Top 10 US Universities for Graduate Level

[sakky]

<p>

And therefore not significantly different than the 300-student classes that can be found at even at Harvard.

</p>

<p>Fine, then perhaps you could explain why the consensus opinion is that Harvard has a better undergraduate program than UM does - something that even Alexandre readily concedes. </p>

<p>

In every school that I have seen, the path you describe would result in severe academic and funding penalties to the student in question. Once you graduate with one degree you are considered a “second baccaleaureate” student and are ineligible for certain funding opportunities including most federal grants.

</p>

<p>Given UM’s lavish financial resources - having enjoyed the the largest endowment percentage growth of all of the larger schools over the last decade - I am sure that UM could provide sufficient stopgap funding. </p>

<p>But more importantly, if double-majors at UM do indeed prevent many students from graduating in 4 years, then that raises the question as to why the same doesn’t seem to happen at the top private schools. Harvard, after all, has plenty of “joint concentrators”, which is their equivalent of double-majors, yet the vast majority of Harvard students are nonetheless able to graduate in 4 years. </p>

<p>

Also, most degree programs prohibit the use of credits earned under a prior degree, so all the “twice-counted” credits normally used in a double major would have to be repeated.

</p>

<p>But UM is not “most schools” but rather is an exceptional school, and is free to modify its double-major rules as necessary. </p>

<p>

So the result would realistically be an elimination of double majors.

</p>

<p>And even if that were so, I’m still not sure that that would be such a bad thing from a societal standpoint. After all those students who continue to stay longer to complete doubles are effectively occupying seats that could be used by prospective students. How would you like to be the guy who was rejected from UM entirely because a current UM student wanted to stay longer to complete a double? </p>

<p>

On a more general note, a 4-year graduation time is simply not the most important statistic for most students or schools, and many programs require more than years.

</p>

<p>And that is a systemic problem with those programs. Those programs that are specifically redesigned to (realistically) take more than 4 years - engineering, I’m looking at you - should either be more efficiently redesigned, or should stop calling themselves bachelor’s degree programs, but rather should instead perhaps grant both bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Call it the MEng if you want to distinguish it from the MS. </p>

<p>Lest you find that outrageous, I would point out that that’s not dissimilar to how MIT runs its EECS department: many (probably most) undergrads in EECS, which is the largest department at MIT, will stay for 5 years to complete the combination BS/MEng. </p>

<p>

It should also be noted that one of the advantages of public schools is that the cheaper tuition allows students who would struggle to graduate in four years anywhere to graduate without unbearable expense. It also allows for more exploration in picking the degree - at $40k a year, most people are financially compelled to complete their degree in 4 years regardless of whether or not it is actually the correct degree for them, and regardless of what sacrifices must be made to accomplish this.It should also be noted that one of the advantages of public schools is that the cheaper tuition allows students who would struggle to graduate in four years anywhere to graduate without unbearable expense.

</p>

<p>And yet this advantage is clearly sundered if those students hang around for 5-6 years while still not having graduated. The lost opportunity cost of staying those extra years while still having no degree ought to be factored into the ‘unbearable cost’, should it not?</p>