Michigan vs Boston College

<p>1-5. Faculty quality
6. Campus environment–lively vs boring etc., political or country-clubbers
7. College town atmosphere
8. Campus facilities in my major and overall
9. Social scene and sports
10. SATs of other students.</p>

<p>The guys that founded The Onion went to Wisconsin. I have no idea what their SAT scores were but the paper is a hoot. It was published on campus for years before the rest of the country got to see it.</p>

<p>Michigan was the founding home for SDS with Tom Hayden. Please advise me of one interesting thing that ever happened at BC. Besides Doug Flutie throwing a long TD pass.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Doug Flutie Hail Mary Perhaps</p>

<p>Barron beat me to it :(</p>

<p>Lol, Hawkette oh comeon what indignation? Somehow I think you are a woman…
A woman of mystery… Dark lady</p>

<p>Dark lady laughed and danced
And lit the candles one by one
Danced to her gypsy music
Till her brew was done
Dark lady played black magic
Till the clock struck on the twelve
She told me more about me
Than I knew myself</p>

<p>barrons,
According to your methodology, I have an announcement. Move over Princeton, move over Harvard. The University of Texas is the number one school in the country (I knew all along it wasn’t one of those danged northeastern schools). Great faculty, great college town (Austin is everything that AA is and more and also not freezing), fabulous campus environment (I bet they have both political types AND country clubbers!), campus facilities (more than you could want and then some), social scene and sports (I don’t think you want to compare Texas’s social scene with Michigan as it would get embarrassing for Michigan in a hurry). And as for the creativity and success level of some of the students, have you ever heard of Michael Dell? He only spent a year at Texas and look what he created.</p>

<p>Alright, I asked so I guess I shouldn’t belittle your ideas, but I thought that we were debating the academic strength of a school and the relative importance of/need for a high quality student body. Your points (college town, campus environment, facilities, social scene, sports) mostly go to helping a student decide on “fit.” Very important aspects to consider in choosing a college, but they do next to nothing to measure the academic quality of the institution or its student body. </p>

<p>And Rabban, I welcome you back to the discussion and your dog thanks you. And I thank you for the poem. Beats the hell out of a Hallmark card.</p>

<p>tons of schools beat Michigan in that category. And Boston isnt such a bad college town either, i would even venture to guess its a little more exciting than AA. Maybe.</p>

<p>Hawkette–See numbers 1-5.
I lived in Austin in its halcyon days when Dell was still building computers in his garage. While good the faculty is not on the harvard level yet–or even up with the top state schools. Now as a fun town to enjoy life and music–it was hard to top. Fabulous T Birds one night, Stevie Ray the next, and Marcia Ball or the Pretenders or the Clash the next. Work off the hangover with a big cheap plate of migas and beans next morning and life was sweet.</p>

<p>Which category was that mets??</p>

<p>6-10 on your “list” BC beats Michigan in. You Michigan supporters can keep thinking that your faculty can teach 100 times better than BC’s, it doesnt affect me. You probably think we get taught by priests, you have no idea about the academics at BC.</p>

<p>barrons,
Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of the thinking behind your proposed rankings methodology ideas although I might reorder a few of the items and weight some things differently. I want to incorporate them in a separate forum, if that is ok with you. </p>

<p>While I enjoy the banter of these discussions, I can’t help but feel badly that there are a lot of places that have very strong faculties and even stronger records in your other categories and yet which get short shrift from high school students and all of the prestige-seekers and hangers-on. If the ranking process can be expanded to consider the attractiveness of a school’s entire package (academic, environmental, social, post-graduate), this would almost certainly lower the rankings of the (IMO) overrated Ivies and raise those schools focused on providing a total experience. Both Boston College and Michigan have a lot to offer on these intangible factors and both would almost certainly compare better vs their more highly ranked Northeastern competitors. </p>

<p>Oh, and that sounds like some good times in Austin. As for the faculty ratings, anything Texas and UT is definitely not part of the Education Establishment. In turn, I would suspect that members of the East Coast intelligentsia are seen as having about as much credibility with Texans as the Dixie Chicks.</p>

<p>It really depends on what you want to major in.</p>

<p>thats not true…michigan people will tell you that everyone of their departments outranks BC’s. they fail to mention that these departmental rankings are grad school based and mean little for undergraduate education</p>

<p>Grad school rankings are essentially faculty based. The only difference between grad and undergrad is the course numbers. The faculty is the same thus the grad ranking can also be applied to the quality of the undergrad at least so far as having top faculty is concerned. If you think it does not matter why are schools like BC trying so hard to hire faculty away from schools like Michigan?</p>

<p>Exactly, Michigan doesn’t have top-10 departments across the board for nothing.</p>

<p>and what ckmets13, you think Michigan has a separate faculty for undergraduates? lol</p>

<p>furthermore, most universities have GSI’s teaching at least some classes… and at Michigan, you know they’re among the best in their fields (top graduate programs = top students)</p>

<p>Hawkette, you are feisty, I will give you that! </p>

<p>“On the link you provided for Collegejournal, I want to congratulate you on your ability to unearth a really obscure bit of information.”</p>

<p>Obscure? The information on that link was published by the Wall Street Journal. There is nothing obscure about the WSJ.</p>

<p>“Before I get to my response, congrats to Michigan for almost beating out Morehouse and Bryn Mawr College! And mega congrats for narrowly beating out the New College of Florida and Vassar College (and killed BC!!).”</p>

<p>What’s wrong with Bryn Mawr and Vassar? They are top LACs. Bryn Mawr is Penn’s sister school and is comparable to Wellesley and Smith. Vassar is one of the top 10 or 15 LACs. Besides, LACs are so small that a very small fluctuation in those numbers can send them soaring or tumbling. I mean just look at the New College of South Florida (which is a highly regarded LAC). Placing just 3 (THREE) students into top 5 graduate programs was enough to send them soaring. Had they managed to place anouther 5 of their students into top 5 programs, they would have made the top 10 list. Small LACs with fewer than 500 students per class are hard to analyze. As for Morehouse, it is one of the few outliers, primarily because 100% of its students are URMs. I don’t think I need to explain further why it has such a successful placement ratio. </p>

<p>“Alexandre, this chart actually reinforces my frequently stated point about Michigan’s strength of student body. The school has some excellent students and this chart reflects that 156 of them got into some high prestige grad programs. But 156 Michigan students does not an entire graduating class make. Doesn’t Michigan have 26,000 undergrads or 6500 graduates every year? What about everybody else? Don’t they count?”</p>

<p>First of all, Michigan graduates roughly 5,300-5,800 undergrads annually, not 6,500. Anyway, by that reckoning Northwestern places just 73 of its students into “high prestige” programs out of a class of 2,000 and Cornell 115 out of a class of 3,600. What about everybody else? Don’t they count? Remember Hawkette, this is a ranking according to placement rates, not sheer numbers. According to raw numbers, Michigan is #5. As a ratio of its student body, Michigan places as high a percentage of its students into those top 5 graduate programs as Cornell and Northwestern. </p>

<p>But let me take this a step further, you always say the same thing. Only 150 out of 5,500 get into top 5 graduate professional programs, what about the remaining students? Only 150 students get into top Investment Banks and Management Consulting firms, ehat about the remaining students. Well Hawkette, those numbers keep adding on. Do you really want to do some serious math? Let’s go:</p>

<p>The Wall Street Journal study was actually very accurate and quite telling, but it was very narrow. It only looked at matriculations intop 5 top Medical schools, 5 top MBA programs and 5 top Law schools. For medicine, they selected Columbia Medical School, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins Medical School, the University of California-San Francisco Medical School and and Yale Medical School. For the 5 MBA programs, they selected the University of Chicago Business school, Dartmouth’s Tuck School, Harvard Business School, MIT’s Sloan School and Penn’s Wharton School. In law, they looked at the University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, the University of Michigan Law School and Yale Law School.</p>

<p>So, 156 Michigan graduates enrolled into those 15 mega-elite programs. But I think we can agree that for each of those professional fields, there are a handful or so other excellent programs. </p>

<p>Among Medical schools, the survey left out some definite top 10 Medical schools like Duke Medical School, Stanford Medical School, the University of Michigan Medical School, Washington University Medical School and Cornell Medical School. 50 or so Michigan graduates enroll into the University of Michigan medical school each year. I am not sure how many enroll into Stanford, Duke, Cornell and WUSTL, but let us assume, for argument’s sake that Michigan manages to enroll 10 of its students into those 4 top medical schools. 156 + 50 + 10 = 216. </p>

<p>Among MBA programs, the survey left out a few top 10 MBA programs like Northwestern’s Kellogg, Stanford Business School, Columbia Business School and Michigan’s Ross. I have no actual numbers, but I do know that Michigan places an average of 15 of its students into Wharton and another 10 or so into Harvard BS annually and I also know that Michigan places more of its students into Kellogg and Ross. So let us be very conservative and say that Michigan places 50 additional students into Ross, Kellogg, Stanford BS and Columbia BS. 216+50 = 266. 50 is more like the number of Michigan grads who get into Ross alone, but like I said, I am being very conservative because I really don’t have the exact figures.</p>

<p>Among Law schools, the survey left out some major players, like NYU, Stanford, UVa, Cal, Penn, Georgetown, Northwestern, Cornell and Duke. I don’t have the exact matriculation information into those 9 top LAW schools for the year this survey was made (2004 I believe), but I do have the exact figures for last year. Last year, Michigan placed 41 students into those 9 Law schools. So, 266 + 41 = 307. </p>

<p>Alrighty then, 300+ Michigan graduates make it into the very top Law Schools, Medical, Law and MBA programs annually. Keep in mind we are only looking into the very best and most prestigious, most exclusive graduate professional programs. I left out decent MBA programs like Duke (Fuqua), UVa (Darden), NYU (Stern), Cal (Haas), UCLA (Anderson), Yale SOM, Cornell (Johnson), Carnegie Mellon (Tepper), Indiana University (Kelley), UNC-Chapel Hill (Kenan Flagler) etc… I left out some very decent Medical schools like UCLA, UDub, Baylor, Chicago, NYU, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Pitt, Emory and UCSD. I also left out some decent Law schools, like George Washington, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, UT-Austin, Vanderbilt, Minnesota, Iowa, Boston University, Boston College, Notre Dame and WUSTL. Do you know how many 100s of Michigan students enroll into those “decent” graduate programs? Last year, 75 Michigan students enrolled into those “decent” law schools listed above. That’s just the law schools. Michigan does not publish numbers on Medical and MBA matriculations, but I can tell you that those numbers would be pretty high. </p>

<p>Of course, we aren’t even looking into matriculations into top 10 graduate Engineering programs or into top PhD programs. I won’t assign any numbers because I have none to go by, but I can imagine that number is high. </p>

<p>Overall, I would be very surprised if fewer than 500 Michigan students matriculated into top 10 graduate programs annually and another 500 into “decent” (you know, like Vanderbilt Law School or UCLA Medical school or Yale SOM) graduate programs annually. That’s a total of 1,000 students getting into good-amazing graduate programs. </p>

<p>I also recall your commenting that Ross placing 150 undergraduate students into Wall street was good, but insignificant when considering out of 5,700. Well Hawkette, as you and I both agreed, most people don’t care to work in IBanking or live in NYC. Ross places another 50 or so undergrads into companies like Intel, Microsoft and Cisco in the West Coast, IBM, Kraft and GE in the East Coast and Bank of America in the Southeast. And that’s just Ross. I also recall sharing the college of Engineering’s placement into major companies. You saw the long range of companies (100s of major companies from all over the World, including PB, Schlumberger, McKinsey, Bain, Goldman Sachs, Boeing, NASA, Lockheed Martin, GE etc…) that recruit at the College of Engineering. Lockheed Martin and Intel hired 16 Engineers each last year. GE, Raytheon and Microsoft hired 10+ Engineers each as well. And unlike Ross, the College of Engineering only has access to limited information. Far more students get jobs with major companies but the college has no way of knowing about it. And the college of LSA also manages to place a lot of its students into major companies. LSA is as highy regarded as the College of Engineering and has similar college fairs and recruitment activity. Unfortunately, LSA’s career office has almost no way of keep record of placement statistics.</p>

<p>So Hawkette, as you can plainly see, it’s not just 156 Michigan undergraduate students who get into good graduate programs or just 150 undergraduate students who land jobs with top IBanks and top Management Consulting firms on Wall Street annually. We are talking about well over 1,500 students annually getting into top graduate programs and into top companies around the country and globe. Sure, that’s not a 100% ratio, but even Harvard doesn’t have a 100% success rate. As a ratio of successful students to the total student population, Michigan is definitely among the top 20 in the nation among national universities. I have said it before and I will say it again, Michigan opens all sorts of doors and provides students with every opportunity imaginable for a solid education and a good future. </p>

<p>So, I repeat, this sort of success means one of two things. Either Michigan does in fact have a relatively weak student body as you claim, but somehow, manages to do as much with its students as schools with superior students do. If that’s the case, then we must conclude that Michigan somehow takes a sub-standard product and does more with it than its peers, thus making it a better university. Or, more likely, Michigan’s student body is more gifted than you think. Pick your poison, but something’s got to give.</p>

<p>oh no hawkette</p>

<p>I was not saying that just because my cousin was rejected by Michigan and accepted at BC that Michigan is a better school</p>

<p>No way</p>

<p>I think they are both great schools, but honestly I do not know enough about them to know which is better.</p>

<p>Im a Notre Dame guy.</p>

<p>In my cousin’s circumstance though, Michigan was obvi more selective, you know?</p>

<p>So, by no means was I advocating Mich’s superiority, however all I was doing what , like I said …" adding fuel to the fire"</p>

<p>that was just my own personal expierence so far with both schools, so I was just offering some of my knowledge in the field of these two schools…</p>

<p>Hey chillin,
No biggie. I was just teasing. I have read your ND posts and hope you make it. Good luck. </p>

<p>Alexandre,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking the time and making the effort to support your argument with some data and some guesstimates (unlike so many other Michigan posters who, in zombie-like fashion, repeat the same drivel over and over again that God is great and so is Michigan). I will take a closer look at your comments and be back.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>well, well, well… that is pretty much slam dunk!!! I was toying with the idea of responding to her, but now I don’t see any need to do so. ;)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, there isn’t enough information for me to give you exact figures. All of my Law school nunbers were accurate, as was my Michigan matriculation into Michigan medical school. In fact, those numbers come from the official website. My College of Engineering and Ross professional placement figures also come from the offical website. </p>

<p>My guesstimates were conservative. Like I said, Ross alone probably accepts more than 50 Michigan grads each year. I am pretty sure Kellogg is second highest among the top MBA programs that Michigan graduates gravitate to. I really wish Michigan would invest some time and resources to keeping an accurate record of placement statistics.</p>

<p>well I could always transfer to Michigan…haha</p>