<p>Umich acceptance rate: 62%</p>
<p>ND: 30%
GU: 22%
Vand: 38%</p>
<p>I know selectivity does not count for alot, but it somewhat shows the quality of undergrad student body, or at least the amount of applications the university is drawing in(which indicates reputation).</p>
<p>UVAjoe, Michigan has 24,000 undergrads. That is why it accepts between 50% and 65% of the applicants. Michigan is not as selective as many of the schools you list. That is true and I never denied that. But what does % accepted have to do with anything? Chicago accepts 40% of its students. Does that also say something about Chicago? Furthermore, the quality of the student body at Michigan should not be underestimated. Mean SAT scores at Michigan (1310) are roughly 30-60 points lower than they are at Georgetown, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. We aren’t talking about night and day. The top 80% of Michigan student body is equal to the student bodies at those three schools you mentioned. </p>
<p>But like I often say, it is exactly because Michigan’s student body isn’t stellar that Michigan is not ranked among the top 5 or 6 universities. In terms of faculty, research, quality of academics, Michigan is up there with the best of them…but it is its student body knocks Michigan down a couple of spots. Not more though because like I said, Michigan students are pretty gifted.</p>
<p>i knew it was only time until someone brought out the acceptance rate stat to bring down michigan. Michigan is a huge school therefore they can take a huge amount of students. they get roughly 30 thousand applications a year but the school its self is almost 26 thousand students.</p>
<p>Underrated: Rice…everyone forgets about Rice. :(</p>
<p>All those diehard Michigan fans here, especially Alexandre, you’ve been basing your entire argument on Michigan’s research strength, particularly according to those “in the know” - meaning, according to you, academics, intellectuals, recruiters etc. Now, as is clearly established, rankings are seriously flawed. However, the London Times Higher Education Supplement as I’m sure you know recently ranked the top 200 universities in the world. They did this through surveying top academics around the world, asking their opinions of universities within their realms of experience. Meaning a political science professor in Beijing gives his opinion about universities from a political science perspective etc. This ends up being a pretty polarized list, and generally focused around a university’s research strength rather than necessarily its educational value (an example of this is U of Texas at Austin being ranked 15). Now, where your argument is based on research quality at Michigan, and the Times list is based on a similar idea, Michigan is ranked behind 17 other American schools. Make no mistake Michigan performed incredibly well, but to argue that its research strength should put it in the top 10 universities for an undergraduate education when it’s not even in the top 10 in this department is ludicrous.</p>
<p>“Group II:
Brown
Cal
CalTech
Chicago
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth (Dartmouth is tricky because as you say, it is practically a LAC)
Duke
Johns Hopkins
Michigan
Northwestern
Penn”</p>
<p>mmmmmm, only true if Michigan gets rid of some of its “no-so-good” students. and Michigan’s undergrad experience is not really that great…</p>
<p>It’s not like there aren’t plenty of bright people there. Having an “average” person in the class isn’t going to siphon off your intelligence and ruin the college experience. Also, almost ALL of the major research universities aren’t focused on undergrad experience (although there are a few exceptions), so you could probably use that argument in conjunction with Harvard as well as Michigan.</p>
<p>TimR, the Financial Times is wrong. Michigan is not behind 17 other American universities when it comes to research. It is not even behind 10 other universities. Michigan is anywhere between #2 and #6 where research is concerned. I am not familiar with the Times ranking and with good reason…it is not qualified to judge American Universities.</p>
<p>OK ohnoes, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. Alexandre was using Michigan’s research strength (which according to the London Times ranks 18th in the U.S.) to prove that it’s a top 10 undergraduate university…I’m just not buying it I’m afraid.</p>
<p>Well Alexandre, it wasn’t the English that were doing the rankings, it was the whole world and its academics, so disagree with them if you want. But do you seriously hope to sway the people reading this through just claiming it is so, with absolutely no substantiation and when thousands of professionals (who you claim are on your side) see it differently?</p>
<p>UofTulsa = underrated!!</p>
<p>TimR, I guess there are several rankings of graduate programs out there, some that rank Michigan has high as #4, like the NRC and USNWR and others than rank Michigan as low as #16 (STJU) or #18 (LT). I would say the international ratings (STJU and LT) are based more on perception than actual quality. Let us face it, professors in Australia or Malysia are not going to be very knowledgeable about French and American universities. It is generally known that Germany and France have educational systems equal to that in the UK, and yet, only 2 French and 7 German Universities made the LT list compared to over 20 English Universities. Obviously, professors in the international arena have tendencies. Furthemore, the STJU and LT rankings are global, so just making the top 50 is amazing. I would say there is practically no difference between #8 and #38 on those rankings. </p>
<p>According US researchers and academics, Michigan is one of just 3 or 4 universities that has top 15 departments in every single field of study.</p>
<p>Underrated on CC: </p>
<ol>
<li> Michigan (the prestige-whores whipping-boy)</li>
<li> Notre Dame (the only true criticism I ever hear is that its Catholic
So?!)</li>
<li> Johns Hopkins</li>
<li> Dartmouth</li>
<li> Swarthmore</li>
<li> Boston College (see Notre Dame)</li>
<li> Cal</li>
<li> Tufts</li>
<li> Chicago</li>
<li>Middlebury</li>
</ol>
<p>Overrated on CC:
<p>Moreover, for the purposes of those visiting CC, I do not see under-valuing a school because it simply doesn’t produce the quality of research that [______] does. Although research may be great for American industry and science, we, in these quarters, are usually considering whether or not it is great for students. Cutting edge research involves a very small percentage of undergrads and is therefore a small consideration in choosing an undergrad school (there are exceptional students who will be involved, but they are of course exceptions by definition.</p>
<p>UCLA, I am 17 years of age. The answer to your question is “no,” I have not had the luxury of “partying” with lawyers personallly.</p>
<p>Woodwork, you seem rather hard on West Coast schools. Not that I’m surprised because of your location, but still…</p>
<p>Good research draws the best professors which draws the best grad students. That’s part of the logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then do yourself a huge favor: don’t worry about choosing a law school yet. Worry about having a good time in college, and learning a lot. </p>
<p>Believe it or not, going to a top 10 law school isn’t going to determine your quality of life anyway. </p>
<p>And why put “partying” in quotes?</p>
<p>I agree with woodwork. Notre Dame is vastly underrated on CC, and if you take away Alexander’s posts, Michigan is also generally ignored on these boards. Both schools are excellent, and I’m sure get quite a bit of cross applicants.</p>
<p>Because you used the word “partying” in your original question and I just wanted to emphasize how I was answering it as directly as possible. Yes, I will take your advice. Good luck.</p>
<p>I’m far past the stage where luck is going to determine my career direction, but thank you. </p>
<p>If you’re serious about law, consider interning for a firm during a summer and finding out what lawyers actually do for a living. I don’t think most people outside the profession actually have a firm grasp on the day-to-day lives of practicing attorneys. For most, it’s hardly litigation (what most people think they want to do.)</p>
<p>Law school, like medicine, is one of those “safety traps” people fall into when they consider career goals.</p>
<p>Group I:
Princeton
Yale
Harvard
MIT
Stanford
Chicago</p>
<p>Group II:
Dartmouth
Swarthmore
Brown
Williams
Columbia
Cal Tech
Amherst
Duke
Rice
Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>Group III:
Pomona
Middlebury
Cal
Northwestern
Michigan
Carelton
Wellesley
Cornell
Haverford
Penn
Georgetown
Notre Dame
Virginia
UCLA</p>
<p>Group III:
Washington U.
Bowdoin
Washington and Lee
Smith
Vanderbilt
North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Carnegie Mellon
Emory
Boston College
Case Western</p>
<p>Group IV:
Wisconsin-Madison
Georgia Tech
NYU
Rochester
Tufts
UCSD
USC
Texas-Austin
Wake Forest
William and Mary</p>