<p>I can’t speak for Northern Virginia as that area is filled with people from outside of the state, but if you will be located more than an hour south of DC, I think you will come to understand much of what I have been saying about Michigan’s impact. Good luck in whatever the work will be.</p>
<p>hawkette sums it up pretty well here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really, this is a pretty simple concept.</p>
<p>I will just ask a simple question. I have nothing against Michigan, it is a great school. I go to BC, but I dont love it, and I may be transferring, so I am not biased.</p>
<p>Most people that go to BC would get into Michigan (in fact, probably all of them, except recruited athletes, mostly football, that wouldnt cut it athletically to play at Michigan). If Michigan were a better school “By a landslide,” then why would anyone ever choose to attend BC? I say this about any public school that people claim is far superior to BC based on Peer Assessment. Based on this logic, nobody should be attending BC since all of these higher PA rated schools are obviously more prestigious. By the way, I have stats from my school, OOS for Michigan and in one of the main feeder areas outside MA for BC, that can show that getting into Michigan from out of state is not as difficult as many would seem to believe.</p>
<p>Undergrad- i guess its a toss up, but i think BC wins slightly</p>
<p>Grad- Michigan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BC</p>
<p>I don’t think you can say most would get into Michigan Out of State. They could, but it is not a given. The average Michigan student can also get into Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt. When I applied to colleges 4 years ago, I learned that college admissions is largely a crapshoot, I got into all but one school that I applied to, but it is still a game of luck, there are people who were more qualified than me who didn’t get into some of the schools that I got into. </p>
<p>I think Alexandre’s point, and I agree is that there is no distinguishable difference in the overall student quality in the top 40 schools, with the exception of HYPS, MIT, Caltech. </p>
<p>Michigan offers a great alumni network, best faculty in the world, great resources,very studious 24,000 students. People often cite huge differences between graduate programs and undergraduate programs as a negative for public Universities such as Michigan and Berkeley, but I’ve been taking graduate level classes for the past 3 semesters, and I think the undergraduate classes are just as good, if not better than the graduate classes. The profs that teach graduate courses, also teach undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true (esp. among the top 20 privates and the top publics).</p>
<p>when did you graduate from college K&S?</p>
<p>Once again, the arrogance of Michigan posters is on full display:</p>
<p>“The average Michigan student can also get into Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt.” </p>
<p>As the following facts reveal, the truth is that the average Michigan student may not get into Boston College, much less Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, and Vanderbilt. </p>
<p>MICHIGAN
SAT range for middle 50%: 1210-1420
Applicants: 25,806 Acceptances: 12,246
Acceptance Rate: 47.4%</p>
<p>BOSTON COLLEGE
SAT range for middle 50%: 1250-1420
Applicants: 26,584 Acceptances: 7736
Acceptance Rate: 29.1%</p>
<p>CORNELL
SAT range for middle 50%: 1280-1490
Applicants: 28,098 Acceptances: 6935
Acceptance Rate: 24.7%</p>
<p>CARNEGIE MELLON
SAT range for middle 50%: 1300-1490
Applicants: 18,864 Acceptances: 6357
Acceptance Rate: 33.7%</p>
<p>VANDERBILT
SAT range for middle 50%: 1300-1470
Applicants: 12,189 Acceptances: 4128
Acceptance Rate: 33.9%</p>
<p>Jeffl,
Be proud of your school, but also be respectful of others. You are living in a dreamworld where the Michigan people tell each other how great their school is and is sooooo much better than everywhere else and everybody completely swallows the Kook-Aid. Michigan is a good school, but you need to get out more. There are lots of great schools and IMO many of them have superior student bodies and faculties and alumni networks. BC is one of them.</p>
<p>First, I have never been disrespectful to anyone. College admissions is not a purely numbers game. It comprises of many factors. I said simply that an average Michigan student has the credentials to be admitted at those schools. Also, You should really post numbers carefully. </p>
<p>Michigan’s SAT 25%-75% range is 1260-1480(<a href=“http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html[/url]”>http://www.admissions.umich.edu/fastfacts.html</a>)</p>
<p>I got into CMU and Vandy 4 years ago. Back then, the SAT range for Vandy was about 1240-1410, with acceptance rate in the mid 40s. Universities do not change that much in a 4 year span of time, in fact it doesn’t change much in a decade. What did change was that USNews boosted Vandy’s rankings, which prompted more SAT conscious seniors to apply and results in higher SAT scores, is Vandy really different from 4 years ago, i can’t see that. </p>
<p>This is also the case for CMU, their Tepper School of Business had poor yield rates when I was applying, with acceptance rate in the 40s, now its below 20%, due to increase in yield and applications. Did Tepper really improve that much in 4 years?</p>
<p>Jeffl’s statement would be more valid if you qualify it as follows:
"Statistically, the average OOS Michigan student can also get into Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt.”</p>
<p>It’s as least as valid as saying:
“Most people that go to BC would get into Michigan (in fact, probably all of them, except recruited athletes, mostly football, that wouldnt cut it athletically to play at Michigan).”</p>
<p>So you see, Michigan posters are not the only ones that are “arrogant”. LOL!</p>
<p>The quality of the students at Vandy and CMU Tepper improved over the last four years, so yes, the schools have improved. 10 years ago, anyone could get into BC (well, you know what I mean), and now the acceptance rate is under 30% and it will go down to almost 25% next year as apps increase to 32K supposedly. If you dont think student quality matters, then I dont know what to say to you. If you have the best profs in the world teaching not so great students, does that make a great school?</p>
<p>I am not arrogant, just stating facts. I have seen many weaker students get into Michigan and get rejected/waitlisted from BC, and I am from a big area that BC draws from. Maybe these were just a few isolated years, but I dont think so. As I said, I dont even like BC, I am just stating facts.</p>
<p>Also, a fact that rarely gets talked about is that Cornell, Boston College, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt all accept the Common Application, while the University of Michigan does not. This increases the applicant pool tremendously, similar to the effect of the UC application, that I talked about previously. (<a href=“http://www.commonapp.org/index1.cfm?fuseaction=AllMembers[/url]”>http://www.commonapp.org/index1.cfm?fuseaction=AllMembers</a>)</p>
<p>Also, if you are really happy about selectivity of CMU, take a look at this:
The average gpa for CMU’s H&SS(like Michigan’s LSA) is 3.39, with class rank average of top 12%. </p>
<p>(<a href=“Home - Computing Services - Office of the CIO - Carnegie Mellon University”>Home - Computing Services - Office of the CIO - Carnegie Mellon University)</p>
<p>Jeffl
Your facts are wrong. First, the numbers you provide are for admitted students. Please see the attached link (provided by Hoedown) for Michigan’s enrolled students. Michigan’s SAT range is 1220-1410 with a 47% admit rate. For BC, it is 1250-1420 with a 29% admit rate. And as shown above, BC actually received more applications than Michigan. </p>
<p><a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
<p>Second, one has to decide which is the reality-Carnegie Mellon and Vanderbilt of four years ago or those schools today. As you correctly point out, those schools have markedly increased their selectivity and now boast numbers a good deal stronger than Michigan although Michigan has also improved over Fall, 2003 when its acceptance rate was 53.1% and 1200-1390. Things do change in colleges, but reputations change far more slowly and that works for a status quo schools like Michigan which relies heavily on its historical reputation. I won’t comment directly on CMU and Vanderbilt (this is a BC thread after all), but the reader will have to make his/her own judgments about the numbers and what they say about all of these schools (Michigan, Boston College, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt) today and their trend over the last four years. </p>
<p>Third, your comment about USNWR rankings inaccurately implies major ranking changes for these schools. That has not happened. The facts are:</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon: 21 (2007), 22 (2006), 22 (2005), 23 (2004)
Cornell: 12, 13, 14, 14
Vanderbilt: 18, 18, 18, 19
Michigan: 24, 25, 22, 25
BC: I don’t have the numbers. If anyone can supply them, please do. </p>
<p>GoBlueMom or anyone who might have them,
Can you provide any OOS admission and SAT statistics? I have not been able to find any so there is no way to verify claims about the difficulty of OOS admission to Michigan.</p>
<p>jeffl,
Your response is classic Michigan. If the facts don’t fit, then blame something-in this case, the use of the Common Application. Lame. Very lame. </p>
<p>As for the CMU data, you may not have realized that those numbers you criticize indicate a class rank of top 12% and an average SAT of 1300-1480, ie, an average of 1370 which is well above Michigan’s average of 1315. To put this difference in perspective, it is as wide as the gap between Michigan and the University of Florida (1260 average) or UC-San Diego (1260). If you want to consider the gap between Michigan and CMU to be negligible and that they are peers, then you must also accept that the gap with the lower ranked schools is also negligible and that they too are peers. You can accept CMU’s average student superiority or you can associate Michigan with the likes of Florida and UC-San Diego? Which do you choose?</p>
<p>I know BC has spent the majority of the last 10 years between 36-40 in US News, 40 last year, ill try to find the other rankings. 34 i believe is our highest in a while, if not ever</p>
<p>I’m tired of arguing with you on this point. You won’t convince me of anything, because i’ve met countless brilliant minds at Michigan throughout my 4 years here, as an OOS student. And I realized that I won’t convince you of anything either. You can say that I gave up because you have cited so many facts. </p>
<p>I believe that I’ve received just as good of an education as I would have at CMU, or Vandy, or Cornell. I’m tired of arguing about selectivity when I know Michigan is full of bright students. My friends and I have gotten great jobs because of the name of this University, and the alumni connections. With my employer, which is a fairly prestigious consulting firm, when I interviewed, the interviewer actually said “wow, Michigan!” I’m not going to discuss about this anymore, the OP, having gotten into both schools has the intelligence to choose the best school for him/her. Spring Break next week!</p>
<p>Aw, Jeffl, come on. We were just starting to have fun.</p>
<p>Look, I know that I appear hard on Michigan, but let me just conclude our interactions in this thread as follows. You have had a good four years at an excellent state university. They have prepared you well and you’re off to a new state and a job that you value. Hopefully, you will remember fondly your past four years in AA and in the future, you will learn that there are a lot of other great students and great schools out there (like BC). I am happy for you and wish you well.</p>
<p>Next…</p>
<p>Regarding recent posts about Michigan’s student strength vs some other schools, it might be useful to couch this discussion in terms that Michigan fans profess to know something about-football. As you know, high school recruiting is critical to the success of any college football team and getting the best players possible is the objective of every school. </p>
<p>Let’s suppose that, for whatever reason and for more than a season or two, top high school football players decided to matriculate elsewhere (like at Boston College) and Michigan was forced to take lower ranked high school prospects for their team. What would the end result likely be? Boston College would have a better football team than Michigan. Michigan would still have the same group of coaches that everybody thinks is so great. Michigan would still get to play in a huge stadium in front of lots of adoring students and alumni and would probably still get more media airtime than Boston College. Michigan would still have some very good players and probably even a star or two on its team. But that would not change the fact that the average football player at Boston College was more talented than the average football player at Michigan when they went to college. </p>
<p>If you think about this objectively, this is a pretty good analogy. While Michigan might still have several institutional advantages over BC, student quality is not one of them.</p>
<p>Hawket,</p>
<p>I mean no disrespect, but you are being a message hog… give it up…it really doesn’t matter if you’ve posted thousands stats after thousand useless stats…. The reality (that you seemed to fail to realize) is that Michigan is a much better school than BC. </p>
<p>What this means without doing much tap dance around is that if a student has a choice between the two and if he likes to get the best bang for his buck he should go to UMich nine out of ten shots- because it’s a better school. Period. lol Im sorry that I had to but stick to u this way, but sometimes you’ve gotta learn things hard way. Have a good day</p>