<p>Chillin, you can’t go wrong with either one. But if the cost or location is not a factor, Michigan might be more fun. Don’t worry about the size too much. Visit both schools and get the feel. It’s mostly about personal taste. Just be prepared for some early morning or late evening classes.</p>
<p>Carroll is good regionally, but if you dont plan on getting a job in the Boston area then Ross is definitely better nationally</p>
<p>I would definitely choose Michigan over BC, its not even a close call in my opinion. Plus, when people talk about class size being overly large, they are mainly referring to the intro classes which you take freshmen and sophomore year, which are a joke anyway because everyone I asked about said that you can just study straight from the textbook for these. By the time your a junior classes are way smaller and you know your professor’s on a close basis.</p>
<p>nefer,
Congrats on your daughter being a Michigan student. I hope that she is having a good experience and learning a lot… and surviving those early morning wake-up calls 
</p>
<p>In rereading some of my posts, I realize that I may have come off harsher than I intend. I have continually stated that Michigan is a fine school, but this thought seems to get overlooked. My comments and most of my arguments go to RELATIVE comparisons. What is Michigan’s caliber relative to the schools to which it is being compared? Michigan is not an Ivy level school-Michigan is an excellent and large state university with student quality (as measured by average SAT score) nearly on par with Boston College. </p>
<p>I completely agree with your comment about personal taste. When schools are as qualitatively close as Boston College and Michigan, personal taste is everything. The comments made by some about class size and intro classes and fun have important experiential implications that will appeal to different people in different ways. Hopefully, students, alums or family associated with Boston College will provide their comments about the academics, the job placement and other areas at BC today (not ten years ago) and, if possible, compare this to Michigan today.</p>
<p>Thank you. Over the winter break she bought a big alarm clock for that 8:00 (?) AM class, and so far she says she hasn’t missed a lecture. That’s good to hear, but I’m not sure I should believe it or not. lol</p>
<p>When we talk about schools like U Michigan, we agree on some things, but at the same time we have disagreements. Neither point of view is wrong, I think it’s just that we are coming from different perspectives. You see a super-sized BC, I see a BC and a Northwestern rolled into one.
One can cite all the numbers, scores, ratios, or whatnot, but they can never tell the whole story. I was a math major as an undergrad, so I know how numbers can be misused. U Michigan is unique having both great and not so great attributes, and it’s up to each individual to decide whether it’s the right place for him/her.</p>
<p>On the narrow basis of evaluating a study body by SAT, you could argue that Michigan with an average SAT score of 1315 would have the following peers:</p>
<p>Top 25% comparable to Northwestern (average SAT score of 1410)
25-75% comparable to BC (1335) although this may a bit unfair to BC
Bottom 25% comparable to Howard University (1140)</p>
<p>I anticipate strong reaction from the Michigan fans and there is obviously much more to compare in schools than just SAT scores. Nonetheless, student body quality is a critical piece of any college evaluation and, if my calculations are accurate, these SAT school comparisons are not far off the mark.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really… all I’m saying is that if Northwestern offered ALL of the same programs that Michigan does, including the obscure ones, they’d see a dramatic drop in their SAT average</p>
<p>nevermind the reporting issue between one-sitting and multiple sittings, which favor privates like Northwestern.</p>
<p>I guarantee that, among the students in traditional academic majors (engineering/business/liberal arts/etc), there’s very little difference between those at Northwestern and those at Michigan. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, the ONLY reason student quality matters in the first place is the competency of peers in your classes… and if you’re an engineering undergraduate, you won’t be taking classes with the students/student-athletes in athletic training/physical education/sport administration… infact, at Michigan, the odds of you even crossing paths is slim.</p>
<p>You carry quite elitist attitude regarding these two schools, citing this SAT difference, when in reality they are vastly different schools that are hard to compare as apples to apples… it seems you’ve made it a personal mission to convince everyone at CC that the top publics aren’t comparable to some of the top privates (Northwestern) when EVERYONE that matters thinks otherwise (employers/graduate admissions)… quite the chip you have on that shoulder man.</p>
<p>If Northwestern students in traditional academic majors were THAT much more capable, I’d imagine employers and graduate admissions officers would be well-aware and employment/admissions statistics would reflect that. However, they don’t. They must see something you’re failing to see, no? perhaps something akin to that which I described above?</p>
<p>hawkette,
A couple of comments.
First, you can’t compare statistical distributions like that. It just so happens that I posted a chart comparing SAT score distributions of Michigan and Northwestern in another thread a few days ago.
Here it is again. <a href=“IMAGE DUMP”>IMAGE DUMP;
This is not real data, mind you. It’s my rough approximation. The real curves would certainly not be smooth, and there would probably be sharp drop-offs at both ends instead of long tails.
The top 25% of Mich is comparable to the top 50% of NW. Put another way, the bottom 50% of NW is no better than the average Mich range.
Draw an imaginary curve for BC centered at its average with a near identical shape but scaled to its relative size. Mid Mich 25-50% will be comparable to mid 25-50% of BC. You may be confusing percentages with sizes.
Now, do the same for Howard. In this case, however, I would say Howard, as a whole, is stronger than the bottom 25% of Mich. In fact, a significant portion of NW would be no stelar students at Howard, either. Nevertheless, NW student body is clearly stronger than Howard overall. So is Michigan’s. Just making an observation. If some Michigan fan said every Michigan student is a SAT stud, it’s obviously wrong. And I haven’t seen anyone saying it.</p>
<p>Second. As you said, there’s more to the quality and institutional character than SAT scores. Even though the compositions of the student bodies of Mich and BC as measured in terms SAT are similar, Michigan arguably has faculty, academic, job & graduate school placement resources that are more comparable to NW than BC. That’s Michigan’s edge as I see it. If you want to rank schools and put NW above Mich, I have no problem with that. In fact, I would do the same if forced to, but then I would toss it afterwards.
(BTW, My apology to BC folks. BC is a great school. Who dragged BC into this dog fight? My daughter applied to BC last year. Had she chosen to attend it, I would have supported her)</p>
<p>Kazz ,
I think your argument weakens considerably when you start explaining how all of the “obscure” majors bring down the Michigan SAT average and that everyone else at Michigan is much stronger. I think you do those in the less traditional majors a disservice and, more importantly, I don’t think you have any data to support your opinion. If you do, then please share. </p>
<p>Your guarantees are opinions. I accept that there are many fine students at Michigan, but please remember that there are 26,000 undergraduates in AA and total student population is over 40,000. </p>
<p>Your claim of my take on the top publics is way off. Michigan and several other states have excellent state universities. Their size is an advantage in many comparisons with the private schools as they normally offer a greater variety of majors than the privates. The rankings surveys (eg, USNWR) reward this breadth of offering with higher Peer Assessment scores. Without PA, it is a fact that the publics would be ranked lower and in some cases, significantly lower. The disadvantages of publics are obvious-larger class size particularly in a student’s first two years, less resources available per capita to support both faculty and students and, most important in my mind, a lower average student quality. If pointing that out is elitist, then I guess I am elitist, but these seem like pretty well established and non-controversial observations. </p>
<p>As for your comment about “EVERYBODY that matters,” well I am an employer and so are several other posters on this thread and other Michigan-related threads. No one doubts that Michigan has some fine students, but many employers could care less about Michigan (or Northwestern or BC for that matter). It depends on the employer and the industry. Michigan draws 69% of its current students from Michigan and 85% from the Northeast (btw, BC only draws 66% from the NE). Do you really think that an employer in the Southeast, the Southwest, the West, the Northwest, and the Mid-Atlantic really believe that Michigan is an essential source of students? Work for a few years and then come back and tell me that one’s undergraduate school has great importance for the employer. Grad school yes, but undergrad generally no unless there is some specialized skill that is being developed. </p>
<p>And, dear Kazz, tis not me who has the chip on the shoulder, but rather the Michigan folks who insist on being associated up and never down. </p>
<p>Nefer,
I was responding to your last comment about how Michigan was “BC and Northwestern rolled into one.” I agreed with a caveat, that caveat being that the bottom 25% at Michigan is weaker. I agree that Howard’s average is probably a touch stronger than Michigan’s bottom 25%. My numbers from the earlier post were meant only as very rough approximations. BTW, I liked your diagram. </p>
<p>For your comment on the usefulness of using SATs to judge institutional quality, I agree with you. On three separate occasions in this thread alone (#18, 29, and 46), I have stated that SATs aren’t everything for judging a school or student quality. But SAT scores are hard numbers and do allow quantitative comparisons across different types of schools (Michigan, BC, Northwestern, Howard), different regions of the country (NE, MW, Mid Atl), different sizes of schools (7000-26,000), etc. </p>
<p>We commonly read many strongly expressed opinions about how such and such a school is great or has terrific faculty or the class sizes really aren’t that big or the job/grad school placement is superb, etc, etc, etc. Coming from partisans and without supporting data, these statements are revealed for what they are-opinions. I prefer to look at the measurable data. While some intangible qualities of a school are certainly missed in the raw numbers, the quantitative data does provide a solid foundation for analysis and initial comparison. In that at least, I can put a large degree of confidence.</p>
<p>The University of Michigan is in the Midwest, just thought you should know that.</p>
<p>^^^Not sure what your point is, but if related to my comment about employers outside of the Midwest and Northeast, please recognize that Michigan posters persistently claim that their graduates have national appeal. I would argue that generally-educated Michigan undergraduates have no special appeal outside of its region. The same would be true for the vast majority of undergraduate schools in America.</p>
<p>"Michigan draws 69% of its current students from Michigan and 85% from the Northeast (btw, BC only draws 66% from the NE). "</p>
<p>this is what i was referring to. </p>
<p>Everyone knows about Michigan, my cousins in China knows Michigan is a world class University. I really don’t know what you mean by appeal, at the engineering career fair, California Department of Transportation actually came to hire Michigan Engineers. I interviewed with several startups in silicone valley on campus. Although I would say 50% of the employers on campus are looking to fill positions in the midwest, there are opportunities throughout the country.</p>
<p>hawkette,
re: point #1, we are in agreement. That there is a good percentage of “weak” students has never been disputed by anyone, partisan or not (BTW, I put “weak” in quotes because 90% of the student body were in top 10% of their high school graduating class)
A school that strives to provide Northwestern caliber education to a combined Northwestern and BC student body, and high school honor students to bring up the rear, is quite impressive to me. A feat which I think no metrics used to rank schools today can adequately capture and express.</p>
<p>With regard to using SAT scores, if you look at the chart again, Michigan is so large that one cannot easily draw a straightforward comparison. Rather, interpretations need to be made. That was the main point that I wanted to show. If the chart gave some readers pause, it has served its purpose.</p>
<p>One last comment before I hit the sack. I think you are putting too much stock in US News ranking methodology. It has been criticized repeatedly for lacking an empirical or theoretical foundation. I will spare the readers of technical details (they can read it on the Web), but suffice to say that it should only be used as a rough guideline. It does a pretty decent job, but it is not on a firm ground. Many US News metrics, such as faculty/student ratio, class size, alumni giving rate, even selectivity, are in reality a veiled measure of the wealth of the school. Nothing that money can’t solve in time. I am more interested in seeing placement rates, satisfaction rates, etc, and some data that points to Michigan’s success is available as has been discussed. It’s my belief that just because sufficient data is not at hand does not mean we must rely only on things that are only peripherally important. Let us agree to disagree on that.</p>
<p>kazz,
In all fairness, hawkette does not come across as a elitist to me. On the contrary she seems anti-elitist. She just thinks that Michigan’s reputation is unsubstantiated based upon her evaluation. I have tried to explain why I think her opinion is unjustified.</p>
<p>If your interested in Business, Michigan has much better recruitment from investment banks, consulting firms and top companies when compared to BC. Also, most Michigan departments are generally ranked quite high in their field and therefore I feel that Michigan definitely has more name nationwide and more prestige. You should go with your personal choice, but when it comes to finding top flight type jobs out of college Umich has a landslide of an advantage.</p>
<p>I am staying out of this thread and as such will not offer my take on this whole BC vs Michigan debate. However, I agree with nefers. Hawkette does not strike me as elitist. Rather, I think her attention to detail, her belief that Michigan supporters are somehow trying to aggrandize its excellence and reputation and her reliance on raw statistics somehow impede her ability to see the big picture. In short, we attach value to different aspects of education and as such, come up with utterly different conclusions. That can be said of any university, Harvard included.</p>
<p>This thread, I’m afraid, is becoming way tooooo much about me. I am not the topic-Boston College vs Michigan is the topic. I happen to think that the two schools are very, very close in a number of important respects. I have provided several data points to support my conclusions. You may not like my conclusions and that’s fine, but please respond with facts and supporting data as your argument will be much stronger and a heckuva lot more relevant. </p>
<p>jeffl,
You indicate that you have had a good experience with Michigan engineering which represents 17% of Michigan’s undergrads (or nearly 4500 students out of 26,000). I certainly don’t agree with your comment about “everyone knows Michigan” (ever been to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Pacific Northwest, etc?). Nonetheless, engineering is known as one of the stronger undergrad programs and also, for many students, probably has a level of specialized training that puts it into a different category than the generally educated student at Michigan. Good luck with your job search. I think if you work somewhere outside of the NE or MW, in a few years you will come to understand and accept my comments. </p>
<p>nefer,
I agree that “weak” is too strong a word to describe Michigan’s bottom 25%. A better word choice might be less competitive. As you rightly point out, a very high percentage of Michigan students did achieve Top 10% high school rankings. </p>
<p>I am not so much putting stock into USNWR rankings as I am putting the USNWR data out there for all to see and evaluate for themselves. I am interested in the details behind the rankings and would be interested to read your thoughts on its lackings. Too often in these “debates” on CC, posters present opinions that they fervently believe (and do so I am sure with good intentions), but diminish objective data that might lead one to a different conclusion. I believe that there is value in pointing out the differences in things like class sizes or SAT levels or in financial resources to support faculty hiring and student services. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions about the importance of this data. My complaint is that some want to accept some (subjective) information (Peer Assessment) when it suits their purpose and reject other (objective) data when it presents a less rosy picture. </p>
<p>There are great intangibles to every university and accounting for this is sorely lacking in the USNWR rankings. Both Boston College and Michigan would likely score highly on any discussion of a school’s intangibles. I hope to pursue this topic in a different forum. </p>
<p>pre-medwannabe
Do you even know BC’s numbers for investment bank recruiting or is this your perception? You may be right (I don’t know), but voicing an opinion without evidence from both sides greatly undermines the value of the opinion. Also, can you explain the basis on which you conclude that Michigan has a “landslide of an advantage” in finding what you describe as “top flight” jobs? </p>
<p>Alexandre,
Don’t stay out of this discussion because of me. You and I may reach different conclusions about the relative strength of Michigan as an undergraduate school, but your comments are always interesting (if not always well supported). In particular, I’d like to read more of your thoughts on what aspects of education you believe I am undervaluing and how you would rate these in the current Boston College vs. Michigan discussion. Also, I would be interested to know your take on the bottom quartile at Michigan and how these students stack up vs the average at other schools.</p>
<p>i really don’t understand your logic, there are plenty of laymen in the state of Michigan that thinks Michigan State is a better college. Two of my friends have gotten jobs in Austin and Houston, with Dell and Shell Oil, and gets paid very well compared to average salaries. Of course Michigan goesn’t garner the same wow factor as Harvard or MIT. The average person would never have heard of Rice either, or Emory but both are very fine schools, and of course the employers recognize this.</p>
<p>btw, I will be working in the mid-atlantic region as a business consultant.</p>
<p>^^May I ask what business will you consult on and where in the Mid-Atlantic will you be?</p>
<p>i can’t say specifically, but its Virginia.</p>