<p>^That ranking also has Berkeley above Stanford and Yale.</p>
<p>As well as Northwestern below NYU.</p>
<p>Brown isn’t even in the top 50, but Purdue is? </p>
<p>Not all that reflective of domestic university reputation.</p>
<p>allcapella, all reputational scores have Michigan rated higher (usually significantly so) than Emory, Vanderbilt and WUSTL, and as high as Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern, Penn and UVa.</p>
<p>At any rate, all this discussion is pointless. We each have our take on why some schools have unusually high test score ranges while others, of equal selectivity and quality, do not. Some may say it is random, others think it is by design. We’ll never know for sure I suppose.</p>
<p>Besides the USNWR College Presidents Peer Assessment rankings, most reputational surveys seem to show Michigan grouped with UVA, UNC, Emory, and Vandy but significantly behind the Ivies, Duke, NU, and Stanford.</p>
<p>High School Counselor Ranking
[High</a> School Counselor Rankings | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/high-school-counselor]High”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/high-school-counselor)</p>
<p>Corporate CEO International Rankings
<a href=“Education - Image - NYTimes.com”>Education - Image - NYTimes.com;
<p>2012 Global Employment Ranking
<a href=“Global Companies Rank Universities - NYTimes.com”>Global Companies Rank Universities - NYTimes.com;
<p>These surveys seem to address job recruiting more than academic reputation though which could explain why public schools besides Berkeley perform poorly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice one, rjk.</p>
<p>First, you promise Michigan’s ACT scores will be higher this year and thus closer to Northwestern’s (while at the same time dissing NU for placing too much emphasis on them). Then we get into the ridiculous class rank discussion, followed by a bunch of misinformation about superscoring (which you later apologize for presenting). Now we have “people who think NU is better than Michigan are arrogant” as your final rebuttal to everyone who has provided a wide range of evidence to support their claims.</p>
<p>If I were you, I would take your enthusiastic Michigan support over to a thread about UVA versus Berkeley versus Michigan. Of those three, I could be persuaded to choose Michigan for many areas of study. Not so much with the “elite privates” we are discussing here.</p>
<p>It’s too bad the thread from the girl who had to “settle” for Michigan after getting rejected from four Ivies (“To (all) the colleges that rejected me”) is closed. It would have been interesting to have your perspective there.</p>
<p>goldenboy, aren’t your second and third links essentially the same but taken one year apart? Interesting how the same rating dropped Northwestern from #6 in 2011 to #67 in 2012. And BU at #17 in the world is a real doozy! I will not break it down further, but it is clearly not a valid source…no more than the countless “international rankings”. </p>
<p>As for high school guidance counselors, feel free to trust their judgement. Most parents and high school students do not afford their school counselors the same esteem you do.</p>
<p>OP, not sure if you’re still reading, but i’d like to provide some insight from someone with no dog in this fight. </p>
<p>The universities are for most practical purposes pretty similar in quality. Both are elite. Choice between either university should really fall down to personal preferences. Some people on CC believe that an elite public university is essentially an oxymoron. And Michigan, with its large number of enrolled students, and perhaps larger class sizes, is no exception. Others believe that Northwestern is too preppy/WASPy.</p>
<p>The universities in terms of communities are so different from one another that preference should be obvious.</p>
<p>
Alex, the rankings are actually different since they survey different individuals; the first one is the opinion of CEOs/Chairmen of multinational companies in North America and Europe while the second one is a rating done by Hiring Managers from North America, Europe, and Asia. Since the methodology is different, one can’t expect the rankings to exactly mirror each other.</p>
<p>There are a few surprises like BU ranking highly but all in all, if you compare the relative placement of American universities on both lists, there isn’t a while lot of difference except for the significant drop that Northwestern experienced.</p>
<p>You made a claim that most reputational surveys favor UMich over WUSTL, Emory, and Vandy which I refuted using three sources that place them roughly on par with one another. What other reputational surveys were you referring to besides the USNWR Peer Assessment than when you made this claim may I ask?</p>
<p>“There are a few surprises like BU ranking highly but all in all, if you compare the relative placement of American universities on both lists, there isn’t a while lot of difference except for the significant drop that Northwestern experienced.”</p>
<p>The outliers and surprising drops are what makes this whole survey suspect. I certainly wouldn’t use it or trust it as anything one could use as a reputational ranking.</p>
<p>ARWU are better.</p>
<p>ARWU is just as suspect. </p>
<p>It has UCSD at #15 in the world, among other odd showings.</p>
<p>It seems like all the international rankings are questionable, honestly.</p>
<p>Lots of people on CC misunderstand how college admissions work. Consider this: </p>
<p>In 2011, Northwestern enrolled 2,107 freshmen. Their middle 50% ACT scores were 31-34. Very impressive. But that means 75% of the NU freshmen, or 1,527 freshmen, scored 31 or higher on the ACT. (Actually, only 80% reported ACT scores, but those reporting only SAT scores are comparable, so let’s assume that complication away).</p>
<p>That same year, Michigan enrolled 6,236 freshmen. Their middle 50% ACT scores were 29-32, definitely lower than Northwestern’s. But that means 25% of Michigan’s entering class, or 1,548 freshmen, scored 32 or higher. That’s slightly larger than the number of Northwestern freshmen who scored 31 or higher. Just as at Northwestern, 80% of Michigan freshmen submitted ACT scores. So, judging by ACT scores, Michigan actually enrolled more top students than Northwestern did; or, to be more precise, if you compare the ACT scores of the top 1,500 or so students in Michigan’s class, they’re actually a bit stronger than those of the top 1,500 or so students in Northwestern’s class. Northwestern’s higher average and median ACT scores are strictly a function of its enrolling a smaller class. It’s simply not the case that Northwestern is skimming off the top students and leaving Michigan with the dregs; they are doing comparably well in landing top students, with Michigan probably having a slight edge, but as a public institution Michigan has a much larger class to fill and therefore must reach deeper into the barrel to produce that number of enrolled freshmen.</p>
<p>Now you can argue that it’s the bottom of the class that matters, but in my experience that’s pure hokum. At a place the size of Michigan (and probably also at schools much smaller), students quickly separate themselves into those taking harder majors and those taking easier majors, and those taking more advanced classes and those taking less advanced classes. And with graduate programs at the most elite levels and graduate-level courses open to qualified undergrads, Michigan can offer capable undergrads a true “sky’s the limit” undergraduate experience. The laggards in the class don’t get in the way; by and large, you just don’t see them in the classroom.</p>
<p>As for cross-admit “data,” that’s also bunk. As has often been said, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”; Parchment is a bunch of self-reported anecdotes. Beyond that, though, I don’t doubt that more cross-admits choose Northwestern over Michigan, but that’s a simple function of applicants’ self-interest. Pretty much every applicant knows that, statistically speaking, it’s harder to get into Northwestern than Michigan. So many who aspire to Northwestern will also apply to Michigan as a back-up. But if you prefer Michigan to Northwestern, chances are you won’t apply to Northwestern as a back-up, because you calculate that if you don’t get into your top choice (Michigan), you’re unlikely to get into a school with a lower acceptance rate (Northwestern). Applying to Northwestern seems like a waste of your money and time. So the cross-admit pool is going to be heavily skewed toward people who preferred Northwestern all along.</p>
<p>And that’s not unique to this pair of schools. Look at the cross-admit “data” for any pair of schools, and you’ll see that almost invariably it’s the school with the lower admit rate that wins the most cross-admits–not because it’s more desirable to applicants generally, but because applicants aren’t stupid. They’re playing the odds. If school A is harder to get into than school B but you prefer school B, chances are you’re not going to bother to apply to school A, which guarantees you won’t end up in the cross-admit pool. But if you prefer school A, you might well apply to school B as a back-up, but if you’re cross-admitted, you’ll choose school A because it was your preferred choice all along. There’s a cleat, and I’d say overwhelming, selection bias in these cross-admit pools, that pretty much guarantees that the school with the lower admit rate “wins.” Which means that the cross-admit data tell us nothing more than which school has the lower admit rate.</p>
<p>
I would agree with this to some extent but keep in mind that the SAT and the ACT aren’t difficult enough exams to truly separate the “very smart” from the brilliant. NU’s test scores may be similar to Harvard’s but they clearly don’t attract quite the same caliber of students.</p>
<p>Lets consider the National Merit Scholarship winners who are chosen and thoroughly vetted through a competitive and holistic examination based on test scores, grades, essays, extracurricular accomplishments, etc. etc. Here are the universities that produced the greatest number of National Merit Scholars who were recognized directly by the foundation and were given the choice to select $2,500 in cash or accept the monetary award offered by the school they matriculated at if it was a greater value (i.e. subtracting the school sponsored winners at institutions like Northwestern and UChicago which reward Finalists):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalmerit.org/annual_report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nationalmerit.org/annual_report.pdf</a> (scroll to pages 38-39)</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard College: 268</li>
<li>Yale University: 206</li>
<li>Stanford University: 195</li>
<li>Princeton University: 181</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 160</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania: 117</li>
<li>Duke University: 112</li>
<li>Columbia University: 91
9. University of California-Berkeley: 90</li>
<li>University of Chicago: 86</li>
<li>Brown University: 79</li>
<li>Dartmouth College: 76</li>
<li>Northwestern University: 67</li>
<li>Washington University in St. Louis: 64
15. University of Texas-Austin: 57</li>
<li>Cornell University: 54</li>
<li>Vanderbilt University: 50</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology: 49
19. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 46</li>
<li>Rice University: 43</li>
</ol>
<p>Its actually Northwestern that has an edge over Michigan in attracting academic superstars even at the absolute level. The difference in student body strength as you move up the ladder as Duke/Penn have more than double the National Merit Scholars than Michigan does, MIT has more than 3x, Stanford has more than 4x, and Harvard has more than 5x.</p>
<p>A number of private schools ranked above Michigan including Emory, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon University, and Rice actually have fewer National Merit Scholars than Michigan, albeit absolutely speaking.</p>
<p>One school whose academic reputation (USNWR President PA: 4.6 and HS Counselor PA: 4.9) seems to be at clear odds with the caliber of the students it attracts is Johns Hopkins University.</p>
<p>Any idea why JHU is not thought of in the same light among the gifted high school students and their parents as it is by academics and educated adults?</p>
<p>Correct or ask for additional clarification if I don’t address your question, Goldenboy. JHU has always maintained an honest, more holistic, with less emphasis on test scores admissions policy. Its yield (37%) is on par with most of the elite privates (Northwestern and Rice) and better than WUSTL( not really elite in my book). Its ACT range is 30-34 for enrolled students, well within range of its peers. It’s former admissions dean for nearly a decade prior to last year (John Latting) became the new dean of admissions at Emory and exposed their US News admissions statistics reporting debacle. So if anything, JHU’s stats should be trusted more so than the other privates reporting info (which could in fact be inflated).</p>
<p>I think if JHU did focus more on test scores and admissions by inundating the market (their test score range has been stagnant for the last decade or so) with literature to high SAT and PSAT scoring applicants like WUSTL or Vandy or UChicago , they could increase their amount of National Merit Scholars. The latter 3 schools notably for a while did the same as JHU (aka nothing in terms of a major marketing campaign, and had their test score range and National Merit scholar enrollment remain stagnant for a while), by doing nothing and not paying attention to US News until one of them (Chicago) ultimately sent representatives to speak to US News to see ways to raise the university ranking and until three of them (Chicago, WUSTL, and Vandy) began the huge increased distribution of promotional material to applicants (lots of people remember when they got free and half filled out apps to apply to WUSTL out of the blue).</p>
<p>Some JHU alums would like to see this approach to artificially increase JHU’s selectivity, but I’d rather them do it the slow but honest way (by focusing on enrolling higher scoring students within its existing applicant pool rather than trying to increase the applicant pool size via other methods). JHU’s results and students speak for themselves, however. They’ve consistently had 3 or 4 goldwater scholars every year (3 this year), well above most of the ivies, albeit they are slightly lacking on the Rhodes Scholar front (save for this year). JHU’s ED SAT range has also been stagnant, another sign of its refusal to play the admissions game, so to speak. Even with all this, it does pretty damn well in admitting and enrolling a statistically qualified student body with high test scores and grades.</p>
<p>Blah, do not take it personally. goldenboy will present any evidence to weaken Michigan’s standing. JHU was merely brought up as an unwitting exhibit in his presentation. He initially attempted to demonstrate that NU had a greater number of top students than Michigan by claiming that NU produced more fellowship winners in the absolute sense. When I proved him wrong, he zeroed in on his only remaining card; NMS winners. </p>
<p>I agree that JHU is one of the few universities that reports data honestly. In its common data set, it actually includes graduate students in its student to faculty ratio. While virtually all private universities conveniently omit graduate students, JHU includes them, bravely reporting a ratio of 13:1 as opposed to the standard 7:1 or 8:1 ratio that most private universities like to claim. Good for JHU. Honesty pays. JHU’s PA score of is well deserved.</p>
<p>It’s kind of comical what some universities have done. I examined vandy’s stuff in more detail vs JHU:</p>
<p>JHU SAT range in 2007 to 2008:</p>
<p>1290-1500</p>
<p>Yield: 33%</p>
<p><a href=“Registrar - Homewood Schools (KSAS & WSE) | Office of the Registrar | Johns Hopkins University”>Registrar - Homewood Schools (KSAS & WSE) | Office of the Registrar | Johns Hopkins University;
<p>JHU SAT range in 2012-2013:</p>
<p>1310-1510</p>
<p>Yield: 37%</p>
<p>Vandy: SAT Range in 2007 to 2008:</p>
<p>1300-1480</p>
<p>Yield: 39%</p>
<p>SAT Range in 2012-2013:</p>
<p>1410-1560</p>
<p>Yield: 40%</p>
<p>Vandy’s increase is comically high. I and JHU should look more into their marketing campaigns…;). The moral is some schools can do whatever they want and whenever they want to increase student quality, but they still can’t supplant other universities with established reputations and potentially weaker student bodies (even if the latter is resting on its laurels and is choosing to do nothing).</p>
<p>^ A lot of people also claim Vandy admissions has become very stats driven since they have recently been known to accept many high test scorers, while their peers may be more holistic in their admissions approach. Not sure if there is anything to back up this claim, but just pointing out something I have heard.</p>
<p>Definitely…see above…=). You can’t simply enroll higher scoring students unless your admissions philosophy changes to accept only applicants with drastically higher scores.</p>
<p>
Should they include their Applied Physics Laboratory - even though it is a government funded research lab and has little to do with the experiences for undergrads?</p>
<p>^or even graduate students for that matter. but people like you and blah2009, as full-time professionals with MS/PhD in engineering, can get jobs there. ;)</p>
<p>“The moral is some schools can do whatever they want and whenever they want to increase student quality, but they still can’t supplant other universities with established reputations and potentially weaker student bodies (even if the latter is resting on its laurels and is choosing to do nothing).”</p>
<p>Well stated Blah2009!</p>