<p>“Perhaps if you got out of the bubble of prep star life, you’d begin to appreciate Cornell for offering education to a wide array of intelligences. The animal science program, for example, draws aspiring farmers. Something tells me their SATs probably aren’t up to par, but they’re the top in the ag industry and go on to become leaders in agriculture. How do you compare that to Duke?”</p>
<p>You don’t. There’s no need to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t already? </p>
<p>Between the lacrosse team fiasco, the awful town-gown relations, and the homogeneous, arrogant nature of the student body, count me out. I’ve met enough Duke alums in my day who don’t have the best things to say about their school. A good friend of mine at school was a faculty brat who grew up at Duke. She couldn’t be more happy away from that suffocating place.</p>
<p>BTW, Hawkette and Evil Asian Dictator, if this is what your much vaunted school spirit means – obnoxiousness – then it’s in the minus column. Being proud of your school, cheering it on in sports – that’s one thing. Being compelled to repeatedly assert its superiority is another. It’s obnoxious and unbecoming. It’s fascinating to me as an alum of a similar school how, while there are certainly NU “champions” on CC (Sam Lee comes to mind), none of the NU people seem to be obnoxiously single-minded about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be presumptuous. Duke is built on Tobacco money and surrounded by… Durham. Ann Arbor is a vibrant, liberal center close to home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I admitted almost all of your post, like that I chose Michigan due to finances [and that a Duke student was 99% ready to transfer to Michigan because s/he could find no reason to be paying so much extra money to go to duke]. I even admitted I was rationalizing my decision.</p>
<p>However, Michigan Honors is a peer of Duke. For you to discard that ignores what many a highly qualified source - I cited ISI - clearly conclude. The students have equivalent, if not higher, stats and it is quite a vibrant intellectual community. The classes are tough, and although there are some large courses, you quickly get into smaller sections through honors. Honors advising is good. The dorm is good. Ann Arbor is a much better place to go to school than Durham. Grad school acceptances are similar. You get all the school spirit because you go to Michigan.</p>
<p>Duke has some private school benefits. Michigan has some public school benefits. The primary area where prestige of an institution - or at least a difference equivalent to the difference between Michgian and Duke - matters is academia. Ego, too. Michigan students get comparable everything. I admitted Duke is a little better. But it is not 120k better. It is not 30k better, unless you are filthy rich.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must have a different meaning of the word substantial than I do, because nearly every reasonable person informed about higher education would describe the overall difference in academic reputation between Cornell and Duke as negligible. If you would like, I will go into details.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well this explains a lot. Maybe the reason why you were waitlisted was because the ILR adcoms could see right through your application and tell that you weren’t really interested in the academics offered by the school.</p>
<p>Hawkette and I aren’t being obnoxious. We are simply stating the facts. Duke’s student body is much-less “obnoxious” than Cornell’s, which CONSTANTLY tries to vaunt its position in the Ivy League. The student bodies at Duke or Stanford could care less about prestige. We know we are getting a wonderful education, going to a good college and are going to make a difference in the world when we graduate from college. Perhaps Michigan students/alumni should feel the same instead of making snide remarks about my grammar/syntax. Duke students are extremely down-to-earth and friendly.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I agree with nearly everything you say so I don’t really know why you keep shoving yourself down my throat. Investment banking isn’t the be all-end all and there are plenty of schools in the country that can provide a great education. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.</p>
<p>I just believe that if you need to differentiate between Harvard and Duke, then you need to differentiate between Duke and Michigan. IMO, you can either group the top 50 colleges in the country together or separate them into distinct tiers. The distinct tiers DON’T involve HYPSM on top and then 25 schools placed together afterwards. That is simply an attempt on the part of Michigan partisans to elevate their school to “Duke status” and stop short of HYP, at which point they know they will be ridiculed by the academic community if they were to compare Harvard to Michigan since its a social taboo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Categorically untrue on all counts, but nice way to peer Duke and Stanford while, once again, positioning everyone else beneath you. </p>
<p>Wow. Just wow.</p>
<p>Heh heh…go by PA score to determine “academic prestige”…it’s data from an actual survey of people in the know (academics)…not partisan posters on an internet message board.</p>
<p>Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT - 4.9</p>
<p>Penn, Michigan - 4.5
Brown, Duke - 4.4</p>
<p>Peer Assessment…academics seem to think Michigan and Penn are peers, while Duke is more of a peer to Brown…:D</p>
<p>keefer,
It would seem that in the minds of some U Michigan supporters, a difference of opinion cannot be tolerated and must be labeled a “lie.” Unleash the jihad against the non-believers. Thanks for your repeated attempts to have a fair-minded and constructive dialogue…NOT.</p>
<p>My comments about U Michigan’s selectivity are hardly “lies.” As measured by USNWR, this is their methodology for calculating selectivity:</p>
<p>Student Selectivity (three factors comprise this score)
SAT/ACT Test Scores of Enrolled Students (50%)
% of enrolled students who graduated HS in top 10% and top 25% (40%)
Total Admittance rate (10%)</p>
<p>On standardized test scores and admit rate (which U Michigan scores poorly on and which I don’t think is very important), U Michigan compares as follows:</p>
<p>CR 25/75 Range
590-690 U Michigan
660-750 Duke
600-680 Lehigh
610-700 Boston College</p>
<p>% of students scoring 700+ on CR
23% U Michigan
63% Duke
13% Lehigh
26% Boston College</p>
<p>Math 25/75 Range
630-730 U Michigan
680-790 Duke
640-710 Lehigh
630-720 Boston College</p>
<p>% of students scoring 700+ on Math
43% U Michigan
68% Duke
39% Lehigh
40% Boston College</p>
<p>ACT 25/75 Range
27-31 U Michigan
29-34 Duke
na Lehigh
28-32 Boston College</p>
<p>% of Students scoring 30+ on the ACT
43% U Michigan
61% Duke
na Lehigh
na Boston College</p>
<p>Acceptance Rate
50% U Michigan
23% Duke
39% Lehigh
27% Boston College</p>
<p>I think any objective observer would conclude that U Michigan is much more a statistical peer to Lehigh and Boston College than it is to Duke. </p>
<p>The area where U Michigan scores highly is in students from the Top 10% of their high school class. I would argue strenuously that this measurement has much lower true value as an indication of student strength at a college. Compared to U Michigan on this measure, here are some colleges that score well on this measure and some others that don’t score as strongly. </p>
<p>90% U Michigan</p>
<p>Better than U Michigan
94% UC Riverside
95% UC Davis
99% UCSD</p>
<p>Worse than U Michigan
80% U Chicago
80% Johns Hopkins
88% Caltech</p>
<p>If you believe that this statistic is an accurate reflection of the student body strength at these colleges, then let’s stop the discussion as we will make no progress. </p>
<p>pizzagirl,
I would be making the same arguments in favor of many other colleges vis-</p>
<p>It has been said many times that Umich’s Peer rating is due to its graduate schools and perhaps its stong reputation back in the '70s or '80s. </p>
<p>Currently, Hawkette’s stats are correct, Umich is more similar to BC and the like. UNC and Umich are almost similar also, so its ridiculous to say that Umich > UNC or > William and Mary.</p>
<p>Wall Street Journal ranking of “top feeder schools” for elite business, law, and medical schools, as measured by % of graduating class attending:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard 358 attending 21.49%</li>
<li>Yale 231 17.96%</li>
<li>Princeton 174 15.78%</li>
<li>Stanford 181 10.7%</li>
<li>Williams 47 9.06%</li>
<li>Duke 139 8.61%</li>
<li>Dartmouth 93 8.45%</li>
<li>MIT 92 7.75%
. . . </li>
<li>Columbia 118 7.14%</li>
<li>Brown 98 6.51%
. . . </li>
<li> U. Chicago 59 6.22%
. . . </li>
<li>Penn 153 5.49%
. . . </li>
<li> Michigan 156 2.73%
. . . </li>
<li> UVA 85 2.55%
. . . </li>
<li> UC Berkeley 118 1.9%</li>
</ol>
<p>NOT ON LIST: NYU, BC, Lehigh, UCLA, UNC-Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest.</p>
<p>Now, let’s do a little experiment and rank not by percentages, but by absolute numbers coming out of each school who end up in WSJ’s “elite” law, business, and med schools. Now the list looks like this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard 358</li>
<li>Yale 231 </li>
<li>Stanford 181</li>
<li>Princeton 174</li>
<li>Michigan 156</li>
<li>Penn 153</li>
<li>Duke 139</li>
<li>(tie) UC-Berkeley 118</li>
<li>(ties) Columbia 118</li>
<li>Cornell 115<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Look, this is clearly a limited measure, and WSJ’s ranking has been roundly criticized methodologically for the arbitrariness of its selection of “elite” law, business, and med schools. But the data does tell us something. Let’s stipulate, shall we, that entrants to WSJ’s “elite” professional schools are “really, really smart people,” though far from the complete universe of “really, really smart people.” But taking this group as a crude proxy for the universe of “really, really smart people” at each school, it comes as no surprise that the density of such persons, as represented by the percentage of each class, is higher at the elite private universities and elite private LACs than at the much bigger top public schools like Michigan, UVA, and Berkeley. </p>
<p>By this measure Duke comes out pretty well, #6 overall. But also note that Duke comes out far behind HYP, and much closer to Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, Chicago, and Penn, though it can claim bragging rights within that second tier. From there it is indeed a pretty big drop to Michigan–again, no surprise, given the size of Michigan’s class.</p>
<p>But if we look at absolute numbers, again taking these “elite” professional school entrants as proxy for “really, really smart people,” it is clear that Michigan ranks extremely high, #5 overall—still well behind Harvard and Yale, but very much in the Stanford-Princeton-Penn-Duke range, and well ahead of top public rivals Berkeley and UVA.</p>
<p>The point is this: there are a ton of “really, really smart people” at Michigan, at least as many as at Duke. And there’s not one iota of evidence to support the preposterous claim that they’re somehow held back in their career aspirations by their Michigan degree. I know that from firsthand experience in getting into top graduate programs and pursuing job opportunities at top universities, public and private. Never has the Michigan nameplate on my undergrad degree put me at the least disadvantage vis-a-vis Dukies or anyone else. I also know it as someone who evaluates both graduate student applications and faculty candidates. Yes, it’s probably true that HYPS candidates have a slight edge. But well-qualified candidates from Mchigan, Duke, Columbia, Brown, Penn, Berkeley, and UVA are all in a very close second tier; none of those nameplates is going to provide any kind of edge over the others in grad school applications or hiring decisions. Go to Duke or go to Michigan, it really doesn’t matter; the main thing is, go where you’re going to be happy, and do well. In the end it’s your individual credentials, not the school’s nameplate (at this level), that’s going to determine how far you go.</p>
<p>Finally, I think the absurdity of Hawkette’s and others’ lumping of Michigan with lesser schools like Lehigh, BC, NYU, etc., should be transparent. These schools do have some strong programs, but their overall strength as undergraduate institutions comes nowhere near Michigan’s. Admissions committees at “elite” professional schools know that, and it’s clearly reflected in the data. Not to say you can’t succeed individually coming from one of those places, but you’re much better off at a Michigan or a Duke if you can get there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read your blurb on that thread you linked in. I don’t get your point. You once again slandered the entire Ivy League and proclaimed a Duke education superior to all other schools in the South and East and said that UVA is only better if price is a factor. </p>
<p>Pretty much sums up what I said about you and EAD. </p>
<p>No matter what I write - no matter how rationally and intelligently - you interpret it as “ferocious” and idiotic and read into it intentions that could never be derived based on the words written. </p>
<p>Where did you study undergrad, anyway? Just curious. You’ve never stated that in what I’ve read.</p>
<p>The 150ish students at Michigan which go to these top graduate programs are usually Shipman scholarship recipients, Ross preadmits or LSA Dean’s Scholarship award winners. Unless you are one of these special few, I wouldn’t get my hopes up regarding admissions to the elite graduate programs as a regular Michigan student.</p>
<p>For a student like me who was awarded none of these special honors, the WSJ Feeder Rankings show that I would be much better off at Penn or Duke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have evidence to support that claim? Seems like you’re making these things up.</p>
<p>
You’re gravely mistaken if you think just because you got into Duke, you can ride the coattails of Duke alums into elite graduate programs.</p>
<p>billclintonk,
I was with you up until you took your shots at Lehigh, NYU, et al. Those are very good colleges with students every bit as good as what you’d find at U Michigan. I find it troubling that you and other U Michigan supporters can’t seem to acknowledge the strength of students elsewhere.</p>
<p>“gellino’s thoughts from earlier in this thread indicating that there are 15-20 other colleges more prominent on Wall Street represent what I think is a more accurate and balanced view of the U Michigan.”</p>
<p>Hawkette, my silence on this issue does not mean I agree with Gelino. I have supported my claim with hard numbers. Gelino has only offered us his word. It is pointless to continue our debate on this subject. You obviously believe what you will.</p>
<p>hawkette, I said you were spreading lies, because your “around 35” ranking for umich is made up, and has no basis. I have just pointed out that even Michigan’s weakness in selectivity due to its bigger freshman size, is still ranked #23 by USNEWS in SELECTIVITY, ahead of the other schools that you constantly mention as Michigan’s peers, which don’t really have much in common with Michigan except for median SAT scores. </p>
<p>How do you evaluate peers? Do you think Michigan compares Lehigh as a peer? Do you really think when Michigan sets targets/goals for the coming year, they pull out the lehigh data, because SAT scores are about the same?</p>
<p>Your obsession with SAT scores is childish, and not at all indicative of maturity for someone of your age. </p>
<p>Michigan has repeatedly stated in the CDS, and the prior points system, that SAT scores are not as important as difficulty of curriculum, and GPA. Yet you continue to compare SAT scores endlessly. Even when I point out that Michigan is ranked #23 by USNEWS, you still go on to say that it isn’t, and continues to discount areas that Michigan place a great emphasis on, such as class ranking, which I have stated that 71% of Michigan students were among the top 5% in high school, a quarter ranked in the top 1%.</p>
<p>
Awwww, Alexandre…I thought you were busy compiling data from Facebook pages…LOL!</p>
<p>If Michigan had 6-8000 undergraduate students its endowment would be up there per student with the lower Ivies/ Duke, its placement percentages would be on par, it could be far more selective, and its attention to students would be similar. But it has 4 times as many students as that, which makes it a top 20 school. </p>
<p>The “public” school advocates here focus only on graduate research (i.e. PA) and tend to ignore the signifacant benefits of undergraduate focused institutions.</p>