<p>
Wow! Pizzagirl’s “lady friends who lunch” have quite the education pedigree… ;)</p>
<p>They’re the smart ones, since they’re lunching and I’m not :-)</p>
<p>Bescraze, that was a nice thing you said about your mother. I wonder if EAD agrees? After all, he thought it was a “waste” to go to HYP and become an elementary school teacher or a general practitioner (versus an academic researcher or surgeon / specialist) – HYP people have better things to do and all.</p>
<p>Quote: rjkofnovi
Bourne. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that Michigan has a small endowment, low frosh retention, and poor faculty resources? By the way most Michigan students take the ACT not SAT test, and not all classes are huge. Tell me you are joking. Please? </p>
<p>Quote: Bourne
In comparison with the top privates? Yes. </p>
<p>OK Bourne. I’ll bite. Let’s see some factual proof. And I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you’re going to make blanket ridiculously incorrect statements, you need to back them up with some numbers. I’ll be waiting for your response. I have a feeling it will be a long wait.</p>
<p>Somehow Hogwarts I have a feeling that you would not be Michigan material. Otherwise you wouldn’t be saying nonsense like…</p>
<p>Quote: Hogwarts</p>
<p>75 percent of Michigan’s student body are academically mediocre in-staters. That’s what happens when you accept 50 percent of all applicants. And at Michigan, unlike Chicago, there is no excuse of weighing the intangibles. It’s all bout the numbers.</p>
<p>The numbers suggest that over 35% of Michigan’s undergraduate population is oos. Also Michigan’s acceptance rate for students this year was 42%. The other statement is complete conjecture and not even worth a response. Nice try though.</p>
<p>I believe its “hallowarts”, not hogwarts =P. Patronum!</p>
<p>LOL. Was watching a Harry Potter movie last night. My apologies to hallowarts. ;-)</p>
<p>I’m usually too lazy to do these sort of things but w/e.</p>
<p>Here. I’ll just compare Umich with WUSTL. </p>
<p>SAT (CR + M): Umich - 1320 (640 + 680) WUSTL - 1450 (715 + 735)</p>
<p>Retention - Umich - 96% WUSTL - 97%</p>
<p>Endowment - (9th largest) Umich 5.5B WUSTL - 4.7B</p>
<p>Financial Resources - UMich has 25k UG’s. WUSTL has 7k. Do the math.</p>
<p>From WUSTL’s Website.
</p>
<p>Can’t find Umich’s but I doubt it even compares.</p>
<p>Faculty Resources - This I’m also too lazy to look for, but publics have higher S/F ratios and profs probably don’t make as much.</p>
<p>Anyways, Umich has a great endowment/retention numbers. Besides that, It’s not really suited to be compared to the other top privates. Especially when you consider I said “top” privates and there aren’t many on this board that consider WUSTL a top private.</p>
<p>“…and there aren’t many on this board that consider WUSTL a top private.”</p>
<p>that is sad but so true… though i think a lot of people are starting to consider the top 20, top privates…</p>
<p>From: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/526528-disadvantages-elite-education-16.html#post1060671224[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/526528-disadvantages-elite-education-16.html#post1060671224</a></p>
<p>
[/quote]
This excerpt sums up the article I posted: </p>
<p>In his commencement speech last month at Wesleyan University, Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, voiced a similar theme when he sounded an impassioned call to public service, and warned that the pursuit of narrow self-interest the big house and the nice suits and the other things that our money culture says you should buy … betrays a poverty of ambition.</p>
<p>Universities are so concerned about this issue that some Amherst, Tufts, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, for example have expanded public service fellowships and internships. Were in the business of graduating people who will make the world better in some way, said Anthony Marx, Amhersts president. Thats what justifies the expense of the education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Emphasis added.</p>
<p>Thanks for proving your original statement was factually inept. I love how you backtracked on two of your “obvious” points you made earlier. By the way, Michigan’s endowment is currently at 7B. You also changed “faculty resources”, whatever that means, to financial resources. Jumping to inaccurate conclusions on CC is very common. Especially among those who like to brag. Another nonsense statement is the one you just made about profs being paid less at Michigan. Do you have proof of that, or is that another statement that needs to be refuted? All top universities must remain competitive to gain/maintain top faculty. Oh by the way, PA of Michigan is 4.5. PA of WUSTL is 4.1. Other top 20 schools where PA is concerned that are ranked BELOW Michigan: Dartrmouth, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, and Duke.</p>
<p>
It’s funny how literally you examine the PA ratings. You really think a difference of 0.1 or 0.2 between schools really makes that much of a difference? Duke and Michigan were tied in PA last year and Duke has led Michigan in years past. Just because some random college presidents got bored and marked more 4’s instead of 5’s for Duke this year doesn’t mean its “scholarly reputation” dipped with regards to other schools like Michigan.</p>
<p>Bourne and rjko,</p>
<p>There is more than a little statistical support to Bourne’s earlier comments about U Michigan’s relative strength to top privates on various metrics. </p>
<p>Review the numbers below. It is obvious which group of privates U Michigan is appropriately linked with. Only in the areas of freshmen retention and, to a lesser extent, in endowment per capita can U Michigan approach the top group of privates.</p>
<p>USNWR FACULTY RESOURCES RANK</p>
<p>3rd Duke
7th Wash U
14th Cornell
10th Vanderbilt</p>
<p>69th U Michigan</p>
<p>30th NYU
32nd U Rochester
53rd Georgia Tech
69th Boston College
32nd Tulane</p>
<p>SAT CRITICAL READING</p>
<p>660-750 Duke
680-750 Wash U
630-770 Cornell
640-740 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>590-690 U Michigan</p>
<p>620-710 NYU
600-700 U Rochester
590-690 Georgia Tech
610-700 Boston College
600-690 Tulane</p>
<p>SAT MATH</p>
<p>680-790 Duke
690-780 Wash U
660-730 Cornell
660-740 Vanderbilt </p>
<p>630-730 U Michigan</p>
<p>620-720 NYU
630-720 U Rochester
650-730 Georgia Tech
630-720 Boston College
590-680 Tulane</p>
<p>25-75 ACT</p>
<p>29-34 Duke
30-33 Wash U
28-32 Cornell
29-33 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>27-31 U Michigan</p>
<p>28-31 NYU
27-31 U Rochester
27-31 Georgia Tech
28-32 Boston College
27-31 Tulane</p>
<p>FRESHMAN RETENTION</p>
<p>97% Duke
97% Wash U
96% Cornell
95% Vanderbilt</p>
<p>96% U Michigan</p>
<p>92% NYU
94% U Rochester
92% Georgia Tech
95% Boston College
87% Tulane</p>
<p>ENDOWMENT PER CAPITA</p>
<p>$506 Duke
$460k Wash U
$274k Cornell
$294k Vanderbilt</p>
<p>$172k U Michigan</p>
<p>$58k NYU
$204k U Rochester
$71k Georgia Tech
$129k Boston College
$114k Tulane</p>
<p>USNWR FINANCIAL RESOURCES RANK</p>
<p>14th Duke
4th Wash U
17th Cornell
15th Vanderbilt</p>
<p>29th U Michigan</p>
<p>38th NYU
19th U Rochester
46th Georgia Tech
69th Boston College
47th Tulane</p>
<p>
Faculty resources are defined as:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Class size, 1-19 students. The percentage of undergraduate classes, excluding class subsections, with fewer than 20 students enrolled during the fall of 2006.(30 PERCENT)
Duke 73% U Michigan 45%</p></li>
<li><p>Class size, 50+ students. The percentage of undergraduate classes, excluding class subsections, with 50 students or more enrolled during the fall of 2006.(10 PERCENT)
Duke 6% U Michigan 17% </p></li>
<li><p>Faculty compensation. The average faculty pay and benefits are adjusted for regional differences in cost of living. This includes full-time assistant, associate, and full professors. The values are taken for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic years and then averaged. (The regional differences in cost of living are taken from indexes from Runzheimer International.)
(35 PERCENT)
CAN’T FIND DATA</p></li>
<li><p>Faculty with Ph.D.'s or top terminal degree. The percentage of full-time faculty members with a doctorate or the highest degree possible in their field or specialty during the 2006-2007 academic year.(15 PERCENT)
CAN’T FIND DATA</p></li>
<li><p>Proportion of full-time faculty. The proportion of the 2006-2007 full-time-equivalent faculty that is full time. The number of full-time-equivalent faculty is equal to the number of full-time faculty plus one third of the number of part-time faculty. (Note: We do not include the following: faculty in preclinical and clinical medicine; administrative officers with titles such as dean of students, librarian, registrar, or coach, even though they may devote part of their time to classroom instruction and may have faculty status; undergraduate or graduate students who are teaching assistants or teaching fellows; faculty on leave without pay; or replacement faculty for those faculty members on sabbatical leave.) To calculate this percentage, the total full-time faculty is divided by the full-time-equivalent faculty.(5 PERCENT)
CAN’T FIND DATA</p></li>
<li><p>Student/faculty ratio. The ratio of full-time-equivalent students to full-time-equivalent faculty during the fall of 2006, as reported by the school. Note: This excludes faculty and students of law, medical, business, and other stand-alone graduate or professional programs in which faculty teach virtually only graduate-level students. Faculty numbers also exclude graduate or undergraduate students who are teaching assistants.(5 PERCENT)
Duke 8/1 U Michigan 15/1</p></li>
</ol>
<p>USNWR FACULTY RESOURCES RANK OVERALL
Duke 3rd U Michigan 69th </p>
<p>If we use Duke as an example as a top private school, then we can see there are clear differences in Faculty Resources between the elite private schools and the top public schools. Also, I couldn’t find data for the pay of professors, but since it accounts for 35% of the Faculty Resources Rank and there is such a giant disparity between Duke and Michigan; I think it is fair to assume that Duke professors are better compensated than Michigan professors.</p>
<p>Duke has dropped three years in a row ead. .1 each year. Something is going on there and it’s obvious that this is one of the reasons why you dismiss the PA so easily. Oh yes a 96% retention rate is so much lower than a 97% one. Furthermore, endowment figures are way more important for private universities than public ones, for obvious reasons. Michigan has a huge endowment, and it’s growing at a very rapid pace. The test scores, such as the SAT, i concur are considerably higher at the privates. Finally Bourne was comparing Michigan to all of the other top 20 schools listed in USNWR. I just pointed out a couple of factors that I felt were incorrectly stated. Not everything I say revolves around Duke.</p>
<p>wait… so let me get this straight, rjkofnovi…</p>
<p>u think that duke university and univeristy of michigan are on par in terms of prestige and educuation? or one of those?</p>
<p>or that michigan is better than duke overall b/c of PA?</p>
<p>This is what happens when people don’t look back on a thread beyond one or two posts. I am not the one throwing off figures without any representation of my opinions. I must credit hawkette and ead for that at least. To answer your question danielhstennis08, they are equal in terms of PA.</p>
<p>Stanford has 74% of its courses under 20, 10% over 50, 98% have a PhD/first professional/terminal degree, 100% full-time faculty, 6:1 student:faculty ratio, and probably a high professor pay (given the expensiveness of the area). It’s at #13.</p>
<p>Penn has 74% of its courses under 20, 8% over 50, 86% faculty who are full-time, 6:1 student:faculty ratio, not sure about % faculty who have a PhD or the faculty pay. Either way, it’s ranked #1, despite the very similar stats to Stanford–and despite the gap in the % faculty who are full-time. The only real difference I could see is faculty pay, and that, I think, is the most flawed part of faculty resources.</p>
<p>Cornell has 60% courses under 20, 16% over 50, 98% faculty who are full time, 10:1 student:faculty ratio, and is ranked #14, right after Stanford. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>rjko,
Not sure what you mean by your latest post. I posted numbers in follow-up to the exchange that you had with Bourne (#273, #274, and following) about the comparison of various numbers (“SAT scores, endowment, small classes, frosh retention, and probably faculty resources”). I added Financial Resources in order to provide greater perspective on the endowment numbers. </p>
<p>How is that representing your opinions? I’m merely providing the specific detail that either supports or refutes your contention. My interpretation is that the facts support Bourne’s position (although I doubt you will be able to admit that yourself).</p>
<p>
Please, this thread hasn’t been on topic since page 1 and has been getting ever farther off track. How a thread about Columbia’s peers turned into a thread about Michigan’s peers I haven’t quite figured out.</p>
<p>You’d think CC mods would be more on top of things, considering how many of them there are. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>If you haven’t noticed, almost every thread, no matter its origin, devolves into a debate over a handful of schools and the private versus public issue.</p>
<p>I, personally, find it astounding how much effort people will put into compiling obscure statistics over this issue. If someone is compelled to go to any school, not matter how good or bad, perhaps it is for their own highest interest, whatever that may be. How can that be ranked and objectively analyzed?</p>