<p>“The fact is that a smaller school, with more money, more ground-breaking research, more elite connections, more famous academics and well-known graduates, a significantly more diverse student body, and smaller class sizes, which lacks the massive bureaucracy needed to manage a student body of 30000 students WILL CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORM ANY large public institution”</p>
<p>Ignorance is bliss. Let us compare Michigan to Johns Hopkins:</p>
<p>Let us break your statement down shall we?</p>
<p>“smaller school, with more money,”
ENDOWMENT:
Johns Hopkins University: $2.4 billion
Michigan: $5.7 billion</p>
<p>STUDENTS:
Johns Hopkins University: $18,000
Michigan: 40,000</p>
<p>ENDOWMENT PER STUDENT:
Johns Hopkins University: $133,000
<a href=“Home | Johns Hopkins University”>Home | Johns Hopkins University;
Michigan: $142,000</p>
<p>Either my math really sucks, or Michigan is wealthier than Johns Hopkins, both in terms of overall wealth and in terms of endowment per capita. Don’t underestimate Michigan’s wealth Chriscap. Michigan’s endowment of $5.7 billion now statds as the 7th highest among US universities. Only HYPS, MIT and Columbia are wealthier and at the current rate, Michigan could overtake Columbia soon. And let us not forget that Michigan gets $300 million/year from state funding, which is HUGE!</p>
<p>“more ground-breaking research”</p>
<p>Very few universities can boast to have a heavier impact on research than Michigan. Johns Hopkins certainly does where Medicine and Biology are concerned, but in most other fields, Michigan has the edge. In terms of overall research, Michigan is one of the top 3 or 4 in the nation. In terms of overall research spending, Michigan has an $800 million research budget, which compares to that of UCLA, UDub and Johns Hopkins. </p>
<p>“more famous academics and well-known graduates”</p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean here, but I doubt any university other than Harvard, Princeton, Yale and perhaps Stanford beat Michigan by any significant margin where this is concerned.</p>
<p>“more elite connections”</p>
<p>Huh? How do you quantify this? Care to show me proof that Michigan’s alumni network is somehow not “elite”. I am pretty certain that the thousands of Michigan undergrads who enroll into top 10 graduate schools or join major exclusive companies each year do well down the line. I am also pretty positive that alums of Michigan’s top ranked graduate programs do very well for themselves too.</p>
<p>“a significantly more diverse student body”</p>
<p>Michigan is pretty diverse. Yes, 65% of the students at Michigan are in-state, but Michigan has a large undergraduate population from NY/NJ/PA/MD (over 3,000 combined) and from CA/TX (over 2,000 combined) and from overseas (over 1,300 international undergrads). Minorities make up 30% of Michigan’s student body. </p>
<p>“considering what it has and the student body it must educate”</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins University:
80% graduated among the top 10% of their High school class
Average cumulative unweighed high school GPA: 3.7
Mid 50% ACT range: 28-32
Mid 50% SAT range: 1290-1490 (superscored)</p>
<p>Michigan:
90% graduated among the top 10% of their High school class
Average cumulative unweighed high school GPA: 3.8
Mid 50% ACT range: 27-31
Michigan: 1210-1420 (highest SAT in one sitting)</p>
<p>I don’t know Chriscap, looks like Michigan and Johns Hopkins have similar quality students. </p>
<p>Chriscap, just because the USNWR, primarily because of highly questionable and often manipulated data, ranks Michigan out of the top 15 does not mean that it is not a top 15 university. Remove the alumni donation rate and “tweak” the faculty resources rank as Cal, Cornell and Johns Hopkins have in the last year or two and you will find Michigan ranked around #15. You should be more respectful of Michigan and not be insulted when one compares it to a great university such as yours.</p>