US NEWS 2007 Predictions

College Search & Lists
401

<p>Slipper, I think you misunderstad me. Yes, Michigan is 4 times larger than Dartmouth and only sends twice as many students as Dartmouth to top 10 Law schools. True enough. That’s because Dartmouth has, on averahe, a higher ratio of great students. I never denied that. What I am saying is that equal students at Dartmouth and Michigan have equal opportunities. </p>

<p>Ivy_Grad, let us compare apples to apples. Take individual X. X is admitted into Dartmouth and Michigan and choses to attend Dartmouth. Is he going to be better off? Does a 3.5 student at Dartmouth have better professional options than a 3.5 student at Michigan? Does a 3.8 student at Dartmouth with a 170 LSAT score have a better shot at a top Law school than a Michigan student with similar stats? </p>

<p>And I must say, you guys are incredible. You seem to know something the rest of the World doesn’t know. Michigan is universally acknowledged to be a top MBA program. The USNWR peer assessment score of 4.5 places it slightly below Chicago and slightly above Columbia. The USNWR recruiter assessment score of 4.2 again places it slightly below Chicago and slighly above Columbia. Businessweek ranks Ross betwen #4 and #6 in the nation…#4 according to the BW corp poll. I find it amazing that you guys have figured that Michigan is not a top 6 or 7 MBA program when all evidence from academe and the corporate world is to the contrary. </p>

<p>I don’t think Wall Street journal is that good at ranking MBA programs, even if it ranks Michigan anywhere between #1 and #3. Forbes is a joke and the FT, although more respectable, is primarily a ranking of MBA programs in the City (London).</p>

<p>I don’t know much about the MBA7. From what I understand, it is a forum that has met once a year for the last 3 or 4 years. I doubt that schools like Haas, Fuqua, Johnson, Ross and Tuck are kept out of this forum.</p>

402

<p>D-rab, you would have a hard time convincing me that the students that get into UNC oos are much worse than those who get into berkeley oos, i’m sorry. Berkeley may have higher stats but the difference between oos and in-state admissions is much greater at UNC.</p>

403

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not really the apples to apples comparison I was referring to, but to address your scenario:</p>

<p>Yes, I believe that individual X is better off at D-mouth vs. Michigan - ALL OTHER THINGS BEING ABSOLUTELY EQUAL.</p>

<p>I can’t tell you in “hard” terms or numbers exactly what that individual gets by going to D-mouth (e.g. which schools, which companies) - and, frankly, nobody could know this (the only thing you CAN say is that his “feeder” chances are much higher according to the WSJ ranking)</p>

<p>I can only tell you in “intangible” terms that graduating from D-mouth will give that individual a “higher” launching point than Michigan. Period. It might not be Mt. Olympus-like higher, but it’s higher.</p>

<p>Now that particular individual may end up falling flat on his face after “launching” but that is up to the individual not the institution in question. Now to be fair, say that the individual decided to go to Michigan. That individual could very well (and speaking purely from the given assumptive scenario of a 3.8GPA student) - that individual probably does extremely well in life.</p>

<p>In the end, will that “launching” point matter in 10 years time? 20 years time? Probably not. But at certain “milestone” points it may matter. Perhaps when that individual is applying for b-school. Perhaps when that individual is up for a promotion. Perhaps when that individual wants to send his kid to an Ivy school. Perhaps. But perhaps not. It’s an edge, that edge is what the individual makes of it.</p>

<p>Put another way, there is no way to properly “measure” the size of this “edge” - but we know one thing: it certainly will never “hurt” him because he went to D-mouth - and I can’t say with the same level of certainty the same thing had he gone to Mich. That individual probably faces more “battles” to “prove” himself vs. the D-mouth individual who gets more benefits of the doubt.</p>

404

<p>U-mich vs. dartmouth is very much the same argument as U-mich vs. UVa. The only reason why UVa. is higher than U-mich in U.S. News is becuase of history, and because Uva is extremely small for a flagship state U. If you compare programs U-Texas beats UVa, for the most part. As it does Brown and Dartmouth. U-Texas also happens to have nearly the most undergrads in the nation. The only reason state schools like UVa and William and Mary merit mention is because of their size. Granted, UVa is a wannabe research university disguised as a liberal arts school but that describes half the ivy league, not to mention LAC’s. UVA, I think, is overrated, becuase it is historically a top liberal arts college which has tried to become a research university. Once again, this describes half the ivy league. Schools like Michigan and Berkeley have superior resources.</p>

405

<p>Slipper, when you visted Michigan, you must have hung out at the losers’ table. Most of my firends at Michigan either picked Michigan over Ivies or were good enough to get into Ivies but didn’t care for the Ivies and didn’t even apply. I’d say fewer 50% of Michigan students don’t belong to one of those two groups. I find it hard to believe that you were hanging out with a group representative of Michigan students. You forget that 60% of Michigan students have Ivy League stats. Do you think those students would ever be impressed by anybody’s intellect?</p>

<p>As for which network I am trying to impress, I’d say none. I am not out to impress people. But since Michigan’s alumni network is larger than any Ivy network, and since it as wealthy (per capita) and influencial, I’d say I’d rather impress the Michigan alumni network. Not that is matters as I am a member of of both the Michigan alumni network and an Ivy League alumni network. But I have yet to meet Ivy League alums who truly believe their school is better than Michigan. You must hang out with a very exclusive club. My mother is a Columbia alum. My uncles and aunts are alums of Cornell, Penn, MIT and Chicago. Close family friends also include Chicago, Columbia, Brown and Harvard professors as well as CEOs of top 10 banks. Those are the people who recommended I take Michigan as seriously as the 4 Ivies I turned down.</p>

<p>And yes Slipper, the USNWR ranked Michigan among the top 10 in the nation back in the 1980s. The Grouman Report, which is admittedly weird, also ranked Michigan among the top 10 undergraduate universities. Fiske doesn’t rank, but he grants Michigan one of his 20 or so ***** academic ratings.</p>

<p>Anyway Slipper, you can continue to think that Dartmouth is superior to Michigan. I am sure you will find people who will agree with you too. I for one am content in my belief that Dartmouth and Michigan are both awesome universities, worthy of the respect they have earned over the decades.</p>

406

<p>For what it’s worth, research into career success suggests that students with similar stats have similar career outcomes regardless of the school they chose to attend. That is, if a student is accepted to top 15 school, and then elects to go to to the local state U, the student will be as successful as those that did attend the top 15 school. Schools appear to add little independent value once the student variable is controlled. From Princeton University:</p>

<p>News from
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Office of Communications </p>

<p>Elite Colleges Not Necessarily Best Ticket to High Earnings
Study Shows Students Attending Next Tier Gain About the Same </p>

<p>PRINCETON, N.J. – Going to an academically elite college does not necessarily boost your earnings potential compared to a less elite college, according to a study by Princeton University economist Alan Krueger. In his paper “Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College,” published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a school’s selectivity, as measured by matriculants’ average SAT scores, does not correlate with students’ later income, once the abilities of the students upon entering college are taken into account. This finding challenges previous studies positively linking earnings to a college’s prestige.</p>

<p>Further, attending a so-called top ranked school is also apparently becoming less important to major businesses, from a Univ. of Texas publication:</p>

<p>The University of Texas at Austin tied with the University of Chicago as the number one source of Fortune 1000 CEOs hired in 2004-2005, according to a survey by USA Today and the public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller. USA Today and Burson-Marsteller tracked the numbers, surveying the graduate and undergraduate alma maters of all CEOs hired at Fortune 1000 firms since Jan. 1, 2004. The results are summarized in an April 6 USA Today article, “Wanted: CEO, no Ivy required,” which includes a chart of the new hires and their alma maters. The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Chicago led the list, with four alumni each. The article cited several studies showing that major corporations no longer turn to Ivy League schools as predominantly as they once did when shopping for CEOs. </p>

<p>A study by executive search firm Spencer Stuart showed that the percentage of CEOs at Fortune 500 firms who were educated at Ivy League schools declined from 16 percent in 1998 to 11 percent in 2004. “Even the Harvard MBA shows signs of erosion,” reported USA Today, noting a 5 percent drop in the number of large-company CEOs with Harvard Business School credentials from 1998-2004. </p>

<p>Looks like good students from State Universities have just as good a shot at success as do those from the top tier privates.</p>

407

<p>Ivy_grad, you aren’t comparing apples to apples.</p>

408

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s a top MBA program. </p>

<p>Let’s be clear - WE ARE ALL GUILTY of splitting hairs as if they were atoms.</p>

<p>From a 50,000 foot view, Michigan undergrad and Michigan b-school are incredible institutions.</p>

<p>But if you need to get into the “minutia” of specific Top 5 or Top “whatever” rankings - then Michigan just doesn’t rank as high as you think they are.</p>

<p>Take b-schools:</p>

<p>Let’s just look at the near-universally accepted “top” programs:</p>

<p>1) Wharton
2) HBS
3) Stanford
4) Kellogg</p>

<p>You’ll be very hard pressed to tell me Michigan is better than those programs.</p>

<p>In order for Michigan to DEFINITIVELY BE in the Top 5, then it needs to beat out the following:</p>

<p>MIT Sloan
Columbia
UChicago</p>

<p>And if it is an indisputable TOP 5 as you say, then it needs to really beat those three schools handily without much room for argument.</p>

<p>I just can’t see how you get there (and the sum total of all of all the major MBA rankings are on my side - Businessweek, USNWR, FT, WSJ)</p>

<p>Perhaps - perhaps - Mich is better than Chicago (I don’t think it is but let’s entertain that argument for a moment - fine), I really just can’t see how Mich is better than both Columbia AND MIT Sloan.</p>

<p>And if there is a debate to be had - then it’s not really definitive. And if it’s not really definitive, then you can’t really say:</p>

<p>“NO DOUBT, Mich is a Top 5 B-School” *</p>

<ul>
<li>well, you could, but you’d have to put an asterisk next to it saying (according to Alexandre from CC).</li>
</ul>

409

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re right. I was comparing Wolverines to Indians.</p>

<p>Which is to say that Mich =/= Dartmouth.</p>

410

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh,seems to me that this is accounted for by the simple fact that UTAustin is simply far bigger than is Chicago. Obviously if you have lots of people, you are going to have lots of successful grads (and lots of unsuccessful grades). What you should be doing is looking at the averages or the percentages. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I a also not entirely sure how meaningful this is either, when you consider the fact that some of the most elite schools in the world, like Stanford and MIT, are non-Ivy schools. Again the study ought to be focusing on the prevalence of grads of “elite” schools (however you want to define “elite”), not just Ivy schools.</p>

411

<p>I think you guys are getting too techinical. As, Alexandre points out the average student at Dartmouth doesn’t equal the average student at Michigan. However, the average student that was accepted to michigan and dartmouth, is not likely to have better opportunities graduating from either school. Most people would choose dartmouth over michigan. It is not worth the extra $10,000- 25,000/ year at sticker price ceteris paribus. Someone has to stick up for state schools.</p>

412

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I always go by the motto: “you get what you pay for”.</p>

<p>It’s worked for me…</p>

<p>Caveat emptor baby.</p>

413

<p>A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi. I just wanted to get in on the latin.</p>

414

<p>Ivy_grad, my point is that there aren’t 5 definitive MBA programs that make up the top 5. There are 7 or 8, and Michigan is one of them.</p>

415

<p>

</p>

<p>I gotta call BS on the above statement.</p>

<p>There most certainly ARE 4 definitive Top 4 schools (as mentioned, Penn, HBS, Stanford, Kellogg)</p>

<p>That’s universally accepted. </p>

<p>This leaves you 6 potential spaces.</p>

<p>The next “tier” is occupied by 3 schools (Columbia, MIT, Chicago) - bringing us to a total of 7.</p>

<p>That leaves you 3 more schools that can round out a potential Top 10 (and I’ll concede that Michigan has a case to be one of those three schools)</p>

<p>So, really, Michigan can claim a Top 10 spot.</p>

<p>But to say, “you know there really isn’t a definitive list, and Michigan can claim a Top 5 spot at any given time” - just doesn’t jibe with reality.</p>

<p>I mean, like I said, you very well COULD say:</p>

<p>**“Michigan is a definitive Top 5 MBA program.” ***</p>

<p>But, like I said, you’d need to put a footnote to the effect of:</p>

<p>(* Note: according to Alexandre on CC, may be limited to the world of CC, may run the risk of blank stares from Chicago, MIT and Columbia MBA graduates, void where prohibited)</p>

416

<p>

</p>

<p>What statistics do you have? I really have no idea, but what you said was implied that lower pecentage accepted equated to more selective, whereas that’s not necessarily the case.</p>

417

<p>No disrespected intended Ivy_Grad, but I don’t really care what Chicago and Columbia MBAs think. I guess there is a reason why they chose to attend those excellent MBA programs over others. I would rather know what employers and MBA professors think. </p>

<p>According to the USNWR:
Peer Assessment score for MBA programs:
Chicago: 4.6/5.0
Michigan: 4.5/5.0
Columbia: 4.4/5.0</p>

<p>Recruiter Assessment Score:
Chicago: 4.3/5.0
Michigan: 4.2/5.0
Columbia: 3.9/5.0</p>

<p>According to BusinessWeek:
Corporate Poll:
Chicago #1
Michigan: #4
Columbia: #6</p>

<p>According to a survey conducted by BW in 2005 on where the most exclusive companies recruit (top 5 IBs, top 5 MCs and top 5 manufacturing companies), Wharton was #1, Chicago was #2, Harvard was #3, Kellogg was #4 and yup, you guessed it, Michigan was #5. </p>

<p>It would seem to me that according to those in the know (MBA professors and corporate recruiters), Michigan MBA program is very much in the running for top 5 consideration. I never said Michigan was a definite top 5 MBA program. I always admit that Kellogg, Wharton and Harvard are the top 3 MBA programs and that 4 or 5 other programs fight it out for the remaining 2 spots. But to claim that Michigan is definmitely not a top 5 MBA program when BW and the USNWR have both ranked Michigan among the top 5 (BW multiple times) seems a little dismissive.</p>

418

<p>

</p>

<p>USNews had ranked Michigan in the top 5? Which year was that?</p>

419

<p>Alexandre can u reference the website where you got both rankings… i would like to check it out as i am interested in doing MBA at many other universities. Thx</p>

420

<p>It was in the mid 1990s. I forget the year. Michigan was ranked in the top 6 or 7 according to the USNWR for a 4-5 year period from 1991-1995 and hit a high of #5. </p>

<p>Anonamous, the main two rankings of MBA programs are Business Week and the USNWR. I have attached a link to the Business Week historic rankings below. </p>

<p><a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg;

<p>According to the USNWR, last’s year’s top 10 were:</p>

<h1>1 Harvard</h1>

<h1>2 Stanford</h1>

<h1>2 University of Pennsylvania-Wharton</h1>

<h1>4 MIT (Sloan)</h1>

<h1>4 Northwestern (Kellogg)</h1>

<h1>6 Dartmouth (Tuck)</h1>

<h1>6 Cal-Berkeley (Haas)</h1>

<h1>8 University of Chicago</h1>

<h1>9 Columbia</h1>

<h1>10 Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross)</h1>