<p>I’m not going to get into the mud that is always thrown by Michigan posters to cling on to Northwestern, but there was some discussion about political science on this board. Graduate rankings can be a nice guideline, but let’s cut the crap here: Michigan and Wisconsin by far, have the best undergraduate programs due to academic strength, connections to political opportunities, and reputation.</p>
<p>I know there are some UoM homers here - but how can anyone place UoM sports no.1, esp. ahead of dOSU (since UoM men’s BB hasn’t done much the past decade and the FB team seems to lose annually to dOSU, ever since Tressel became the headman over the Bucknuts)?</p>
<p>And how in the heck is Ann Arbor regarded as the best campus/town/environment in the B10? (UoC, even as a CIC member, is nowhere near the top either).</p>
<p>The Badgers/Madison takes the cake here.</p>
<p>And UoM, is not “in EVERY sense” a peer of NU (in most cases - yes, but not every case).</p>
<p>Tons of ■■■■■■ on this website.</p>
<p>K&s, there are no absolutes when it comes to sports. Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin are all very good. It depends on the years. Some years, one program will do well in the major sports and other years, another program will. There can be no clear cut winner in this one although at the moment, OSU makes the strongest statement for #1 honors. </p>
<p>When it comes to campus/town atmopsphere, I think it depends on personal preference. I have visited all 12 CIC campuses several times and 4 (Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin) struck me as being awesome. There is no clear winner here either, it just depends on personal preference. In terms of campus beauty, I think Indiana is #1 but in all other ways, they are all pretty even. </p>
<p>Overall, I agree that Michigan is not a peer of Northwestern is “every sense”. Like you, I believe they are peers in most cases. In the cases where they aren’t peers, sometimes it is Northwestern that has the edge and in other cases, it is Michigan that does. Overall, they are pretty even. Chicago is a school of extremes and in many ways, it is academically stronger than Michigan or Northwestern and in other ways, it isn’t as good academically.</p>
<p>alex- penn st. has no claim on one of the top spots in big ten sports due to their truly awful men’s basketball. If you had to pick right now it would be OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin in that order with a significant seperation b/tw Wisc. and no. 4.</p>
<p>Here’s a question… why does Mckinsey care about my SAT score…</p>
<p>"1. Michigan
2. Harvard
3. Yale</p>
<p>Oh wait…"</p>
<p>You are so mature kk!</p>
<p>At any rate, McKinsey can only hire a limited number of undergrads each year…out of thousands of qualified applicants. They, along with other mega exclusive companies like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, BCG etc… may resort to looking at SAT scores in some instances in order to weed out applicants. But do you really want to compare the number of undergrads from Michigan and Northwestern who join those exclusive firms on an annual basis? I am not sure the outcome of such a search would be flattering to Northwestern since they recruit more heavily at Michigan.</p>
<p>I don’t believe companies use SAT for screening when they recruit on campus. I have not heard of minimum SAT being set forth by the placement office for signing up. In fact, I know of several students with sub-1300 SAT scores (one below 1200) getting internship/job offerings from elite companies like Goldman, Citigroup and the Big 4. The recuiter can easily weed out the weaker applicants from the on-campus interviews.</p>
<p>GoBlue, back in my day, I interviewed with several IBanks (got offers from Lehman, Lazard and Goldman Sachs) and a major MC (didn’t get an offer). They never asked me for my SAT score. Back then, companies did not ask for SAT scores. But I understand that today, given the surge in qualified applicants to those exclusive firms, some exclusive companies are asking for SAT scores, not to compare candidates, but as a cut-off, just as most exclusive companies have cut-off points for GPAs as well. Generally speaking, most “sexy” companies have a 3.5 cut-off for GPAs and from the little I have seen so far, 1300 or 1350 is the cut-off for SAT scores. Again, once a student is over the cut-off, grades and SATs probably aren’t used as decision makers. Those are just ideal lines to draw in order to limit the number of applicants.</p>
<p>From a legal standpoint, companies must be very careful. SAT scores do not measure a job applicant’s current and future ability and as such, it could be an illegal recruitment tool. </p>
<p>However, I still don’t undestand kk’s point. Even if a 1300-1350 SAT score were the cut-off, how does that weaken Michigan and strengthen Northwestern? All it means is that 50% of Michigan’s 25,000 undergrads would qualify as opposed to 75% of Northwestern’s 8,000 undergrads. In other words, it is meaningless. How does that make a difference to the individual student? Why should that matter? Does student X have better prospects if she/he attends Northwestern over Michigan? Obviously not since Michigan undergrads are very heavily recruited by exclusive firms.</p>
<p>That may be true if you send in your application online or by mail. I was referring only to on-campus recruiting. I have never heard of any b-school placement office putting up a minimum SAT requirement for signing up for the interview. Most of the time, the recruiter only has a copy of your resume and cover letter when he/she conducts the first interview.</p>
<p>The recruiter can easily weed out the weaker candidates after the interview. You only fills in the application if you are lucky enough to be invited to the second interview.</p>
<p>All I’ll say, breifly ferrisbueller, kimfuge, red06 and others, is that ranking MSU at the bottom of the Big 10 is totally absurd… It’s even more absurd when you rank Penn State – primarily and engineering school with mediocre liberal arts (and hose Engineering School isn’t significantly better than MSU’s in the 1st place) … your ranking is based strictly on admissions which is bogus, as PSU is from a bigger state without nearly as much state-school comp as MSU – put PSU in Michigan to go up against U-M and see how great it would be… Using your theory, NYU would rank about even with the University of Chicago; Northwestern (ranked the most difficult school, admission-wise in the Midwest, would have U-C in its rear-view mirror)… Of course we know that’s ridiculous on both counts… So why rank MSU the same way?</p>
<p>…most any knowledgeable academic will tell you: throw USN&WR’s popularity contest out; MSU by most any objective standard, esp for undergraduate schools, should rank well within the Top 50 (and Top 25 publics) in this country, … easily.</p>
<p>I think the whole ‘state’ in it’s name (as well as FSU and OSU) bring it’s prestige down alot with alot of people.
Also having UM in your state doesn’t help you prestige i think.
It is of course easier to get into than other top publics but it has extremely good academics in certain area’s and is underestimated quite a bit.</p>
<p>PSU is slightly better than you think it is Quincy but i do get your point.</p>
<p>Points well taken, Groenveld9, and my point was not to ■■■■■/trash Penn State, it is a very, very good school. I just don’t think it’s superior to MSU and is, in fact, somewhat narrower than MSU in terms of the programs of excellence, particularly in the more liberal arts/social sciences context (music, political science, international relations, creative writing & film, are but a few)… You’re generally right about the “State U” thing, too, although it sure hasn’t hurt Penn State… </p>
<p>… I also think Penn State is a trendy choice: it’s one of the few top state schools in the Northeast and in a sports context, until its Big 10 (actually now 11 counting PSU) affiliation in the early 90s, interacted almost solely with Northeast schools… But trendiest seems to be the name of this ratings game… I mean, look at how much bounce U.Iowa gets for having its one, historical program: the Iowa Writer’s workshop, a grad program founded in the 1930s with alums like Tennessee Williams. I’m not saying Iowa doesn’t have other quality programs, but the visibility this one program gets tends to make people believe, somehow, it’s so much better than an MSU which, overall, has more balance and power in terms of major programs.</p>
<p>well, put. I am also thinking about appying to MSU next year. But i dunno.
Rankings are really subjective still, and although based on fact, one person will use different facts then you think necessary or weigh certain ones more than others.</p>
<p>btw. when is the next usnews ranking coming out? (i’m no ranking whore i think it’s just interesting to see)</p>
<p>"1. Michigan
2. Harvard
3. Yale</p>
<p>Oh wait…"</p>
<p>You are so mature kk!</p>
<p>I know… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>However, I still don’t undestand kk’s point. Even if a 1300-1350 SAT score were the cut-off, how does that weaken Michigan and strengthen Northwestern?</p>
<ul>
<li>LoL… It was just an honest question; I have no Michigan v Northwestern argument here. I just want to know why in the world the company wants my SAT score. It seems rather trivial compared to a college record.</li>
</ul>
<p>Like I said, SATs, like GPAs are probably a tool used to weed out applicants. But I don’t think many companies request SAT scores when recruiting on campus. They may ask it for direct hires, but not for on-campus hires.</p>
<p>Many people tell me that the SAT isn’t a good indicator of intelligence, but from my experience, most bright freaks do get or end up getting very high scores.</p>
<p>“K&s, there are no absolutes when it comes to sports. Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin are all very good. It depends on the years. Some years, one program will do well in the major sports and other years, another program will. There can be no clear cut winner in this one although at the moment, OSU makes the strongest statement for #1 honors.”</p>
<p>Alex - Of course that’s true - but one can also break down trends in sports in periods of decades or more (once Harvard, Army and ND were the powers in collegiate FB) and over the past decade, dOSU is cleary ahead of UoM.</p>
<p>Over the past decade, dOSU has gone 6-4 against UoM (and 5-1 in the past 6 games) and has won 2 B10 titles in BB. </p>
<p>UoM hasn’t done anything in BB in a while, and what it has done in the past 10-15 years has all been vacated due to scandal.</p>
<p>Plus, dOSU has a highly successful women’s BB program while UoM does not.</p>
<p>So - exactly WHY did you merit UoM a no.1 ranking when, as you admitted, “at the moment, OSU makes the strongest statement for #1 honors” other than being a homer?</p>
<p>And arguably, Wisconsin, with more of a balance of success in both FB and BB as of late, could currently be ranked ahead of UoM.</p>
<p>As for PSU, while their men’s BB program has only seen a few good seasons - PSU does very well in a wide range of non-revenue sports (volleyball, lax, etc.).</p>
<p>“When it comes to campus/town atmopsphere, I think it depends on personal preference. I have visited all 12 CIC campuses several times and 4 (Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin) struck me as being awesome. There is no clear winner here either, it just depends on personal preference. In terms of campus beauty, I think Indiana is #1 but in all other ways, they are all pretty even.”</p>
<p>First of all, (personal preference or not) how can you place UoC no.1 with regard to TOWN (location, atmosphere, safety, local population)? </p>
<p>While the campus is nice, the surrounding area is a dump and doesn’t have anything appealing with regard to atmosphere, safety, etc.).</p>
<p>And I’m afraid that placing Ann Arbor no.1 has something to do with your UoM homerism as well (btw, I’ve visited most of the B10 colleges several times as well).</p>
<p>‘Overall, I agree that Michigan is not a peer of Northwestern is “every sense”.’</p>
<p>So why did you previously state that it was?</p>
<p>“Like you, I believe they are peers in most cases. In the cases where they aren’t peers, sometimes it is Northwestern that has the edge and in other cases, it is Michigan that does. Overall, they are pretty even. Chicago is a school of extremes and in many ways, it is academically stronger than Michigan or Northwestern and in other ways, it isn’t as good academically.”</p>
<p>I can certainly see why some people regard UoC as a better or more prestigious insitution than NU.</p>
<p>But you aren’t likely going to find too many who equate UoM with NU 9other than UoM homers). A big part of an institution is the quality of its student body and UoM lags somewhat behind that of UoC and NU.</p>
<p>Don’t forget ice hockey–UW M & W NCAA champs last year. W won it again this year. UW actually leads the Sears Cup right now with the NCAA Indoor Track win.</p>
<p>K&s, I never said Michigan and Northwestern were identical in every way, I said they are peers. And I certainly never said the University of Chicago was #1 where campus life and atmosphere are concerned. With regards to academics, sports and campus/town environment, we can debate the issue forever. You are certainly entitled to believe that there is a clear cut #1 and I am entitled to believe that there is not clear cut #1. Neither one of us can ever prove it one way or the other, which is why I tend to think there isn’t a clear cut #1.</p>