In terms of academics, prestige, etc.
-
if you look at aggregate graduate rankings the ranking is as follows: Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, Michigan…everybody else;
-
if you look at the undergraduate division, somehow there is a theory that despite having one of the most decorated faculties in the country (in the top 5 in the country, fellowships attained, patents, citation strength…), and despite having among the best facilities in the country, the undergraduate division is presumed to be in some sort of bubble where it is divorced from the graduate schools and is ranked 29th in the country. The reality is that the upper 3 quartiles of the undergraduate population can compete anywhere. 2/3 of the undergraduate population has an Ivy league board score and the top quartile has an Ivy league board score and a perfect GPA. Note that Michigan’s top quartile on a standalone basis is larger than Harvard’s entire undergraduate population and matriculates with roughly the same metrics as an entering Ivy League student. Despite all of the foregoing, Michigan seems to be ranked on the basis of the bottom quartile.
If you summarize the above paragraph, Michigan is in the same neighborhood as Cornell.
If you look at the joint space for graduate school and for the undergraduate division (i.e., combined), the matriculants at Michigan are not so radically different than the students at Penn or Cornell. This can be substantiated by looking at the rate at which Michigan students enter elite programs and by measuring post-graduate accomplishments.
I agree with blue85. I am in fact an alumnus of both Michigan (undergraduate) and Cornell (graduate), and the resemblance between the two is striking. Perhaps it is because Cornell was co-founded by a Michigan professor (Andrew Dickson White), who also happened to be Cornell’s first president from 1865-1885. After White, another 5 Michigan men (alums and/or faculty) held the position of Cornell president. I would say that Cornell is Michigan’s most similar peer.
But many other universities resemble Michigan in quality and prestige. Here are a few of them:
Northwestern University
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Pennsylvania
University of Texas-Austin
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison
http://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/almanac/Almanac_Appx_Index_Jan2015.pdf
Michigan lists peer institutions in its almanac, including its “Official Peers.” See the link.
UIUC too, particularly for engineering.
Most of the people I know from work went to UIUC or Penn State so I’m gonna go with those two.
Let’s just keep adding public schools Vladenschlutte. Anyone for Ohio State?
…? are you suggesting that UIUC and Penn State aren’t comparable to Michigan?
Probably say Penn State is of lower prestige than Michigan, but it’s probably otherwise very similar.
I think nutswithstubs and Vladenschlutte are merely suggesting that Penn State and UIUC are underrated and very similar to Michigan in size and mission. In that regard, they are absolutely correct. Academically, Penn State has very few overlaps with Michigan, but it is still excellent and, as a member of the CIC and AAU, and considering its size, football tradition, Midwestern vibe etc…, to suggest that PSU and Michigan are peers and similar is certainly not a stretch. UIUC actually has several overlaps with Michigan academically. It is just as strong in Engineering and Physics, and actually stronger in CS and Chemistry. Also, in terms of selectivity, there are overlaps between UIUC and Michigan, especially where Engineering is concerned.
I’ll chime in and point out the strength/ranking of UIUC’s accounting program! 
Re: post #1, and aggregate graduate rankings (per U.S. News), I have found this listing useful. It is certainly not perfect, nor is U.S. News. Note that the ranking (first link) is a few years old; below, I have posted this site’s new departmental listing, published with U.S. News 2015 data. The second link lacks the aggregate ranking – maybe they will reconfigure that table soon:
http://publicuniversityhonors.com/rankings-academic-departments-private-elites-vs-publics/
The 2015 selection (not comprehensive) of top departments; private institutions only mentioned in a tie:
I am an alumnus of #6 and #10. Not bad! hehe!
I think this ranking is really enjoyable. Well, at least for those of us who do well on it…
But you know what it also resembles? I think if you look at the original U.S. News undergrad rankings from the mid-'80s, these recent grad aggregate rankings are really quite close! It’s like it strips away many recent changes in undergrad metrics, and you’re left with… solid and deep academic departments that really don’t change all that much from year to year.
It’s like the Back to the Future ranking.
“I think if you look at the original U.S. News undergrad rankings from the mid-'80s, these recent grad aggregate rankings are really quite close! It’s like it strips away many recent changes in undergrad metrics, and you’re left with… solid and deep academic departments that really don’t change all that much from year to year.”
That’s correct anhydrite, universities take decades to change, which is why the USNWR ranking is so absurd. Universities leaping 30, 40, even 50 spots in a mere decade is laughable.
Gerhard Casper, Stanford president in the 1990s, wrote this back in 1996.
"I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27.
Such movement itself - while perhaps good for generating attention and sales - corrodes the credibility of these rankings and your magazine itself. Universities change very slowly - in many ways more slowly than even I would like. Yet, the people behind the U.S. News rankings lead readers to believe either that university quality pops up and down like politicians in polls, or that last year’s rankings were wrong but this year’s are right (until, of course, next year’s prove them wrong). What else is one to make of Harvard’s being #1 one year and #3 the next, or Northwestern’s leaping in a single bound from #13 to #9? And it is not just this year. Could Johns Hopkins be the 22nd best national university two years ago, the 10th best last year, and the 15th best this year? Which is correct, that Columbia is #9 (two years ago), #15 (last year) or #11 (this year)?"
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html
His comment about Cal and Michigan belonging to the top half dozen universities in the nation certainly seems to match the link you posted above that provides the average national department rank (Cal #2 and Michigan #6). It also seems to match the general sentiment of the academic community. Of course, there are several other factors that determine the strength of a university, such as resources, wealth, facilities, intellectual vibe, vitality of the student population, curriculum etc…but the gap between Cal and Michigan’s academic strengths and the US News undergraduate rankings is impossible to justify without the help of a flawed methodology, fuzzy math, inconsistent reporting methods and inaccurate/manipulated data. Ranking Cal out of the top 10 and Michigan out of the top 15 automatically discredits any ranking.
Well, you’ll get no argument from me. I actually find the great (and arbitrary, depending on “This Year’s Model” of input / output metrics) mobility of universities on the ranking scale offensive, as well as absurd. When I’m asked on the forum about how academics might rank a department, I lead them to a robust ranking like the NRC, unless a specific discipline has their own, reputable ranking.
I didn’t choose my schools based on the highest ranking per se; but I did choose in major part based upon the strengths of academic departments. Coming in at #11 for undergrad on this list, and doing well with graduate schools here is pleasing, but more than that, it is sensible. Frankly, it does lend a bit of durability and credibility to decisions made a long time ago, because those decisions were made based upon a thorough assessment of academic strengths. Departments and their production just don’t change so quickly either up or down, and an aggregate of disciplines should actually prove extremely durable over time, minus egregious exceptions. When I see schools that have jumped in the range of ~40 spots over the last couple decades (per U.S. News undergrad, and similar) displacing universities in roughly the top 20 here, I feel like some people have been sold a bridge.
Edited to add: I kind of liked Gourman’s undergrad report, and though I can’t remember now, Gourman may have influenced my decisions a little bit. Gourman wasn’t exactly a mirror to the more robust rankings, nor was it exactly thorough. But somehow, its special sauce of undergrad ranking seemed to reflect departmental strengths that translated into fairly balanced assessments. I know it ceased publication in the late '90s, but somehow I also attribute its drop-off to a refusal to compete with the gamed, volatile ranking fever that seemed to overwhelm everything in its wake.
^^ I have updated the post for 2015 and now the table shows three points of comparison: aggregate departmental rankings, U.S. News academic reputation ranking, and the U.S. News overall ranking. The table is suggestive of some issues with the over-emphasis on selectivity. http://publicuniversityhonors.com/rankings-academic-departments-private-elites-vs-publics/
@Uniwatcher – thank you for the prompt table update, and your work on the public honors site. I chose the public flagship honors option as my undergrad route way back when, and it’s no less viable a path now. As I mentioned, I think the aggregate graduate metric is a much more sensible way to rate academic strengths, and I sincerely hope future students will take these data into consideration.
One interesting observation: the grouping from Columbia through UCLA (#7-12) has an overall point differential of less than 2.0 for aggregate graduate departmental rank – Columbia at 10.77 through UCLA at 12.43. Thus, Columbia, Yale, Chicago, Cornell, Wisconsin, UCLA are all really quite close in terms of their respective strengths when scaled across all measured disciplines. Even this sensible observation could cause apoplexy among those who adhere strongly to other types of rankings and metrics, despite the aforementioned volatility of the latter.
Uniwatcher, this is an interesting observation of yours (from the text in the updated table page) that I have never seen before. Kudos for this:
“Eleven of the 45 schools on the list below have no academic department ranked lower than 30th in the nation. The private elites in this group are Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell; the public universities in the group are UC Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin, UCLA, and UT Austin.”
I think it is a natural inclination to scan for departments or schools which rank the highest, and I count myself here as well. I don’t normally scan for departments that may meet a lowest minimum standard, or rank. But to me, the near-even split of private and publics where all measured disciplines rank above 30 really speaks volumes about how these institutions maintain university-wide quality in their breadth.
^^Thanks to you both. We try to be of use.