan is one of just 8 universities where an undergrad went on to win the Fields medal.</p>

[dilksy]

<p>“I’m taking my first graduate class next semester actually. Is it common for undergrads to take lots of graduate class at UM? Most private schools like Duke aren’t very generous with AP credits and have a strict core curriculum so it’s a rarity to be taking grad classes.”</p>

<p>By Junior year I had well over 15 graduate level classes. Though admittedly, some schools may have roughly equivalent versions as undergrad classes if there’s no graduate school or a stricter divide between graduate and undergraduate classes.</p>

<p>Michigan also has 30 credits of distribution along with language requirement, and AP credits don’t really count for anything (basically you can just place out of intro courses, and if it’s in your minor/major you’ll have to take an extra course to meet the minimum credit requirement, anyways).</p>

<p>“I seriously doubt that and if it’s true, it’s a really poor excuse IMO. I know for a fact that UMich has some solid math students because there were kids in my high school and nearby high schools that performed very well on the MMPC and the AMC competitions. If you’re a serious math student, you’re probably going to take the Putnam.”</p>

<p>If you’ve taken the test three times before, know you don’t particularly enjoy taking it, have little to gain since the tests won’t be graded before grad school apps are due, and are currently in the middle of finishing up grad school applications, why would you bother waking up early on a Saturday during your senior year to go take it? It’s not like those two would’ve contributed enough to place us in the top 5 overall, or even been on the official team/made honorable mention. The point is, somebody that got accepted to one of the top 2 grad schools for math in the country with an NSF fellowship probably contributes something to the strength of the student body, but you wouldn’t be able to tell that just by looking at Putnam scores.</p>

[lfecollegeguy]

<p>“OK, I’ll bite. Michigan has a long history as an engineering powerhouse in the industry. Tell me which private universities have a better reputation from the recruiter’s perspective*. I will concede MIT and Stanford. But what else?”</p>

<p>Carnegie Mellon has higher salaries in engineering and more blue-chip companies than both Michigan and Cornell in last year’s postgrad surveys. I’m pretty sure Cornell and Berkeley offers just as good if not better engineering than Umich as well.</p>

[GoBlue81]

<p>

Carnegie Mellon has higher salaries in engineering and more blue-chip companies than both Michigan and Cornell in last year’s postgrad surveys.

By “blue-chip” you mean IT companies like Google and Microsoft, right? or do you include other Fortune 100 companies like General Electric, ExxonMobil, Boeing, Dow Chemical, Honeywell or the biotech startups? CMU is among the top two schools in computer engineering so you would expect it to attract the best companies in that field. But what about other engineering fields like chemical, biomedical, civil and mechanical? In any case, I’d appreciate a link to the survey you cited above.</p>

<p>About Michigan vs. CMU vs. Cornell. According to US News:</p>

<p>Engineering … Mich … CMU … Cornell
Overall … 7 … 9 … 7
Aerospace … 3 … NR … 10
Biomedical … 9 … NR … 21
Chemical … 11 … 14 … 13
Civil … 7 … 12 … 9
Computer … 7 … 2 … 8
Electrical … 5 … 10 … 8
Engr Sci … 5 … NR … 1
Environ … 3 … 10 … 11
Industrial … 2 … NR … 11
Materials … 3 … 11 … 6
Mechanical … 4 … 10 … 8
Nuclear(G) … 1 … NR … NR</p>

<p>Equals, yes; better, no. And Berkeley is a public. Next?</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Starting salaries for Engineers from most top 20 programs are roughly equal. The starting salaries of CMU undergrads are higher than those some of its peers because CS, CE and EE Engineers are generally paid the most, and CMU has a higher concentration of such majors than other schools. Starting salaries at Cornell and Michigan are roughly the same ($58,000-$60,000).</p>

<p>Michigan definitely has a top 10 undergraduate Engineering program. The only 4 Engineering programs that are probably better (and only marginally so) are Cal, Caltech, MIT and Stanford. Two of the last four presidents at MIT were Wolverines (Jerome Wiesner from 1970-1980 and Charles Vest from 1990-2004). That’s pretty telling if you ask me. The fact that two Michigan men have led MIT for 24 of the last 38 years is pretty amaizing!</p>

<p>[Jerome</a> Wiesner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Wiesner]Jerome”>Jerome Wiesner - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[Charles</a> Marstiller Vest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Marstiller_Vest]Charles”>Charles M. Vest - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Michigan’s Engineering peers are CMU, Cornell, Georgia Tech and UIUC. All of those schools are clearly among the top 10 in Engineering.</p>

<p>This said, I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that CMU had a higher number of Blue Chip companies recruiting on campus. All sorts of companies recruit heavily at Michigan’s CoE. That includes:</p>

<p>-Top Aerospace firms, such as Boeing, Lockheed, Nothrop Grumman, Raytheon and NASA
-Top Enegy firms, such as ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Shell, Schlumberger and Chevron
-Top IBanks, such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase
-Top Management Consulting firms, such as BCG, McKinsey, Bain, Mercer,
-Top Pharmaceutical and Biotech Firms, such as Amgen, Baxter, Medtronic, Stryker, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer
-Top IT firms, such as Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle and Sun</p>

<p>Below are actual specifics on recruitment at the Michigan CoE:</p>

<p>University of Michigan:
<a href=“http://career.engin.umich.edu/annualReport/Annual_Report0607.pdf[/url]”>http://career.engin.umich.edu/annualReport/Annual_Report0607.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
Companies Recruiting at Michigan: Pages 11-14 (you will be hard pressed to find a more complete list of employers recruiting on a single campus)
Starting salaries: Page 9</p>

<p>I am sure many top Engineering programs have similar on-campus recruitment activities, but to claim that Michigan is not a top 10 Engineering program is ridiculous. The rankings provided by GoBlue are pretty self-explanatory. The quality of the faculty and the facilties and research opportunities made availlable to undergrads at Michigan are phenomenal.</p>

[tetrahedr0n]

<p>

Carnegie Mellon has higher salaries in engineering and more blue-chip companies than both Michigan and Cornell in last year’s postgrad surveys. I’m pretty sure Cornell and Berkeley offers just as good if not better engineering than Umich as well.

</p>

<p>One year’s survey isn’t a very good sample. I respect CMU though. I’m guessing that Michigan and CMU engineering is pretty comparable. As is Cornell’s. Berkeley probably has a better reputation, but I think an undergrad engineer at Berkeley doesn’t have a very happy life, even compared to other engineers at comparable institutions.</p>

[gogobet]

<p>Those kids that apply u of m as safety may get rejected too so. so don’t be too arrogant.</p>

[keefer]

<p>It’s irrational to compare top engineering schools based on average starting salary. Geography and industry are the biggest drivers for starting salaries in engineering. If more people go into good starting pay industries like Oil, electronics, software, you will see higher salaries. Similarly, although Michigan engineers are everywhere, probably the biggest portion of engineers will stay in the midwest, where pay is lower because cost of living is lower. 60K in Michigan will be able to afford you more than 80k in California or New York City. (maybe even 100k)</p>

<p>This is just as stupid as comparing acceptance rates as a measure of selectivity. Many schools in the midwest have traditionally had high acceptance rates, people on the east/west coast think “omg, that is so easy to get in”. but this is because people in the midwest on average don’t apply to 10+ schools like folks in the northeast. Midwestern students will usually apply to their flagship state school, maybe another backup, and then maybe where their parents went. There’s a fundamental difference in culture. (probably very similar to how most people viewed college admissions until the mid-90s)</p>

[lfecollegeguy]

<p>Alexandre: A complete list of employers isn’t what I was talking about. I was referring to the ratio (or percent) that get into blue-chip companies compared to those who don’t. Obviously Umich is a lot bigger than CMU so pure number is not the right factor in this case.</p>

<p>Besides, I was referring to the guy who forgot to mention schools like CMU/Cornell/Cal, which we seem to agree on, which are just as good if not better than Umich for engineering.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>First, you must prove that starting salaries (once adjusted for major, industry and geographic location) and placement ratio into “Blue Chip” Companies are directly linked to quality of program. Secondly, you need to define what you mean by “Blue Chip” Companies. Clearly, top Aerospace, Energy, Pharma/Biotech, IBank and Consulting firms do not qualify as far as you are concerned. </p>

<p>Do you have have the ratios and starting salaries to back your claim? How about starting salaries to prove that CMU, Cornell and Cal are better than Michigan? And even if you are right, and you provided us with proof that a significantly higher ratio of students at those schools were placed into Blue Chip companies and that starting salaries for Engineers at those schools were clearly higher than say $65,000/year (starting salaries for Michigan Engineers is roughly $60,000), can you please tell us of the 10 (not 3 or 6) Engineering programs that are better than Michigan? Remember, the only claim that people here made is that Michigan has a top 10 Engineering program. The academic and recruitment communities obviously agree. In fact, they seem to rank Michigan among the top 5 or 6 Engineering programs in the nation. But if you can show that at least 10 other Engineering programs have significantly higher placement rates and starting salaries, you would at least have a point, albeit not one that proves that Michigan does not belong among the top 10 Engineering programs from an academic point of view. All academic Engineering rankings include Michigan among the top 10. I dont think one can make a case for Michigan not having a top 10 Engineering program.</p>

[GoBlue81]

<p>

Besides, I was referring to the guy who forgot to mention schools like CMU/Cornell/Cal, which we seem to agree on, which are just as good if not better than Umich for engineering.

Read my post again which you quoted in full:</p>

<p>“OK, I’ll bite. Michigan has a long history as an engineering powerhouse in the industry. Tell me which private universities have a better reputation from the recruiter’s perspective*. I will concede MIT and Stanford. But what else?”</p>

<p>So what have you proved? CMU and Cornell are not better than Michigan in engineering; and Berkeley is not private. You might say that I “forgot” to mention UIUC and Georgia Tech which are every bit as good as Michigan … but those are not public schools. That’s the point.</p>