I presume you meant Section B. You didn’t count the 3% for computer science. In Michigan, Computer Science is jointly offered between LSA and Engineering. In fact, if you click on the computer science link at LSA, it will point you to the Dept of EECS. CSE is a division of EECS.</p>
<p>
I got my number also from the BC 2006-07 factbook. In fact, your link is the same as the one I posted. Here is what it shows for the Class of 2010:</p>
<p>I still come up with 1250-1420. So where did you find 1250?</p>
<p>Btw, BC takes the highest composite while Michigan takes the highest single sitting. Most students I know benefit from the highest composite, especially those taking the test more than twice.</p>
<p>ckmets,
I said Michigan having a top engineering program is a plus (more choices and more collaboration). That fact ALONE will not make Michigan a better school than BC. However, it is still one point for Michigan.</p>
<p>i need to say something about SATs. I don’t know if Hawkette has ever taken the SAT, it doesn’t measure a lot. A swing of 50 points could be only 4 multiple choice questions. Especially the math sections, it measures nothing but 9th grade math ability. I have a personal anecdote, my friend who competed in the Intel talent search with me, he had a 1280 on his SAT, he got in Cornell for Engineering, according to Hawkette, he would be near the bottom at Cornell, but he graduated with highest honors, and went on to work for a very prestigious consulting firm. Obviously, there is a big difference between a 1100 and a 1500, but most folks that I knew in high school who prepared for the SAT got 1300+, those who didn’t got 1200+, when their abilities as students are the same.</p>
<p>GoBlue,
Lots of minutiae and not overly impactful one way or the other.</p>
<p>I did mean Section E. Engineering is listed at 17%. But you are correct that Computer Science is listed at 3% so if you consider these together, then you get 20%. Not sure it’s meaningful one way or the other. </p>
<p>For 25% & 75% SAT scores,
Boston College: 1250-1420
Michigan: 1220-1410
Again, not a huge difference or really meaningful one way or the other.</p>
<p>As for single sitting vs highest composite, the CDS formula fortunately breaks it out individually for us by Verbal & Math. This is a regulatory reporting requirement and is not open to interpretation for reporting purposes. However, Michigan, like any institution, is free to apply the information however it sees fit in its admission processes.</p>
You got it backwards. Each university follows its own admission process. BC keeps the highest composite scores for its applicants while Michigan keeps the highest single-sitting scores for its applicants. Thus the same applicant applying to BC and Michigan will likely have higher SAT scores for BC.</p>
<p>When it’s time to report to CDS at the end of the season, BC’s report will reflect the highest verbal and highest math scores for each enrolled student, while Michigan’s will reflect the verbal and math score from the highest single sitting.</p>
<p>There is no way for Michigan to report the highest component scores unless it keeps two sets of scores for each student.</p>
<p>p.s. Section E is on Academic Offerings and Policies; not much information there.</p>
<p>jeffl,
While I am over 25 (and thus probably a dinosaur in your eyes), I have taken the SAT. As I scored very highly, I am convinced of its 100% accuracy.
You are right that some very good high school students can underperform on these tests. There are students like this in the universe of students at any school (including BC). </p>
<p>Nice anecdote about your friend who got the job with the “prestigious” consulting firm (IMO your generation has an unhealthy affixation with prestige and labels, but that is a different topic). But such anecdotes don’t do anything for evaluating undergraduate institutional quality at Michigan, at BC, or any college.</p>
<p>GoBlue,
Sorry-Section J. It’s the last chart in the CDS. It is for degrees conferred which is most relevant as we were talking about job placement. Engineering is 17%, Computer Sciences is 3%. </p>
<p>CDS is a regulatory filing that is the source data for things like USNWR and for comparison among colleges. As for CDS and public display of numbers, Michigan would have every incentive to keep two sets of numbers. It is quite simple to keep standardized test scores in two separate categories. Businesses do it all the time with different types of financial reporting, eg, one for tax purposes and one for bookkeeping purposes.</p>
<p>hawkette, i only asked, because i remember from somewhere that u said u were 50 years old. I mean I always hoped that I would develop some other hobbies by the time i’m 50. But, everyone’s different.</p>
<p>GoBlue
If you believe that Michigan is an intelligent university (and I am sure that you think it is), it is quite a leap to believe that Michigan would not present the SAT material in a fashion that would put the school in the strongest light compared to its competitors. To do otherwise would be stupid, would potentially be a breach of the duties of the school’s fiduciaries, and would not serve the interests of the school. As has been pointed out here, Michigan’s reported SAT scores (1220-1410) already show a weakness vs schools that Michigan fans consider inferior, eg, Boston College (1250-1420).</p>
<p>barrons - The more choices a school has the better and engineering is a very expensive major for a school to have so overall a school having engineering is “better”.</p>
<p>So I guess the majority of student applicants would pick UoM over schools like Dartmouth or Brown (not to mention employers) - please.</p>
<p>Btw, how are students in the Ross BBA program, comprising of a class size of 360 or so, indicative of the overall quality of the UoM student body?</p>
<p>If they might want to major in engineering some day, yes. What if a school only had one major that it was very good in. Would that still make it a good school? I think it would be a very limited school despite being very good in one major. And for most majors there is little need to select Dartmouth or Brown over UM unless they offer better aid.</p>
<p>How are the better students at any school the measure of that school? Ross is pretty selective within UM and the top employers only look at the better grads of Dartmouth or Brown too. If you are in the lower portion of the class you won’t get a look either.</p>
<p>Over five hours ago, I posted a detailed response to Alexandre’s well conceived (though IMO ultimately unspectacular) treatise on Michigan’s job and grad school record. Since that time, my new Michigan buddies (Rabban, kazz, GoBlue, jeffl) have been working overtime here and on the other Michigan “debate” to slice and dice this new CC blasphemer who dares suggest that mighty Michigan is actually less than is repeatedly proclaimed by the noble Michigan defenders. </p>
<p>While your efforts at various levels of attack (and some constructive comment from GoBlue) are recognized, I (and no doubt anyone else reading this cr–) would most prefer that we get back to the topic. Alexandre made a good presentation. If I may say so myself, I made a decent reply, although I’m not sure how the Michigan partisans feel about any of it. As yet none of you have responded at all to the substance of the job/grad school placement exchange. Can you guys add anything helpful to the discussion or are you guys just gonna make Alexandre do all the work…</p>
<p>hey hawkette, as I said I really don’t want to get in this fact debate with you, I know all the facts that Alexandre presents well, Alexandre is responsible for recruitment of Michigan students in the United Arabs Emirates. Therefore, he’s in a much better position to offer these sort of facts. The fact that you have not even heard of the Wall Street Journal Feeder Ranking shows that you really don’t know a lot about college rankings. I frankly, think he’s wasting time on you, even if he shows that 50% of the Michigan students get into the best graduate schools, you will go back to your bread and butter SAT differences. </p>
<p>I am just here to offer my take on experiences as a student, who is about to graduate from Michigan and my thoughts on the incompetence of SAT as a way of measuring student quality.</p>
<p>Right - and engineering majors wouldn’t pick MIT or CIT over UoM as well.</p>
<p>You really are delusional if you think ($$ being equal) that the vast majority of applicants wouldn’t pick Dartmouth or Brown over UoM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are about 1,400 students at Ross in a university which has over 25,000 students (do the math).</p>
<p>The top 1/3 or 1/2 of students at Brown/Dartmouth have a shot at a finance job. That % is significantly lower at UoM (can we have a little more insightful analysis here, rather than this UoM lovefest?).</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder if students at Penn, who don’t go to Wharton, have a better shot at these jobs than UoM students?</p>
<p>jeff -
</p>
<p>Well, for someone who knows so much about recruiting, Alex was ignorant of the fact that many employers do take a look at SAT scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why all the elite universities (heck, pretty much all of them) consider SAT or ACT scores and many Wall Street/finance/consulting firms do as well.</p>
<p>(If SAT scores don’t mean much - then this whole “rankings thing” is pretty much moot.)</p>
<p>Did you ever stop to think there are lots of people with zero interest in working on Wall Street or consulting? They are hardly the jobs most conducive to having an enjoyable balanced life. Many people in the Midwest would rather eat paste than live and work in NYC.</p>
<p>hawkette,
I agree a survey of employers would be a good component. But there would be logistical problems. Who, out of a million corporations and privately-held firms, do you ask? Also, they woundn’t cooperate unless there is an incentive to do so, not to mention the whole effort would be too costly. I ain’t gonna happen.</p>
<p>US News, no matter what better methodology they may want to use, cannot produce results that significantly vary from the generally conceived notion of where schools rank relative to each other. HYP must be on top, followed by elite privates, with top public schools in modest positions. The rest don’t matter. Otherwise, they would lose “credibility.” It’s a ranking of prestige not quality. That’s the constraint they have to work with. So, they have to develop a methodology that fits the result, rather than the result being a result of a methodology.</p>
<p>Please - it’s not just Wall St/consulting jobs and it’s not just NYC.</p>
<p>The same thing applies to jobs in publishing, advertising, etc. and to cities all across the US (from Chicago to Dallas to SF to Boston to Atlanta).</p>
<p>Oh please yourself. You have nothing to back that up but hot air. More large corporartions are now run by grads of the top state schools than the big name privates. You can look that up.</p>
<p>jeffl,
I can understand your unwillingness to join in the debate. It is difficult when the other side presents multiple facts to support their position, particularly when those facts and the conclusions they suggest run counter to your own opinions. </p>
<p>Making a winning argument takes more than just making an assertion and expecting everyone else to buy it (eg, “the average Michigan student can get into Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Vanderbilt”). Facts are sticky things and, when applied to issues like standardized test scores, financial resources, acceptance rates, job/grad school placement, etc, they can be particularly powerful. You can argue the usefulness of a measure (as I do repeatedly against the Peer Assessment), but the measure itself can have great persuasive power and it is a fact that Michigan scores highly on this (I suspect that you fully embrace the use of Peer Assessment as it casts Michigan in a favorable light). </p>
<p>I would love to be a fly on the wall when you get to Virginia and you start hearing the people there talk about the most prominent state universities of Virginia (UVA & W&M) and North Carolina (UNC) in the same reverential way that you now talk about Michigan. You will see even more that Michigan is little more than an afterthought (if even that) for those people (and I would argue that this is the case for most areas of the country). Here is what they are thinking: “Michigan. Good state university, but not among the nation’s most elite universities.” Sorry.</p>
