This leads me to think you've never been on Stanford's campus.
coaches say you can't, so don't sign a loi
This leads me to think you've never been on Stanford's campus.
Those campuses are nice, but immediately off-campus is dullsville. While Ann Arbor is no Austin, TX, it is still a cool college town. Westwood or Palo Alto would never be considered "college towns" by most observers.
So have I. Did you know that their dorms are infinitely nicer than ours, because they weren't all built in the 1930s? Did you know they actually have parking options? And not all students live in the dorms every year, they have the option of moving off campus, its just not as easy as it is here.
Your main issues seem to deal purely with their off campus areas, which to me, is not the same as "campus". I chose Michigan over Stanford for lots of reasons, but the niceness of the on campus areas was not one of them.
Ur UCLA's? It's really nice.
I'd take Stanford's campus over Michigan's.
I love how you say that about LSA like you have any fucking idea what you're talking about.
That LSA is subpar? This is common knowledge.
I'm sure everyone has some fucking idea what they're talking about. A good deal of us went to U-M and even those of us that were not LSA have some inkling of what it's all about.
I'm not knocking LSA, a Michigan LSA degree is still a good thing to have, it's just that a lot of us know what we're talking about when we argue for or against any Michigan related thing.
What exactly is LSA "all about," then? I don't understand how all of you can come in here and say things like "LSA is subpar, it's common knowledge." Subpar by whose standards? Common knowledge to whom? Can you provide actual EVIDENCE of LSA being subpar, or are you guys just going to expect us to believe your spewing?
Do you all hold LSA degrees that didn't get you jobs out of college? If not, how can you trash a school that you were not a part of? Just because you took engineering and science classes that kicked your ass doesn't mean that those who don't are dumber than you, or are any less qualified to enter the working world upon graduation.
This is your own university you're taking about. Why tear it down for no reason?
Almost everyone who goes on to med school or law school has an undergrad degree in LSA. Are those people unintelligent?
LSA is a big school, and saying that it isn't a difficult school is ignorant.
Which was the point. LSA at Michigan prepares you for grad school. Whether or not other schools are like that, Michigan LSA is not highly rated. I'm not saying those people are dumb or it's not difficult, I'm just saying it's rated subpar compared to other LSA programs.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Business, law, med, engin, education, some others are top 10 if not top 5. What does that leave to NOT be highly ranked? LSA. Alternatively, I'm way, way off, and the only thing that matters is selectivity, incoming student test scores, and alumni giving that's why Michigan is ranked lower than people think it should be. In either case, I'm done with this argument.
So because you saw other schools highly ranked means that LSA must not be? I've never seen a ranking service rank "catch-all schools with a university" that the school of LSA would fit on. Many of the programs within LSA are highly ranked, for example both the PoliSci program and the Sociology program are ranked second in the nation. They are both with LSA.
I still haven't seen you put any substance behind this assertion, and I may be wrong if you have something you're going on. But I've never seen or heard of anything saying LSA was rated at all below the rest of the undergraduate colleges.
You can look this up for yourself if you want, but the overall admissions standards for LSA is statistically lower than Engineering. BBA standards and Engineering standards are also much higher than LSA.
You can also argue that Kines, Nursing, Art, and Music are all less stringent than LSA, but those populations combined are smaller than Engineering, and don't affect our final ranking as much as LSA.
Is a school's ranking based on the difficulty of admissions? If so, UM needs to be dropped a long ways in the rankings. It is significantly harder to get into a lot of the schools ranked below Michigan, namely USC and NYU.
Yes, a school's ranking is partially based on the quality of the "Average Admit". U-M is also held back a bit in the rankings because our admittance percentage is higher (40% range now) than a 10% Ivy League, but our programs (and diversity of highly ranked programs), campus experience, etc are higher than USC or NYU.
LSA's test scores simply aren't as high as Engineering's. LSA is also held back because a large portion of their students don't end up with an LSA degree, they get into Education/Pharm/Dent/Business. This ends up bringing them (and the University as a whole) down a few pegs.
I'm not being critical of an LSA degree, I'm just stating what I know. For example, being a public school and having to maintain a roughly 65-35 breakdown of in-state/out-of-state undergrad student body means that overall, the quality of out of state students is higher. After all, you can't really argue that the state of Michigan has roughly 2x the amount of intelligent, qualified candidates than the rest of the world. For the record, I am an in-stater.
A lot goes into these rankings, and whether its fair or not, these rankings are generally accepted by almost everybody, especially high school seniors who don't know everything there is to know about all of the 4 year programs. Is there much of a difference between #20 Cal, #23 UVA, #24 UCLA, and #27 UNC and UM? No. Is there a large difference between #71 Tier 1 Michigan State and #27 Tier 1 Michigan? In most programs, yes.
And I ask, why on Earth do the rankings matter? I might be mistaken since I'm still a student, but I don't think employers are foaming at the mouth each year readily anticipating the release of the US News rankings. Another recent ranking said that Michigan was the 18th best school in the world and the best public school in the United States. Does this ranking mean any less or more than the US News rankings? No, I don't think either really means anything
Lower admissions standards really don't mean anything, either. Low standards compared to the engineering school is still very high in comparison to other schools we compete with. I'm happy as long as the faculty I'm learning from is exceptional and the employers I hope to work for are impressed by my accomplishments. It's too early to judge the second qualification, but the first has absolutely been met by all of my professors with the exception of my current Econ 102 lecturer. He is a totally incompetent lecturer. Yet, he has a degree from Harvard...go figure...
Is that Dierdorf?
The professor? I don't want to say who it is because I don't want to say bad things about him on the internet. It's not Dierdorf, though
"I don't understand how all of you can come in here and say things like "LSA is subpar, it's common knowledge." Subpar by whose standards? Common knowledge to whom? Can you provide actual EVIDENCE of LSA being subpar, or are you guys just going to expect us to believe your spewing?"
And I provided you evidence of LSA admits, on average, testing lower than engineering admits. Whether that actually means something can be argued. The point is that it is an indicator that is used by US News and World report in their rankings.
As for employer's perceptions, think about your own perceptions of UM vs MSU, or UM vs. OSU. Most people think they're not as strong academically. Where do you think they got that opinion?
My reply was in response to the post claiming that someone commenting on LSA had no idea what they were talking about. Without even letting my opinion on this circular LSA argument be known, I simply stated that most, if not every poster on this board has some vested interest in Michigan as an academic institution whether they went to U-M or not. To say that someone has no clue what they are talking about in reference to this university is extremely shortsighted.
Don't lump me in with the opinion that LSA is sub-par. Everyone has their own opinion on the matter, and my point is that most of those opinions are founded at least somewhat on personal experiences and fact. We know what the fuck we're talking about.
Until Michigan stops funneling the lionshare of football players into pre-unemployment degrees based upon the easiest course load available through general studies, this debate is lost.
The later years of the Carr regime put academics on the back burner. Let's not turn our heads and deny that.
And there is little purpose in splitting hairs between the ranking of UNC, UVa, Cal, UCLA and Michigan. All are large state universities, which generally fall between 20 and 27 in the US News rankings, and are widely viewed as the best public universities in the country.
I am sorry to ask this and make fun of me if you want but is LSA the same thing as a liberal arts and science major.
LS&A = Literature, Science & Arts. It encompasses the greatest number of undergrad students on campus, if I'm not mistaken.
Michigan is a tremendous, but Stanford is in a different league as an undergraduate institution. The teacher to student ratio is much better, and you are much more likely to have classes with professors (instead of TAs there) as an undergraduate. When comparing most schools in the business of big college football it is hard to beat the UofM, but I think we would be looking through maize&blue colored glasses if we did not see this. I think that the aforementioned recruit goes a little overboard here (It is pretty hard for Michigan fans to nail someone for being elitist!), but I think that he is generally right.
If I were a big-time recruit, which this kid is, and I wanted to get the best degree I could without going to the Ivy League, Stanford would be my choice. Given the ephemeral nature of this game, I think that he is right to go there.
You realize Michigan doesn't have TA's, right? I assume you went elsewhere.
TA, GSI, what's the difference?
A TA is an undergrad who has already taken the class, and fared well. Basically just a drone. A GSI is someone currently pursuing a graduate degree in that field of study. Not only were they smart enough to be accepted into M's grad school (difficult) but they are currently taking grad level courses in that same discipline. Big difference than a junior in college who got an A in the class a semester or 2 ago. I had classes that I got A's in that I couldn't pass a year later, let alone teach to someone else.
GSI's also get paid quite well, so the selection process for them is very strict. They know that if they do a poor job, they won't get the gig next year. So they make sure to be very accessible and up to snuff on the material, unlike a TA.
The key point here is that whether it's a TA or GSI, it's NOT A PROFESSOR. The previous guy's post was just that more professors than TAs teach courses. The point still holds if you change TAs to GSIs.
Not really. He didn't say there were none at all. I think if you have fewer TA's, but they are all worthless might be worse than more GSI's, who are very competent, and maybe not as published as a prof, but more accessible and able to assist you. I've had classes where the GSI was a better asset than the prof. I don't think having them impedes learning at all.
You've clearly never had GSIs that barely speak English then.
I have, but I've had as many professors who barely speak English. It could also depend on the discipline, but I had very few of both.
I'm sure Stanford has that problem, no one in California speaks English well.
GSI's are a subset of TA's. At a lot of schools, such as Michigan, GSI = TA.
Also a bunch of courses have undergrad GSI (USI's - whatever)
However, I agree its a moot point. The guy's point was they are not professors.
Individual rankings of graduate school programs show that the various fields of study in LS&A are all ranked very high; why would this not be a reasonable (albeit imperfect) proxy for rating the undergraduate majors? I think the general sentiment against LS&A stems from a point-of-view that looks down on the subjects taught rather than truly finding flaws in the college itself.