UMICH vs. Northwestern

hawkette · April 23, 2007, 2:55pm

If your point is that the Northwestern student body does a better job of preparing for the SAT than the U Michigan student body, I would guess that you are right but we will never know. I’m not sure, however, why this is considered a negative for Northwestern or any other top private which has high SAT scores.

This is analogous to football which U Michigan fans understand better. I’m sure that the coach at U Michigan and the coach at Northwestern compete for many of the same players. If the high school athlete can run fast, does the coach mark them down because they may have trained more than their peers? Or that they come from high schools with stronger high school football programs and/or better facilities. I don’t think so. The coach wants the best players. Same is true with regular academic students. Both schools want to enroll the best students that they can.

hawkette · April 23, 2007, 4:34pm

In reading through another thread comparing MIT to Northwestern, I reviewed their USNWR objective data and noticed a few pieces of comparative data. These differences between Northwestern and MIT are somewhat similar in scale to the differences between U Michigan and Northwestern. I then extended the comparison to include a school ranked below U Michigan to get a sense of equivalency. I found that Southern Methodist (SMU) roughly compares to U Michigan with the same degree as U Michigan compares to Northwestern. The comparisons are interesting and perhaps somewhat revealing of strength of the students at these universities and how they are institutionally supported.

SAT scores:
MIT: 1430-1570, average of 1500
Northwestern: 1320-1500, average of 1410
U Michigan: 1220-1410, average of 1315
Southern Methodist: 1130-1330, average of 1230

Faculty Resources:
MIT: 15th
Northwestern: 9th
U Michigan: 69th
Southern Methodist: 54th

Acceptance Rate:
MIT: 14%
Northwestern: 30%
U Michigan: 57%
Southern Methodist: 58%

<h1>of 2005 National Merit Scholars and % of Student Body</h1>

MIT: 158 (15.54%)
Northwestern: 178 (8.87%)
U Michigan: 75 (1.18%)
Southern Methodist: 10 (.62%)

Alumni Giving
MIT: 39% (8th)
Northwestern: 29% (29th)
U Michigan: 15% (105th)
Southern Methodist: 14% (118th)

Revealed Preference
MIT: 4th
Northwestern: 23rd
U Michigan: 46th
Southern Methodist: 68th

Financial Resources
MIT: 5th
Northwestern: 14th
U Michigan: 31st
Southern Methodist: 89th

Endowment per Student (including Graduate Students and based on publicly available data as of the end of the latest fiscal year 6/30/06)
MIT: $819,916
Northwestern: $302,322
U Michigan: $141,331
Southern Methodist: $102,591

The quantitative relationships hold thru most of these numbers. Generally speaking, SMU is as strong to U Michigan as U Michigan is to Northwestern.

k_amp_s · April 23, 2007, 4:43pm

Ughh - not THIS discussion again.

NU -
SAT verbal scores over 600 92%, SAT math scores over 600 94%, ACT scores over 24 96%, SAT verbal scores over 700 53%, SAT math scores over 700 63%, ACT scores over 30 69%

UoM -
SAT verbal scores over 600 70%, SAT math scores over 600 86%, ACT scores over 24 94%, SAT verbal scores over 700 21%, SAT math scores over 700 43%, ACT scores over 30 38%

Sorry - but there is quite a difference in the quality of the make-up of the 2 student bodies.

Right - one will get a top-notch education at either university since both have great faculties/facilities (tho, the advantages that NU has are smaller class sizes and actually being able to get the classes needed to graduate in 4 yrs, unlike many state schools).

Otoh, people do also form an opinion of a school by virtue of the quality of its student body.

Actually school rank/gpa is a rather unreliable indicator since the quality of HSs and student bodies vary widely - that’s a reason why Texas/UT is rethinking it’s top-10% guarantee of admittance (too many top-10% HS grads have been found to need remedial classes).

Alex -

And what % of the top scoring UoM students do the same in contrast to the lower scoring UoM students?

And what about the students at Harvard or Stanford?

Plus, you make it seem like not preparing for an important test (don’t need to take a prep course - doing practice exams and reading a test prep book does just as well) is somehow something to be proud of - would you say the same if these students didn’t take the time to prep well for an exam in Calculus?

“How hard does the average Northwestern student prepare for the SAT vs how long does the average Michigan student prepare for the SAT.”

As an employer - such a statement would bode well for the NU grad.

And how about the even bigger contrast in ACT scores - which tests more on subject matter studied in HS?

ACT scores over 30 - 69% for NU as opposed to 38% for UoM.

jags861 · April 23, 2007, 6:40pm

To argue about the quality of student body between michigan and northwestern is stupid, imo. if you are a top student at michigan, you can surround yourself with top students–just like at northwestern. michigan inherently is at a disadvantage do to its priority to serve the state first. if michigan were able to be the same size as northwestern, their student bodies by the numbers would be near identical.

also, the comparison made with UCs is unfair. most UCs have an extremely large percentage of students as transfer students. while the “entering” class may have 95%+ students rank in the top 10% (which i think is a lie anyway…this obviously doesn’t include recruited athletes or other special admits) the student body as a whole most definately isn’t. Berkeley, for example, has nearly 25% of its student body as transfer students from california CCs…i can guarrentee you that all 25% of those CC transfers weren’t in the top 10% of their class in high school…nor scored 1250-1450 (or whatever berkeleys 25-75 SAT range is) on their SATs. Regardless of that though, its found most transfer students perform just as well as regular freshmen admits–which negates some of the “quality of student body” argument, IMO.

k&s,

“Plus, you make it seem like not preparing for an important test (don’t need to take a prep course - doing practice exams and reading a test prep book does just as well) is somehow something to be proud of - would you say the same if these students didn’t take the time to prep well for an exam in Calculus?”

I think the point is, many people are at UMich because its the best they can afford to go to. I’d assume you can correlate that to people not being able to afford a princeton review class or a kaplan class. I personally went up over 200 points on my SATs after taking the princeton review class. Could I have done that with the $20 PR book from Barnes and Noble…? Maybe, but I bet I wouldn’t have. More people applying to Northwestern are wealthy than the people applying to Michigan, and therefore may have had the luxury of taking these classes. As opposed to a calculus test, there are tricks to beating the SAT with have nothing to do with knowledge of the subject.

zkevin · April 23, 2007, 6:55pm

Many of you are getting off topic about arguing student body at NU vs UMich. I’m pretty sure that Northwestern has a “stronger” student body, but it’s not necessarily a better school.

I believe that this argument was which school is better and not about which has a stronger student body.

Alexandre · April 23, 2007, 7:30pm

“If your point is that the Northwestern student body does a better job of preparing for the SAT than the U Michigan student body, I would guess that you are right but we will never know. I’m not sure, however, why this is considered a negative for Northwestern or any other top private which has high SAT scores.”

Hawkette, I never said it was considered “a negative”. But how students approach the SAT and how a university reports SAT scores can greatly influence its SAT range and mean. Unless we have a common frame of reference, comparing SAT ranges at universities that have vastly different approaches to admissions is tricky.

Jags, I would say the socio-economic background of the Michigan student body is pretty similar to that of Northwestern. But I do agree that most Michigan students do not take prep courses, primarily because Michigan does not place too much weight on the SAT and partly because they have no desire to leave the state, precisely because given their relatively affluent background, need-based FA isn’t much of a reality.

arvandm · April 23, 2007, 8:16pm

Here is some extra data that is important to consider

**Amount of University of Michigan students enrolled:

University of Michigan: 100%

Every other college/university: 0%**

Based on this objective data, Umich surpasses every other school in the nation, and even the world.

I win!

hawkette · April 23, 2007, 10:08pm

Alexandre,
SAT scores are commonly used by nearly every top university in the country, including U Michigan, as an important part of the admissions process. I am surprised by your statements downplaying the importance of standardized test scores at U Michigan. Your comments are directed contradicted by the most recently released CDS from U Michigan. Standardized Test Scores are listed as “Important” and equal in rank to several other items including GPA and state residency. The only item ranked as “Very Important” is Rigor of Secondary School. At U Michigan, Standardized Test Scores carry more weight than Class Rank which is only listed as “Considered” I would say that U Michigan considers standardized testing as an integral, important piece of their admissions analysis.

In addition, the latest CDS says that U Michigan received nearly 24,000 applications and admitted over 13,500 students. I doubt that even you can make a credible statement about the SAT prep habits of this many high schoolers. And perhaps you can explain how you are able to judge the test prep habits of the students applying to Northwestern.

Alexandre · April 23, 2007, 10:28pm

“I am surprised by your statements downplaying the importance of standardized test scores at U Michigan.”

Hawkette, clearly, you do not understand Michigan’s admissions policy. Regardless of what Michigan says in writing, the SAT is not considered as important as a students unweighed GPA and course rigor. Just look at the admissions formula Michigan used to use before it was forced to abandon it in 2003. It awarded a student a possible 80 points for GPA and only a possible 12 points for SAT/ACT. And Michigan awarded 12 points to SAT scores ranging between 1350 and 1600. That’s right, to Michigan, a 1350 on the SAT weighed as much as a 1600. Like I said, Michigan was forced to abandon the formula, but it is pretty clear that Michigan never valued standardized tests as much as GPA.

I am not attempting to make any statement. University-reported SAT scores just aren’t a reliable source unless we have a clear understanding of how the students and the university approach and report the test. Obviously, a school with a mean SAT score of 1100 isn’t going to have as strong a student body as a school with a mean SAT score of 1500. But when you are comparing a state university with a mean SAT score of 1300 to a private university with a mean SAT score of 1400, scrutinizing the weight and reporting style that the university and students place on the test is very important. If I were to go purely on placement rates into graduate programs and companies, I would say there is little if no difference in the quality of the students at Michigan and NU.

And Hawkette, the newest admissions data for Michigan (Freshman class of 2006) is 26,000 applied and 12,000 admitted. This year, Michigan has officially received over 27,000 applications and extended offers to fewer than 12,000. Some waitlisted students will probably get in, so I would say a safe estimate would be 27,000 applicants and 12,000 admits.

jags861 · April 23, 2007, 10:39pm

Alexandre,

While I was mearly pointing out an example of why people who go to michigan wouldn’t be taking test prep courses (obviously people don’t just because of UMich…they apply to other schools too). However, the socio economic make up of the schools is pretty different.

At Northwestern, 42% of students qualified for needbased aid on the annual cost of about $47,500.

At Michigan, 48% of students qualified for needbased aid based on the annual cost of about $20,000 instate, and $40,000 out of state–which averages to about $26,700/year conisdering michigan is 2/3s instate.

I’d say thats pretty significant, wouldn’t you?

Alexandre · April 23, 2007, 10:47pm

Not really Jags. Those percentages say very little about how much was the average need.

SweetLax88 · April 23, 2007, 11:24pm

Is state residency actually considered very Important. I tend to write off those schools because more qualified out of state’rs cannot get in even if they are “better” than in state’rs, which doesn’t make sense to me. (See: UNC, UVA)

jags861 · April 24, 2007, 1:04am

Alexandre,

you’re right. after needbased grants and loans, the average package given at michigan brings the overall expenses down to $14,400, while at Northwestern it brings the overall expenses down to $21,100.

hawkette · April 24, 2007, 1:37pm

sweetlax,
IS vs OOS is a classic battle at the state universities. There are many very good State Universities which consider state residency as “Important.” The enrollment at U North Carolina, where State Residency is considered Very Important, is only 18% OOS. At U Michigan (Important), it is much broader at 31% of the students or almost 8000 students out of a total undergraduate population of about 25,500. These state Us are at the mercy of the local politicians and really don’t have any flexibility on these numbers. Despite this, I would say that both U North Carolina and U Michigan do a good job of attracting high quality OOS students to complement their majority IS populations.

Alexandre,
I believe that your pro-Michigan declarations lack supporting evidence. Several items and clarifications to consider:

<ol>
<li>Would you please provide your source for your statement in #34 about how U Michigan views the SAT (“the SAT is not considered as important as a students unweighed GPA”) and why one should accept your personal view over that of the official publication of the University?</li>
</ol>

The CDS of U Michigan clearly shows that the Admissions Committee ranks Standardized Test Scores as “Important.” Only one measure (Rigor of Curriculum) is considered more important. GPA has only recently been considered as a standalone item. In 2005-06, Academic GPA is considered “Important” as are several other factors such as State Residency.

Looking back over the history of the CDS at U Michigan, the facts are:

2005-06
Standardized Test Scores: Important
GPA: Important
Class Rank: Considered
State Residency: Important

2004-05
Standardized Test Scores: Important
GPA: Not Listed
Class Rank: Considered
State Residency: Important

2003-04
Standardized Test Scores: Important
GPA: Not Listed
Class Rank: Considered
State Residency: Important

2002-03
Standardized Test Scores: Important
GPA: Not Listed
Class Rank: Considered
State Residency: Important

2001-02
Standardized Test Scores: Important
GPA: Not Listed
Class Rank: Considered
State Residency: Important

2000-01
Standardized Test Scores: Important
GPA: Not Listed
Class Rank: Considered
State Residency: Important

<ol>
<li>In considering your words in #31 (“comparing SAT ranges at universities that have vastly different approaches to admissions”), are you referring to U Michigan and Northwestern? I agree that there may some nuanced differences and obviously the state residency requirement for U Michigan is a big differences, but are there other vast differences that you are referring to? </li>
<li>Also, were you able to find any evidence supporting your suggestions in #25 about the SAT prep habits of Northwestern’s students vs U Michigan’s students? </li>
<li>I would like to understand better how you conclude that there is little difference in placement rates into graduate programs for U Michigan and Northwestern. I think you may be overrating U Michigan and/or underrating Northwestern. </li>
<li>Finally, re admissions rates, the numbers that have been provided are drawn from each school as per the latest issue of USNWR. Comparing the rates of one school for 2005-06 and for another for 2006-07 is not appropriate. Probably every school in the USNWR Top 100 has seen a (sometimes quite large) increase in applications and a corresponding decline in acceptance rate. The comparison that was made previously (and repeated below) is apples to apples for the same academic year:</li>
</ol>

Acceptance Rate:
MIT: 14%
Northwestern: 30%
U Michigan: 57%
Southern Methodist: 58%

The next issue of USNWR in August will provide the full and updated comparisons for all schools.

hawkette · April 24, 2007, 3:36pm

joshua,
College admissions committees in the US definitely consider SATs useful as a very high percentage of universities explicitly rate them as a “Very Important” or “Important” item in their evaluation of an applicant. Having said that, a difference of SAT of 40 points is not that big of a deal. A 100 point difference or more, however, probably does have some significance. Also, a SAT score is but a single data point in an overall application so it won’t be the automatic defining number, but it will certainly have a considerable weight.

There has been a lot of comment on CC re SATs and whether they measure intelligence. The link below is an interesting discussion of this topic.

<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=315191&highlight=sat+intelligence[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=315191&highlight=sat+intelligence</a>

I understand your comment about population size and agree that this is an important determinant of the type of experience that one is likely to have (good and bad). I agree that the difference in size between U Michigan (25,467 undergraduates, 40,000 including graduate students) and Northwestern (8027 undergraduates, 17,000 including graduate students) will affect the ambiance at each school. However, you will frequently see different size populations compared to each other in percentage terms. For example, in your home country of the UK, I’m sure that there are comparisons made between crime rates in various cities adjusted for population size, eg, London vs Manchester on number of criminal acts per 100,000 of population. (If such a comparison is not happening in the UK, I can guarantee you it is happening in the US). This percentage measurement does allow for comparisons of colleges of different size.

k_amp_s · April 24, 2007, 4:27pm

zkevin -

Arguably, a student can get as good of an education from professors at UoM as he/she would from - say, Harvard.

However, Harvard, w/o it’s quality of student body wouldn’t exactly be Havard (part of the educational experience is interacting and competing against the best).

Alex -

Alex - you have run through basically every single possible “explanation” in an attempt to justify why UoM has what generally is regarded as a less competitive student body - and this “explanation”, frankly, is laughable, and totally pulled out of thin-air.

If anything, state schools have placed a greater emphasis on numbers (such as SAT scores/GPA) than the top private schools, which are known to have more of a “holistic” outlook w/ regard to admissions (there’s a reason why Cal, UCLA, UoM, etc. were known to have an admissions criteria that was heavily number-centered).

Take for instance, UoM’s “point-system” - if UoM doesn’t much place much emphasis on the SATs/ACT (how do you explain the lower ACT scores which tests HS subjects?) - then it also doesn’t place much of an emphasis on “holistic” criteria like an outstanding essay either.

So what you are saying/claiming is that the top students in Michigan don’t ever take prep courses or study for the SAT/ACT on their own, since they only apply to UoM and don’t bother applying to the Ivies or other elite universities.

Hogwash!!!

The most plausible explanation for the lower “quality” of student body at UoM and other top state schools is that they have a different mandate than the top private universities (which select the best from a national pool) in that their primary purpose is to educate in-state students; and with a more limited applicant pool, with many top Michigan students going to top privates, and a comparatively large student body, UoM (and other top state schools) naturally is not going to get the same overall caliber student body as the top privates.

Alexandre · April 25, 2007, 7:37am

Hawkette, like I said, you obviously don’t know much about Michigan admissons. Anybody who knows Michigan will tell you that the university de-emphasizes the SAT. Below is a link to the old Michigan formula used until 2003. Even though the forumal is no longer used, the admissions officers at Michigan haven’t changed. Michigan has always valued applicants’ unweighed GPA far more than the SAT.

<a href=“U-M Weblogin - Stale Request”>U-M Weblogin - Stale Request;

As the table below clearly shows, Michigan doesn’t care about the SAT. A student with a 1010 on the SAT got 10/12 points and a student with a perfect 1600 on the SAT got 12/12 points. Michigan did not differentiate between a 1200 and a 1350 or between a 1360 and a perfect 1600. On the other hand, Michigan gave a whopping 80 points for a perfect 4.0 GPA and 20 points for students from underpriviledged background or URMs. And this philosophy hasn’t changed. The university and high school students in the state of Michigan still believe that the SAT isn’t important, which is why I don’t think comparing SAT scores of students at Michigan to students at a private university that values SAT scores above all else makes sense. Students at Michigan generally didn’t spend too much time preparing for the SAT and the university of Michigan doesn’t look at the highest score on each individual section. To applicants and the University, SATs just aren’t that important.

hawkette · April 25, 2007, 4:06pm

Alexandre,
I understand what you are saying on how things used to work at U Michigan admissions in 2003. I also see that the 2005-06 (most recent) U Michigan CDS rates SATs as “Important.” I am sure that you have a lot of knowledge and experience with the school, but can you explain why they publicly report that SATs carry the same weight as Academic GPA and lag only Rigor of HS Curriculum? It does seem to be a pretty bright contradiction.

I also posed several questions in a prior post (#39). Do you have any more thoughts on the “vast differences” you refer to in the admissions approach of U Michigan and Northwestern? Also, can you explain your reasoning for the claim of near parity for grad school placement (and employment as well if you like)? I think you may be either overrating U Michigan or underrating Northwestern.

jags861 · April 25, 2007, 4:32pm

hawkette,

the point Alexandre is making is that…even before 2003 (i just picked the 1999-2000 michigan CDS) the SAT had an “important” check–even though it obviously wasn’t as important as say class rank or state residency, which also have “important” checks. It may have an important check now, but theres no evidence to suggest that the SAT is more important in 2007 than it was in 2003.

Now, where I don’t agree with Alexandre is that students in michigan don’t take test prep courses cause “we’re just going to stay in michigan and go to ann arbor.” And I also don’t think that hurts Michigans scores either–its SAT scores are in line with the other top state schools like berkeley, unc, uva, w&m, and ucla. There are plenty of people in the top 10% of their high school class who just score okay on their SATs, regardless of how many test prep courses they take–which is what differentiates the top publics from the top privates with regards to student body. Top privates get the majority of students who are in the top of their class and have the best SATs, whereas the top publics tend to get the left over–the top students who don’t have quite as competitive SAT scores.

hawkette · April 25, 2007, 4:52pm

Jags861,
I agree with most of your points although I’d still like to read Alexandre’s response as he is so frequently a poster on U Michigan and I still hope he will respond to the other questions.

Re your statement,
“Top privates get the majority of students who are in the top of their class and have the best SATs, whereas the top publics tend to get the left over–the top students who don’t have quite as competitive SAT scores.”

I agree with this with two exceptions. One, there are sometimes IS students who have a financial need and can’t attend a top private. Two, the top publics are catching on with the Honors Programs and using these to attract students who otherwise would to HYP or other top privates. An example is U Virginia’s Jefferson Scholar program.

UMICH vs. Northwestern

CONNECT WITH US